theory and practice of educational innovation through ... · theory and practice of educational...

Theory and Practice of EducationalInnovation through Introduction ofProblem-Based Learning in Architecture*

ERIK DE GRAAFFDelft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology and Society, NL-2628EB Delft, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected] COWDROYUniversity of Newcastle, NSW 2308 Australia

Engineering education is confronted with the necessity to innovate the curricula, to meet thechallenges of the next century. In many places the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL) iscontemplated as a serious option. The paper reviews experience with the introduction of PBL at theDelft Faculty of Architecture in the Netherlands and the Newcastle Faculty of Architecture inAustralia. Actual developments in both cases are related to theories of educational innovation andtheories of organisational change and management. The objectives of innovation and the conditionsfor innovation management were significantly different, resulting in a different process of change. Itis concluded that both faculties were successful in incorporating PBL in a strategic approach toeducational innovation.

INTRODUCTION

THE PROCESS of educational innovation startsat the point when a critical mass of people aresufficiently motivated to initiate change that theinertia of not changing is overcome. When themotivation is sufficient to overturn a completecurriculum a complex process of change is putinto action, and the outcome cannot be accuratelyforeseen. Hindsight allows us to see the change asit happened in the two cases presented here and thenumerous adjustments which had to be made inthe process. Hindsight also allows us to see theoryand practice mutually influencing each other inthe process. In this paper the introduction ofproblem-based learning (PBL) at the Delft Facultyof Architecture in the Netherlands and the New-castle Faculty of Architecture in Australia will bereviewed. These two schools are on opposite sidesof the world, and are opposite in terms of scale:Delft has 2400 undergraduates; Newcastle has 300.This extreme difference in scale created significantdifferences in the approaches to change, the typesof change which occurred and the outcomes inthese two highly regarded schools of architec-ture. Actual developments will be related totheories of educational innovation and theoriesof management and organisational change.

BACKGROUND TO THE DELFT, FACULTYOF ARCHITECTURE, NETHERLANDS

In the 19th century students in civil engineeringcould graduate as architects at the Delft University

of Technology (at that time the Delft Polytechnic).In 1905 the Architecture department branchedoff from the department of Civil Engineering.The architecture curriculum of the early yearsshowed the inheritance of civil engineering, withtechnical and theoretical disciplines emphasisedand little provision for design teaching. Duringthe next decades, the artistic components gradu-ally increased in importance in the curriculumuntil, in the thirties, the `Delftse School' becamerecognised as a distinct movement in archi-tecture. Teaching methods from the tradition ofthe French `Beaux Arts' were mixed with themethods of engineering education. Since then,the balance between these two influences onteaching in architecture has been swinging backand forth like a pendulum.

At the end of the 1960s the architecture curri-culum was completely overturned with the intro-duction of project teaching, characterised byprinciples which reflected the social ideals of thedemocratic movement of the time. Those prin-ciples were: learning should be relevant in asocial context; students should develop indepen-dence; and teaching should be non-directive [1].Within the project teaching approach teacherswere able to express their personal convictionsand preference of architectural style, so tradition-alism, functionalism, constructivism, deconstruc-tivism, realism, and post-modernism were allrepresented. The independent position of theteachers, however, prevented ongoing centralguided development and refinement of thisapproach. Ongoing debate about the quality ofeducation was part of the culture, and overallplanning could be ignored in favour of individual* Accepted 12 June 1996.

166

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 166±174, 1997 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 1997 TEMPUS Publications.

philosophies. At times internal criticism resulted inambitious plans to improve the curriculum, how-ever the system gradually deteriorated and thegeneral cohesion within the curriculum was lost.Some subjects were duplicated by differentteachers, other areas were neglected and, even-tually, the students' freedom of choice was reducedto choosing a project mentor. Eventually, too,criticism of the Faculty of Architecture fromoutside culminated in a negative report from anational review committee [2] which concludedthat technical study areas were neglected and thecurriculum lacked cohesion. The resulting politicalclimate threatened the sheer existence of the faculty.

In order to survive, the Faculty Boardinitiated a major programme of curriculum inno-vation. An internal committee of professors wasappointed to design a new curriculum. The com-mittee, with support from educational advisorsfrom the Limburg State University, produced aproposal to renovate the entire curriculum, withthe introduction of problem-based learning (PBL)as the didactic principle [3]. The general purposewas to improve the performance of the program,with knowledge from different study areas anddesign skills integrated in the new curriculum inconformity with PBL principles. The plan gener-ated widespread debate, but `something had to bedone'. The Faculty Council therefore reluctantlyaccepted the proposal and the plan to introducePBL was implemented barely half a year after thepresentation of the PKB report, with the firststudents starting in the new curriculum in 1990.

BACKGROUND TO NEWCASTLE,FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, AUSTRALIA

Architecture at Newcastle grew out of a tech-nician's course at the Newcastle Technical College.In the early 1960s a small university college was setup in Newcastle in the form of a branch of theUniversity of New South Wales (UNSW) located inSydney. Architecture became part of the college andchanged from a technician's course to a full profes-sional course which was a clone of the architecturecourse at UNSW. By 1970 the logistic problems ofrunning two campuses and parallel courses onehundred and fifty kilometres apart were acceptedand the college became an independent provincialuniversity. Architecture was given faculty status,although it was the smallest faculty in the universityand one of the smallest in Australia.

The new faculty set out to do things the waythey were done in larger faculties, particularlyFaculties of Architecture in the larger universi-ties. A high profile practitioner was appointedDean and the new faculty set out to emulate thetop schools of architecture. The pedagogicalapproach and five-year curriculum, with a two-tier degree structure, from UNSW were main-tained, with similar disciplines, and some ambitiousresearch was initiated to reinforce the big-faculty

aspirations of the new faculty. Newcastle was not abig faculty, however, and struggled to maintain allthe distinct disciplines which were found in thelarger faculties. It also struggled to maintain ahigh profile practitioner as Dean: the Dean led thediscipline of architectural design, and had tomaintain a substantial teaching load in order tosustain the design discipline. Competition withthe demands of a high profile practice, however,resulted in decline of teaching in design which isthe central and most important aspect of anyarchitecture course. This also resulted in lack ofleadership as the Dean was absent for much ofthe time, leading to dissatisfaction among thestaff and students. The Dean subsequently leftand a new Dean was appointed from the teachingstaff.

The faculty continued to languish, however, as itcould not sustain the traditional structure withspecialists teaching only in their particular spe-cialisations. Staff dissatisfaction led to studentunrest, which contributed to a negative moralesyndrome and to difficulties with accreditation,exacerbated by loss of students to other courses.At this time the university was under pressure toreduce the number of faculties and decided to closethe smaller faculties, with architecture to becomepart of the large Engineering Faculty. The archi-tects' profession in Newcastle reacted verystrongly to this, and lobbied the university totake a different approach. The value to theregion and the profession of retaining the facultywas demonstrated, and the opportunities to turnthe smallness and provincial location of the facultyfrom liabilities to advantages were established.

The presence of the new medical school (startedin 1976) with its successful adaptation of aninnovatory problem-based learning approachprovided an `incubatory' environment for archi-tecture to try a similar approach, and the smallnessof the faculty allowed some experimentation whichcould not be undertaken in larger faculties, parti-cularly in the larger cities where intense competi-tion between schools of architecture made themvery conservative. The eventual retirement of thesecond Dean provided an opportunity to appoint anew Dean with the particular qualities of an `agentof change' rather than the conventional qualities ofeminence in practice. This and the commitment ofthe faculty to a new approach were interactiveand debate continues about which occurred first.The strongest evidence is that the commitmentto change occurred when the profession con-vinced the university to retain the faculty, andthat the criteria for selection of a new Dean asan agent of change flowed from that commit-ment. The role of the Dean, therefore, was oneof facilitating and guiding change rather than ofinitiating it. The Faculty of Architecture launcheditself into an ambitious programme of innovationwhich was to lead to it becoming a leading schoolin Australia, with an international reputation forexcellence and educational innovation.

Theory and Practice of Educational Innovation 167

ABOUT PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Architectural education throughout the WesternWorld is dominated by `studio teaching' whichvaries between what educationalists might referto as `tutorial-based teaching' and `apprentice-based teaching' or mentor-based teaching.Donald SchoÈn [4] recognised the integrative valueof studio approaches as models for other pro-fessional education. Ironically, however, whilearchitectural education is characterised by thisideal of integrative learning, and this accountsfor the all-important design teaching, the majorityof architectural education is characterised by `dis'-integrative teaching, in individual subjects withlittle connection between them.

Notwithstanding this entrenched dichotomy ofeducational approaches, the espoused philosophyand holy grail of architectural education is inte-gration of all curriculum with the design process.Problem-based learning (PBL) gives a name andan established body of theory to a form of educa-tion which embodies the best characteristics oftraditional design teaching and allows them to beapplied to the whole curriculum within a singletheoretical framework, thereby achieving integra-tion at both the theoretical and application levels[5]. PBL has been called `the most importantinnovation since the institutionalisation of educa-tion for the professions' [6], however the methodhad been invented elsewhere and was therefore nota true innovation [7]. Nevertheless, the applicationof PBL represents a significant change and chal-lenge which are innovations in themselves and canprovide an environment for stimulating innovativebehaviour in staff and students.

Problem-based learning as a full-scale didacticapproach to a curriculum was developed inmedical education at McMaster University inCanada during the late 1960s, to address criticismthat medical education was removing itself fromactual medical practice. Expanding knowledgewithin the medical discipline and the ongoingdevelopment of specialisations in practice resultedin curricula filled with details and fragments ofknowledge, much of which was obsolete by thetime students graduated. Adoption of PBL aimedto bridge the gap between education and practiceby means of a holistic approach based on themesrepresenting problems from medical practice. Thiscontrasted with conventional divisions betweendisciplines which fragmented a curriculum intoseparate courses in accordance with sets of basicknowledge and specialist fields.

PBL draws on insights gained from both pro-fessional practice and educational practice includ-ing, for instance, JeroÃme Bruner's concept of`Learning by discovery' and Carl Roger's conceptof `Student-centred learning' [8]. Instead ofemphasising the transfer of knowledge by teachers,PBL focuses on stimulating the students' learningprocess. In PBL, students are expected to definetheir own learning goals and to pursue actively the

accumulation of knowledge and skills. A problemfrom practice acts as a starting point development ofa PBL problem. The main difference between prac-tice-based problems and PBL is that PBL problemsare abstracted from the reality of practice. That is,solving the real-practice problem is not the point;each problem serves as a generic problem, and theprocess of learning about problems and solutionsto it are the salient educational agenda. Many ofthe problems from practice challenge experiencedpractitioners, and students are motivated by theexperience of dealing with real practice problems,notwithstanding that they are abstracted. To thisextent PBL is comparable with project work, casestudies and studio teaching approaches.

Problem-based learning is an educational philo-sophy of the post-modern era [9] and is successful,particularly in professional education, in the sensethat growing numbers of institutions are embrac-ing this educational approach. At first, it wasdisseminated mainly in medical education, withthe medical school in Maastricht (Netherlands)and in Newcastle (Australia) among the first tofollow McMaster. Each of these then developedas a new nucleus, exporting PBL to other dis-ciplines. Today PBL is applied all over the world ina wide variety of studies, ranging from medicineand architecture to law, economics, businessadministration and engineering and, in the process,has developed and diversified into a family ortaxonomy of problem-based approaches.

The specific format varies from one applicationto another. In some cases the traditional lectureformat is completely eliminated. In other caseslectures are employed next to problems, as one ofthe means to challenge students. Although grouplearning is not essential to PBL, in most estab-lished PBL courses learning is characteristicallyenhanced by small group work, where studentsco-operate in defining their own learning objec-tives. Group discussions about practice problemsactivate prior knowledge, and learning is cross-linked with existing knowledge, fostering thedevelopment of a thinking structure that is rele-vant to practice [11]. Group sizes vary from 4±5students (as in the original McMaster model) tothe size of a class. It is generally accepted thatthe staff members guiding the group work shouldact as facilitators rather than teaching their expertknowledge [12]. However, the desired level ofcompetence for the facilitator (commonly referredto as tutor) ranges from nil content in specificexpertise to broad experience in practice [13].

Despite apparent differences, all PBL approachesshare some basic principles, partly didactic andpartly related to their professional orientations,and application of these principles has led to somecharacteristics shared by most PBL versions.

Didactic principles:

. students are responsible for their own learning

. co-operation rather than competition

. active acquisition of knowledge and skills.

Erik de Graaff and Rob Cowdroy168

Professional orientation:

. holistic orientation towards professional practice

. integration of knowledge from different domains

. integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

It is possible to apply PBL methods in a singlediscipline within an otherwise traditional curri-culum, however the benefits of integration ofknowledge and skills from different domainsfavours a thematic curriculum structure. Lectur-ing is usually not consistent with integration anddoes little to encourage students to take respon-sibility for their own learning. The small groupformat therefore often surfaces as a naturalalternative, with a range of interpersonal dynam-ics which provide opportunities for integration,co-operation, motivation and acceptance ofresponsibility for learning.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PBL IN THEFACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AT DELFT

The decision to implement the innovation wasbasically a top-down decision, necessitated byongoing and inconclusive debate in the faculty.The key factor which motivated the choice ofPBL was the attractiveness of a high numericalefficiency in the PBL programme in the medicalcurriculum in Maastricht, and the Faculty Board,guided by an interim faculty director, pressed theCouncil to agree to the proposal. At the time thedecision was made, however, the PKB proposal [3]fell far short of a blueprint detailing all aspects ofthe new curriculum, and a lot of planning workremained to be done.

The preparation phase was short, with the firststudents expected to start with the new programmeabout half a year after the presentation of the plan.In order to achieve this a group of co-operativestaff members was selected and assigned the taskof developing parts of the new curriculum. Sincethe thematic structure crossed the old borders ofdisciplines and projects the organisation structurehad to be adjusted. The existing faculty organi-sation was traditional, with the staff grouped indiscipline-oriented departments, and each depart-ment responsible for its own part of the curri-culum. A shadow structure was therefore erected,based on teams (so-called block groups) of two tothree members drawn from different departments.Each of these groups was commissioned to developthe program for a block theme. A linking structureof committees of co-ordinators from the blockgroups was responsible for co-ordinating thedevelopment of the overall basic program (thefirst two years) and each of the five differentiation(specialisation) programs. Co-ordination of thewhole implementation process was undertaken byanother committee, installed by Faculty Council,and consisting of the co-ordinators and chaired bya `dean of education' [14].

The plan that emerged was modelled after the

Maastricht example, and represented a rough out-line for the curriculum, with a thematic structurefor the first two years. The programme of eachyear consisted of six blocks each lasting six weeks.The blocks were constructed around themes suchas `the House', `the City' and `the Wet Cell' andwere presented in a fixed order in a `rooftile-likestructure'. The plan called for traditional teachingto be replaced by small group work, and for designprojects in the first years to be replaced by limiteddesign exercises. Beyond this general format, thearchitecture staff had to fill out the detailed aspectsof the curriculum and its implementation [15].Despite the attention given to curriculum plan-ning, the philosophy of PBL was not understoodby most of the faculty. Outside the circle ofcontributors to the plan there was only a smallgroup of active supporters, and a majority whowere ambivalent or who opposed change avoidedthe information meetings.

Given this resistance (or inertia), and the shortpreparation period, it is not surprising that manythings went wrong, and even amazing that itworked at all. Only the talent for improvisationin a creative architecture faculty, made it possible.From the outset, the logistics of management ofthe new curriculum proved to be very difficult,and the education office was forced to change itsrole, from that of providing service on request tothe teachers, to that of a co-ordination centre.Unfortunately, the office was unable to deal withthe magnitude of the task of planning and co-ordinating such a major change in such a largeorganisation. Eventually, the educational programhad to be adjusted in order to render it manage-able, resulting in disruption of the carefullyarranged rooftile-like structure of the blocks.

The drawbacks of a top-down decision were alsonoticeable. It was still relatively easy to persuadeand recruit staff members to participate in thedevelopment of the new programme, particularlyas the new status of block co-ordinator had someappeal. It was much harder, however, to attractstaff members for the role of facilitator for the self-directed student groups and, despite directions toall staff to participate in tutor/facilitator training,at least 20% refused. Even those who were willinghad difficulty in understanding and adapting tothe changed roles of staff in the new educationalmethod. Orientation programs and study materialsfor staff therefore had to be developed beforethe teachers were able to become familiar withPBL and before real progress could be made onprograms and materials for the students. A staffmember who had been designing one of the PBLblocks, asked after the tutor training if he couldplease redesign the block, as he only nowunderstood what it was all about.

The real problems began, however, when formerproject mentors had to act as tutors. As designteachers, the former project mentors had enjoyedconsiderable status and independence, and thesatisfaction of being chosen to pass on their


philosophies and experience to the next generation.In the new approach they had to restrict them-selves to facilitating, and in a learning processwhich was broader in scope and included unfami-liar fields. They did not know how to behave in thenew role and they did not want to know how to.The design teachers claimed they needed at leasttwo half days a week (or rather three) to teach thestudents the intricacies of design and they forcedadjustments to the new program before it actuallystarted. The authority of the Board to implementthe new plan was therefore challenged and foundto be limited with the result that only some ofthe new plan was achieved. The result was a dualsystem, with about half the time within each blockspent on knowledge-oriented study using PBLmethods, and the other half reserved for designteaching. This brings the Delft course back into aline which is closer to many conventional archi-tecture courses than intended, and closer than theformer project-based approach. Ironically, bothparts of the system are basically problem based,differing only in the didactics, and the system hasbeen adopted by the faculty as the `architecturevariety' of PBL [16].

Confronted with these two didactic approachesthe students tended to follow their preferences,resulting in competition for students' time betweenthe two tracks. From the students' point of view,working on a design assignment was the realchallenge and purpose, and much more attractiveand relevant than the paper case studies they hadto study in other subjects, particularly mathe-matics and structures. Most students also preferredthe intensive teaching in the design track to theuncertainties of self-directed study in the knowl-edge track. An evaluation report after the firsthalf year signalled the problem that studentswere spending much more than half their timeon designing and, consequently, considerablyless than the necessary time on theoreticalstudy areas, thereby restricting the integration ofdifferent disciplines.

Notwithstanding the difficulties, a new reviewcommittee clearly appreciated the daring and theenergy the faculty put into the new curriculum [17].Many characteristics of the original PKB plan arestill discernible six years after the start of theinnovation process. The thematic structure of thecurriculum is largely intact and the linking organi-sation structure is still there. The themes of thefirst two years are also still the same, except forminor changes such as re-naming the first blocktheme `the house' as `architectonical space', andother minor adjustments such as reduction in thenumber of disciplines contributing to a singleblock.

At the organisational level, however, little isleft of the plan for faculty-wide curriculum anddidactic method. The departments have graduallyregained their power in the organisation, abandon-ing the alternative structures, or relegating themto mere formalities. The design teachers claim half

the curriculum and about 80% of the studentstime. Consequently, design teaching also absorbsthe major proportion of resources and staff time.The design teachers have also largely reverted toteaching the way they have always done it [18,19], ignoring the carefully prepared block pro-gram, and amending the exercises until they areeffectively running their own individual courses.Teachers from theoretical disciplines have followedthis example, creating opportunities to teach theirown discipline separately, either in the guise ofpractice exercises, or in the lectures increasinglycrowding the timetable of the average block. As aresult the students' self-study time has been lost,as the students spend all their time with thedemands of competing groups of teachers. Thiscompetition between teachers translates into over-load and stress in the students as they strive tosatisfy both sets of teachers, who not only teachbut, significantly, also assess the study results.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PBL IN THEFACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AT

NEWCASTLE

The convenient presence of an established PBLcourse in the new medical school at Newcastle,right next door to the architecture faculty, wasused to observe and compare and, with help fromcurriculum development staff of the medicalfaculty, a variation of the medical model of PBLwas developed for architecture. A strong consensusof interested parties including faculty staff agreedthat architectural education's (and the faculty's)primary objective of integration of all curriculawith the studio teaching of design might be metthrough use of PBL. There was a strong minorityof doubters, however, and it was decided to under-take a trial of the new approach in the firstsemester (March±June) of Year 1. At the end ofthe semester it would be decided to abandon theexperiment, or continue into the second semesterand then allow the new approach to be pro-gressively introduced to Years 2, 3, 4 and 5 insucceeding years with the same cohort of students.

The two-tier degree structure of the course (athree-year B.Sc(Arch) course followed by a two-year B.Arch professional course) provided anopportunity to experiment also at Year 4 level,the first year of the professional course, and it wasdecided to attempt an even more comprehensivelyintegrated approach concurrently, and with thesame provisos as applied to the Year 1 experiment.Before the end of the first semester, however, thefaculty was convinced that the new PBL approachin Year 1 was outstandingly promising and wouldbe continued. The faculty was also convinced thatthe integrated learning approach in Year 4 wassufficiently compatible with the PBL approach andshowed such promise that it should be furtherdeveloped as a possible future successor to thecurrent PBL model.


The faculty was also convinced that the diffi-culties of maintaining two different educationalapproaches (the former traditional approach andthe new PBL/IL approaches in parallel) werealready greater than the difficulties of an acceler-ated adoption of PBL, and it was therefore decidedto change the whole course over in the followingyear, with Years 1±3 using the PBL model andYears 4±5 using the IL model. The course was setup broadly to create the environment and followthe processes which are found in current practice,to enhance development of the skills and modusoperandi of architects in current practice. Particu-lar `model firms of architects' were selected andused to demonstrate the relevance of the curri-culum and learning methods to the students'future professional activities. The course struc-ture involved real projects throughout, with realclients, both selected to provide progressiveincreases in complexity and scale throughout thecourse, from relatively simple, one-room buildingsat the beginning to major CBD high-rise office/retail development later.

Projects were selected to develop particular setsof knowledge and to provide focus on particularaspects of design (e.g., exterior, interior), con-struction (steel, concrete, long/short span, low/high-rise) and context (rural, suburban, CBD). Ingeneral, the students were given the whole prob-lem, with a minimum of simplification andabstraction to clarify the boundaries of `theproblem' and create the intended focus, forinstance on skills development early in the courseto complex professional development later. Tradi-tional boundaries between disciplines and subjectswere removed and re-cast so that recombined`study areas' emerged, reflecting the way sets ofknowledge, skills, specialisations and expertise aregrouped in the real world of industry and profes-sional practice, and allowing obsolete content to beremoved and relevant new content included.

The first difficulty encountered was staff over-load, particularly in Years 1 and 2, as staff wereteaching in two parallel but insufficiently co-ordinated timetables, one for the old course con-tinuing and another for the new courses as theyevolved. In particular, the demands on subjectspecialists to service the PBL course meant avery different approach to timetabling, with co-ordinated intense workshops often being requiredand displacing the traditional regular lectures.Timetabling and central co-ordination thereforebecame the principle logistical challenge at thetime. It took time, also, for staff to stop attemptingto include all of the traditional content in additionto the new content.

The next difficulty encountered was studentoverload in both the PBL and IL programmes.Students had difficulty in adapting to the change inbalance between study areas and tended to overwork on new `for information only' classes andassignments as well as on knowledge-buildingclasses and assignments [20]. Some staff, too, had

difficulty in downgrading some of their traditionalcurriculum to `for information only' status and inembracing new material from practice required bythe real context of the projects. A large group ofstudents from South East Asia had particulardifficulty as they had made one major culturaladjustment to cope with the traditional course,and were having to make another major adjust-ment. All students had difficulty in the shift fromteacher-centred learning of the traditional courseto the student-centred learning focus of the newapproaches, particularly in the integrated learningcourse.

The change for staff was as profound as it wasfor students. The change in role from unchallengedexpert in a narrow field to reflector of (otherpractitioners') broad expertise was accommodatedreadily by staff who were (or had recently been)practitioners, but was a particular difficulty forcareer academics. The loss of authority to confinethe agenda within their interests and experience,and the new need to teach and field questions inthe broader field determined by each projectcreated considerable role conflict in all staff.Some staff were unable or unwilling to adapt tothe new courses and left within the first year.Others suffered unacceptable stress and left in thesecond and third year.

The change in staff was both advantageous anddisadvantageous. An entrenched political/personalfeud between two groups of staff dissolvedwhen the key adversaries left. Staff who weredisenchanted, for instance over promotions, alsoleft. They were replaced by staff who were multi-disciplinary and with considerable experience inthe profession, and who were non-aligned in rela-tion to old feuds. The new staff also were able toadapt to the new teaching approaches withouthaving to `un-learn' the old approach. The newstaff were also more highly motivated and ener-getic and created a positive syndrome of moralewhich gradually extended through the staff andstudents.

The new approaches have now been in place forten years and the faculty has established itself as aleader in architectural education and in the devel-opment of teaching theory. Two members of staffreceived teaching excellence awards and the facultyhas the highest accreditation rating of the thirteenarchitecture schools in the country.

EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION ANDORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

In order to understand the implementationprocesses described above, we can look at bothliterature on educational innovation and literatureon organisational change. Literature on educa-tional innovation suggests that elaborate proce-dures of planning and preparation are necessary toeffect such a change [21±23] and that the degreeof involvement of the participants is crucial to


success. That is, the more the participants perceivethe innovation as instrumental to realisation oftheir own goals, the better the chances of success.This implies that an extended process of prepa-ration is necessary, to involve participants andachieve their commitment to the change beforeactually implementing a new curriculum. Litera-ture on organisational change, on the other hand,suggests that at times it can be effective to applysome force. Chin and Benne [24] distinguish threetypes of strategies that can be applied to achievechange in an organisation:

. empirical/rational strategies

. normative/re-educative strategies

. power/coercive strategies.

Each of these strategies rests on implicit beliefsabout human nature. Adherents of the firststrategy see man as a rational being. The secondstrategy emphasises the social aspects of humanbehaviour and the ability to learn new behaviour.Power/coercive strategies are based on a less opti-mistic view on human nature. People identifyprimarily with their personal tasks or task per-ceptions and most of them are blind to theadvantages for the organisation as a whole. Legi-timate power may therefore be exercised to protectthe larger interest.

The Delft and Newcastle experiences show thatall three types of strategies have been used tovarying degrees in both cases. In the Delft caseempirical/rationalism was presented as justifica-tion for the change, but change was forced onthe Faculty (power/coercive) by external threat.The development of the new plan by a minorityof staff and the unilateral decision of the FacultyBoard to implement the plan was also power/coercive. The attempts to re-train staff were nodoubt intended to be normative/re-educative butwere apparently perceived by a majority of staffas power/coercive. Had the information sessionsbeen offered earlier, they might have been morere-educative and more successful, and might havereduced the need for unilateral, power/coercivebehaviour by the Faculty Board and the Council.

In Newcastle the external threat was clearlypower/coercive, and the decision for change wasno doubt largely made on a basis of some formof rationalisation of responses to the threat. Theproactive support of the profession, however,allowed rationalism to be followed by self-directedre-education (at least on a consensus level), allow-ing the form of change to be decided by the facultyand avoiding the need for power/coercive directionfrom outside about the form of change to be made.The faculty members therefore `owned' the deci-sion and the form of change adopted. Educationalinnovators appear to prefer a combination of thefirst two strategies. They want to convince peopleof the rationale for change and/or re-educate themin order to persuade them to comply. On thesurface this seems to be a sound approach, how-ever convincing people takes time, and convincing

a lot of people takes a lot of time. The larger theorganisation, therefore, the more conservative thepeople appear when considering change. Conver-sely, small organisations are more easily movedand therefore less conservative.

Under stable external conditions, thereforesignificant change in large scale educationalorganisations is unlikely. The use of top-downauthority is therefore often considered necessarywhen change is imperative and urgent, as in thecase of Delft. Alternatively, a catalyst can be usedto disrupt the status quo, as in the Newcastle case,where a new Dean used removal of traditionaldisciplinary empires to disrupt the inertia ofestablished conservative networks and authority/seniority structures. Power/coercive strategies maybe successful in solving the most urgent problems,however innovation based on this approach isunlikely to be sustainable beyond the very shortterm. People who have been left out of the decisionprocesses, and people displaced without the pro-vision of a more attractive alternative, do not`own' the decisions or the philosophies on whichthey are based, and will have little reason tosupport the outcomes. In order to effect sustain-able change, it is necessary to deploy a long-termstrategy, creating conditions for individual com-mitment as well as corporate commitment. Themanagement devising and implementing thisstrategy must be sensitive to both the organi-sational behaviour implications and individualperceptions and aspirations, and be able to harnessboth in support of any proposed interventions.This means that strong educational leadershiprequires extensive management skills in order toachieve sustainable change.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper is to explain themechanisms of educational innovation. Whetherthe educational innovations at the Faculties ofArchitecture in Delft and Newcastle are consideredsuccesses or failures depends on choice of criteriafor success, and both positions can be defended inboth cases. The relevant issue for considerationhere is how change happened.

In some respects the educational innovation ineach case can be considered to have failed. Someold teaching methods have survived the change inboth cases under the guise of some new labels.Stress in the early stages on staff and students, andloss of both might also be considered failure. Onthe other hand, most staff members are happywith the respective curricula as they have evolved,and the report of the respective external reviewcommittees have been highly supportive.

The new curriculum in each case is firmlyestablished, as clearly demonstrated by unsuccess-ful attempts in each case to alter the new structure.For instance, in Delft there have been failedattempts to introduce discipline courses outside


the blocks (as advocated by the technical discip-lines), and to concentrate design teaching in a fewof the blocks in order to allow more time fortheory-oriented study in other blocks. In New-castle there have been attempts to re-establish aseparate design discipline, and also to restrictdesign teaching to design specialists. Attempts tore-establish the authority of the teachers in bothcases, particularly in design, over what is taughtand how it is taught, have been accompanied bystrong pressure for master classes. These attempts,however, are inconsistent with the objectives ofintegration and relevance, and are opposed inprinciple to the spirit of PBL.

The return to teachers for giving up theirdominating role is they have the satisfaction ofwatching students' growing enthusiasm andindependence. This form of satisfaction charac-terises good teachers in any didactic system. Addi-tional satisfaction comes from high levels ofrecognition and accreditation, and general sup-port from the profession for the relevance of theabilities of emerging graduates to current demandsof professional practice.

PBL was introduced as a strategy for achievingorganisational and educational objectives and as ameans to effect change. In both Delft and New-castle the primary organisational objective wassurvival of the Faculty. In Delft the educationalobjective was numerical efficiency and PBLappeared to offer a path to that objective. InNewcastle the objective was integration, and PBLappeared to offer an appropriate structure forachieving that objective. The reasons for choosingPBL therefore differed and the means of intro-ducing PBL also differed. Differences in scale ofthe two faculties contributed to the differences, thelarger faculty in Delft having more inertia and

conservatism to overcome than the smaller facultyin Newcastle.

A comparison of the two cases suggests that theprocess of change is not complete in either case,but that Newcastle, which started earlier, is furtheralong the path than Delft. Newcastle staff andstudents have overcome the negativism whichinevitably accompanies change and have devel-oped a new confidence in the school and highlevels of morale and mutual commitment. Delftstarted later and appears to be in mid-change, withdissatisfied staff still in the process of leaving,student overload not yet resolved, and the newconfidence not yet developed. The recent appoint-ment of a new Dean may accelerate the change,and the retirement of a significant number ofsenior staff will no doubt reduce the inertia ofthe organisation to resist change.

The prognosis for both faculties is good, evenexcellent. Both are highly regarded in highereducation circles as model applications of PBL,and in architectural education as models of excel-lence in achieving educational approaches whichreflect the needs of the profession for the newcentury. This outcome has been achieved despitethe unknowns inherent in such ambitious under-takings and, in the process, has reduced theunknowns for others contemplating change ofcomparable scale, regardless of whether PBL is asignificant part of the proposal. Extrapolationfrom the two cases set out here can provide basesfor strategic managerial approaches to the multi-ple frameworks of organisational behaviour andeducational innovation required to achieve sus-tainable change, particularly the innovative andchallenging learning environments required forengineering education in the new century [25,26].

REFERENCES

1. W. M. van Woerden, Het Projectonderwijs onderzocht [Research into the project method ofteaching] thesis, University of Technology Twente, Enschede (1991).

2. Verkenningscommissie Bouwkunde, Eindrapportage [Final Report] (1988).3. Programma Commissie Bouwkunde, PKB. Herprofilering van de Bouwkundeopleiding aan de

Technnische Universiteit Delft [A New Profile for Building Sciences at the TUD] Delft, Faculteitder Bouwkunde (1989).

4. D. S. SchoÈn, The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York(1983).

5. R. Cowdroy and B. Maitland, Integration, assessment and problem-based learning. in: Chen,Cowdroy, Kingsland and Ostwald (eds) Reflections on Problem-based Learning, APBLN, Problarc,University of Western Sydney, Sydney (1994).

6. D. Boud and G. Feletti, The Challenge of Problem-based Learning, Kogan Page, London(1991).

7. G. de Zeeuw, Problemen van verbeteren en innoveren [Problems of improvement and innovation]in: Postdoctorale Opleiding Innovatie Manager, Academie voor Informatica, Universiteit vanAmsterdam, Amsterdam (1990).

8. C. Rogers, On Becoming a Person, Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1961).9. R. Cowdroy, Concepts, constructs and insights: the essence of problem-based learning, in: Chen,

Cowdroy, Kingsland and Ostwald (eds) Reflections on Problem-based Learning, APBLN, Problarc,University of Western Sydney, Sydney (1994).

10. H. S. Barrows, A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods, Medical Education, 20, (1986)pp. 481±486.

11. H. G. Schmidt, Activatie van voorkennis, intrinsieke motivatie en de verwerking van tekst(doctoral dissertation), Apeldoorn, Van Walraven, Apeldoorn (1982).


12. P. Frijns and E. de Graaff, Doceren of faciliteren? [Teaching or facilitating?] Velon, 14, 2 (1993)pp. 34±36.

13. A. Kingsland and R. Cowdroy, Focusing your skills: a definition of roles in PBL (or teacher rolesin student-centred learning, in: Problem-Based Learning, Research and Development in HigherEducation, conference proceedings, University of New South Wales, Sydney (1993).

14. E. de Graaff and P. A. J. Bouhuijs, Management of educational change: a discussion of theimplementation process at the Faculty of Building Sciences, in: Erik de Graaff and Peter A. J.Bouhuijs (eds.) Implementation of Problem-based Learning in Higher Education, Thesis Publishers,Amsterdam (1993).

15. J. van der Woord and E. de Graaff, Changing horses mid-course: the implementation of a problem-based curriculum at the department of building sciences of the Technical University Delft, Holland,in: P. A. J. Bouwhijs, H. J. Schmidt and H. J. M. van Berkel (eds.) Problem-based Learning as anEducational Strategy, Network publications, Maastricht (1993).

16. J. Westrik and E. de Graaff, Development and management of the new PBL-based curriculum inArchitecture, keynote lecture presented at the conference Reflection and Consolidation Newcastle,Australia, 3±6 July 1994, in: S. E. Chen, R. M. Cowdroy, A. J. Kingsland and M. J. Ostwald (eds.)Reflections on Problem-based Learning, Australian Problem Based Learning Network, Sydney(1994).

17. Visitatie commissie, Onderwijsvisitatie Civiele Techniek, Bouwkunde en Geodesie, Eindrapportage[Final Report] VSNU, Utrecht (1994).

18. M. Claessens, Programma-evaluatie bij innovatie van een ingenieursopleiding [Programmeevaluation in the context of innovation of an engineering course] (dissertation) DelftseUniversitaire Pers, Delft (1995).

19. M. Claessens, E. De Graaff, W. Jochems and R. Cowdroy, Student evaluation of a problem-basedcourse, in: Architecture, in Research and Development in Problem-Based Learning, Vol. 3. APBLN,UNSW, Sydney (1995).

20. R. Cowdroy and A. Kingsland, Decompressing the timetables in problem-based learning, in:Research and Development in Higher Education, Research and Development Society of Australasia,conference proceedings, University of New South Wales, Sydney, July 1993, (1994).

21. P. Dalin, Limits to Educational Change, Macmillan, London (1978).22. M. Fullan, The Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College, Columbia University, London/

New York (1982).23. A. Romizowski, Designing Instructional Systems: decision making in course planning and curriculum

design, Kogan Page, London (1990).24. R. Chin and K. D. Benne, General strategies for effecting changes in human systems, in W. G.

Bennis, K. D. Benne and R. Chin (eds.) The Planning of Change (fourth edition), Holt, Rinehart &Winston, New York (1985).

25. E. de Graaff, Problem-based learning in engineering education (keynote lecture) in: SociteÂEuropenne pour la Formation des Ingnieurs and The Engineering College of Copenhagen (eds.)Project-organized Curricula in Engineering Education, SEFI cahier no. 4, SEFI, Brussel (1994).

26. R. Cowdroy, Architects' Continuing Professional Development: a strategic framework, RoyalAustralian Institute of Architects, NSW Chapter, Sydney (1992).

Dr. Erik de Graaff is associate professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and Humanities of theDelft University of Technology. His specialisation is in educational innovation. He has beeninvolved in the development of problem-based curricula in Maastricht (medicine and healthsciences). At the Delft Faculty of Architecture, he was educational advisor to the facultyboard concerning the introduction of problem-based learning. He has a masters degree inpsychology and a Ph.D. in social sciences. His academic contributions on problem-basedlearning include three books, several journal articles, conference presentations, seminarsand invited lectures.

Dr. Rob Cowdroy is a senior member of academic staff at Newcastle University, Australia.He has had extensive experience in organisational development in private industry, theprofessions and universities, and has played significant parts in the organisationaldevelopment of the internationally acclaimed Medical and Architectural schools at New-castle University. He has higher degrees in architecture, science and management and haswon several peak national and state awards for his research in the fields of integratedlearning, higher-order competencies, and professional development, and is gaininginternational recognition for his research into the processes of inspiration in complexprofessional decisions.


theory and practice of educational innovation through ... · theory and practice of educational...

Documents