Merging research orientation with professional apprenticeship training through PBL
Background
The paper discusses an ongoing process of merging two university-based teaching traditions. The two
traditions are alike in that both share a basic commitment to PBL-related values. Differences refer (as
stated in the paper’s title) to one tradition being relatively more research oriented (high priority given to
methodological and analytic rigor), whereas the other has a stronger orientation towards students’
development of professional proficiency (taking clients’ or customers’ needs into consideration). The
merger process is being guided by the wish to get the best from two worlds. Apart from presenting the
merger process as a case-study, the paper is written with the further intent of serving as an informal
progress report, based on the author’s subjective experiences, and aimed at parties engaged in the ongoing
merger process.
The merger came about as a result of the author’s change-of-employment.
During the period 1968-2005 I was employed at Dept. of Psychology, XX University. Generally speaking,
study activities at XX were organized according to a classical academic teaching style (scholastic paradigm).
Over the years I developed my special professional profile as a university-based and training oriented
psychological practitioner. 1976-85 I received my own training as psychological counselor and therapist.
Half time employment in the local Student Counselling Office was combined with workshop-based training
of psychology students (masters level). 1985-2005 I developed (with a colleague) a combined action
research and teaching unit called Center for Systems Development (CSD). CSD core curriculum consisted of
real-task apprenticeship training of students in professional fields such as process consultation, formative
evaluation, peer coaching, and the like. Students’ process experiences (contact and contract making,
implementation and subsequent evaluation of consultancy tasks) would furnish empirical data for their
end-of-term papers in the academic fields of organizational and learning psychology. At XX University, our
CSD unit was highly regarded, mainly due to our students’ enthusiastic appraisals: “At long last we
understand what concepts A, B, C, known from the literature, are really all about!”. Yet, generally speaking
our colleagues did not grasp the teaching logic that guided us. They recognized that our students ’
supervised encounters with real professional practice served as an exciting and worthwhile training
experience. Since, however, they, themselves, were not acquainted with client- or customer-directed
practice, they would not easily recognize the intellectual, or even theoretical enrichment that might follow
from such encounters. To them, intellectual or theoretical stimulation came from the reading of books,
from discussing with others, from the writing of texts.
In 2006 I became employed at Depts. of Communication, Learning and Philosophy, at YY University. Since
its foundation (1974) YY University has been highly, and successfully, committed to utilize and develop PBL
as an all-round educational concept (Kolmos et al. 2004). At YY-University theoretical knowledge is
transmitted to students through PBL methods. In addition to receiving theoretical inputs and inspiration
through classroom seminars, teams of students will contact workplaces or other real-world social settings
and get permission to collect data of relevance for course-related topics. Data are analyzed in accordance
with theoretical perspectives or models presented in course related literature/lectures. Students may, but
are not required to present their findings to the data-furnishing workplace and include its response in the
end-of-term report.
1
How did the merger process come about?
During my years at XX University I knew about the PBL-concepts. In the seventies PBL had presented itself
as a socially and politically committed alternative (Berthelsen et al. 1977) to the mainstream university
teaching style practiced at my own workplace. As such PBL had served me as a definite personal inspiration
in the process of gradually shaping my own teaching style (Willert 2007). For these reasons it felt natural to
search for parallels between my own CSD-based style, and the prevailing local style, when, some five years
ago, I became formally attached to YY University.
The PBL teaching style at YY University has developed over a period of 37 years in a wide array of settings:
dealing with different academic subject, entrenched in different local cultures, involving a wide variety of
external co-operational partners, etc. During my five years of employment I’ve encountered no more than a
narrow set of examples. Given my background as ‘self-made PBL-devotee’ I kept my eyes and ears open,
looking for obvious similarities as well as apparent differences between CSD practice, as I knew it, and PBL
practice, as I came across it at YY-University. As stated in the paper’s title, the most important difference I
noticed between the two traditions concerned a distinction between ‘research orientation’ (prevalent at
YY) versus ‘orientation towards professional apprenticeship training’ (prevalent in CSD tradition). I briefly
return to this theme in the last section of the paper.
My experiences in YY classrooms and discussions with co-teachers have led to various merger initiatives
which I, myself, and a number of colleagues and/or system representatives have undertaken.
Some of these initiatives have been informal in nature and would not necessarily have seemed very
‘foreign’ to YY University old-timers, had they been there to observe what went on.
 Classroom activities for which I have been responsible have been slightly twisted in a CSD direction,
for the simple reason that it seemed appropriate and/or the student expressed an interest. The ease
with which such ‘CSD twists’ have been implemented in classroom settings, and the general
acceptance they’ve met from colleagues who heard about them or became partially involved, tell
me that CSD practice, as evolved by myself and my former XX colleague, may indeed be considered
part of the PBL-family of teaching practices.
Other CSD-inspired initiatives have had a more formal, institutionalized quality involving organizational
parties at YY-University other than myself.
 The Department where I’m working has committed itself to establish a LAB for Organizational
Change and Consultation, partly based on CSD inspiration, as part of its long term development
plan; a brief, programmatic description of LAB is furnished in an appendix following the last section
of the paper proper.
 CSD components have been, or are being integrated in courses (master level) dealing with
organizational learning and organizational psychology. Advanced study programs for experienced
2
practitioners are incorporating CSD-components by inviting students to become action researchers
in their own home organizations (Coghlan & Brannick 2005; Willert et al. 2011).
 YY University has decided that a study be made aimed at identifying and describing existing
examples of PBL-practice where students’ professional interaction with external co-operational
partners (in line with the CSD tradition) is part of the course program. This study is intended to
inspire further debates concerning researcher orientation/professional apprenticeship orientation in
the PBL context.
What are the special features of the CSD teaching tradition
This section focuses on certain implications following from the orientation towards professional
apprenticeship training that is inherent in the CSD tradition. I’ll use a PBL-catalogue from the introductory
chapter in Kolmos et al. (2004: 15) to identify special features of CSD as a sub-tradition within PBL. The
overall aim of this exercise is to prepare for discussions concerning the ways in which the ongoing merger
process, if properly conducted, may lead to an overall quality improvement in teaching quality at YY
University, namely (as stated in the introductory paragraph) by getting the best from two worlds.
In the said catalogue PBL themes are described as being either problem based or theory based (“directed
towards certain subjects”). – CSD projects are always problem oriented. Further than that, problem themes
must fulfill certain criteria. At the outset, the problem theme is defined, not by the students, but by the
external partners with whom the students co-operate during project activities.
The choice of PBL projects at YY-University is said to vary on a continuum between an open variety
(students are responsible for choosing) and a controlled variety (teacher is responsible for choosing). – CSD
projects may cover the whole continuum. Open choice implies that groups of students are instructed to do
their own search for organizational partners who may feel inclined to invite them into a co-operational
relationship. Teacher stimulates shared reflection among students, and may be consulted by, or offer his
supervisory services to students who feel the need. Controlled choice means that students work within a
consultancy framework that has originally been established by the teacher, and with the teacher in the role
as master consultant.
PBL problems are said to vary widely. Examples mentioned in the catalogue: “dilemma or social discrepancy
… an issue calling for an engineering solution … a question of turning the learning process in a certain
direction”. – As stated above, CSD problems are, at the outset, defined by the co-operational partner. The
problem refers to states of affairs that are somehow experienced by members of the partner organization
as unsatisfactory. Contract negotiations between students and partner will lead to an adjusted, shared
problem definition that will henceforth guide the students’ investigations and/or interventions.
PBL project phases are said to “vary depending on the subject in question”. – In CSD, problem phases refer
to the successive steps structuring the professional co-operation between student and co-operational
partner: Initial contact  contract negotiation – leading to a joint understanding of what will be the basic
contents and goals of the project  implementation of contract joint evaluation of project activities and
results obtained  closing of co-operational project.
3
The relation in PBL between courses and project is said to vary a lot – and so it does in CSD. – At XX
University CSD-students would enter our classes richly endowed with theoretical knowledge of potential
value for their supervised project activities. For this reason, teaching and training activities had a relatively
narrow focus on students’ future needs in the project field. Among these needs were teamwork skills and
skills related to observation and intervention. Generally speaking, YY students are much more skilled in
social and practical project management. At YY University, broadly conceived theoretical tuition (through
lectures and other classroom activities) takes up relatively more space in the preparation of students for
project work.
In PBL the extent of supervision varies widely – as is the case in CSD. – One specific feature of CSD
supervision is worth mentioning – partly because students, whether in the XX or the YY context, often
comment upon it as being unusual. I’ll call this unusual feature process oriented supervision as distinctly
different from exam or report oriented supervision. Generally speaking, CSD projects place students in
complex, shifting co-operational relationships with their external partners. Mutual expectations may have
to be adjusted. Initial terms-of-contracts may have to be re-negotiated. Co-operational complexities of this
kind are not ‘errors’ to be avoided. On the contrary, they are essential ingredients in the learning potential
inherent in the CSD tradition. They also point at the need for teacher support. Through process oriented
supervision the teacher helps students find their way in the relational entanglements emerging within their
co-operation with project partners. Exam or report oriented supervision is described by the students as
well known. It supports intellectual bridge building between the students’ experiential process and
academically defined conceptual structures.
In PBL groups vary in size, and so they do in the CSD tradition. – One group related feature in CSD concerns
a strong commitment to organizational transparency and self-scrutiny. Student classes in a CSD framework
are managed with the aim of helping students acquire theoretically valid and practically useful knowledge
about the way organizational work units function and may be functionally improved. At the same time,
these classes are, themselves, organized as work units. With the teacher in the role as leader and
coach/supervisor, classes are structured with a view to getting certain jobs done. Students’ knowledge
acquisition is supposed to develop, first and foremost, as a result of getting the jobs done. By participating
in and reflecting upon the temporary organization taking shape through goal-directed interactivity among
students and teacher, students may acquire an insider’s comprehension about organizational work units –
as a supplement to the outsider’s comprehension they may acquire through their project-based interaction
with the co-operational partner.
How to get the best from two worlds?
The paper describes a merger process between two teaching traditions: the YY/PBL tradition and the CSDtradition. The paper, including the appendix below, is one-sided, in that the CSD tradition has been
described in far more detail than the YY/PBL tradition. This is due to the fact that (1) the CSD tradition is the
one I know best; (2) the fact that the paper is written partly as a presentation of this tradition to YYcolleagues: The paper is intended as an active ingredient in the very merger process it describes.
The figure below represents one small contribution towards rectifying the one-sidedness of the present
paper. It hints at my present way of perceiving the relative educational strengths of the two teaching
traditions that are involved in the merger process. It points out the ‘researcher virtues’ and the
4
‘practitioner virtues’ which I see as the ideal learning outcomes for students participating in YY/PBL courses
(as I’ve come across them), and courses guided by the CSD tradition respectively.
YY/PBL-tradition (researcher virtues)
Methodological and analytic rigor
Theoretically grounded process design
High degree of construct validity
Self-detachment, objectivity
CSD-tradition (practitioner virtues)
Mental flexibility, skills in meaning negotiation
In the moment-facilitation
High degree of ecological validity
Self-involvement, self-scrutiny
In this context, I’ll leave the figure with no further comments or explanations. It seems obvious that the two
virtue catalogues are mutually complementary. It is my hope that the figure may pave the way for further
discussions about how to continue the ongoing merger process in ways that will allow teachers and
students at YY University to get the best from two worlds. Getting the best from two worlds may help
building bridges between YY University as (1) a research institutions; (2) a professional training institution.
Appendix
LAB for Organisational Change and Consultation
LAB creates a space for mutually rewarding encounters between the fields of academic research,
professional consultation and university-based teaching and training. LAB is a collaboration and
research forum for practising theorists and theorising practitioners, for teachers who research and for
researchers who teach, and for students and supervisors who are willing to expose themselves to
professional challenges.
LAB operates in three areas:



Co-operational projects with external organizational partners allow us to work as facilitators of
change, as researchers of complex organisational change processes and as providers of a
learning space for the participating students.
We offer teaching where cooperation between student and teacher is structured, partly, as a
relation between professional apprentice (student) and master consultant (teacher).
We do research in complex organisational processes of change.
LAB is rooted in the research group CLIO (Centre for Learning in Organisations) located at the
Department for Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University (AAU). In line with the cross-facultary
status of the department, LAB wishes to establish project-based co-operational links with teaching and
research environments placed at all AAU-faculties.
5
With reference to Kurt Lewin (1890-1947; inspirational figure behind organisational consultation and
action research), LAB will monitor its activities in accordance with ‘Lewin’s triangle’, cf. the following
quotation and figure:
”This and similar experiences have convinced me that we should consider action,
research and training as a triangle that should be kept together for the sake of any of its
corners” <Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. N.Y. Harper & Brothers>
Research
Teaching
Practice
Coupling between practice and research implies that LAB-projects typically make use of an
action research inspired methodology where intervention and investigation go hand in hand
and function as prerequisites for each other. Project implementation takes place within cooperational partnerships, aimed at mutual learning, between LAB and public or private
organizations.
Coupling between teaching and practice implies that LAB (as one variety within the existing
AAU/PBL-model) will develop teaching methods which allow supervisor-supported students
to make active contributions (as process helpers, data collectors etc.) to projects involving
external partners – in ways that make it possible for the involved students to use their project
experiences as data for exam reports (learning by doing).
Coupling between research and teaching implies that LAB, besides offering research-based
teaching, is also committed to developing methods for teaching-based research.
References:
Berthelsen, J., Illiriis, K. & Poulsen, S.C. (1977) Projektarbejde – erfaringer og praktisk vejledning (Project
work – experiences and practical guidance). Holstebro: Borgen
Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. Doing Action Research in your own Organization. London: Sage
Kolmos, A., Fink, F.K. & Krogh, L. (eds.) (2004) The Aalborg PBL Model. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press
Willert, S. (2007) Psykologi som håndværk – Psykologistudiet som håndværkeruddannelse (The psychologist
as craftsman – teaching psychology as training in craftsmanship). In: Brinkmann, S. & Tanggaard, L. (eds.)
Psykologi: forskning og profession (Psychology: Research and Profession). København: Hans Reitzel.
Willert, S., Keller, H.D. & Stegeager, N. (2011) Academic Vocational Training: Bridging the Gap Between
Educational Space and Work Space. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 9, 2, p 168-80
6
7