Shifting the Paradigm of Higher Education

Introduction

Construction education is a relatively new academic discipline, created to fill the need for professionals with the specific knowledge and abilities required to manage construction field, office and business operations. While the educational activities required to meet this need have been a major emphasis of the discipline, construction education recognizes that it must fully participate in the three-fold mission of higher education. This mission includes research and extension along with education. To help its members to more fully accomplish this mission, particularly in the area of research, the Associated Schools of Construction has served as a clearinghouse for information and development in these areas.

While construction education has been working to more fully accomplish the current mission, higher education has begun the process of rethinking and redefining itself in response to societal demands and changing needs and conditions. Considering that this redefinition process will result in a new higher education paradigm that construction education will have to meet, it is advisable for the discipline to participate in and possibly provide some leadership in creating the new definition.

To begin the discussion on construction education's role in this process this paper will review the societal demands and changing conditions precipitating the change, report the current discussion on mission redefinition, synthesize an outline of a new paradigm, and suggest ways that the ASC and member schools can participate in the implementation of this paradigm.

Precipitating Factors

The factors that are causing higher education to rethink its mission are: (1) accusations that higher education is not being responsive to societal needs, (2) public reaction to the rising cost and declining quality of higher education, and (3) the decrease in funding for both education and research.

Societal Needs

In An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education the Wingspread Group on Higher Education reports that higher education's preoccupation with research, publishing and graduate education to the detriment of undergraduate education is seen to be indicative of higher education's unresponsiveness to societal needs.(1) Business Week reports that much of the current research is "arcane" and doesn't relate to real life problems and concerns.(20) ENR has reported this perception in our own industry.(19) Rather than focusing on "arcane" research, Goodwin reports that the public and government believe that higher education should focus its research on important national goals such as global climate change, advanced manufacturing processes, biotechnology and high performance computing, and that higher education should collaborate more with industry.(9) To this Edgerton adds applied fields such as teacher preparation, nursing and social work, and applied research and professional outreach focused on problems such as the environment and public safety.(5) Liska also recommends more applied research and technology transfer for our own discipline. (19) Should higher education not refocus its research and service efforts,  as Senator Barbara Mukluks of Maryland puts it, "science and science funding run the risk of being left out and left behind."(9)

Rising Cost and Declining Quality

The Wingspread Group further states that the public perceives that they are not receiving fair value for the high cost of college education, that the skills and information needed to successfully compete in today's highly competitive global market are not necessarily a part of college curricula, and that the acquisition of these skills and knowledge is not necessarily indicated by successful completion of a degree. Articles in such diverse publications as Science and Business Week underline the public's adverse reaction to rising tuition costs and falling quality. (14)( 20)

Edgerton further explains the concern about the cost of higher education by reporting that the public sees higher education as necessary to achieve upward mobility and an acceptable standard of living. He states that access to college is particularly important to the 80% of the work force who are hourly wage earners. This group is increasingly unable to afford a decent standard of living, and they believe that the cost of the higher education needed to recapture their standard of living is rising at a rate, which will soon place it out of their reach. In response, many states are considering legislation designed to increase quality while holding down costs. This legislation includes bills to investigate faculty workloads, mandate teaching loads, link tenure to institutional mission and salary increases to workload, and require institutional reports on everything from student performance to percentage of classes taught by TA's, and adjunct and part time faculty.(6) Yet, recent reports indicate that tuition costs are continuing to rise. (7)

Decrease In Funding

The increase in tuition costs is due in part to the decrease in support from states and other sources. Ostling, Marchall and Palca, and Business Week report that the declining tax revenues received during the recent recession forced state governments to cut back on their commitments to higher education.(17) Lively reports that while funding has increased in 1993 and 1994 as the recession eased, it is still not at nor is it expected to return to pre-recession patterns. Some of Lively's sources expressed concern about funding for higher education just keeping abreast of inflation. (13)

Ostling and more recently Gose report that the cost/expense problem is exacerbated by the declining pool of 18 year olds which has forced schools into a pricey competition for students.(10) Killingsworth found that while there will be fluctuations in this pool with a significant peak occurring between2005 and 2015,currentbirthrates will result in the overall trend of this pool to continue downward throughout the next century.(12)

Ostling, Marchall and Joseph, and Business Week report that the cost/expense problem has also been affected by the recession caused decrease in public and private funds available for research. While the research funding crunch has eased somewhat in 1993 and 1994, Goodwin reports that continuing funding limitations are creating particular problems under the existing reward system. An increasing number of professors and graduate students are competing for these limited funds to finance the research that is necessary for their survival.(9) Zook, Burd and Cordes recently quoted a number of sources who are concerned that the recent gains will be lost due to cuts proposed by the new Republican House leadership.(24)

Further problems have been caused, particularly for private universities, by changes in government funding policies. Marchall and Joseph illustrate this by reporting the problems experienced by universities such as Johns-Hopkins. In the past the government did not fund the construction of research facilities directly. Rather, it allowed a liberal subsidy in research contracts for depreciation and debt. Universities like Hopkins took advantage of this policy through large bond issues to fund construction of new research facilities. The changes in reimbursement policies greatly decrease the amount of money that will be allowed to service the debt on the facilities. Universities like Hopkins are now having difficulty meeting their bond commitments. Zook, Burd and Cordes report that many fear that this problem will become even worse because of even more stringent reimbursement policies proposed by the new Republican House leadership.

John Lombardi, president of the University of Florida, sees a bright future, however, for research in state supported institutions. The research facilities at state institutions are funded in large measure by state appropriations. Not having to pay debt service will allow the state institutions to charge a lower overhead rate than private institutions and thus be more competitive in securing research grants.(14) Lombardi should realize, however, that while flagship universities in states with the funds and the willingness to build these facilities will be able to successfully compete, other state institutions which do not enjoy such support will not. Further, if the tide of public opinion and legislative action holds, even the flagship universities will have to place more emphasis on education.

Current Discussion

A comprehensive summary of the current discussion on redefining the mission of higher education can be found in Scholarship Reconsidered by Ernest L. Boyer. In his report Boyer states that the definition of scholarship and, consequently, the mission of higher education has effectively become too narrow by placing too much emphasis on research. Boyer states that higher education has four components. These are: (1) discovery - creating new knowledge, (2) integration - synthesizing and interpreting knowledge, (3) application - applying and disseminating knowledge, and (4) teaching - educating and enticing future scholars. He argues that all four of these activities are legitimate forms of scholarship, that each is needed to fill the needs of our society, and that each should be recognized and rewarded. He further suggests that rather than requiring each faculty to contribute in each of these areas, each faculty should be rewarded for contributing to one or more of these areas according to their abilities and interests. He also recommends that the fact that faculty go through career cycles be recognized and that performance expectations be adjusted to reflect these cycles. While Boyer agrees that all faculty must have demonstrated the ability to do research if only by means of a dissertation, he reasons that it is not necessary for each faculty to do research as the focus of their career. Also, he recommends that rather than each institu­tion being patterned on the activities, structure and reward system of some model institution, that each institution determine its own distinctive mission and pattern its activi­ties, structure and reward system accordingly.(3)

Edgerton builds on Boyer in the areas of application and teaching. He calls for a broader definition of scholarship to encourage and reward application research and teaching. He recommends that more effective teaching techniques be used and there be a shift in emphasis from teaching about things to teaching how to do things and how to integrate and apply knowledge. He suggests that the reward system be changed not only at the institutional level to encourage teaching, but at the state level as well. Edgerton suggests that rather than funding by numbers of students enrolled, that states fund by numbers of students graduated with demonstrated competencies. He also suggests that rather than funding graduate and upper level classes, those easier to teach, at a higher rate, fund the lower level classes, those more difficult and time consuming to teach, at the higher rate. In support of emphasizing the teaching function Edgerton suggests a continuous evaluation be performed throughout the faculty career cycle. He also suggests that better evidence be required to justify recommendations and decisions about faculty performance, particularly in teach­ing. To provide better evidence he recommends peer review in teaching, and teaching portfolios as possibilities. To demonstrate the beginning of the adoption of these concepts, Edgerton reports that presidents and chancellors are launch­ing committees to investigate these as well as related topics and that scholarly societies are beginning to address these issues by redefining the expectations and rewards standards for their members. (5)

Guskin approaches the question of teaching from a different point of view. He is concerned about maintaining enroll­ment at levels that will allow the survival of the institutions. He states that adjusting the balance between time spent in research and service as opposed to teaching will not have a significant effect on the cost of education. Not stated but the logical conclusion of his argument is that more students will have to be pushed through to lower the unit cost to acceptable levels. Guskin does deal with the problem of quality stating that electronic means will have to be used in the areas where it is effective, in presenting knowledge and teaching some basic skills. The professor's role becomes one of guiding this process, spending intensive personal time in coaching, and helping students to integrate and apply the newly acquired knowledge and skills. (11)

Terenzini and Pasccarella concentrate on the quality prob­lem.. They report that the commonly used lecture/discus­sion format is not the most effective teaching methodology. They, like Guskin, suggest restructuring curricula to in­clude more effective teaching methods such as the Person­alized System of Instruction, more faculty contact with students outside the classroom on an informal basis in mentoring/coaching roles and helping students to integrate and apply course materials, and integrating the total campus experience into the learning program.

Wergin provides further discussion on changes to the existing reward system. He suggests that in order to change from the existing emphasis on research the focus of the reward system will have to shift from individual faculty members to programs/departments. He states that the work of the professor is too pomplex, the external pressures too great, and the resources too scarce to support the existing "Lone Ranger does all" expectation. Wergin recommends that programs/departments be viewed as self-directed col­lectives, working collectively toward goals derived from a well-articulated institutional mission. The collective is responsible for and is evaluated on its performance in achieving the institutional mission. Each faculty member contributes to the collective performance according to his/ her abilities and interests.(23) It becomes the responsibility of the chairman/head to coordinate the efforts of the faculty to fulfill the mission of the group. Economic theory tells us that this kind of specialization can result higher productivity in all the activities of the group.(22)

Edgerton offers an alternative that could be used within the existing publish/national recognition reward system. He suggests that teaching techniques be "written up" detailing the desired goals, the methods used in the attempt to reach those goals and the results of the "experiment," just as is done in reporting a research project. This report is then submitted for referred publication. This meets the "publish" part of the system. He also recommends that professional organizations have teaching awards to provide the means for national recognition of teaching excellence. This meets the national recognition part of the system.(4)

Blumenstyk reports on one college that has successfully defined its unique mission. Muhlenberg College determined that its primary mission is undergraduate education. To reinforce this image of student focus, it has spruced up facilities and dormitories for students, provided extra help in helping students plan their careers, and implemented a merit-pay system for professors who demonstrate extraordinary concern for and commitment to students.(2)

Another side of mission definition is the downsizing or eliminating the programs that do not effectively contribute to the mission or overall quality of the institution. Ostling, Marchall and Palca, Business Week, and Nicklin report instances and procedures institutions are using in this process.(16) Mangan reports that other universities have met this challenge through mergers. (15)

New Paradigm

The new higher education paradigm will include two significant changes in focus. These are a change in research emphasis and an increasing emphasis on outreach.

Changes in Research

A primary role of the University is to educate the next generation of scholars and to prepare its students for success in life. Research initiatives are inherently linked to, and influence, the primary mission of individual universities.

The way in which the University interacts with society is undergoing fundamental change. The most obvious are research funding and funding sources. Whereas universities have relied on public and quasi public sources for extramural research funding, and in some cases have allowed those endeavors to influence curricula, the builddown in those sectors is demanding that universities refocus.

The private sector (industry and commerce) are no longer viewed as only philanthropic in their relationship with the universities. As corporate buyers of research and development move further toward outsourcing, the opportunities for applied research and technology transfer will increase in importance within the university. Industry must have confidence in the contribution of, and must be able to rely on the contribution, of scholarly inquiry. An increasing and significant segment of the university's extramural funded activity in the future will be through partnerships with industry.

Historically and currently, universities have not communicated with industry and may not be comfortable approaching research and development in the context private sector agreements. Private research contracts differ significantly from publicly sponsored research grants and the publication of research results may not always be appropriate/desired/ acceptable; private funding for research efforts will not be available to institutions that can not meet the industry terms for investment contracts. Universities must recognize these consequences when undertaking a shift toward increasing development of private support for research; a baseline issue for universities will be the identification and measurement of commercially based research efforts.

It is construction education's alliance with industry and its positioning in this regard that results in a timely opportunity for this discipline to make great strides within institutions. Construction academic units and faculty are in a position to both take advantage of and to lead the shifting of the research paradigm.

Outreach

Education, research, and outreach must look forward ten (plus) years to assess the potential demands in/of society and industry and undertake a meaningful attempt to address those issues in current education, research, and outreach efforts. Technological advances coupled with faculty interest in same provide a unique and appropriate opportunity for construction scholarship. Education can and does lead the industry in the areas of computing, communication, and information technology and their applications. It is beneficial to sustain and invest in this strength to the benefit of the construction industry and. our students.

The dissemination, including continuing professional education, of applied research, development, and technology transfer can advance construction practices and contribute to the body of knowledge in both the construction industry and in construction education. It is beneficial for construction education to implement and sustain an outreach effort that is and will be responsive to the needs of the construction industry at-large.

A Role For ASC

ASC is construction education's opportunity to bring national recognition to the attributes and benefits of construction in the academic arena. The responsibility to develop and support appropriate positions for construction education is both large and important. The contribute a national perspective to current issues, including changes in the universities, is of benefit to the membership.

The university's expectation for excellence in construction education, during and through the paradigm shift will parallel other disciplines unless and until a comprehensive position of uniqueness is established and advocated. There is need for an appropriate assessment of excellence and scholarship in construction education. ASC can assume the responsibility to lead and advance construction scholarship on a national and international basis to the benefit construction education and educators.

The impact of the paradigm shift on construction education can be enhanced through reliance on a more broad and appropriate vocabulary for performance and measurement of scholarship. ASC can undertake a warranted and professional study and review of the terms of reference to establish a discipline specific charter for scholarly inquiry. One concept would be to develop a comprehensive mechanism, including, focus groups, commissioned studies and external panels, to establish an unbiased, national reference for construction scholarship, scholarly inquiry in construction, and construction outreach.

It is appropriate for ASC to debate and define research, outreach, scholarship, and other terms, matters, issues, and opportunities.

Scholarship Defined

Publication, while evidence of scholarship, is not scholarship defined. Accepting publication as the sole evidence of scholarly inquiry/research to the exclusion of other demonstration is very narrow and limiting. It is imperative that ASC revisit its definition of Research; that "acceptable construction research must result in accessible publications...", while consistent with the current requirements at some institutions, is exclusive and does not encourage broad range scholarly inquiry.

At a juncture, where taking advantage of construction education's broad agenda is exemplary in the academe, it is imprudent to implement artificial, very narrow constructs. The potential for commercial research contracts begs for a broad and somewhat flexible terminology and expectations Applied research begs for different, effective, and timely dissemination to benefit the (industry based) research user/ buyer. If applications of applied research and technology transfer are to enhance performance within industry, the cycle time for dissemination through scholarly journals can actually diminish the value of the scholarly effort.

The dissemination will obviously include publication. Publication in unread academic journals (refereed or not) serves little benefit for, and recognition of, scholarship in construction and therefore can not be the sole measurement criteria; the value of publication in research journals should be measured by the readership. It will be worthwhile for the leadership of ASC to communicate with the top officials in the universities undertaking construction education to assure acceptance and implementation on a local basis.

To strip the construction discipline of its practicality, and to shift toward the antiquated academic models is counter productive. It is time for construction education to be all that it has become, not to become what is eroding. A metric of the success of research initiatives is/should be competition for the graduates.

Construction as Exemplary in Education

Construction education and scholarship are unique and need to be recognized as such within the university to assure that opportunities are understood and needs can be met. With very few exceptions, construction education programs are relatively young entities competing within universities among more traditional and well established disciplines. Construction education pedagogy, curriculum and courses, faculty, and the profession that we support are atypical in the University experience. Construction education endeavors to (1) provide scholarly service to a large and dynamic sector of the US and (2) to produce a new professional, the constructor, who is yet to receive widespread acknowledgment within the university setting.

Construction is an applied science; both construction education and construction scholarship are multi-disciplinary. The construction education model, even excluding the construction basis, is a most appropriate educational experience and foundation for graduates of higher education for the 21st Century.

Examination of the potential of the construction graduates indicate that the graduates have: (1) had a core/generay liberal arts education including communication skills, (2) demonstrated the ability to learn complex technical information,(3) developed a foundation in business and management principles, (4) developed problem solving and decision making skills, and (5) developed an understanding of forecasting approaches (through classes in Estimating, Planning and Scheduling, and Project Management).

ASC should articulate and communicate the merits and attributes of construction education to institutions hosting construction education programs.

Scholarship Potential

As universities move to more applied areas of study and interdisciplinary programs, the need for and benefit of professional expertise, for generalists rather than special­ists, may shift. Issues of aptitude and ability for scholarly activity and terms for reference for construction scholarship are the issues to be address. The issue of the doctoral degree 5. as a requisite for scholarship in construction has long been debated by construction education programs within their 6. Universities and within the ASC.

Many construction education programs maintain the Master's as the terminal degree which suggests that professional construction industry based expertise to as valuable and valid as the PhD experience in preparing construction scholars. Several programs require the doctoral for faculty appointments. All educators value education as professional development; perhaps the larger question is that of the potential for scholarly contribution as a function of the terminal degree.

While the PhD is not necessarily a requisite for preparation as a successful experience as a construction scholar, neither is a career in construction necessarily a foundation for effective scholarship. In a position that argues for the validity for professional expertise in lieu of the doctoral degree, the level and magnitude of that professional experience is a critical factor. ASC can provide reference in this regard.

Conclusion

With changes in universities, a variety of opportunities emerge. The values that have been the foundation through the evolution of construction education are the values which universities have begun to embrace. The value that construction educators have placed on both involvement with industry and recognition of industry based expertise is consistent with the current and future direction of the university.

As the focus and needs of the University shift toward reliance on relationships with the private sector and toward applied research, construction education is in position to take advantage of its long-standing strengths, to create and take advantage of opportunities, and to advance within the academe.

References

1.         American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education. The Johnson Foundation, 1993.

2          Blumenstyk, Goldie. "Muhlenberg College Finds its Personality", The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 26, 1994, Vol LXI, No 9, pp A30-32

3.         Boyer Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered, The Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching Princeton 1990

4          Edgerton, Russell. "A National Market For Excellence in Teaching", Change, September/October, 1994, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp 4-5.

5.         Edgerton, Russell. "The Re-examination of Faculty Priorities", Change, July/August 1993, Vol 25, No. 4, pp 10-25.

6.         Edgerton, Russell. "The Tasks Faculty Perform", Change, Vol. 25, No. 4; July/August 1993, pp 4-6.

7.         Evangelauf, Jean. "Tuition Rises Again", The Chronicle of          Higher Education, Vol. XLI, No. 6; October 5,1994, p a41.

8.         GoodvAn,Irwin.'VounfingWhatCounts: 1995 Budget Skimps Science, Boots Technology," Physics Today, Vol. 47, No. 4, April 1994, pp 49-55.

9.         Goodwin, Irwin. "White House Forum On Science Produces Only A reassuring Hug", Physics Today, Vol 47, No. 3, March 1994, pp 41-42.

10.       Gose, Ben. "Boom Time for Colleges in Southeast", The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2,1994, Vol XLI, No 10 p A22-23.

11.       Guskin, Alan E. "Restructuring the Pole of Faculty", Change, September/October 1994, Vol 26, No 5, pp16-25.

12.       Killingsworth, Roger. "The Effects of Population Trends on Construction and Construction Education. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference ofthe Associated Schools of Construction, April 1990, Clemson, South Carolina, pp 27-33.

13.       Lively, Kit. "$42.8 Billion for Public Colleges, The Chronicle of HigherEducation, October 19,1994, Vol. XLI,No. 8, ppA43 -A46.

14.       Marchall, Elliot and Joseph Palca. "Cracks in the Ivory Tower", Science, Vol. 257, No. 4074; August 1992, pp 1196-1201.

15.       Mangan, Katerine S. "Hahnemann U. Angers Faculty With Threat to Fire Those Who Don't Attract Grnat Money", The Chronicle OfHigher Education , October 5,1994 Vol. XLI, No. 6, p A20.

16.       Niclin, Julie L. "Northeastern U. Cuts Itself Down to Size", The Chronicle of Higher Education, October26,1994, Vol LXI, No 9, p A30-31.

17.       Ostling, Richard N. "Big Chill on Campus", Time, February 3, 1992, pp 61-3.

18.        Rubin Debra K. and David B. Rosenbaum. "For construction educators, the future is now", ENR, November 11,1991,Vo1. 227, No. 19, pp 26-34.

19.       Terenzini, Patrick T. and Ernest T. Pascarella. "Living With Myths: Undergraduate Education in America", Change, January/February 1994, Volume 26, No. 1, pp28-32.

20.       "Time to Prune the Ivy", Business Week, May 24, 1993, pp112-113.

21.       Taubes, Gary. "Young Physicists Hear Wall Street Calling," Science, Vol 264, April 1994, p 22.

22.       Thompson, Henry. International Economics: Amicroeconomic Approach, Longman, New York, 1993.

23.       Wergin, Jon. "Departmental Awards", Change, July/August 1993, Vol 25, No 4, p 24.

24.        Zook, Jim, Stephen Burd and Colleen Cordes. "Colleges and the GOP Sweep", The Chronical of Higher Education, November 16, 1994, Vol. XLI, No. 12, pp A31, 38.

Go to the  Home page for:

Associated Schools of Construction Proceedings of the Annual Conference.  Copyright 2003
For problems or questions regarding this web contact Tulio Sulbaran, Proceedings Editor/Publisher.
Last updated: September 09, 2004.