Plans for this ‘PBL reform’ have been talked about around the faculty for a number of years. The board wants to “future proof” the programmes: less dependent on the number of enrolled students, and with a reduced work pressure and enhanced ‘work pleasure’ for staff members (and students). In essence, it means that staff should spend fewer hours teaching, with measures being considered including merging some courses, bigger tutorial groups, shared skills courses for bachelor programmes and more self-directed learning for students.
Given the threat of government cuts, the board now also views the plans as a way to partially cover looming deficits – if nothing changes, by 2029, the decreased funding from the government is expected to lead to an annual deficit of over a million euros. The board estimates a maximum of 6,000 teaching hours could be saved across the three bachelor programmes by merging courses only, which would save the faculty almost half a million euros a year.
Bigger groups
A pilot has been prepared for each programme for the coming academic year. Tutorial groups for some courses in Digital Society will be increased from a maximum of fifteen students to a maximum of thirty. Arts and Culture will be experimenting with a (partial) merger of a ‘substantive’ course with a ‘skills/methods’ course in the same period, with one joint exam and the same tutors serving both courses. In European Studies, a maximum of forty students will be allowed to take part in a group research project which will replace the thesis and a number of courses in the 4th period.
Not everyone is convinced yet, the most recent faculty council meeting showed. Council members have received many questions from concerned colleagues. Council chair Tullio Viola said that while everyone understands that this is necessary to reduce the costs, “How do we know for sure that this will lead to fewer teaching hours, and not actually increase the workload? And are there no other ways to cut costs?” Other concerns: have the potential negative consequences been sufficiently considered? How do you ensure everybody’s view is taken into consideration? Students would welcome the chance to contribute to the reforms more, said student member Lena Brenken. “We don’t see how some of the proposals are beneficial. Tutorial group meetings sometimes already feel like mini-lectures. What will that be like when there are thirty students?”
Nothing set in stone
Associate dean of education Patrick Bijsmans assured the council that many of these concerns had already been discussed with students and staff over the past few years. “We are aware of this. Small-scale teaching remains our base. Larger tutorial groups will be the exception rather than the rule. And the result of a pilot could also be that we choose not to use larger groups at all.” Nothing is set in stone yet, said Bijsmans. “For now, everything is being discussed very broadly, we will start working out details over the coming period.” Discussions for which will take place during amongst others a number of workshops, the first of which was held this week, allowing all members of staff to have their say and suggest new ideas. “We have that space.”
The faculty is also considering other ways to save money, added director Constance Sommerey. “But the majority of our costs simply are staff costs.” In other words, something has to be done there. “We do currently have the luxury of foresight when it comes to a deficit, giving us time to work out adjustments.” Furthermore, said Bijsmans, “if we don’t reform PBL, then we also don’t reduce the work pressure. That has to go down, as that was the original intention behind these plans, so you would then still have to find a different solution there.” Sommerey: “We have to give this a serious try.”