A fundamental question

Edu­ca­tio­nal reforms often begin with a revi­si­on of the cur­ri­cu­lum. This is under­stan­da­ble. The cur­ri­cu­lum defi­nes the com­pe­ten­ci­es stu­dents are expec­ted to acqui­re. What is less obvious, howe­ver, is how this lear­ning actual­ly leads to gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es and gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty.

Tech­no­lo­gi­cal chan­ge, arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence, and evol­ving skill sets are lea­ding to the revi­si­on of cur­ri­cu­la, the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of lear­ning out­co­mes, and the adapt­a­ti­on of assess­ment methods world­wi­de.

The­se deve­lo­p­ments are essen­ti­al. Howe­ver, they account for only part of the qua­li­ty of edu­ca­ti­on.

A cur­ri­cu­lum descri­bes what stu­dents are expec­ted to learn. Howe­ver, it does not explain why insti­tu­ti­ons with com­pa­ra­ble cur­ri­cu­la some­ti­mes achie­ve very dif­fe­rent out­co­mes in terms of gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es and gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty.

So the real ques­ti­on is:

Under what insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons do gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es and gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty emer­ge?

For years, inter­na­tio­nal edu­ca­tio­nal rese­arch has been exami­ning why com­pa­ra­ble reforms lead to dif­fe­rent out­co­mes at dif­fe­rent insti­tu­ti­ons. In this con­text, atten­ti­on is incre­asing­ly tur­ning to the insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons neces­sa­ry for suc­cessful edu­ca­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ment.

From Curriculum to Institution

In its poli­cy paper *Eco­sys­tems Approach to Cur­ri­cu­lum Chan­ge* (2026) , the OECD points out that the suc­cess of cur­ri­cu­lum reforms depends lar­ge­ly on the insti­tu­tio­nal envi­ron­ment in which cur­ri­cu­la are deve­lo­ped, imple­men­ted, and con­ti­nuous­ly refi­ned. (OECD, 2026)

Micha­el Ful­lan ’s work also shows that sus­tainable edu­ca­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ment can be unders­tood as a coher­ent pro­cess of insti­tu­tio­nal chan­ge in which the impact ari­ses not from indi­vi­du­al reform ele­ments, but from their coor­di­na­ted inter­ac­tion (Ful­lan, 2007; Ful­lan, 2011; Ful­lan & Quinn, 2016).

This broa­dens the scope of the ques­ti­on posed abo­ve, becau­se it is not only the qua­li­ty of a cur­ri­cu­lum that mat­ters. Equal­ly rele­vant are the insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons under which a cur­ri­cu­lum can effec­tively achie­ve its inten­ded impact.

The Importance of Institutional Relationships

Com­plex insti­tu­ti­ons can only be unders­tood to a limi­t­ed ext­ent by ana­ly­zing their indi­vi­du­al com­pon­ents. Their effec­ti­ve­ness stems from the inter­ac­tion of their ele­ments.

This insight is reflec­ted in num­e­rous aca­de­mic disci­pli­nes. It is also beco­ming incre­asing­ly important for the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on.

The Bhar­ti­ya Skill Deve­lo­p­ment Uni­ver­si­ty (BSDU) fol­lows this deve­lo­p­men­tal approach and is gra­du­al­ly refi­ning it within the Indi­an hig­her edu­ca­ti­on con­text. The focus is on cur­ri­cu­la, assess­ment, gover­nan­ce, pedago­gy, embedded work­place lear­ning, facul­ty deve­lo­p­ment, qua­li­ty assu­rance, and col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with indus­try. Tog­e­ther, the­se ele­ments form the insti­tu­tio­nal frame­work of Indus­try-Inte­gra­ted Prac­ti­ce-Based Hig­her Edu­ca­ti­on.

Each of the­se ele­ments ser­ves a distinct func­tion. Howe­ver, their las­ting impact is rea­li­zed only when the rela­ti­onships bet­ween the ele­ments are con­scious­ly shaped.

Against this back­drop, a fur­ther rese­arch ques­ti­on ari­ses:

Which insti­tu­tio­nal rela­ti­onships among the ele­ments of an indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on sys­tem lay the ground­work for gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es, gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty, and sus­tainable edu­ca­tio­nal qua­li­ty?

Educational Architecture

In this artic­le, the term “edu­ca­tio­nal archi­tec­tu­re” is used to descri­be this insti­tu­tio­nal inter­play. It refers to the rela­ti­onships bet­ween the cen­tral ele­ments of indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on.

Only the coor­di­na­ted inter­ac­tion of the­se ele­ments crea­tes the insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons neces­sa­ry for gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es, gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty, and sus­tainable edu­ca­tio­nal qua­li­ty.

Edu­ca­tio­nal Archi­tec­tu­re is neither an addi­tio­nal edu­ca­tio­nal tool nor a tea­ching method. It pro­vi­des the insti­tu­tio­nal frame­work within which cur­ri­cu­la, embedded work­place lear­ning, gover­nan­ce, assess­ment, and the other ele­ments of indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on can coll­ec­tively achie­ve their inten­ded impact.

An Institutional Perspective

The inter­na­tio­nal reco­gni­ti­on of Switzerland’s dual edu­ca­ti­on sys­tem is often attri­bu­ted to spe­ci­fic mea­su­res. Howe­ver, when one exami­nes its insti­tu­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ment over a lon­ger peri­od of time, a dif­fe­rent pic­tu­re emer­ges.

Its par­ti­cu­lar strength lies not so much in indi­vi­du­al cur­ri­cu­la or pedago­gi­cal approa­ches, but rather in the insti­tu­tio­nal cohe­rence with which edu­ca­tio­nal insti­tu­ti­ons, the busi­ness sec­tor, gover­nan­ce, qua­li­ty assu­rance, and work-inte­gra­ted lear­ning have been lin­ked over the deca­des.

This per­spec­ti­ve, in par­ti­cu­lar, seems rele­vant for insti­tu­ti­ons that are deve­lo­ping indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on.

The focus here is not on trans­fer­ring an exis­ting sys­tem. Rather, it is about trans­fer­ring insti­tu­tio­nal prin­ci­ples to a new hig­her-edu­ca­ti­on con­text and inte­gra­ting them the­re into an inde­pen­dent edu­ca­tio­nal archi­tec­tu­re.

Conclusion

The revi­si­on of cur­ri­cu­la remains an indis­pensable pre­re­qui­si­te for the qua­li­ty of indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on. Howe­ver, inter­na­tio­nal edu­ca­tio­nal rese­arch makes it clear that its impact can­not be view­ed in iso­la­ti­on. The insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons under which cur­ri­cu­la are deve­lo­ped, imple­men­ted, and inte­gra­ted with the other ele­ments of an edu­ca­tio­nal insti­tu­ti­on are cru­cial.

This is exact­ly whe­re Edu­ca­tio­nal Archi­tec­tu­re comes in. It descri­bes the insti­tu­tio­nal frame­work within which the­se rela­ti­onships can be deli­bera­te­ly shaped.

Further Research Question

Against this back­drop, a fur­ther rese­arch ques­ti­on ari­ses:

What insti­tu­tio­nal con­di­ti­ons lay the ground­work for indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on to fos­ter gra­dua­te com­pe­ten­ci­es, gra­dua­te employa­bi­li­ty, and sus­tainable edu­ca­tio­nal qua­li­ty?


Do you have any ques­ti­ons about the pro­ject?

Send an e‑mail to: contact@joshi-foundation.ch

We will be hap­py to ans­wer your ques­ti­on.


Rajen­dra and Ursu­la Joshi Foun­da­ti­on / Dua­lEdu Bridge India

Rolf Sie­bold

Other artic­les docu­ment the deve­lo­p­ment of Dua­lEdu Bridge India, as well as the estab­lish­ment of indus­try-inte­gra­ted, prac­ti­ce-based hig­her edu­ca­ti­on in the Indi­an hig­her edu­ca­ti­on con­text. You can also find us on Lin­ke­dIn.