2016-09-23 Teaching-trick Edstrom - PBLMD · 2016. 10. 21. · (HE teacher training) Curriculum development (programs, courses, module) Student development Learning outcomes Learning

TOC

Enhancing Engineering Education – Introductory workshop.

The Teaching Trick – how to improve student learning without spending more time teaching. Kristina

Edström

The CDIO approach for engineering education development. Kristina Edström

Integrated Learning in a Project Course. Jakob Kuttenkeuler, Naval Architecture; Stefan Hallström,

Lightweight Structures. Kristina Edström

Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL)/E-learning. Johan Fridell E-learning Development Manager

Business Solution Owner (BSO) e-learning

Program Development and Management. Hans Havtun, Program Director Energy and Environment

Enhancing Engineering Education September 26th – 30th KTH, Stockholm

Monday 26 September 09.15 – 12.00

Introductions AKH, MB

13.15 – 16.00

CDIO – the Idea, Methodology and Community KE

Tuesday 27 September 09.15 – 12.30

How to improve learning in student engineering projects JK, KE 13.30 – 16.00

Continuation from the morning session: Visit to student labs, Q& A session, and group exercise.

JK, KE

Wednesday 28 September 09.15 – 12.00

The Teaching Trick – How to improve student learning without spending more time teaching

KE

13.15 – 16.00

How to improve student learning in lectures – Peer instruction

FL

Thursday 29 September 09.15 – 12.00

Room for learning – visiting the KTH learning environment Starting point: D31

MB

14.00 – 16.00

Visiting a program. Meeting point: Brinellv.66 AKH, HH

Friday 30 September 09.15 – 12.00

Course evaluation for development

DB

13.15 – 16.00

Results, reflections and next steps

AKH

• Director of Faculty development in Teaching and Learning, KTH/ ECE

• Co-author to Guide to Challenge Driven Education

• Coordinator for Program Director’s Network at KTH

• Currently running Engineering enhancement and development projects in Nordic countries, Brazil and Tanzania

Anna-Karin Högfeldt, [email protected]

Summary of this introduction workshop

HIGHER EDUCATION IN SWEDEN AND AT KTH HOW DO WE ENHANCE ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

• Sweden's oldest and largest University of technology (1827)

• More than 11,000 full-time students

• More than 1,800 PhD Students

• Over 4,800 employees • Students and personnel

from more than 100 countries

KTH – Sweden's leading University of technology

WWW.KTH.SE

Study programmes

• Technical preparatory programme (1/2 or 1 year)

• 8 Bachelor of Science in Engineering programmes (3 years)

• Master of Architecture (5 years)

• 15 Master of Science in Engineering programmes (5 years), in general composed of a Bachelor’s programme in Swedish (3 years) and Master’s programme in English (2 years)

• Programmes for a Degree in Engineering and Education

Percentage of women in different engineering programmes at KTH 1986‐2006

7

Programmes started 1990 or later ’

http://www.nada.kth.se/utbildning/grukth/exjobb/rapportlistor/2006/rapporter06/palm_therese_06068.pdf

• Granting university status • Enacting legislation

regulating the higher education sector

• Funding higher education courses and study programmes

• Funding a high proportion of research

• Appointing vice-chancellors of higher education institutions

• Regulating the agencies involved in the higher education sector

Swedish Government

All information and more can be found at www.ukambetet.se

http://www.ukambetet.se/

Higher Education Institutions

• There are 48 institutions offering higher education in various forms in Sweden

• The majority of universities and university colleges are public authorities, subject to the same legislation and regulations as other public authorities in Sweden, as well as the particular statutes, ordinances and regulations relevant to the higher education sector.

• A small number of universities and university colleges are self-governing and independent.

Freedom

HEIs enjoy a great deal of freedom within the framework of the statutes, ordinances and regulations laid down by the Government. HEIs can make decisions about the following: • Organization of the HEI into units and decision-making

bodies • Allocation of government funding within the organisation • Quality assurance procedures • Content and design of courses and study programmes • Number of available places on courses and study

programmes • Admission and enrolment procedures • New professorships • Research focus • Contract education

Structure of Swedish higher education qualifications

Independent project equivalent to 15 credits

An independent project equivalent to 30 credits, or two 15-credit projects

Qualification descriptors

All course and programme specifications must state the intended learning outcomes in terms of mastery of intellectual skills, mastery of knowledge and conceptual understanding, and must give details about teaching and learning strategies and methods of assessment.

Funding of Higher Education

Detailed information can be found at: http://ukambetet.se/highereducationsystem/funding.4.4149f55713bbd917563800011054.html The following slides are directly taken from this site

http://ukambetet.se/highereducationsystem/funding.4.4149f55713bbd917563800011054.html

Numbers are based on year 2013

HEI total revenue (public purse)

1st & 2nd Cycle 3rd cycle and research

62.8 billion SEK (85%)

44% 56%

A bit less than 2% of Sweden’s GDP

The amount of funding is based on the number of full-time equivalent students and the annual performance equivalent. The amount of funding varies depending on the disciplinary domain. There is also a funding cap.

Increasingly financed from indirect government funding and external sources, including the government research funding body, foundations, local government, county councils and the private sector.

HEI = Higher Education Institutions

Funding for first and second-cycle courses and programmes and for research and third-cycle courses and programmes 2004 and 2013, SEK billions in 2013 prices.

HEIs´ revenues for first and secondcycle courses and programmes and for research and third-cycle courses and programmes 2003–2013, SEK billions in 2013 prices

Number of students registered in first and second-cycle courses and programmes each autumn semester 1977–2013

Student finance

• Tuition at higher education institutions in Sweden is free-of-charge for Swedish students and for students from the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland.

• Everyone below the age of fifty-four has the right to apply for student finance for a maximum of 240 weeks.

• Student finance is intended to cover living expenses and the cost of study material.

• Student finance comprises a grant and a loan. • The student loan must be repaid on a monthly basis before

the loan recipient reaches the age of sixty. • The size of the monthly payment is determined by the size of

the debt and the interest rate. The amount is also adjusted to the recipient's income and ability to pay.

Quality enhancement and development of Swedish Higher Education

Anna-Karin Högfeldt Director of Faculty Development at KTH

”Creating relationships and building teams, making decisions based on so much input you can get and telling them right, talking to authorities and media … well, caring about the whole situation”

A stakeholder on the expectations of an engineer

“The schools view teaching as transfer of information; learning as receiving, storing and digesting information. ‘Knowing that’ tends to take priority over ‘knowing how’; and know-how, when it does make its appearance, takes the form of science-based technique.”

Schön, Donald A. "Educating the reflective practitioner." San Francisco (1987). P.309. See also for instance: Benner et al 2010; Sullivan 2005; Baker 2009; Bennett et al 2000; Atkins 1999; Crawley et al 2007

– not well prepared enough for the ”swamp” of complexities in real-life

Hanning et al (2012) IJSHE; 13:3, 305-20

”This study indicates that Swedish industry needs a higher level and a broader range of competences related to Sustainable development amongst all engineers than university is currently providing.

- not only environmental issues, - but additionally, sustainable business development,

societal aspects and communication

Traditional education has not provided the training for graduates to work towards developing solutions to the new and complex world problems emerging.

These problems are multi-dimensional and cannot be addressed by a specific application of conventional scientific, economic or social theory.

US National Academy of Engineering, 2008

Make solar energy

economical

Prevent nuclear terror

Manage the nitrogen cycle

Provide energy from fusion

Restore and improve the urban

infrastructure

Develop carbon sequestration

methods

Secure cyberspace

Provide access to clean water

Reverse engineer the brain

Engineering better medicines

Advance health informatics

Engineer the tools of scientific

discovery

Enhance virtual reality

Advance personal learning

Sustaining life on earth

Living secure from threats

Promoting healthy living

Living and learning with joy

Cambridge key themes. Cruickshank & Fenner, IJSHE 2012,

13:3, 249-262

• Dealing with complexity • Dealing with uncertainty • Dealing with change • Dealing with other disciplines • With environmental limiations • People • Whole life costs • Trade-offs

”Evolution of engineering education”

Malmqvist, J., Rådberg, K. K., & Lundqvist, U. (2015). Comparative Analysis of Challenge-Based Learning Experiences. In Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China. Recuperado de: http://rick. sellens. ca/CDIO2015/final/14/14_Paper. pdf.

Traditional Problem-based/CDIO Challenge-based

projects

• Engineering Science

• R&D context • Analyzing • Reductionist • Individual • Objective

• Engineering • Product

context • Designing • Integrative • Team • Customer

needs

• Engineering & business

• Societal context • Problem

formulating & Designing

• Integrative • Team & Individual • Value-driven

“A challenge-based learning experience is a learning experience where the learning takes places through the identification, analysis and design of a solution to a sociotechnical problem. The learning experience is typically multidisciplinary, takes place in an international context and aims to find a collaboratively developed solution which is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.”

Suggested definition by Malmqvist et al (2015)

Educational change

Organization / Institutional development

Faculty development

(HE teacher training)

Curriculum development

(programs, courses, module)

Student development

Learning outcomes

Learning activities

Assessment procedures

Problem crafting

Facilitation

Knowledge, skills, values

Physical infrastr

Social infrastr

Organi-zational infr.

Democracy, influence

Values and attitudes

SCL

Strategies for an outcomes based and student centered learning approach to education development

Based on Mona-Lisa Dahms’ work

A. Curricular level

Systematic collaboration among courses/faculty in the whole educational program

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Numerical Methods

Mechanics I

Thermodynamics

Mechanics II Solid Mechanics

Sound and Vibrations

Mathematics II

Fluid mechanics

Product development

Mathematics I

Mathematics III

Control Theory Signal analysis Statistics Electrical Eng.

Intro course Physics

How well students reach the degree outcomes has become more interesting, instead of only looking at how well one isolated course achieves its goals

‘create connections, sequences, timing and logical flow of assessment tasks across the whole program’

Cooperation among teachers, and not only on a departmental level, but across the study program’s different courses, is seen as a key step to make this happen

Collaboration among teachers in program teams

QUALITY OF STUDENT LEARNING

passed exam

failed exam

”got it”

”didn’t under-stand”

—

[Steve Hall, MIT]

What the student

should learn (intended learning

outcomes, ILO)

Assessment of Learning

Learning Activities

Alignment in courses/programs Biggs among many

1. FIRST EXPOSURE first presented with new facts, concepts, vocabulary

2. PROCESS students analyze, solve problems, apply

3. RESPONSE getting feedback from peers, teachers and more

Distributed among available times: • Class time • Students’ study

time • Teacher’s own time

Three stages in learning

Increase class time hours spent on 2 and 3

Quotes from our students on how they spend their time

”...what did it

take, five hours in the group and then two hours on my own.”

”They are quite normal recitations where he solves problems, right? I don’t prepare for that.”

Traditional recitations

Alternative recitations

Systematic integration of engineering competences in the programme (p.28 handbook)

Oral presentation

Report writing

Project management

Teamwork

Development routes (schematic)

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Physics Introductory course

Numerical Methods

Mechanics I

Thermodynamics



Mathematics II

Fluid mechanics

Product development

Mathematics I

Mathematics III


Development levels for challenge based - Complexity of task - Amount of

supervision and teaching

- Team size - Deadlines - Presentation forma

KTH's strategic partners

www.kth.se

The development of Academic’s teaching skills in Higher Education is seen to be crucial in order to meet the demands

B. Faculty / HE Teachers training: The Swedish context. 10 weeks / 15 ECTS

The participant shall demonstrate the ability to - discuss and problematize student learning in the participant’s own subject area, on the basis of research in educational sciences and/or subject didactics of relevance for teaching in HE - independently and jointly with others, plan, implement and evaluate teaching and assessment in higher education with a scientific, scholarly or artistic basis and within their own area of knowledge - make use of, and assist in the development of, physical and digital learning environments to promote learning for groups and for individuals - interact with students in an inclusive manner and demonstrate knowledge of rules and regulations regarding students with disabilities and of available student support - apply relevant national and local rules and regulations, and to discuss society’s objectives for HE and the academic teaching role in terms of the participant’s own practice and students’ active participation in HE - on their professional approach to academic teaching and their relationship with the students, and also towards the fundamental values of higher education, such as democracy, internationalization, gender equality, equal opportunities and sustainability - collect, analyze and communicate their own and others’ experiences of teaching and learning practices, and relevant outcomes of research, as a basis for the development of educational practice and of the academic profession.

KTH ”Teaching and Learning in Higher Education”, LH231V (Faculty Teaching Competence course, 7,5 ECTS)

Learning cycles LC1: Learning & Learning Environments LC2: The Students LC3: The Role of the Teacher LC4: Designing courses to facilitate meaningful learning LC5: Pedagogical and Professional Development

Assessment tasks: Individual portfolio Team based project work (with senior academic teachers as mentors)

C. Organizational and Institutional level

All work needs to be institutionalized in the organizational structure and the way we work • A unit/department for quality enhancement and development of

engineering education • Academic staff /HE engineering education teachers and researchers

that are also instructional developers part of their time • Program directors’ network • Teacher Support Web:

https://intra.kth.se/en/utbildning/lararstod/welcome-to-the-teacher-support-web-1.579802

• Mandatory teachers’ training • ”Open lab” environment • Strategic partners • Internal quality assurance system • External / National quality assurance system



What the student should learn

(intended learning

outcomes, ILO)

Assessment of

Learning

Learning Activities

2016-09-23

1

The Teaching Trick – how to improve student learning

without spending more time teaching

Kristina Edström Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hochschuldidaktik

[email protected] dghd16, Bochum, 23 September 2016

Kristina Edström Engineer & Educational developer §  M. Sc. in Engineering, Chalmers §  Associate Professor in Engineering Education Development at KTH

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden §  700 participants in the 7.5 ECTS course Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education, customized for KTH faculty, 2004-2012 §  Director of Educational Development at Skolkovo Institute of Science

and Technology, Moscow, 2012-2013

Strategic educational development, national and international §  CDIO Initiative for reform of engineering education since 2001 §  SEFI Administrative Council, 2010-2013

Some publications §  Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., and Edström, K. (2014)

Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag §  Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering

education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539-555 §  Edström, K. (2008) Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most, Higher Education

Research & Development, 27:2, 95 – 106

2016-09-23

2

Cost-neutral interventions To persuade the grumpy

professor to listen To support those dedicated

to teaching

Anyone can improve a course (at least some little bit) by working 100 hours more…

Yeah. We don’t have those hours.

And “more of the same” is probably not the most effective strategy either…

2016-09-23

3

Then we need pedagogical know-how!

We want to improve (maximise) student learning

with a given (or reduced) level of teaching resources

η =OutputInput

Pedagogical competence 1.  setting clear objectives

(intended learning outcomes) o  relevant for the study programs o  defining the threshold level of quality o  deeper working understanding

2.  uphold the threshold level of quality o  only pass the students who reach the goals

3.  create a course which generates appropriate learning activity o  so students actually reach the goals o  good throughput - with good quality

2016-09-23

4

What work is appropriate for the students to do, to reach the learning outcomes?

What should the students do to demonstrate that they fulfil the learning outcomes?

What should the students be able to do as a result of the course? Formulating

intended learning

outcomes

Designing activities Designing

assessment

Or in other words…

Constructive alignment

[Biggs]

Pedagogical competence 1.  setting clear objectives

(intended learning outcomes) o  relevant for the study programs o  defining the threshold level of quality o  deeper working understanding

2.  uphold the threshold level of quality o  only pass the students who reach the goals

3.  create a course which generates appropriate learning activity o  so students actually reach the goals o  good throughput - with good quality

4.  and doing this while using teacher time effectively o  generate appropriate study for the students o  spend your time where it has effect on learning o  create a sustainable workload for yourself o  and sustainability for your institution and country

2016-09-23

5

But since we don’t have 100 hours more:

The teaching trick

Do more of that which contributes to learning

Do less of that which does not contribute

Which one is easier and which one is harder?

Pretty easy

Pretty hard

Examples are illustrations of principles

generic principles

will illustrate

to inspire

applications - of many different kinds.

A specific example

2016-09-23

6

Pick one! /* No comments */ . Family dinner . Invest 0,20 € . Seven minutes . Master test . Fireworks . maybe later:

Ultimate frisbee .

/* No comments */

2016-09-23

7

Spend less time on… ”finishing” student work!

The teaching trick: Do less of that which does not contribute

”I got 60 reports. It is a boring task to give feedback and it takes me two weeks. I gave individual comments and asked those who had failed to re-submit.

When the reports came back they were still bad. The students had only corrected the things I specifically commented on. They did not even read the rest!

Next year I did not give individual feedback on failed reports. Instead I made a list with the most common errors. Now the students had to find their own errors. When I got the reports back they were generally very good!”

Professor S told us:

2016-09-23

8

Remember the purpose

§  The purpose is not that this particular report should be good

§  The purpose is that the student should develop the skills to write reports (so that he/she can write 1000 excellent reports later)

when you are assisting students in the computer lab – do not ever touch their keyboard!

Keep your hands on your back… For the same reason:

2016-09-23

9

Every time you tie the shoes for your child, you hinder her own development. Maria Montessori

⏏

Family dinner

2016-09-23

10

Spend less time on… marking coursework!


What Professor K does…

1 2 3 4 5 … Course start

The weekly assignment cycle drives the course

Course end

2016-09-23

11

Week 1: § Course intro

The weekly cycle Feedback session

i.  Students papers are exchanged randomly, and they write feedback with a red pen.

ii.  Students receive & read their feedback immediately. iii.  Advanced and lively discussions!

Afterwards, teacher collects reports (or copies) for grading.

§  Introduce new content

§ Homework

§ Feedback session

Workshop § Students

work on homework

§ Support and discussions if needed

1.  Read theory and implement the method (straight-forward implementation)

2.  Test and verify implementation (normal use and extreme cases)

3.  Investigate creatively (test variants, how would it work if…, play around, think for yourself)

4.  Write short report (2 or 3 pages) (describe methodology, limitations etc and own initiatives)

Here comes the trick: Easy marking J

Grading scale •  Fail = 0p (Seldom happens) •  Pass = 1p (Typical grade) •  Brilliant = 2p (Requires lots of own initiatives) +  With accepted participation in the feed-back loop +1p

At the end of the course, points are converted to final grade (no exam)

+  In some courses there is also an oral exam

Easy to see the difference between 0, 1 or 2 points, in fact it only takes about 1-3 minutes per paper…

2016-09-23

12

The principle is to separate the processes

Feedback for learning •  made into a group

learning activity •  intense involvement •  learn to discuss the

subject •  immediate feedback •  expose variation •  social motivation

Assessment for grading •  by the teacher •  minimalistic •  sufficiently fair

– then both can be made cost-effective

Good for learning!

Continuous studies §  Distributes student effort during the course.

The formative feedback session as a whole (giving feedback, getting feedback and discussions) generates learning: §  Repetition – Variation – Fast feedback. §  Deep & interesting discussions (instead of discussions on definitions). §  Social motivation – expose your understanding to others and see theirs.

Satisfaction: §  Students feel that the teacher really cares about their work. §  Clear, fair and transparent grading system. §  Students feel their progression.

Good for the teacher! §  ≈1-3 minutes per paper. §  Final grading is no extra work J

⏏

2016-09-23

13

Invest 0,20 €

Spend less time on…learning activities that don’t generate appropriate study!


2016-09-23

14

The Iceberg Principle Group work with random presenter Day 1: All students in the group should be ready to present the whole project Last minute: Choose the presenter randomly

Cost: 0,20 €

⏏

Seven minutes

2016-09-23

15

Spend less time on… designing and correcting exams!


Oral exams are really good for learning §  Better test of understanding & can be individually tailored §  Affect student preparation – they know they have to show ”real”

understanding, in real time (create the right expectation)

Some teachers are nervous about… ...inventing the necessary questions §  The trick: Reverse the burden of proof

(”the first 7 minutes are yours, to show me that you have reached the learning outcomes”)

§  Follow-up questions will pop up!

…grading §  Use a simple scale: Fail / 10p / 20p

...having to fail students §  Photograph the written start for documentation §  Ask kindly how they think it went

…the time it takes §  But it is cheaper for a course of up to N students §  What is N for your course? Do the math!

Katrin taking an oral exam

2016-09-23

16

Written- vs oral exam, teacher time Written: Design and construction of exam and solution-sheet takes ≈___ hours. Correcting one exam takes ≈___ minutes Oral: The exam takes ≈__ minutes.

Written (16 hours prep)

10-16 20

30

Moreover: Consider the gain at re-exam!

Written (10 hours prep)

number of students

hours

“We have 400 students in Introductory Physics… but we also have more than 10 professors

who know the subject!”

2016-09-23

17

⏏

Master test

2016-09-23

18

Spend less time (energy) on… listening to students complaints!


Before: There were two individual assignments in the course: •  Homework 1 & 2 The tasks were complex and theoretical… Students complained bitterly and endlessly: •  The assignments come too

EARLY before we know how to do this!

•  They are far too DIFFICULT and take TOO MUCH TIME!

What Professor V did: The assignments were renamed: •  MASTER TEST 1 & 2

(MÄSTARPROV) What happened? •  Complaints just stopped •  Students take the

assignments very seriously – and are very proud!

2016-09-23

19

…other interesting words… Accident investigation Weekly challenge Show Master test Demonstration Gymkhana Show & Tell Fair Keynote TED talk Potluck Conference Deadline Inspection Q&A session

Evaluation Summit Negotiation All hands on deck Campaign Consultancy Pitch Elevator pitch Pecha kucha Speed dating Match Audition Ceremony Installation Inauguration

Time out Grand challenge Dress rehearsal Opening Court hearing Stop-press Workout Personal training Vernissage Hearing Review Test pilot Advisory group Working party

Certificate Jam session Dissection Hackathon Talk show Level up Expert panel Investigation Workshop Emergency room Launch Countdown Pit stop Meeting

⏏

Fireworks

2016-09-23

20

Do less of that which does not contribute (especially if it is expensive)

Spend less time on… writing feedback

The teaching trick:

Tax payer’s money down the drain!

Make the distinction between: §  feedback for learning §  justification of grade

(does not generate learning, minimize cost)

2016-09-23

21

§  The assignment is personal and important (a credo).

§  It would take several days to write good feedback!

§  Instead a final seminar -  Intensive learning activity -  Plenty of peer feedback and some from the teacher -  Minimal summative assessment, sufficiently fair (pass/fail grade)

~ 40 students write an open-ended assignment of 4 pages (e.g. essay, design, reflection…)

§  The teacher skims essays and makes quick decision: -  Accepted to join the seminar -  Pending acceptance, allowed to join but must submit improved version after

the seminar (and they must tell the group and ask for guidance) -  Reject, cannot join and must redo assignment the next time the course is given

§  Divides the students in groups of 4 (Usually one excellent essay, two medium good, and one needing improvement)

§  Sends mail with instructions -  Download your colleagues’ work (from the digital platform). -  Write ½ page constructive comments to each colleague, strong aspects and

how the work can be improved. -  Bring prints of comments to the seminar

(4 for the group + 1 to the teacher).

§  This takes maximum 2 hours…

2016-09-23

22

§  Merges all essays into one big pdf. §  Searches for a strong aspect in each text, making sure to

cover the things that are important in the course. §  Marks the passage with a ”star” in the margin with some

keywords. §  This takes just as long time as a hockey game J

Teacher prepares feedback before the seminar

[Recommending the GoodReader app for annotations]

At the seminar – group feedback §  Discuss each essay with the aim to improve it (4*30 minutes). §  Meanwhile, the teacher reads the written comments (to see that they

were taken seriously + as input) §  Their feedback is quite useful

-  Students are really good at pointing out deficiencies -  Getting three different comments on your essay is great

2016-09-23

23

End with fireworks 1 hour in plenary: §  Display the pdf and discuss each ”Gold Star” full of enthusiasm and

passion (fireworks). Bring it on! §  End by recommending 3 – 4 essays to read before writing version 2.0

(for most students it is voluntary). §  Publish the pdf in the digital platform as an invitation to browse.

⏏

Ultimate frisbee

2016-09-23

24

Dear Professor, I coach the women’s ultimate frisbee teams and based on your workshop I changed our program for the practice weekend.

Normally, since a game only involves 14 players, we would rotate and the others would do some drill on the side.

Now, instead, I had a non-playing team standing on the sidelines and assigned each of them a player. Then I stopped the game periodically and had the sideline players give individual feedback to their assigned player.

It went over remarkably well. A number of the ladies had very positive feedback, and said they had numerous strategy talks that they found incredibly helpful. It was also great for me, since I can’t possibly watch every player all the time. It was incredibly time efficient!

So in conclusion, thanks again for the workshop. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I thought you might like hearing about an application in a completely different “field”!

Best regards, Professor D

⏏

The tricks are not only “alternative” teaching methods because the teacher is modern

After the course you should be able to (for instance) •  evaluate your own work and the work by others… •  critically analyse and give feedback on… •  critically assess alternative solutions… •  orally present and discuss your conclusions and the underpinning

knowledge… •  argue and contribute in discussions about…

Student: Why do I need to read their report? Teacher: Look at the course learning outcomes. This is how you practice to…!

They address competences relevant for most educational programs. Make this explicit in the learning objectives!

2016-09-23

25

The tricks are not just “oil in the machinery”

More importantly they imply QUALITY TIME WITH YOUR STUDENTS - more meaningful, independent, value adding and fun!

Note: The most value-adding processes are often more stimulating The least value-adding processes are often boring routine tasks

2016-09-23

26

Also note that the most value-adding processes are the last to be replaced…

Still, it is not only a cliché that we only live once…

2016-09-23

27

Doing additional things on top of the old is not sustainable… So why do we often keep doing things that are less effective for learning? Discuss with your neighbours

(especially when it is cheap)

(especially when it is expensive)

Do more of that which contributes to learning

Do less of that which does not contribute

Easy part

Hard part

The trick question

What reasons can there be…? §  Convenience – if I use traditional methods, there is no need to think, to

make decisions, to explain, to defend, to persuade, to take responsibility…

§  It is correct: we actually never thought of this because we truly believed that it would always take more time…

§  Student expectations (or what we think they want…) §  Colleagues expectations (or what we think they think…) §  We teach in ways that make us feel good (lecture, have answers to

everything, finish student work so it looks good…), without thinking so much about learning

§  We have not reflected on our routines and traditions §  Lack of knowledge and fantasy in course design §  We think education is more about sorting people than adding value §  We actually think that everything is the students’ fault §  Minimising risk:

“when the old model doesn’t work, it is the student’s fault, but if I try something new and it doesn’t work, then it is all my fault”

2016-09-23

28

Implications for educational developers and researchers

§  It is great if teachers start analysing teaching from a learning perspective – even if they begin doing it for egoistic reasons.

§  To make change happen – and in particular to make it sustainable – we need to focus on how educational ideas can be implemented in reality.

§  Let us show what concrete practical instances of educational theory and philosophy would look like.

§  It is not sufficient to promote pedagogical ideas and theories on an abstract level only, focusing on the advantages for learning without tackling the issue of resource requirements.

§  Let us make realistic recommendations based on a better understanding and empathy with teachers’ work situations.

§  Let us understand what is blocking teaching innovation in the organisation, and what can help support innovation.

2016-09-28

1

Pick me!

Spend less time on… ineffective tutorials.


2016-09-28

2

Teacher preparations §  Rename one tutorial per week as ”student-led recitation” §  At course start, hand out problem sets with N problems,

one sheet for each week Student preparations §  Before each session, the students prepare to present

their solutions on the whiteboard How the session works §  When students arrive, they ”tick” on a list

which problems they are prepared to present §  Teacher ”randomly” picks a students to solve the first problem

on the board §  Discussion on alternative solutions, difficulties, ask the group

to assist with problems - ”Did everyone solve it in the same way?” - ”I can see that only 8 of you ticked this problem, where did you others get stuck?” - ”Why was this problem different from the one last week, why couldn’t we use the same method?”

§  Pick a new student for the next problem, etc

Student-Led Exercises

Simple “rules”

Ticking a number of problems (e.g. 65%) is a course requirement.

The quality of the presentation is not assessed and does not affect the grade since the purpose is purely formative.

If a student who is picked is obviously unprepared, all his/her ticks are removed for that recitation. This has luckily never

happened!

The student must however demonstrate an honest effort to prepare, and be able to lead a classroom discussion to a satisfactory treatment.

2016-09-28

3

Results - Students §  Students do better at the exam*

Before: ~55% passed 2006 78 % 2007 70 % 2008 83 % 2009 86 % 2010 75 %

§  Student motivation increases due to: - Sessions are alive and fun - Lots of feedback and interactivity - Students are allowed to show what they can (to teacher and class)

§  Students like the format (4.2 on a scale 1 to 5)

Data from Per-Erik Hellström, Semiconductor Devices, KTH, 7.5 ECTS, undergrad year 2, 25-30 students

% passing exam

Student experience - interviews How long time did you prepare for the student recitations?

§  I tried to do as many problems as possible, well all of them because it is good for the exam. (laughter) For each session… 6 hours maybe. (A)

What was it like before the exercises? §  We sat in a group and did the six problems, helping each other. Then the

evening before I read through to get a good grip. Well, we sat… how long could it have been, 5 hours in the group and 2 hours on my own. (B)

And when you study in groups, what is it you really do then? §  We take a vacant classroom. Then you do one problem each and we stand

together discussing it at the board. That’s how we do the problems, on the board. (B)

If we look at the normal [teacher-led] exercises. §  Oh, nothing at all, I just go there. You mean exercises where he solves

problems, right? I don’t prepare for that, just copy the solution and try to follow. Student exercises are better because you have worked on the problems. You should do that in teacher-led sessions too, or at least read the problems. Then you would learn more. But you mostly copy the solutions. If you are lucky you understand. Otherwise it doesn’t give much. (B)

2016-09-28

4

Teacher experience

Less work You have to design the assignments before the course starts, but then: •  no preparation before the session •  much fewer ”poor” exams to correct

More effective as a teacher §  See early and clearly what is difficult or

not §  Also go faster when you know when

they are aboard §  Learn to design problems that

important, critical aspects

“It is so much fun to discuss the subject with the students on a much, much, much higher level”

Per-Erik Hellström KTH

5 principles marked in Gibbs (1999) “Using Assessment Strategically…”:

1.  Does the activity influence students to spend time-on-task? Does it also distribute this effort over time?

2.  Does the activity generate appropriate learning activity?

3.  Does it provide prompt feedback?

4.  Does it provide feedback that the student pays attention to?

5.  Does it help students internalise criteria for quality solutions and presentation?

Analyse the activity: Why is the learning dramatically increased? Give the rationale for your answer. Note down your analysis and reflections on the A3 sheet. Reconvene

2016-09-28

5

Analysis – Why is learning dramatically increased?

①  Generates time on task! –  Normally 6-7 hours study per week. –  High attendance on recitations! –  Punctuality.

+  Distributes study time during the course! –  Makes all students study regularly from the first week.

[Analysis inspired by Gibbs (1999) Using Assessment Strategically to Change the Way Students Learn]

Time on task - a word of warning §  The aim is not to maximize time on task §  The aim is to maximize learning

§  The teacher’s role is to help students spend sufficient time (easy to achieve) on appropriate tasks (this takes teaching skill).

Condition: Assignments worthy of this attention! §  Assignments aligned with intended learning outcomes §  They should illustrate critical and esssential aspects,

reflect the desired understanding §  Level of difficulty and complexity should be the

same as in exam (good for student motivation) +  New problems every time

(dress them in slightly new clothes)


②  Generates more appropriate learning activity! –  Preparing the problems constitutes very good studies. –  Further, it is not sufficient to arrive at the answer, they must also

prepare to explain and present their solution. –  Discussions give the whole answer.


2016-09-28

6

Judge (bedöma)

To be able to critically evaluate multiple solutions and select an optimum solution

Solve (lösa problem)

Characterize, analyze, and synthesize to model a system (provide appropriate assumptions)

Explain (förklara)

Be able to state the process/outcome/concept in their own words

Compute (lösa typtal)

Follow rules and procedures (substitute quantities correctly into equations and arrive at a correct result, ”plug & chug”)

Define (återge)

State the definition of the concept or is able to describe in a qualitative or quantitative manner

Quality of student learning (ii) Feisel-Schmitz Technical Taxonomy

[Feisel, L.D., Teaching Students to Continue Their Education, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 1986.]



What should the students be able to do as a result of the course?

Constructive alignment - applied

Formulating intended learning

outcomes


assessment alignment

Constructive

2016-09-28

7


③  Generates prompt feedback! –  Discussion is to give everyone feedback; they should go home with

the whole answer.

⑤  Students develop a judgement for good solutions and good presentations!

–  They all see the variation…


The discussions should give the whole group feedback! §  Get the students started discussing §  Add any important aspects that needed to be addressed Good starters:

- ”Did everyone solve it in the same way?” - ”I can see that only 8 of you ticked this problem, where did you others get stuck?” - ”Why was this problem different from the one last week, why couldn’t we use the same method?”


④  Students care! –  It creates motivation to expose and develop understanding

together with the teacher and friends. –  We see that students are eager to be picked (a chance not a risk).


Create a safe and friendly climate! §  Never be rude or sarcastic to a student at the board

(don’t let the students be either) §  If you engage other teachers to run parallel groups, choose those

who can also create a conducive atmosphere!

2016-09-28

8

For each student-led presentation that we will see...

up to 20 students have done the work to first solve the problem, and then prepare to present it.

The Iceberg Principle

”They are quite normal recitations where he

solves problems, right? I don’t prepare for that.”

”...what did it take, five hours in the

group and then two hours on my own.”

2016-09-28

9

What the professor said: ”It must be better that the teacher presents the problems, after all we are the experts and it is our job.”

⏏

[Shuell, quoted in Biggs 2003]

The teacher’s fundamental task is to get students to

engage in learning activities that are likely to result in their achieving

the desired outcomes in a reasonably effective manner.

...remember that

what the student does is actually more important

in determining what is learned than what the teacher does.

⏏

2016-09-28

10

”Teachers [are recommended to] embed useful study skills in their teaching so they are not just teaching what they want their students to learn, but how to learn it.”

(Biggs, referring to Chalmers & Fuller 1996)

⏏

Said by a student in year 3 There are in principle two kinds of courses in our program. You have the unstructured ones where you don’t get any help with how or what to study. Like lectures and a thick book that you don’t know what to do with. There the exam is often very easy or they follow closely to old exams. Otherwise nobody would pass. Then there are the structured ones where you have to work a lot during the course. But you know what to do and can concentrate on that. Even if you fall behind you know what to do to get back on track. There is less anxiety. You learn much deeper in those courses. But there is no chance to pass unless you really work hard.

⏏

2016-09-28

1

The CDIO approach

for engineering education development

Kristina Edström KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Kristina Edström Engineer & Educa-onal developer §  M. Sc. in Engineering, Chalmers §  Associate Professor in Engineering Educa,on Development at KTH Royal

Ins>tute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden §  700 par>cipants in the 7.5 ECTS course Teaching and Learning in Higher

Educa,on, customized for KTH faculty, 2004-‐2012

§  Director of Educa>onal Development at Skolkovo Ins>tute of Science and Technology, Moscow, 2012-‐2013

Strategic educa-onal development, na-onal and interna-onal §  CDIO Ini>a>ve for reform of engineering educa>on since 2001 §  SEFI Administra>ve Council, 2010-‐2013

Some publica-ons §  Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., and Edström, K. (2014) Rethinking

Engineering Educa>on: The CDIO Approach, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag §  Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering educa>on

development. European Journal of Engineering Educa>on, 39(5), 539-‐555 §  Edström, K. (2008) Doing course evalua>on as if learning maêrs most, Higher Educa>on Research

& Development, 27:2, 95 – 106

2016-09-28

2

What is CDIO? 1. An idea of what engineering students should learn and why

“Engineers who can engineer”

2016-09-28

3

Stakeholder perspec-ves

Engineering Educa-on

Society

Employers Students

Faculty

Work life needs

NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT

An educa-on about technology

An educa-on in engineering Conceive: customer needs, technology, enterprise strategy, regula>ons; and conceptual, technical, and business plans Design: plans, drawings, and algorithms that

describe what will be implemented Implement: transforma>on of the design into

the product, process, or system, including manufacturing, coding, tes>ng and valida>on

Operate: the implemented product or process delivering the intended value, including maintaining, evolving and re>ring the system

2016-09-28

4

Theory and judgement applied to real problems

Real problems §  Cross disciplinary boundaries §  Sit in contexts with societal and

business aspects §  Complex, ill-‐defined and contain

tensions §  Need interpreta>ons and es>ma>ons

(‘one right answer’ are excep>ons) §  Require systems view

Disciplinary theory applied to “Problem-‐solving”


Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139.


Individual approach Communica-ve and collabora-ve approach §  Crucial for all engineering work

processes §  Much more than working in project

teams with well-‐defined tasks §  Engineering is a social ac>vity involving

customers, suppliers, colleagues, ci>zens, authori>es, compe>tors

§  Networking within and across organiza>onal boundaries, over >me, in a globalised world

2016-09-28

5


Educate for the context of Engineering

Engineers who can engineer!

Educa-on set in Engineering science

CDIO Standard 1: The context Educa0ng for the context of engineering

CDIO Standard 1 – The context Adop>on of the principle that product, process, and system lifecycle development and deployment – Conceiving, Designing, Implemen,ng and Opera,ng – are the context for engineering educa>on.

But what if we do ask faculty?

Engineering Educa-on

Society

Employers Students

Faculty

2016-09-28

6

Deeper working knowledge of disciplinary fundamentals

passed exam failed exam

”got it”

didn’t ”get it”

—

See for instance Mazur, E. (1997) Peer Instruction, and Kember & McNaught (2007) Enhancing University Teaching.

§ Func>onal knowledge § Not just reproduc>on of known solu>ons to known problems

§ Conceptual understanding § Being able to explain what they do and why

Judge To be able to critically evaluate multiple solutions and select an optimum solution

Solve Characterize, analyze, and synthesize to model a system (provide appropriate assumptions)

Explain Be able to state the process/outcome/concept in their own words

Compute Follow rules and procedures (substitute quantities correctly into equations and arrive at a correct result, ”plug & chug”)

Define State the definition of the concept or describe in a qualitative or quantitative manner

Quality of student learning – more useful classifica-ons

[Feisel, L.D., Teaching Students to Continue Their Education, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 1986.]

Feisel-‐Schmitz Technical Taxonomy The SOLO Taxonomy

2016-09-28

7

What is CDIO? 2. A methodology for engineering educa>on reform

The 12 CDIO Standards

Success

is never inherent in a method; it always depends on

good implementation.

2016-09-28

8

The educa>onal development process is the working defini>on of CDIO:

The CDIO Standards Context: §  Recognise that we educate for the prac>ce of engineering [1]

Curriculum development: §  Formulate explicit program learning outcomes (including engineering skills) in dialogue with stakeholders [2]

§ Map out responsibili>es to courses – nego>ate intended learning outcomes [3] §  Evalua>on and con>nuous programme improvement [12]

Course development, discipline-‐led and project-‐based learning experiences: §  Introduc>on to engineering [4] §  Design-‐implement experiences and workspaces [5, 6] §  Integrated learning experiences [7] §  Ac>ve and experien>al learning [8] §  Learning assessment [11]

Faculty development §  Engineering skills [9] §  Skills in teaching & learning , and assessment [10]

Crawley, et al (2007, 2014) Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, Springer.

Understanding of technical fundamentals

Professional engineering skills

CDIO Standard 2: Learning Outcomes Recognising the dual nature of learning

and

CDIO Standard 2 – Learning Outcomes Specific, detailed learning outcomes for personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills, as well as disciplinary knowledge, consistent with program goals and validated by program stakeholders.

2016-09-28

9

The CDIO Syllabus Support in formula0ng learning outcomes

The CDIO Syllabus §  is not prescrip>ve (not a CDIO Standard) §  is offered as an instrument for specifying

local program goals by selec>ng topics and making appropriate addi>ons in dialogue with stakeholders

§  lists and categorises desired quali>es of engineering graduates

§  is based on stakeholder input and valida>on

Each ins>tu>on formulates program goals considering their own stakeholder needs, na>onal and ins>tu>onal context, level and scope of programs, subject area, etc

•  Crawley, E. F. 2001. The CDIO Syllabus: A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering Education: see www.cdio.org/framework-benefits/cdio-syllabus-report

•  for version 2.0, see Crawley, Malmqvist, Lucas, and Brodeur. 2011. “The CDIO Syllabus v2.0. An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education.” Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference

National level learning outcomes For Master of Science in Engineering, students must demonstrate:

Knowledge and understanding •  knowledge of the scientific basis and proven experience of their chosen area of engineering, together with

insight into current research and development work; and •  both broad knowledge in their chosen area of engineering, including knowledge of mathematics and natural

sciences, and substantially deeper knowledge in certain parts of the field. Skills and abilities •  an ability, from a holistic perspective, to critically, independently and creatively identify, formulate and deal

with complex issues, and to participate in research and development work so as to contribute to the development of knowledge;

•  an ability to create, analyse and critically evaluate different technical solutions; •  an ability to plan and, using appropriate methods, carry out advanced tasks within specified parameters; •  an ability to integrate knowledge critically and systematically and to model, simulate, predict and evaluate

events even on the basis of limited information; •  an ability to develop and design products, processes and systems taking into account people’s situations and

needs and society’s objectives for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development; •  an ability to engage in teamwork and cooperation in groups of varying composition; and •  an ability to clearly present and discuss their conclusions and the knowledge and arguments behind them, in

dialogue with different groups, orally and in writing, in national and international contexts. Judgement and approach •  an ability to make assessments, taking into account relevant scientific, social and ethical aspects, and

demonstrate an awareness of ethical aspects of research and development work; •  insight into the potential and limitations of technology, its role in society and people’s responsibility for its use,

including social and economic aspects, as well as environmental and work environment aspects; and •  an ability to identify their need of further knowledge and to continuously upgrade their capabilities.

2016-09-28

10

The strategy of CDIO is integrated learning

of knowledge and skills !Development of engineering skills

Acquisition of technical knowledge

Standard 3 – Integrated curiculum Integra0ng the two learning processes

The CDIO strategy is the integrated curriculum where knowledge & skills give each other meaning!

CDIO Standard 3 – Integrated Curriculum A curriculum designed with mutually suppor>ng disciplinary courses, with an explicit plan to integrate personal, interpersonal, and product, process, and system building skills.

2016-09-28

11

22 Every learning experience sets a balance and rela-onship

Discipline-‐led learning ¢  Well-‐structured knowledge base

¢  Evidence/theory, Model/reality ¢  Methods to further the knowledge fron>er

CONNECTING WITH PROBLEM/PRACTICE Ø  Deep working understanding = ability to apply Ø  Seeing the knowledge through the lense of

problems, interconnec>ng the disciplines Ø  Integra>ng skills, e.g. communica>on and

collabora>on

Problem/prac-ce-‐led learning ¢  Integra>on and applica>on, synthesis ¢  Open-‐ended problems, ambiguity, trade-‐offs ¢  Context ¢  Professional work processes ¢  ”Crea>ng that which has never been” CONNECTING WITH DISCIPLINARY

KNOWLEDGE Ø  Discovering how the disciplinary knowledge is

useful Ø  Reinforcing disciplinary understanding Ø  Mo>va>onal context

Example: Communica-on skills in Lightweight design Communica-on in lightweight design means being able to

§  Use the technical concepts comfortably §  Discuss a problem of different levels §  Determine what factors are relevant to the situa>on §  Argue for, or against, conceptual ideas and solu>ons §  Develop ideas through discussion and collabora>ve sketching §  Explain technical maêrs to different audiences §  Show confidence in expressing oneself within the field

The skills are embedded in, and inseparable from, students’ applica>on of technical knowledge.

The same interpreta>on should be made for teamwork, problem solving, professional ethics, and other engineering skills.

”It’s about educa-ng engineers who can actually engineer!”

2016-09-28

12

What does communica-on skills mean in the specific professional role or subject area?

[Barrie 2004]

Oral communication

Writtencommunication

Project management

Teamwork

Development routes (schematic)

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Physics Introductory course

Numerical Methods Mechanics I

Thermodynamics



Mathematics II

Fluid mechanics

Product development

Mathematics I

Mathematics III


Systema-c assignment of programme learning outcomes to learning ac-vi-es -‐ nego-a-ng the contribu-on

2016-09-28

13

§  It’s not about ”soft skills” Personal, interpersonal, product, process, and system building skills are intrinsic to engineering and we should recognise them as engineering skills.

§  It’s not about “adding more content” Students must be given opportunities to develop communication skills, teamwork skills, etc. This is best achieved through practicing, reflecting, giving and receiving feedback (rather than lecturing on psychological and social theory).

§  It’s not about “wasting credits” When students practice engineering skills they apply and express their technical knowledge. As they expose their understanding among peers, doing well will also matter more to them. Students will develop deeper working knowledge.

§  It’s not about appending “skills modules” Personal, interpersonal, product, process, and system building skills must be practiced and assessed in the technical context, it cannot be done separately.

Engineering skills -‐ implica-ons

Place in curriculum

Faculty perception of generic skills and attributes

Integral They are integral to disciplinary knowledge, infusing and ENABLING scholarly learning and knowledge.

Application They let students make use of or apply disciplinary knowledge, thus potentially changing and TRANSFORMING disciplinary knowledge through its application. Skills are closely related to, and parallel, discipline learning outcomes.

Associated They are useful additional skills that COMPLEMENT or round out discipline knowledge.They are part of the university syllabus but separate and secondary to discipline knowledge.

Not part of curriculum

They are necessary basic PRECURSOR skills and abilities. We may need remedial teaching of such skills at university.

Barrie, S. (2004) A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy, Higher Education Research and Development. 23 (3), 261-275

2016-09-28

14

PROGRESSION

Course

(black box)

INPUT: Previous knowledge and skills

OUTPUT: Contribution to final learning outcomes

Enhancing progression through the curriculum THE BLACK-BOX EXERCISE

Input to later course Input to later course Input to later course

All faculty formulate their course only as input/output: Input: “When students come to my course I want them to be able to…” Output: “When students leave my course they will be able to… because I think this is necessary input for course X…”

2016-09-28

15

Black-box exercise All courses are presented through input and output only: §  Enables efficient discussions §  Makes connections visible (as well as lack thereof) §  Gives all faculty an overview of the program §  Serves as a basis for improving coordination §  Use for adjusting intentions in planning phase §  Use for checking existing programs

During the discussions: §  Document which course takes

responsibility for what learning outcomes

§  Identify redundancies or gaps §  Check chronological order §  Is it easy for the students to make

the connections between courses?

Dimensions of progression §  Subject content §  Personal, professional and engineering skills §  Theore>cal maturity – not just ”more” theory, but

to make connec>ons and apply (integra>on, synthesis & modelling)

§  Understanding context (“real” problems, sustainable development, ethics, etc)

§  Selec>ng and applying methods, understanding limita>ons

§  Professional “eye” and language (see and interpret situa>ons, discuss with others and relate to knowledge)

§  Academic wri>ng, professional wri>ng

§  Personal development (feedback, reflec>on, etc)

§  View on knowledge (not just black and white) §  Degree of independence as a learner (pedagogical

red threads)

Exercise for faculty: •  What important couplings

between courses are already there and should be kept?

•  What important couplings

between courses should be natural and obvious?

© yarn by VickeVira

2016-09-28

16

Course Design for Integrated Learning



What should the students be able to do as a result of the course? Formulating

intended learning

outcomes


assessment

Learning outcomes are the basis for course design

Constructive alignment

[Biggs]

2016-09-28

17




Construc-ve alignment -‐ applied Formulating

intended learning

outcomes


assessment





intended learning

outcomes


assessment

2016-09-28

18





intended learning

outcomes


assessment

CDIO Standard 7 – Integrated Learning Experiences Integrated learning experiences that lead to the acquisi>on of disciplinary knowledge, as well as personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills.

CDIO Standard 11 – Learning Assessment Assessment of student learning in personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills, as well as in disciplinary knowledge.

CDIO Standard 8 – Ac-ve Learning Teaching and learning based on ac>ve and experien>al learning methods

Our curriculum system has 2 logical links The strength of the chain – the extent to which graduates will actually meet the program learning objec>ves – hinges on: §  the connec-on between courses and programs

that the sum of course learning objec,ves actually equals the program objec,ves,

and

§  the construc-ve alignment that each course actually teaches and assesses students according to its learning objec,ves.

2016-09-28

19

Course learning objectives

Assess-ment

Learning activities

Course

learning

objectives

Assess-

ment

Learning

activities

Program learning objectives

Course learning

objectives

Assess-ment

Learning activities

Anyone can improve a course if it means that the teacher works 100 hours more

That is not a valid solu>on…

This is about how to get better student learning from the same (finite) teaching resources CDIO Standard 10 -‐-‐ Enhancement of Faculty Teaching Competence Ac>ons that enhance faculty competence in providing integrated learning experiences, in using ac>ve experien>al learning methods, and in assessing student learning.

2016-09-28

20

Examples are illustra-ons of principles

generic principles

will illustrate

to inspire

applications - of many different kinds.

A specific example

Educational development in CDIO

Improving discipline-‐led learning §  Improving the quality of understanding §  Knowledge prepared for use: seeing the knowledge through the lense of problems

§  Ability to communicate and collaborate §  Interconnec>ng the disciplines

Improving problem/prac-ce-‐based learning §  Adding problem/prac>ce-‐based learning experiences

–  Early engineering experience –  A sequence of Design-‐Implement

Experiences §  Improving reflec>on and learning §  Improving cost-‐effec>veness of teaching

2016-09-28

21

§  Standard lecture based course §  Focus on disciplinary knowledge (“content”)

Hypoeutectoid steel was quenched from austenite to martensite which was tempered, spheroidized and hardened by disloca,on pinning..

[Professor Maria Knutson Wedel, Chalmers]

A course in Basic Materials Science

Two ways of seeing materials science

500 nm

Structure

Performance

Manufacturing, processing

Proper>es

From the outside -‐ in “Materials have a suppor>ve role of materializing the design. The performance is of primary concern, followed by considera>ons of related materials proper>es….”

Östberg

Material

Performance

Manufacturing

Proper>es

From the inside -‐ out “Materials engineers dis>nguish themselves from mechanical engineers by their focus on the internal structure and processing of materials, specifically at the micro-‐ and nano-‐scale.”

Flemings & Cahn



2016-09-28

22

Implica-ons I -‐ formula-ng intended learning outcomes


Old learning objec-ves (the disciplinary knowledge in itself)

…describe crystal structures of some metals…

…interpret phase diagrams…

…explain hardening mechanisms…

...describe heat treatments…

New learning objec-ves (performances of understanding)

…select materials based on considera>ons for func>onality and sustainability

...explain how to op>mize material dependent processes (eg cas>ng, forming, joining)

...discuss challenges and trade-‐offs when (new) materials are developed

...devise how to minimise failure in service (corrosion, creep, fractured welds)


S>ll lectures and s>ll the same book, but framed differently: §  from product to atoms §  focus on engineering problems

And… §  Study visit in industry, assessed by wriên reflec>on

§ Material selec>on class (CES)

§ Ac>ve lecturing: buzz groups, quizzes

§  Test yourself on the web

§  Students developed anima>ons to visualize

Implica-ons II -‐ design of learning ac-vi-es



2016-09-28

23

Implica-ons III -‐ design of assessment


2011: New type of exam, aimed at deeper working understanding

§  More open-‐ended ques-ons -‐ many solu>ons possible, the quality of reasoning is assessed

§  Interconnected knowledge – several aspects need to be integrated Ø Very good results on the exam but some students were scared and there were many ques,ons beforehand…

2012: Added forma>ve midterm exam, with peer assessment

§  Communicates expecta>ons on the required level and nature of understanding (Feedback / Feed forward)

§  Generates appropriate learning ac-vity §  Early engagement in the basics of the course (a basis for further learning)


Educational development in CDIO

In disciplinary courses §  Improving the quality of understanding §  Knowledge prepared for use: seeing the

knowledge through the lense of problems §  Ability to communicate and collaborate §  Interconnec>ng the disciplines

In problem/prac-ce-‐based courses §  Adding problem/prac>ce-‐based learning

experiences –  Early engineering experience –  A sequence of Design-‐Implement

Experiences §  Improving reflec>on and learning §  Improving cost-‐effec>veness of

teaching

2016-09-28

24

Design-‐Implement Experiences student teams design and implement actual products, processes, or systems

§ Projects take different forms in various engineering fields

§ The essential aim is to learn through near-authentic engineering tasks, working in modes resembling professional practice

§ Progression in several dimensions

Ø engineering knowledge (breadth and depth) Ø size of student teams Ø length of project Ø increasingly complex and

open-ended problems Ø tensions, contextual factors Ø student and facilitator roles

CDIO Standard 5 – Design-‐Implement Experiences A curriculum that includes two or more design-‐implement experiences, including one at a basic level and one at an advanced level.

The educa-onal development process is the working defini-on of CDIO:

The CDIO Standards Context: §  Recognise that we educate for the prac>ce of engineering [1]

Curriculum development: §  Formulate explicit program learning outcomes (including engineering skills) in dialogue with stakeholders [2]

§ Map out responsibili>es to courses – nego>ate intended learning outcomes [3] §  Evalua>on and con>nuous programme improvement [12]

Course development, discipline-‐led and project-‐based learning experiences: §  Introduc>on to engineering [4] §  Design-‐implement experiences and workspaces [5, 6] §  Integrated learning experiences [7] §  Ac>ve and experien>al learning [8] §  Learning assessment [11]

Faculty development §  Engineering skills [9] §  Skills in teaching & learning , and assessment [10]

Crawley, et al (2007, 2014) Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, Springer.

2016-09-28

25

CDIO integrated curriculum development -‐ the process in a nutshell §  Set program learning outcomes

in dialogue with stakeholders §  Design an integrated curriculum

mapping out responsibili,es to courses – nego>ate intended learning outcomes (both knowledge and engineering skills)

§  Create integrated learning experiences course development with construc,ve alignment ü mutually suppor>ng subject courses ü applying ac-ve learning methods ü an introductory course ü a sequence of design-‐implement experiences

§  Faculty development ü Engineering skills ü Skills in teaching, learning and assessment

§  Evalua-on and con>nuous improvement

What is CDIO?

3. A community to learn together and to share experience

The CDIO Ini-a-ve

2016-09-28

26

§  The CDIO Ini-a-ve started in 2000 as a project: Partners: MIT, KTH, Chalmers, Linköping University

§  Soon other ins>tu>ons expressed an interest in joining, today more than 125 CDIO Collaborators worldwide

CDIO as a community – the CDIO Ini-a-ve

The international CDIO community North America §  Arizona State University §  California State University, Northridge §  Daniel Webster College §  Duke University §  École Polytechnique de Montréal §  Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University §  LASPAU §  Massachusetts Institute of Technology §  Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.) §  Pennsylvania State University §  Queen's University (Canada) §  Sheridan College §  Stanford University §  United States Naval Academy §  University of Arkansas §  University of Calgary §  University of Colorado §  University of Manitoba §  University of Michigan §  University of Notre Dame

Latin America §  Pontificia Universidad Javeriana §  School of Engineering of Antioquia (EIA) §  UNITEC Laureate International Universities §  Universidad Católica de la Santísima

Concepción §  Universidad de Chile §  Universidad de Santiago de Chile §  Universidad del Quindio §  Universidad del Quindío §  Universidad ICESI, Cali §  Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota

Australia §  AAEE §  Chisholm Institute §  Curtin University §  Queensland University of Technology §  RMIT §  University of Auckland §  University of Sydney §  University of the Sunshine Coast

Europe: §  AFEKA Tel Aviv Academic College of Engineering §  Astrakhan State University §  Bauman Moscow State Technical University §  Cherepovets State University §  Delft University of Technology §  Don State Technical University §  Ernst-Abbe-University of Applied Sciences Jena §  Gdansk University of Technology §  Ghent University §  Group T - International University College Leuven §  Hague University of Applied Sciences §  Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences §  Hochschule Wismar §  Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto §  Israel Institute for Empowering Ingenuity §  Kazan Federal University §  Lahti University of Applied Sciences §  Lapland University of Applied Sciences §  Moscow Aviation Institute §  Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology §  National Research Nuclear University §  Novia University of Applied Sciences §  Politecnico di Milano §  Reykjavik University §  RWTH Aachen §  Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace

Instrumentation §  Savonia University of Applied Sciences §  Technical University of Madrid §  Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences §  Siberian Federal University §  Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology §  Telecom Bretagne §  Tomsk Polytechnic University §  Tomsk State University of Control Systems and

Radioelectronics (TUSUR) §  Turku University of Applied Sciences §  Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya §  University of Turku §  TU Madrid §  Ural Federal University §  Vilniaus Kolegija/University of Applied Sciences §  Østfold University College

Asia: §  Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology §  Beijing Jiaotong University §  Chengdu University of Information Technology §  Chulalongkorn University (Faculty of Engineering) §  Dalian Neusoft University of Information §  Duy Tan University §  Kanazawa Institute of Technology §  Kanazawa Technical College §  Mongolian University of Science and Technology §  Nanyang Polytechnic §  Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi

(RMUTT) §  Shantou University §  Singapore Polytechnic §  Suzhou Industrial Park Institute of Vocational

Technology §  Taylor's University, School of Engineering §  Thu Dau Mot University §  Tsinghua University §  Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) §  Vietnam National University §  Yanshan University

Africa §  University of Pretoria §  ESPRIT, Tunisia

UK-Ireland: §  Aston University §  Lancaster University §  Queen's University (Belfast) §  South Eastern Regional College (SERC) §  Trinity College Dublin §  University of Bristol §  University of Leeds §  University of Leicester §  University of Limerick §  University of Liverpool §  University of Strathclyde

Sweden §  Chalmers §  KTH §  Linköping University §  Jönköping University §  Umeå University §  Linnéaus University §  University of Skövde §  Kristianstad University §  Blekinge Institute of Technology §  Luleå University of Technology

2016-09-28

27

Next: § The Interna-onal Fall mee-ng

November 2016, Porto, Portugal § The European Regional mee-ng

January 2017, Dublin, Ireland § 13th Interna-onal CDIO Conference

June 2017, Calgary § 14th Interna-onal CDIO Conference

June 2017, Kanazawa, Japan

Annual Interna-onal CDIO Conference 2005 Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada 2006 Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

2007 Hogeschool Gent, Gent, Belgium 2008 MIT, Cambridge MA, USA 2009 Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore 2010 École Polytéchnique, Montreal, Canada

2011 Denmark Technical University, Copenhagen, Denmark 2012 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

2013 Harvard/MIT, Cambridge MA, USA 2014 UPC, Barcelona, Spain 2015 CUIT, Chengdu, China 2016 Turun UAS, Turku, Finland

www.cdio.org

1.  Express an interest (answer a few ques>ons) –  Why does your university want to join the CDIO ini>a>ve? –  Which of your programs do you plan to ini>ally apply CDIO? How do you expect CDIO to influence

these programs? –  What goals do you hope to achieve? –  What are your plans for par>cipa>ng with the other CDIO collabora>ng schools? –  What experience do you have in engineering educa>onal reform at your university, which might

contribute to the effort and form a founda>on for the work as a collaborator? –  What level of commitment and support do you have from your university's Dean and Central

Leadership? –  Who will be the key two to five par>cipants in your effort?

2.  Make introduc>ons at a CDIO mee>ng 3.  The CDIO Council will grant collaborator status

§  Contact the leader of your region, to get started. Juha Kon>o, Turku University of Applied Sciences. [Juha.Kon,[email protected]]

How to become a CDIO Collaborator

2016-09-28

28

What is CDIO? 1.   An idea of what engineering students should learn:

“Engineers who can engineer” 2.   A methodology for engineering educa>on reform:

The twelve CDIO Standards 3.   A community to learn and share the experience:

The CDIO Ini-a-ve

Let us take a moment when everything is possible…

Focus on your program: What improvement would the program need? (5 minutes individually) What work would you want to engage in? (5 minutes with colleague)

Make small groups with common interests (20 minutes) §  What important qualities are already in your programs and must be

safeguarded? §  What important qualities could be improved? §  How can we work together?

2016-09-27

1

Integrated Learning in a Project Course

Jakob Kuttenkeuler, Naval Architecture Stefan Hallström, Lightweight Structures

Kristina Edström

Jakob Ku)enkeuler

§  Professor in Naval Architecture. §  PhD in Aerospace engineering. §  10 years as director of two MSc programs

and one PhD program.

§  Research on design process of high speed cra@ opAmizaAon for sustainability, RouAng etc.

§  Teaches Hydrodynamics, Ship dynamics, Maneouvering, Propeller design, Sailing mechanics etc.

§  Awarded the KTH prize for outstanding educaAonal achievements.

§  Engaged in CDIO since start.

2016-09-27

2

"Background" Teaching vs learning

Analysis & synthesis Engineering is fun!

Authentic problem

Models (solving)

Synthesis Analysis

Stakeholders needs/expectations

Decisions

Applications & skills I'm teaching...

Some facts about the course

Thesis

This project course

Semester 2 Semester 3 Semester 4

§  30-40 students in groups of 8-15

§  2 semesters, 20 ECTS (1/3 of students' time)

§  Individual grading A-F

§  2 weekly scheduled hours but most activities "on demand”

§  Standard course funding (low material budget, limited teaching time)

§  Access to a standard classroom “owned” by the students (24/7)

§  Access to department workshops

2016-09-27

3

First day for each group of 10-17 students

Conceive, design, build and operate –

a vehicle that can transport one person both at planing speed on water and at low speed submerged.

2016-09-27

4

How much should the success of the product influence the grades?

Interaction With Other Courses

Thesis

This project course

Semester 2 Semester 3

2016-09-27

5

Students create new things

•  Teachers advise & coach, but not impose solutions

•  Allow students to grow into engineers

•  Open ended

•  New year - new group - new task

•  Neither students nor teachers know the outcome in advance

•  Applied use of theoretical skills

•  Whatever is designed has to be realised

•  Conceive

•  Design

•  Implement

•  Operate

From a distance, it looks like it is all about building cool products In fact – it is all about turning students into engineers!

2016-09-27

6

After the course the participant is expected to be able to: §  analyse technical problems in a systems view

§  handle technical problems which are incompletely stated and subject to multiple constraints

§  develop strategies for systematic choice and use of available engineering methods and tools

§  make estimations and appreciate their value and limitations

§  make decisions based on acquired knowledge

§  pursue own ideas and realise them practically

§  assess quality of own work and work by others

§  work in a true project setting that effectively utilises available resources

§  explain mechanisms behind progress and difficulties in such a setting

§  communicate engineering – orally, in writing and graphically

Always the same learning objectives

Students do different tasks in the project a smörgåsbord syllabus for a smörgåsbord of students!

➞  Students need to take individual responsibility for their learning outcomes

§  Conceptual analysis §  "Expert" analysis §  Project management §  Manufacturing

§  Presentations §  Experiments §  PR §  Planning and follow-up §  …

The same learning outcomes are reached through different activities

2016-09-27

7

•  Individual grades (A-F)

•  Assessing individual performance in a group setting

•  Students work on many different tasks

•  Teachers see only fragments of the actual performance

•  Legal security / fairness

Assessment challenges

Faculty

•  communicate course goals •  instruct students to collect evidence in “portfolios”

Students

•  express personal individual goals •  plan own activities

Assessment – the Introduction

Start end

2016-09-27

8

Start end

Faculty

•  repeat course goals •  discussion on giving/receiving feedback

Students •  write summary •  read summaries, write feedback, suggest peer grades •  read feedback & reflect

•  revisit/revise personal goals •  follow-up on the process

Mid Course & Course End

formative summative

Summary: Sample (mid course) § L7. Effectively choose and use available engineering methods

Status: Approaching. Ref: [4][5][6] I am trying but find it hard to find the balance between rough estimates and sophisticated computerized methods. Further, the word “effectively” does not apply on me.

§ L5. Make estimations, appreciating their value and limitations The propeller analysis required several estimations during its initial phase, e.g. the input power from the solar cells to the engine and the hull resistance. When working with the supporting structure for the hulls [72] the design loads acting on the craft were also approximated based on evaluation of the most critical loading conditions. These estimations were made in order to operate with some numbers and start the calculations. It was understood that having some, even rough, estimations will not let the process stop and will have only positive influence on the overall result.

References: 1. Meeting minutes from … 2. Presentation, Preliminary design at design review #1 3. Experiment 4, Planning, execution and results 4. Report A 12, Hydrostatic stability - analysis 5. Report A107, Engine, design and mounting …

2016-09-27

9

What do you think, should the success of the product influence the grades?

Grades

The grades are set in relation to the intended learning outcomes based on a holistic assessment of:

•  portfolios (reports, protocols, presentations, sketches, hardware, …)

•  given feedback

•  received feedback

•  recommended grades from peers

•  Participation, logged time and continuous observations

by two teachers, independently

2016-09-27

10

What do you think - why is the assessment system so complicated?

What is the purpose of project work in educa9on anyway?

Project goals

Learning objecAves

Project

2016-09-27

11

Powerful principle 1: the purpose is student learning

Powerful principle 2: Process for feedback and reflec9on on experience

§  Teachers drive a process for rubbing students against each other è because only reflecAon can turn experience into learning

è faculty role is to create and run a process -‐ note the cost-‐effecAveness

2016-09-27

12

Powerful principle 3: Focus on process and individual - then the group and project take care of themselves

•  Feedback is most effective for learning when it aims at students work processes and self-regulation, rather than the task at hand.

•  Individual grading because l  Product grades are loosely coupled to

learning outcomes – and create incentives not to learn

l  Group grades create conflicts around ambition levels, invites free riders. These conflicts take focus from students, teachers and learning…

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Powerful principle 4: Reversing the ’burden of proof’

§  Each individual student is responsible for collecAng and presenAng evidence related to the learning outcomes (porRolio)

è this enhances reflec9on and directs students aTenAon to the intended learning outcomes (-‐>learning)

è makes the course format sustainable

2016-09-27

13

Powerful principle 5: ’for the good of the project’

§  The project and the group drives the specificaAons, the needs, the deadlines... not the teachers!

è makes everything students do in the course meaningful, reporAng comes natural for the first Ame

è makes the course format sustainable

Maria Montessori:

EVERY TIME YOU TIE THE SHOES FOR YOUR CHILD,

YOU HINDER HER OWN DEVELOPMENT.

2016-09-27

14

Let’s hear some student voices

Interviews with students in the 2004 & 2005 cohorts (not the students in the picture...)

You knew theories before, empty phrases. But now I have seen them in reality. These things are so easy to say. Like [...]. I mean, you don’t have to be a rocket scienBst to realise that, everyone knows it. But it’s one thing to know and another thing to apply, and we really got first-‐hand experience from applying it. It is so obvious, you can stop anyone on the street and they would say ‘of course, everyone knows that’. But it is a completely different thing to experience it in reality.

Interviewer: What did you learn about working in teams?

2016-09-27

15

“[Changing the project leader] wouldn’t have furthered the project. It could only have suffered. But if you completely drop [consideraBons for] the product -‐ and maybe you should, actually – it might have furthered the course. It's hard to tell...you simply tend to put your focus on the product you are making.”

Interviewer: So you chose not to switch project leader?

Tension between project and learning...

In the beginning I think there should have been some technical seminars to give a faster start of the project. Technical specialists who could have given a few lectures.

To help you see possible designs for instance? Yes, technical soluBons. And whom we could have contacted later with quesBons.

Hmm. I wonder if you may risk the main idea of the course? Yes... that is a risk... If they say ‘this is what you should do’... Yes, you are right.

I can see that it’s been painful though. Yes, but maybe that’s what is good for us.

But you think it would have been beRer with a more efficient start. Yes, but that is perhaps because it had led to a beRer end result, I mean the boat. But maybe the learning wouldn't...

Interviewer: How do you think this course could be improved?

Tension between project and learning... Concep9ons of teacher’s and student’s roles are challenged...

2016-09-27

16

Interviewer: How do you think this course could be improved? They should have been more like teachers. We had to do all the hard work ourselves and we don’t feel that we got as much help from the teachers as we could have had. [...] When we went and asked them ‘does this look alright’, they tried to answer as vaguely as they could. Just because they tried to make us solve things ourselves I think.

Student’s views on knowledge are challenged... Concep9ons of teacher’s and student’s roles are challenged...

Not that these were the only calculaBons needed, but the only ones that could be made. All the calculaBons assuming kinemaBc equilibrium seem to give various degrees of unreasonable results. This is not just a pity and shame, but it is also terribly bad pedagogy now towards the end of an educaBon. I would really have liked to see that the theory we have learnt was possible to use. We cannot even calculate the strength since everything is so Bny.

Quote from a mid-‐course evalua9on

Students with a black-‐and-‐white view on knowledge are seriously challenged...

2016-09-27

17

Student views must always be interpreted •  We noAce that §  students’ concep9ons of learning or aStude towards knowledge is challenged

§  in students’ eyes, learning is oTen overshadowed by the project per se

•  The teacher will o@en be blamed, as students think they

should have been saved from the inconvenience. •  But these relevant challenges are not ”flaws” that should be

eliminated. They are key learning opportuni9es and we have no intenAon to protect the students from them.

•  It is then not appropriate to behave in conformity with student expectaAons. But knowing they existed was valuable for course development.

•  Conclusion: Don’t give the students what they want – give them something be)er!

Powerful principle 1: the purpose is student learning

§  NOT reaching project goals (BUT the project sAll drives learning and creates a moAvaAonal context)

§  NOT technical sophis9ca9on (BUT there must be enough complexity and technical challenges to accommodate the learning outcomes)

§  NOT teacher popularity, or giving students what they want (BUT the students must sAll have trust in the process and the teachers)

2016-09-27

18

The greatest thing I have learned from this course is humility. I'll approach similar tasks more humbly in the future. We thought we were beRer than we were. No, not beRer, but we have taken courses with well-‐defined problems, where there is an answer, the key. And that went well. But now you realised that as soon as you are confronted with reality, it’s quite another story.

The beau9ful sound of students growing into engineers... (I)

”It took some Bme (maybe even a month) before it felt like we really got started. We were fumbling around, doing tasks without really compleBng them or seeing what was the conclusion, the next step from it. We wrote reports and said ‘we do this for our own sake’ but it took some Bme before that was actually the case. At least that’s how it was for me. But when that coin dropped, everything became very much easier.”

The beau9ful sound of students growing into engineers... (II)

2016-09-27

19

“At the beginning of the course I was somewhat worried about finishing the educaBon and starBng to work as an engineer. Those worries are gone now. My confidence in approaching technical problems and solving them has grown a lot.” “Feedback was exchanged on everything between napkin scribbles at lunch to things you had built. This was valuable since it both gave me, and trained me to give, criBque. It also helped me to see how other people are thinking and how they solve problems.” “One of the best things during the project was that wriRen documentaBon was called for and that we in much lived up to those demands. It allows you to cross check things and check the work of yourself and others, and things are always available.”

...and more of the same...

FormulaAng objecAves

Designing acAviAes

What work should the student do, to reach the

objecAves?

Designing assessment

What should the student do, to demonstrate that they reached the

objecAves?

What should the student be able to do as a result of the course?

CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT

2016-09-27

20

REFERENCES

-‐ Edström, El Gaidi, Hallström and KuTenkeuler (2005). Integrated assessment of disciplinary, personal and interpersonal skills -‐ student percepAons of a novel learning experience, Proceedings of the 13th Improving Student Learning, OCSLD, Oxford, UK.

-‐ Hallström, KuTenkeuler and Edström (2007). The route towards a sustainable design-‐implement course, Proceedings of the 3rd CDIO Conference, Cambridge, MA.

Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) /E-learning

Johan Fridell

E-learning Development Manager Business Solution Owner (BSO) e-learning

[email protected]

Technology for Teaching unit

• Education/courses within blended/hybrid/e-learning • Research within the domain of e-learning • E-learning system governance • E-learning development projects

As E-learning Development Manager I am responsible for our ability to understand and to meet demands from faculty when it comes to e-learning tools.

E-learning is important to KTH

”The opportunities opened up by e-learning technologies have been incorporated, and the virtual campus is as important as its physical equivalent. Innovation in education shows a distinct link to technological and social innovation” ”Education at KTH is characterized by individualized learning in innovative learning environments” Quotes from KTH Vision 2027

KTH definition of e-learning

”E-learning is defined as teaching with the support of technology. This includes using the Internet for learning activities and systems used for educational administration used by teachers”. Quote from KTH vision for e-learning

KTH Vision for e-learning

KTH has a very clear vision for e-learning KTH should use digital tools in all courses where it is deemed to lead to better learning The aim is not to save time, but to use time in the best way possible This vision does not exclude MOOC:s or distance learning, forefront courses/projects are necessary to test, study and develop new methods and tools. The best practices are then deployment for the whole university

A perspective upon education in various formats.

Research Education

Campus

Campus node

Company participants

Individuals

Participants Teacher/staff

Met

hods

and

to

ols

An expanding set of tools and methods

TOOLS Lecture hall Projector Group room Video conference E-meeting software Survey tool Learning Management Systems Video (streaming media) Books e-books databases Collaboration tools Blogs Twitter Informal learning area Youtube …

METHODS Lecture

Laboration Seminar

Workshop Flipped classroom

Peer review Blended Learning

Net based course contents MOOC

…

Guiding principle

A teacher and student centric governance model for IT

Course Webs

(KTH Social)

ProgrammeWebs

(KTH Social)

Group Webs (KTH Social)

Bilda (Ping Pong)

TurnItIn Urkund Kaltura Artologik Moodle

“Förvaltningsobjekt E-lärande” LMS

Canvas

MOOCs

edX

Organisation of E-learning at KTH

System governance and development projects

Collaboration between ECE (business) and IT Department

Teacher support process

1. Teacher support web (intranet)

2.Support via e-mail

3. Support throgth drop-in

4. Support through tool demonstration/workshop

5. Support through

meeting/consultation

Point of reference

KTH Teacher Survey 2013+2015

What do teachers at KTH use and what would they like to use?

At KTH: Use (blue), Intererest in using (red)

Pub

lic w

ebpa

ge w

ith c

ours

e in

fo

Pla

giar

ism

che

ck

Cou

rse

eval

utat

ion

Ass

ignm

ent (

ind

or g

roup

)

Res

ourc

e bo

kkin

g to

ol

Dis

cuss

ion

foru

m

Cur

ricul

um o

n th

e w

eb

Pro

ject

gro

up a

rea

Cou

rse

prog

ress

ion

tool

Vide

o cl

ips

Sha

red

docu

men

ts

E-m

eetin

g on

com

pute

r

Cou

rse

resu

lt re

porti

ng

Web

bas

ed te

sts

Pee

r rev

iew

Pap

er e

xam

sca

nnin

g

Men

tom

eter

s/cl

icke

rs

Blo

gs

Vide

o co

nfer

ence

Gro

up m

ailin

gs

Wik

i

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Top 6 functions (listed from highest)

Pub

lic w

ebpa

ge

Pla

giar

ism

che

ck

Cou

rse

eval

utat

ion

Ass

ignm

ent (

ind

or

grou

p)

Res

ourc

e bo

kkin

g to

ol

Dis

cuss

ion

foru

m

Cur

ricul

um o

n th

e w

eb

Pro

ject

gro

up a

rea

Cou

rse

prog

ress

ion

tool

Vide

o cl

ips

Sha

red

docu

men

ts

E-m

eetin

g on

com

pute

r

Cou

rse

resu

lt re

porti

ng

Pee

r rev

iew

Pap

er e

xam

sca

nnin

g

Men

tom

eter

s/cl

icke

rs

Blo

gs

Current development within e-learning (Faculty demand driven)

• Implementation of new LMS Canvas • Pilot courses autumn 2016 • Go live 2017 with several deep integrations

• Joining edX to offer Massive Open Online Courses

• 2 courses running • 3 more in production • High ambitions for 2017 and 2018

• Deployment of videoplatform for all teachers

• From pilot to enterprise implementation • Integration to Canvas

2016‐09‐29

1

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTEOF TECHNOLOGY

Program Development and ManagementHans Havtun

Program Director Energy and [email protected]

Agenda• The Energy and Environment program• The organization of the program• The program perspective• How students influence the program

2016‐09‐29

2

My background• MSc Mechanical Engineering, KTH, 1995• PhD Energy Technology, KTH, 2001• Associate Professor in Energy Technology• Teaching at KTH since 1995, mainly

Thermodynamics, Energy Utilisation, and Cooling of Electronics• Director of Studies, Dept Energy Technology, KTH, 2001-2009, 2011• Educational Developer 2014-2016• Program Director Energy and Environment since March 2016

The Energy and Environment program- History- Program focus and Program outcomes- Courses at the BSc level- MSc programs available for the students

2016‐09‐29

3

History: Energy and Environment• KTH’s newest 5 year engineering program

(3 year BSc, and 2 year MSc)• Decision taken to start program in 2009• Program developed during 2009-2010 (however, a lot of

work had been done during 2008)• The first students were admitted at the fall semester 2010• In 2015 the first students were graduated• So far, about 50 students have graduated from the program

• Sustainable development is by definition a cross-diciplinary subject area

• The program attracts students with different interests and backgrounds

• It offers a number of MSc programs from different schools at KTH

• Courses are offered by five different schools

Program focus – Sustainable development

2016‐09‐29

4

Engineering degrees awarded

Even though the courses may be identical, the program outcomes differs slightly

BSc

MSc

3 years

2 years

MSc inEngineering 5 yearsAcademic

degreesProfessional

degree

Bologna convention Swedish convention

Program outcomes (5 year program)

In addition to the objectives specified in the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, a graduate Master of Science in Engineering from Energy and Environment at KTH shall …

2016‐09‐29

5

Program outcomesKnowledge and understanding• have basic knowledge of all aspects of the energy system in a broad

sense, which includes the technologies and subsystems that are found in all stages from energy source to the energy's end use, and be able to understand these as socio-technical systems consisting of both technical components and the actors that develop, manages and use the system

• have good knowledge of the processes of modelling, simulation and validation of energy and environmental systems using modern engineering tools

• possess good knowledge of conditions relating to innovation, corporate enterprises and business in terms of the planning, strategies and objectives of businesses within the energy and environment sector

Program outcomesSkills and abilities• be able to describe sustainable development and relevant

environmental problems at a foundational level, i.e., visions, concepts, definitions, and be able to provide a description of the current global situation

• be able to, in a professional way, express themselves and communicate thoughts, ideas, visions and results to those in their professional proximity and the surrounding community

• be able to critically analyse the historical and future importance of the energy and environment sector for global and local societal development and its relation to ecological systems

• be able to compare and discuss different perspectives on issues of importance to sustainable development

2016‐09‐29

6

Program outcomesAbility to make judgments and adopt a standpoint• have a holistic view of sustainable development with systems and

life-cycle thinking for products and services and for technical systems, based on an interdisciplinary approach and based on different actor perspectives

• have the ability to assess ethical issues and conflicts of objectives relating to sustainable development, and demonstrate a deep knowledge of the engineer's role and responsibilities in society, especially regarding social and economic aspects and environmental/ecological aspects

• have the skills to challenge, develop and problematise prevailing habits, thought patterns, technical and economic systems, and cultural and societal values.

Courses at the BSc level• At the BSc level, the program has 19 compulsory courses,• 3-4 conditionally elective prerequisite courses, and• 1 freely elective course

• The conditionally elective prerequisite courses are chosen based on the MSc program the student want to attend

2016‐09‐29

7

Year 1

P1 P2 P3 P4

Energy, climate, Ecology and Mechanics Basic

and environment Environmental Chemistry

Effects

Algebra and Calculus in One Calculus in Several Electromagnetism

Geometry Variable Variables and Waves

Year 2

P1 P2 P3 P4

Material and Environmental

Energy Balances Systems Analysis

Probability Theory

Differential and Statistics

Equations Electrical Circuit Energy Systems

Analysis

Numerical Methods and

Basic Programming

Thermodynamics

2016‐09‐29

8

Year 3

P1 P2 P3 P4

Energy Systems in Environmental

Society Economics

Bachelor Thesis

The empty spaces are filled with conditionally elective prerequisite courses decreed by the MSc programs, and one freely elective course

Year 3 – Electric Power Systems

P1 P2 P3 P4

Vector Analysis Energy Systems in Environmental Language

Society Economics Course

Electromagnetic

Theory, introduction course

Automatic Electric Power

Control Systems

Bachelor Thesis

2016‐09‐29

9

MSc programs available• Electric Power Engineering• Sustainable Energy Engineering• Sustainable Urban Planning and Design• Chemical Engineering• Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Infrastructure• Sustainable Technology• Environomical Pathways for Sustainable Energy Systems• Renewable Energy• Smart Electrical Networks and Systems• Energy for Smart Cities

At KTH

At least one semester at a foreign university*

* Through KIC Innoenergy

Positions of graduated studentsEnergy consultant, private sectorEnergy and climate advisor, municipalityProject engineer, government officeBuilding project manager, private sectorLand management engineer, private sectorSurface water and sewage water project manager, private sectorElectric supply network investigations manager, private sectorProject manager, Energy in buildings, private sectorTechnical project manager, private sectorWaste manager, municipality

2016‐09‐29

10


The organization of the program- Steering group (Director of undergraduate education of school)- Program management group- Program development group- Sustainable development group

Steering Group

Program management

group

Program development

group

Sustainable development

group

2016‐09‐29

11

Steering groupAs the program is multi-disciplinary, a steering group consisting of representatives from the four schools at KTH with interest in the program:

Industrial Engineering and ManagementArchitecture and Built EnvironmentElectrical EngineeringChemical Engineering

Decides on economical issues and strategical changes in the program

Program management groupProgram directorProgram secretaryStudent counsellorInternational coordinator

• Daily program management, handle exchange students• ”Planning” courses that are in the program• Responsible for fulfillment of program outcomes • Responsible for approving diploma applications

2016‐09‐29

12

Program development groupConsists of:Program management groupMaster program directorsTeachers representing courses with special roles in the programStudent representatives

• Suggest/Investigate changes to the program => Steering group

• Meets 3-4 times a year

Sustainable development groupConsists of:Vice program director (responsible for sustainable development)Representatives for each master programStudent representatives

• Suggest changes in courses/program to enhance sustainable development aspects

• Assurance that sustainable development outcomes in the program are met

2016‐09‐29

13


The program perspectiveA number of Courses builds the ProgramHow can the Program director influence courses?A course in the program may be offered:- by a different school! - to several programs with different program outcomes!Quite hard to- influence courses as a program director- assess fulfillment of program outcomes

2016‐09‐29

14

How to assess fulfillment of program outcomes Each program outcome is breaken down into smaller sub-outcomesAll courses are investigated to see which program outcomes are fulfilled and to what degree (partial, full)This is done by looking at the assessment of course modules and the course learning outcomes linked to themFinally, a table of all the program outcomes, sub-outcomes, courses, and course modules that fulfills program outcomes can be compiled

ExampleProgram outcome: have basic knowledge of all aspects of the energy system in a broad sense, which includes the technologies and subsystems that are found in all stages from energy source to the energy's end use, and be able to understand these as socio-technical systems consisting of both technical components and the actors that develop, manages and use the system

2016‐09‐29

15

ExampleDiscerning sub-outcomes:• …• … technologies and subsystems that are found in all

stages from energy source to the energy's end use …• ….

ExampleProgram sub-outcomes:have basic knowledge of… technologies and subsystems …• Energy sources• Energy conversion• Energy end-use

2016‐09‐29

16

ExampleCourse: ThermodynamicsCourse Module(s): Examination, Assignments Course outcomes: After the course, the student should be able to:• formulate, model, and solve problems involving systems and

devices having various forms of energy exchange and energy conversion.

• model systems, and to be able to identify sub-systems and components in engineering systems.

• present stringent and understandable solutions to problems in the field of thermodynamics.

ExampleApparently, the Thermodynamics course contributes to the program outcomes.To what degree? Is the program outcome fully met?As it does not cover all types of energy conversion, the program outcome is partially fulfilled.

Program outcome

Sub-outcome Course Assessment module

Degree

1 Energy conversion

Thermo-dynamics

Examination,Assignments

Partial

1 Energy conversion

Energy Systems

Project Partial

2016‐09‐29

17


How students influence the programStudents play a very important role in program development• They are represented in (almost) every deciding body at

KTH• They provide feedback to courses and the program• They are represented in the student union• They arrange their own program evaluation day

2016‐09‐29

18

How students influence the programThe student union appoints representatives that sit in the KTH board.The students in the Energy and Environment program have their own branch of the student union. The branch has a studies committee that monitor the quality of the program. The committee has one chairperson, and a vice chairperson. Each program also has a program responsible student.Each class has student representatives.These representatives attend the meetings arranged by the program: Program conference, Program development group, Sustainable development group, Schedule planning meeting, Semester start-up meeting, ”Link meetings”

Support activities for the programPD network: All program directors at KTH meet once a monthProgram conference: Held every year where all teachers in the program and student representatives meet to discuss program development.Schedule planning meetings: teachers having parallel courses meet prior to scheduling their courses to avoid clashes of exams, deadlines, etc.Semester start-up meetings: teachers having parallel courses meet a week before the semester starts to inform each other about deadlines in their respective courses.”Link meetings”: Teachers having parallel courses and student representatives meet twice during each semester to discuss progress of the semesterProgram development + Sustainable development group meetings

2016‐09‐29

19

Ongoing program work• Revision of break-down of program outcomes into sub-

outcomes• Visiting MSc programs to ensure that the program

outcomes are met- all specializations of all MSc (Difficult as the MSc program also is connected to other engineering programs).- progression of skills and abilities- sustainable development outcomes

• Formation an industrial reference group

Documents

2016-09-23 Teaching-trick Edstrom - PBLMD · 2016. 10. 21. · (HE teacher training) Curriculum development (programs, courses, module) Student development Learning outcomes Learning