ITM Pedagogical Developers
Intermediate report
Anders Berglund, Hans Havtun, Anna Jerbrant,
Hans Johansson and Lasse Wingård
Agenda
• Intro about ”ITM PD”
• ITM PD’s
- Objectives
- Activities
• Course Plans
• Formative Feedback
• LEQ
Huvuduppdrag
• ”Huvuduppdraget för de pedagogiska utvecklarna är
att stimulera och underlätta för skolans lärare, lärarlag
och program att bedriva och implementera
pedagogiskt utvecklingsarbete.
• ECE-skolan får uppdraget att utveckla konceptet med
pedagogiska utvecklare.”
• As far as we know, no English translation is available.
Rektors beslut UF-2013/0361
Organisation
Organisation
Ledning
Program
Studenter
Lärare
HP
PU
ITM – PD – Aims (1)
• Improve evaluation procedures for courses and programs at
ITM School
• Review, and if need be, revise course plans
• And, from a program perspective:
- Develop examination and teaching methods to decrease
teacher work load at the same time as the learning of the
students increase
- Increase the use of continuous examination and formative
feedback.
ITM – PD – Aims (2)
Create course development teams that:
- meet regularly to discuss pedagogical issues and
performing pedagogical
- strengthening team members through feedback and
experience exchange
ITM-PD – Activities (1)
• Quality Ensurance of Course Course Plans
• Develop Examination and Teaching Methods
• Clarify the Program Perspective and Program
Goals for Teachers and Students
• Highlight the Non-technical Skills (e.g. written
and oral communication)
ITM-PD – Activities (2)
• Form course development teams (department)
• Form course development teams (school) where
topics of interest can be discussed, e.g. Elearning, Teaching of large courses, Project
based courses
• Implement LEQ as a course evaluation tool
• Initiate ITM K50 and L50
ITM K50 and ITM L50
• We will identify the courses and teachers at each
department that are strategically important for the
programs of the school. We aim to find 50 courses and
teachers.
• Initially we will map the teachers that are already
cooperating and where they are working. The aim is to
encourage these teachers to work across the school to
promote experience exchange to the school’s faculty
Course Plans – What is said in the Higher
Education Ordinance (Högskoleförordningen)?
First and second-cycle courses and study programmes
Courses and study programmes - Section 13
All first and second-cycle study programmes shall be offered in the form
of courses. Courses may be combined to create study programmes.
Ordinance (2006:1053).
Course syllabus (Course plan with KTH terminology) - Section 14
A course shall have a course syllabus. Ordinance (2006:1053).
Section 15
The course syllabus shall indicate the following: the cycle in which the
course is given, the number of credits, objectives, specific entry
requirements, how student performance is assessed and any other
regulations required. Ordinance (2010:1064).
Course plans – What is stated by KTH?
Ur presentation om rättssäker examination av Carina Kjörling
All courses must have a course plan – specify rules – shall be written in
Swedish and translated into English after approval
The rules are similar to laws decided by the parliament and regulations
decided by the government
1. compulsory and general
2. must be adhered to by university staff as well as by students
Exceptions from the rules for examination procedure specified in the
course plan are not allowed
There is a need for non-compulsory rules – should be entitled: general
advice, guidelines, recommendations etc
Compulsory rules shall not be given in course PM or similar documents
(however, detailed grading criteria can be specified in a course PM)
Course Plans – The Current State at ITM?
• Are available for almost(!) all courses at ITM (422 distinct courses
VT14+HT15, of which 63 are Degree Project courses)
• English language version of course plans are missing for some further
courses
• The amount of text and its quality varies significantly, both for
Swedish and for English language versions
• Many teachers do not know how the course plan should be used,
what the different sections should contain and where the information
in the course plan is published
• There are procedures established for review and approval of new
course plans, but it is chiefly an administrative review of formalities.
The relevance of and need for a new course is currently not reviewed
(but a new form has just been presented for this purpose)
Lasse’s Pedagogical Projects:
• Presentation/workshop on course plans at the program council
(programkollegium) of the Material Design and Engineering Program
• Plan another workshop on course plans for teachers at the Södertälje unit
(TMT)
• Is currently reviewing all first-cycle course plans
• Aiming at finishing review and update of all ITM course plans before the
start of 2015/16 academic year
• Will write guidelines for course plan design
• So far an ITM initiative, but common guidelines for all of KTH are needed
”Formative feedback”
What?
Why?
How?
Formative feedback concerns transmission of learnings to
students and teachers to modify and improve student
engagement and their learning
A core activity and an integral part of enabling effective
teaching and trigger a student-to-student learning format.
To improve student comprehension, learning needs, and
academic progress during a lesson, unit, or course.
To develop a higher level of achievement in cognitive and
skill outcomes, formative feedback should have a range of
qualities:
- Timely
- Motivational
- Individual/personal
- Manageable
- Rooted in learning objectives
Anders’ Pedagogical Projects:
Activities:
– Invited speaker at ECE on formative feedback in June
2014
– Formative feedback workshop in Aug 2014
– Initiated locally a PD group on Formative feedback that
aims to map different practices with different formats of
feedback
– Start of test-implementation of LEQ
– Invitation to workshop on Formative feedback in
January
Anna’s Pedagogical Projects:
• Continuous examination in large courses (>150
students, tried two different designs in one basic and
one advanced course)
• Design of alternative examination in large courses
(>150 students, tried it in one basic course)
• Design of formative feed-back through for instance
peer-review (tried two different designs in one basic
and one advanced course)
• To-do coming period LEQ test in 5 different Indek
courses and design of a ProSam course for CINEK
year 1-3 (with a focus on non-technical skills and
JML knowledge)
Course Evaluation
for Course Development
Introduction
How can you as a teacher make the students in
your course learn more/faster/deeper?
Are you tired of reading the same comments about
your course year after year in course evaluations?
You can improve your course!
We are here to assist you…
Introducing LEQ
LEQ – Learning Experience
Questionnaire
• The LEQ explores factors in the students’ learning
environment which, according to evidence based research, is
beneficial for students’ learning
• Focus is shifted to the students’ perception of the learning
environment and steered away from evaluating teaching
activities and/or teachers
• The teacher can identify strengths and develop-ment areas
in his/her learning environment.
• Analysis and development is done together with other teachers
– experience is shared!
• The quality of the course is determined by the students’
performance in examination
LEQ V 3.0.2
• The questionnaire consists of 22 statements and 4 open
questions (+ 3 questions for student data)
• The students state to what degree they disagree/agree to the
statements on a scale from -3 to +3 (where 0 is neutral)
• Based on the results (mean values), a footprint of the course
can be done to visualize the students’ view of the learning
environment
• The LEQ is still under development
Process 1 (2)
• Teachers are invited to participate in a course development
group where LEQ is used as a basis for discussion. The
participation is voluntary.
• A pedagogical developer (PD) initiates a LEQ that the students
fill in.
• Once the LEQ is done, each teacher gets their data from the
PD.
• The course development group (3-5 teachers) meet to discuss
the strengths and development areas of their courses.
• The teacher decides what he/she want to share with the other
teachers.
Process 2 (2)
•
•
•
The main purpose with the course development groups is to get
a discussion going and to facilitate experience transfer.
An additional purpose is to identify common topics that needs
development.
Workshops will be arranged on these topics!
Exemples of footprints
(Real data)
1
21
20
19
18
22 3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
1
2
3
21
4
20
5
19
6 18
17
22 3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
2
3
4
5
6
7 17
16
8
15
9
14
10
13
11
12
7
16
8
15
9
14
10
13
11
12
Experiences…
• Most of the invited teachers participate
• Many appreciate the help with the LEQ
• Many participants says they have gained a lot of, and
valuble and unexpected information
• All of the participating teachers have shared their data
• There is a great exchange of ideas
• Many claims they will implement changes
Closure
We invite you to participate and:
- share your experience with others
- gain new insights
- improve your course
- improve the program your course is a part of
LEQ statements 1 (2)
LEQ# LEQ Statement
1 I worked with tasks that made me interested and committed
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I investigated something on my own within the scope of the
course
I had the opportunity to try, and to learn from the experience
The course was challenging in a stimulating way
I felt that I was part of a community
The atmosphere in the course felt open and inclusive
The learning objectives helped me understand what I was
expected to learn from the course
It was clear how the course was organized and what I was
expected to do
My background knowledge was sufficient to follow the course
I understood what the teachers were talking about
I was able to learn by using concrete examples that I could
relate to
LEQ statements 2 (2)
LEQ# LEQ Statement
12 My understanding of key concepts was given high priority in the
course
13 The course activities helped me to reach the learning objectives
efficiently
14 It was clear what I was expected to learn in order to get a particular
grade
15 I received regular feedback on my work from peers or teachers
16 I could practice and receive feedback without being formally
assessed
17 The course examination felt honest and fair
18 I regularly spent time to reflect on my work
19 I was able to learn in a way that suited me
20 I had opportunity to choose what I was going to do
21 I was able to learn by collaborating and discussing with others
22 I was able to get support from peers or teachers if I needed it
Hans Hs Pedagogical Projects
• ”Try-it-out” Examination with Fast
Feedback (Fall 2014)
• Structured Coupling between Courses
(Fall 2014)
• Student Moderator During Lectures
(Spring 2015)
Hans Js Pedagogical Projects:
•
Collegial teacher group interested in E-learning contact
hbjo@kth.se (Hans Johansson)
•
Learning by discussions, ”hands on”, from experts, books
etc.
•
No obligations, large or small individual engagement.
•
Lack of time, How do we meet? How do we
communicate?
•
https://dreambroker.com/channel/w0t0wia7/n9m19tkm
(video
Traditional course
”Blended” course
Continous improvements by ”feedback”
Mer information:
http://intra.itm.kth.se/ tryck på rosa knapp