A. Berglund, H. Havtun, H. Johansson, A. Jerbrant, M. Andersson, B. Hedin, et al, et al (2015).  THE PEDAGOGICAL DEVELOPERS INITIATIVE - CHANGING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES AND STRENGTHENING CDIO SKILLS. 13.

This paper put emphasis on change agents within the universities and how local initiatives can be systematically approached and ramped up. Rooted in the challenges and constraints that have been addressed in past educational program initiatives, the case consists of specific focus areas to leverage impact. Universities continuously strives to provide the best conditions for an inspiring and prosperous learning environment, and to provide educational programs with teaching of excellent educational quality. KTH is no exception and therefore the university management has initiated a pedagogical program starting in 2014. One of the first thing initiated within the framework of this pedagogical program is the creation of a group of 24 pedagogical developers.

The focus for the pedagogical developers is to facilitate the opportunities for KTHs faculty to work together and create consensus on educational development in different teaching teams. This paper presents the University's pedagogical developers' initiative as a whole and how this has been outlined in detail to reach specific redesign targets. The School of Industrial Engineering and Management pedagogical group consists of five practicing teachers that besides this new role also engage heavily in various courses of the School's departments. Since the pedagogical initiative is aligned with several important CDIO aspects, e.g. the learning environment, formats of formative feedback, assessment and examination there is also importance to reassure this in the existing Master level programs.

At KTH the five-year comprehensive Master of Science in Engineering programs concern distinct vocational educations in which the CDIO aspects are very important. At the same time the programs has been divided in a basic level (B.Sc. in Engineering) of three years and a advanced level (M.Sc.) of two years. This has for instance made it harder to align the progression between first cycle level and second cycle level regarding for instance the CDIO efforts (e.g. oral and written communication, teamwork). This paper will therefore discuss and enhance how the pedagogical programme, we as pedagogical developers, can support and strengthen the initiation and implementation of the CDIO aspects in the education.

Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015

Authors (New): 
Anders Berglund
Hans Havtun
Hans B Johansson
Anna Jerbrant
Magnus Andersson
Björn Hedin
Juliette Soulard
Björn Kjellgren
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden
faculty development
change agents
pedagogical developers
community of practice
Bain, K., (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 
ISBN 0- 674-01325-5.
Berglund, A., (2013). Two facets of Innovation in Engineering Education: The interplay of Student Learning and Curricula Design. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. I: 
ISBN: 978-91-7501- 919-2
Berglund, A., Ritzén, S., & Bernhard, J., (2014). Reforming Engineering Education - A feasibility analysis of Models for Innovation. Paper presented at the SEFI 42nd Annual Conference.: 
Biggs J. & Tang, C., (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill: 
ISBN 978-03-35-24275-7
Borrego, M. and Bernhard, J., (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as a globally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14-47.: 
CDIO Standards, (2015)., as accessed January 28, 2015: 
CWSEI (2015). The Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, as accessed January 22, 2015.: 
Elmgren, M. & Henriksson, A-S., (2014). Academic Teaching. Lund: Studentlitteratur, ISBN 978-91- 44-09520-2.: 
Graham, R., (2012). Achieving excellence in engineering education: the ingredients of successful change, The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK, ISBN 1-903496-83-7,, as accessed January 28, 2015.: 
Graham, R., (2012). The One Less Traveled By: The Road to Lasting Systemic Change in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 596-600.: 
Hake, R.R., (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data to introductory physics courses, American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.: 
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G., (1992). Force Concept Inventory, The physics teacher, 30 (3), 141-157.: 
Kember, K., McNaught, C., (2007). Enhancing University Teaching: Lessons from Research into Award-Winning Teachers. Abingdon: Routledge: 
ISBN 978-04-15-41716-7.
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Volkwein, J. F., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). The changing face of engineering education. BRIDGE-WASHINGTON-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, 36(2), 5.: 
Questionnaire, as accessed January 28, 2015: 
ISBN 0-642-45723-9 (Online version)
Ramsden, P., (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, New York: Routledge Falmer: 
ISBN 978-04-15-30345-3.
Wenger, E., (2015). Introduction to communities of practice – A brief overview of the concept and its uses,, as accessed January 28, 2015.: 
Wieman, C., Perkins, K. and Gilbert, S., (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress, Change, 42 (2), 7-14.: 
Go to top