The Pedagogical Developers Initiative - Systematic Shifts, Serendipities, and Setbacks

The Pedagogical Developers Initiative - Systematic Shifts, Serendipities, and Setbacks

A. Berglund, H. Havtun, A. Jerbrant, L. Wingård, M. Andersson, B. Hedin, et al (2017).  The Pedagogical Developers Initiative - Systematic Shifts, Serendipities, and Setbacks. 12.

Pedagogical projects have often, at KTH as well as elsewhere, been initiated and managed by individual enthusiasts rather than dedicated teams. This generally decreases the possibility of successful implementation of more ambitious ideas, e.g., changing the educational programmes, implementing the CDIO syllabus, or strengthening the pedagogical development of larger parts of the faculty. In order to enable wider and more effective change, KTH therefore launched a university-encompassing three-year-long project in 2014, in which a group of highly motivated teachers representing all schools of KTH were appointed part-­time pedagogical developers (PD). The PDs were given the task of promoting pedagogical development and facilitate cooperation and knowledge exchange between faculty members (Berglund et al., 2015; Berglund et al., 2016). From 2017, the functions of the PDs are supposed to be integrated parts of the line organization at KTH.

A major insight confirmed by the project and its many sub-projects has indeed been the fundamental importance of collegial discussions and the creation of processes that facilitate and support teacher cooperation. We have also through discussion with faculty at KTH confirmed the need for clearly defined, tangible, incentives for teachers, motivating them to participate in pedagogical development activities even as this means less time left for the traditional pathway to rewards within academia, i.e., research. A number of possible approaches to this situation have emerged from the project and will be described in the paper.

In this paper, we chart changes that have occurred in the educational practices at KTH by describing and discussing the project’s focus on pedagogical development of faculty, actual execution of changes in the engineering educational programmes, lessons learned along the way, and visions yet to be realised. We also identify obstacles and challenges facing staff development projects that seek a middle way, encouraging grassroot initiatives while acting on mandate from top-level management.

References Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Johansson, H.B., Jerbrant, A., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Soulard, J., Kjellgren, B. (2015). The pedagogical developers initiative – changing educational practices and strengthening CDIO skills. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China, June 8-11, 2015.

Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Jerbrant, A., Wingård, L., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Soulard, J., Kjellgren, B. (2016). The pedagogical developers initiative – development, implementation and lessons learned from a systematic approach to faculty development. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.

Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22 2017

Authors (New): 
Anders Berglund
Hans Havtun
Anna Jerbrant
Lasse Wingård
Magnus Andersson
Björn Hedin
Björn Kjellgren
Pages: 
12
Affiliations: 
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden
Keywords: 
pedagogical developers
educational change
change agents
faculty development
CDIO standards
Year: 
2017
Reference: 
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Johansson, H.B., Jerbrant, A., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Soulard, J., and Kjellgren, B. (2015). The pedagogical developers initiative – changing educational practices and strengthening CDIO skills. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China: 
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Jerbrant, A., Wingård, L., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., Soulard, J., and Kjellgren, B. (2016). The pedagogical developers initiative – development, implementation and lessons learned from a systematic approach to faculty development. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland.: 
CDIO Standard 10 (2010). CDIO Standard 10, in CDIO Standards 2.0, http://www.cdio.org/implementing-cdio/standards/12-cdio-standards#standard10, as accessed January 30, 2017: 
Elton, L. (2003). Dissemination of innovations in higher education: A change theory approach, Tertiary Education and Management, 9(3), 199-214.: 
Graham, R. (2012). Achieving excellence in engineering education: the ingredients of successful change, The Royal Academy of Engineering, London: 
ISBN 1-903496-83-7
Jick, T. D. 1991. “Implementing Change”, Note 9-191-114, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.: 
Kezar, A., and P. Eckel. (2002). Examining the Institutional Transformation Process: The Importance of Sensemaking, Interrelated Strategies, and Balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 295-328. : 
10.1023/a:1014889001242.
Kleijnen, J., Dolmans, D., Willems, J. & van Hout, H. (2014). Effective quality management requires a systematic approach and a flexible organisational culture: a qualitative study among academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 103-126.: 
Kolmos, A., and De Graaff, E. (2007). Process of Changing to PBL. In Management of Change, edited by E. de Graaff and A. Kolmos, 31-43. Rotterdam: Sense.: 
Kotter, J.P. (1995). Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 74(2) (Reprint No. 95204).: 
Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 55(2), 4–11.: 
Mento, A., Jones R.M., Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.: 
Reidsema, C., Hadgraft, R., Cameron, I., and King, R. (2013). Change Strategies for Educational Transformation. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 19(2), 101-108. : 
10.7158/22054952.2013.11464083.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium.: 
Todnem By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of change management, 5(4), 369-380.: 
Wenger, E. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice – A brief overview of the concept and its uses, http://wenger-trayner.com/theory/, 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, March/April: 7-14.: 
Wilsford, D. (1994). Path Dependency, or Why History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Care Systems in a Big Way, Journal of Public Policy, 14(3), 251-283.: 
Go to top