BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One way to gain a new perspective and inspiration for one's teaching practice is to go on a teaching sabbatical and teach or co-teach in a new context at another institution. Awarding or sending faculty on sabbaticals is an old practice and, at some institutions, a well-integrated part of faculty development (Kang & Miller, 1999).

WORK DONE

All authors have been fortunate to go on teaching sabbaticals funded by The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT,2025). Emma Riese was at Arizona State University 2024; Ric Glassey at the National University of Singapore 2023; Tomas Ekholm at Williams College 2019; Olle Bälter at Williams College 2008; Viggo Kann at Amherst College 2006; all in the fall semester.

LESSONS LEARNED

Going on a teaching sabbatical gave us all new perspectives and time to reflect. While moving to another country requires planning and determination, we all agree that it was definitely worth it! The experiences have broadened our perspectives, shaped us, and influenced our practices. Below are short descriptions of our journeys:

Viggo started to do research in Computer Science Education, and implemented several changes at KTH inspired by Amherst College. For example he changed the KTH cultureof not erasing the blackboard after each lecture, and he switched to holding one-hourinstead of two-hour lectures (Kann, 2010).

Olle changed his research area to Technology Enhanced Learning. Together with Viggo,they founded Cerise 1 , the CS Education research group. The sabbatical was a determining factor for the visiting scholarship at Stanford Graduate School of Education 2015-16. There he picked up the ideas on Question-Based Learning, later improved together with Ric to pure Question-Based Learning (Bälter et al., 2024).

Ric used the sabbatical to dive into learning science and the desirable and undesirable difficulties in learning. He was also able to reflect on other approaches to managing scale and quality against the rise of Gen-AI. This has led to a series of studies on how KTH might leverage AI to enhance our learning environment (e.g. Fayaz et al., 2025).

Emma’s biggest takeaway was how working as a teaching team created a supportive work environment for instructors and teaching assistants while ensuring students across all course sections got a similar student experience. She also had the opportunity to collaborate on training for teaching assistants (ASU, 2025).

Besides teaching a new course, Tomas took the opportunity to sit in on several courses with different teachers. It was a privilege to have time for this, while also having time to reflect.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

(1) Go on exchanges and teach! If you can, bring the rest of the family; it is a wonderful adventure. (2) There is much more to a teaching sabbatical than teaching! Reach out to the local pedagogical developers and engage to help further develop your own pedagogy. (3) It is an opportunity to say ‘yes’; to all the serendipitous meetings, seminars, and workshops that are a ‘no’ under the normal workload at home. (4) Absence makes the heart grow fonder! The grass may not be greener on the other side; however, having some distance from your typical environment can make you appreciate what you have and renew your efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education, STINT, for funding our teaching sabbaticals!

REFERENCES

Arizona State University, Ira Fulton Schools of Engineering, Learning and Teaching Hub,Teaching Assistants onboarding and beyond, URL: https://lth.engineering.asu.edu/referenceguide/teaching-assistants-onboarding-and-beyond/

Bälter, O., Glassey, R., Jemstedt, A., & Bosk, D. (2024). Pure Question-Based Learning.Education Sciences, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080882

Kann, V. (2010). Kan kvalitet på ett elitcollege föras över till svenska förhållanden? NU 2010.URL: https://suhf.se/static/2010/2010/konferensbidrag/Pass5_Kan_kvalitet_pa_ett_elitcollege_foras_over_till_svenska_forhallanden.pdf

Kang, B., & Miller, M. T. (1999). An Overview of the Sabbatical Leave in Higher Education: A Synopsis of the Literature Base.

The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education, STINT, Teaching sabbatical, URL: https://www.stint.se/en/program/teaching-sabbatical

Avid Fayaz, Richard Glassey and Alexander Baltatzis. 2025. Generating Personalized Assignments with Students in the Loop. In Proceedings of the 2025 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2025).

Stakeholders and researchers in higher education have long debatedthe consequences of English-mediuminstruction (EMI); a key assumption of EMI isthat student’s academic learning through English should be at least as good aslearning through their first language (usually the national language). This studyaddressed the following question: “What is the impact from English-medium instructionon students’ academic performance in an online learning environment?”“Academic performance” was measured in two ways: number of correctlyanswered test questions and through-put/drop-out rate. The study adopted anexperimental design involving a large group (n = 2,263) randomized control studyin a programming course. Student participants were randomly allocated to anEnglish-medium version of the course (the intervention group) or a Swedishmediumversion of the course (the control group). The findings were that studentsenrolled on the English-medium version of the course answered statisticallysignificantly fewer test questions correctly; the EMI students also dropped outfromthe course to a statistically significantly higher degree compared to studentsenrolled on the Swedish version of the course. The conclusion of this study is thusthat EMI may, under certain circumstances, have negative consequences for students’academic performance.

This study is the first to investigate how an online course consisting solely of multiple-choice questions and detailed formative feedback comparesto an online course format that was previously shown to be highlyeffective. Specifically, a pure question-based learning (pQBL) version ofa course was compared to a question-based learning course (QBL)which consisted of the same questions and feedback as the pQBLcourse, but also included ordinary texts about the subject. To explorehow pQBL and QBL compared in terms of learning outcomes andcompletion time, 492 employees at the Swedish Employment Agencywere randomized to either a pQBL or a QBL version of a course aboutIT security. The results indicate that the pQBL course resulted in equallygood or better learning outcomes compared to the QBL course. Thisresult was robust to changes in how course quality was defined. Inaddition, participants completed the pQBL course slightly faster.Because a pQBL course requires less resources to produce, there arebenefits to relying on the pQBL method when teachers or studentshave limited time. Further benefits that come with the flexibility of thepQBL method are discussed

We have evaluated a new pedagogical approach, pure question-based learning, or rather, a modern, digitized version of a really old approach: the Socratic method of learning. The pedagogical approach was evaluated and improved using a design-based research methodology. An online course was developed with pure question-based learning to explain its predecessor: question-based learning. The course was successively taken by students, researchers, and practitioners, and discussed in four group seminars. Feedback from each iteration was integrated into the next version and the course is still in use, see link below. Results from the design-based research process were positive ((Formula presented.) participants, over four iterations) with the main negative results coming from the unfamiliarity of the format and feelings of exam-like stress during the first encounter. While pure question-based learning is new, it builds upon well-tested pedagogical methods. The method has several potential advantages: learning can be broken down into smaller modules, there is less passive learning for the students, less learning material needs to be created and AI could be used for this creation.

Background: Postsecondary students need to be able to handle self-regulated learning and manage schedules set by instructors. This is particularly the case with online courses, as they often come with a limited number of social reminders and less information directly from the teacher compared to courses with physical presence. This may increase procrastination and reduce timeliness of the students. Reminders may be a tool to improve the timeliness of students' study behavior, but previous research shows that the effect of reminders differs between types of reminders, whether the reminder is personalized or general, and depending on the background of the students. In the worst cases, reminders can even increase procrastination. Objective: The aim of this study was to test if personalized email reminders, as compared to general email reminders, affect the time to completion of scheduled online coursework. The personalized reminders included information on which page in the online material the participants ought to be on at the present point in time and the last page they were on during their last session. The general reminders only contained the first part of this information: where they ought to be at the present point in time. Methods: Weekly email reminders were sent to all participants enrolled in an online program, which included 39 professional learners from three East African countries. All participants in the Online Education for Leaders in Nutrition and Sustainability program, which uses a question-based learning methodology, were randomly assigned to either personalized or general reminders. The structure of the study was AB-BA, so that group A received personalized reminders for the first unit, then general reminders for the rest of the course, while group B started with general reminders and received personalized reminders only in the third (and last) unit in the course. Results: In total, 585 email reminders were distributed, of which 390 were general reminders and 195 were personalized. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the difference in the probability of being on time with one's studies. The probability of being on time was 14 percentage points (95% credible interval 3%-25%) higher following personalized reminders compared to that following general reminders. For a course with 100 participants, this means 14 more students would be on time. Conclusions: Personalized reminders had a greater positive effect than general reminders for a group of adults working full-time while enrolled in our online educational program. Considering how small the intervention was-adding a few words with the page number the student ought to be on to a reminder-we consider this effect fairly substantial. This intervention could be repeated manually by anyone and in large courses with some basic programming.

A good source of data for learning analytics is the online questions and answers posed to the learners during the course. However, there are several reports on the challenges of question construction as these questions are time consuming to construct and verify, especially if you go beyond multiple-choice questions. One remedy to this is learnersourcing that includes the learners in the generation and verification of these questions for both pedagogical reasons and resource conservation. Learnersourcing is one solution to producing and improving learning activities at scale by leveraging student effort. It also creates a new layer of learner data to analyse: first, in terms of the behaviour traces from producing learning activities; and second in terms of the impressions that other learners and teachers have from taking or reviewing those activities. This chapter will introduce basic concepts and examples of learnersourcing along with examples and approaches to applying a learning analytics lens upon the data traces that are produced.

Assessment plays an important role in education, and can both guide and motivate learning. Assessment can, however, be carried out with different aims; providing the students with feedback that supports the learning (formative assessment) and judging to which degree the students have fulfilled the intended learning outcomes (summative assessment). In this study, we explore the instructors’ perspective on assessment within the context of introductory programming courses offered to non-computer science majors at a public tuition-free state-funded university in a Nordic country. These courses are given to a large number of students and also employ several teaching assistants (TAs). We used constructivism as a basis for our study and investigated how instructors implement formative and summative assessments, how they view their role, and what expectations they have of their TAs in these assessments. We interviewed seven course coordinators (main instructors for introductory programming courses with additional administrative duties but without formal responsibility of the grading) and analyzed 205 course artifacts, such as syllabi, lab assignment instructions and course material from the cross-department TA training course. The results showed that course coordinators use formative and summative assessments both separately and within the same activity. They view themselves as responsible for the assessments, as the planners and material developers, as the organizers and administrators, as well as monitors of the assessments. However, the results also showed that these course coordinators delegate much of the responsibility for the assessments to their TAs, and expect TAs to both grade the students and provide them with feedback and guidance. In addition, the TAs are also expected to act as informants about their students’ performance. The course coordinators’ role entails many different aspects, where communicating through instructions to both students and TAs are essential. We see that this implementation of assessment, with lots of responsibility distributed to the TAs, could be difficult to manage for a single faculty member who is not necessarily responsible for the grading. Based on the results, we outline some recommendations, such as offering TA training.