Since 2014, we have embedded Test Driven Development (TDD) in an introductory programming course. TDD is common industry practice for developing code, and has also become a part of curriculums at different levels and proven beneficial in educational settings (Kollanus and Isomöttönen, 2008). The method itself is rather simple: you start with writing test cases for your program (what output you expect for certain input) and then you write code that fullfils these tests. In that way, the use of the TDD enables you to test your code immediately and throughout the development, in opposed to the more traditional way in which you first finish the code and then write test cases to verify it. Teaching this method in an introductory course would also enable students to use it in later courses and be well accustomed to the method when they graduate. Researchers that conducted a previous study on this recommends that TDD should be mandatory (Marrero and Settle, 2005).

TDD has during the years 2014-2017 been a mandatory part of an introductory programming course offered to non-computer science majors. The approach to teaching TDD has evolved and been a bit different each year. However, since TDD have been a mandatory part of the course, it was also part of what the students were assessed on, in coherent with constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996). Making it part of the assessment was also believed to motivate students to use the method, since the assessments can make students take part in learnings situations they otherwise would not (Ramsden, 2003). Hence, the students were required to not only submit and present their code, but also their test cases, that had to be written in a standard tool, doctest, that was presented and explained during lectures. In 2017, all 64 students that presented their final assignment during the spring filled out a survey about their experiences with TDD and in addition, nine of the students were interviewed.

From the open-ended questions on the surveys and from the interviews, it became evident that many of the students had not understood nor used the method TDD, but had instead used the testing tool to create test cases when their program was already finished. They had handed in test cases since that was a requirement to pass the course, but they had forgotten all about the method. From these results, the lesson we learned was that even though our intention had been to make TDD mandatory, and we planned the assessment with that in mind, we had actually only made the use of the testing tool mandatory. 

We did try to convince the students that using the TDD method would be beneficial in the development of the program, but failed. One of the benefits of TDD is for code maintenance, but the structure of our courses does not easily lend itself to requiring adjustments of a student project say six months after the first submission, especially for students who are non-CS majors.

When teaching your students a method through the usage of a tool, you need to make sure your students can distinguish between the method and the tool. You will also have to emphasize the method and plan the assessment in such a way that the use of the method, the process, is assessed. If the focus is only on the finished product, it will more likely be an assessment of how well the students used the tool and the students are at risk of neglecting the method altogether.

Background and purpose The Open Learning Initiative (OLI) at Carnegie Mellon University and Stanford University showed already in 2008 (Lovett, Meyer & Thille) that by using the OLI methodology, teaching and learning time could be reduced with 50% with maintained results. One key in this methodology is to use online questions with answer-depending feedback. In this workshop we will work with you to formulate OLIinspired questions for your course. Work done/work in progress We have previously worked with online quizzes in several forms (Bälter, Enström & Klingenberg, 2013) and analyzed learning data from OLI courses (Bälter, Zimmaro & Thille, 2018). The online learning material where the questions and feedback is embedded is in campus courses used in flipped classroom settings. In 2017 we ran a pilot of preparatory course in programming based on a Stanford course with OLI methodology in the OpenEdX environment. During the fall semester 2018 questions with answer-depending feedback was added to the course material in an online introductory programming course given in Canvas at KTH. Results/observations/lessons learned While a full implementation of the entire OLI methodology requires infrastructure that is not in place at KTH yet (event handler, analytic engine), the actual learning for the students takes place in the interaction with the questions and their feedback and this part can already be implemented in Canvas at KTH. Take-home message Well-formulated questions with forward focused feedback can dramatically speed up both teaching and 1 2 1 1 2 Page 25 KTH SoTL 2019 (A-K) learning. This workshop brings that speed to your course with practical exercises based on your own course.

Programme Integrating Courses (PICs) aim to tie students, teachers and courses in education programmes closer together. In this study, we investigate three PICs, as part of engineering programmes in computer science and media technology. The purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of how students and mentors experience the PICs with a focus on the assessment and the relationship between students, and students and mentors. We used a mixed method approach, interviewed 22 students and 6 mentors, and sent out questionnaires to all 25 mentors and all students from two of the three courses (630+470 students). The results showed that the students and mentors appreciated the social aspects of the courses, getting to know each other and share experiences. However, some were uncomfortable reflecting upon the given non-technical topics. On a general level, the students stated that their mentors assessed their reflections correctly but they were sceptical towards being graded on a scale other than pass/fail.

Background and purpose

Low levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour are a growing health problem globally and physical inactivity is associated with increased risk of numerous ailments, cardiovascular disease and mortality. To counteract this, the Walking seminar was invented at KTH in 2015. It is a small step towards a less sedentary lifestyle for students and teachers. Several teachers have already adopted walking seminars, but since it can be perceived as unorthodox, at least before you have tried it yourself, we offer this workshop to give hand-on experience on how to conduct a walking seminar.

Work done/work in progress

We started by transforming an on-campus course into a blended course to make sure all participants had accessed the information that would be discussed during the seminar. These walking seminars were evaluated among 131 students and nine teachers leading the walking seminars (Bälter et al. 2018). The responses to the student survey and teacher interviews indicate that discussions, sense of well-being and the general quality of the seminar improved, regardless of how physically active participants were the rest of the time.

Results/observations/lessons learned

Students might be sceptical towards a walking seminar, before they have tried it. However, if introduced a day with pleasant conditions, very few are willing to go back to sitting indoors. There is some time lost for the organisation (putting on clothes, dropping of bags, opening doors), but since the discussions outdoors are way more intense than the indoor discussions, this more than makes up for the lost time. The methodology for walking seminars has evolved since its beginning and at this workshop you will get a feel for state-of-the-art when it comes to promoting and arranging a walking seminar.

The paper presents a study were drivers and barriers for increased use of Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education were identified. The method included focus groups with Faculty Pedagogical Developers at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, followed by a Force Field Analysis. Ten drivers and ten barriers were identified, and are presented in this paper. The most significant drivers found were: collegial discussions, increased automatization, Technology enhanced learning support for the teachers (to assist exploration), tech savvy students and engagement among faculty. The most significant barriers identified were: unclear return on time investment, insufficient funding for purchases and lack of central decisions. The analysis also revealed that some drivers and barriers could act both ways. One example is locally developed systems which are understood to be drivers when it comes to solving (local) problems and encouraging experimentation with IT systems, but when these local systems are cancelled due to lack of funding, or for example replaced by centralized systems, they discourage use and development. The findings constitute a foundation for future discussions about change processes to increase utilization of technology enhanced learning in higher education.

As the integration of digital technologies in higher education continues to increase, there is a need to understand how to best support university teachers as designers of technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) in order to support students to achieve academic success. In this study, we have examined the Faculty Pedagogical Developer Initiative at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, an innovative project to support a bottom‐up change process of teachers as designers of TEL, with the intent to strengthen the professional pedagogical development for the faculty. Data were collected from interviews and official documents. Actor–network theory was applied for the analysis. The results suggest that the initiative stimulated both practical implementation of digital technology in educational programmes and also spurred a debate about teachers as designers of TEL between these pedagogical developers and other teachers across different schools and subjects at KTH. However, there are important social, organisational and technical challenges that should be considered when developing support for university teachers as designers of TEL. This paper concludes that this process requires a deep understanding of four interrelated elements: information, technology, organisation and social arrangements.

The potential of technology enhanced learning (TEL) can have both pedagogical and administrative benefits. In a previous study, we investigated the drivers and barriers for TEL in higher education using Force Field Analysis (FFA). In this follow-up study, we collected new data through a questionnaire to a group of pedagogical developers and at a presentation at a university internal conference for teachers. A Kruskal Wallis test was carried out to test if the groups filling out questionnaire deviated from each other in their ranking. A comparison was also done to the scores in the previous study. As a result of this triangulation, deviations were found between ratings for seven of the 20 identified forces. While the assessments of strengths in FFA is debated, we argue that each group’s view is an important component to understand the situation, and triangulation of data is helpful in understanding the different views.

Learning analytics can improve learning practice by transforming the ways we support learning processes. This study is based on the analysis of 252 papers on learning analytics in higher education published between 2012 and 2018. The main research question is: What is the current scientific knowledge about the application of learning analytics in higher education? The focus is on research approaches, methods and the evidence for learning analytics. The evidence was examined in relation to four earlier validated propositions: whether learning analytics i) improve learning outcomes, ii) support learning and teaching, iii) are deployed widely, and iv) are used ethically. The results demonstrate that overall there is little evidence that shows improvements in students' learning outcomes (9%) as well as learning support and teaching (35%). Similarly, little evidence was found for the third (6%) and the forth (18%) proposition. Despite the fact that the identified potential for improving learner practice is high, we cannot currently see much transfer of the suggested potential into higher educational practice over the years. However, the analysis of the existing evidence for learning analytics indicates that there is a shift towards a deeper understanding of students’ learning experiences for the last years.

Student engagement is crucial for successful self-paced learning. Feeling isolated during self-paced learning with neither adequate supervision nor intervention by teachers may cause negative emotions such as anxiety. Such emotions may in turn significantly weaken students' motivation to engage in learning activities. In this paper, we develop a self-paced learning environment (FishBuddy) that aims to reduce anxiety and promote student engagement. We construct and implement a physiologically-state-aware performance-evaluation model for identifying potentially fruitful moments of intervention when students show frustration during learning activities using an Apple Watch application that measures heart rate and alerts the student to watch a visualization of his or her own physiological state. We have conducted an experiment with 20 first-year undergraduate students, randomly separated into an experimental group and a control group, who carry out online, self-paced English grammar exercises. The students in the experimental group used FishBuddy and those in the control group did not. The self-reports from both groups show that FishBuddy significantly reduced reported experiences of anxiety and isolation in the experiment. Further to this, students who used FishBuddy were engaged longer with the exercises. The average scores on the exercises between the two groups, however, were not significantly different.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Antioxidants and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have a role in the human immune defense and may affect the susceptibility to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). To examine dietary intake of vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, zinc and PUFAs in relation to URTI incidence in a prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A total of 1533 Swedish women and men aged 25-64 years were followed for nine months during 2011-2012. Information on dietary intake was assessed through a web-based food frequency questionnaire, and events of URTI were self-reported prospectively as they occurred. Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to obtain incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The mean number of URTI events was 0.9 among all participants, 1.0 among women and 0.7 among men. In women, the incidence rate ratios ( 95% confidence interval) for high compared with low intake were 0.69 (0.55-0.88) for vitamin C, 0.77 (0.62-0.96) for vitamin E, 0.57 (0.39-0.83) for docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and 0.80 (0.65-0.99) for arachidonic acid ( AA). No association was found for selenium or zinc among women. In men, an increased URTI incidence was seen with medium vitamin E intake (1.42 (1.09-1.85)) and high zinc intake (1.50 (1.04-2.16)). No association was found for vitamin C, selenium or PUFAs among men. CONCLUSIONS: We found an inverse association of URTI incidence among women for vitamin C, vitamin E, DHA and AA intake and a positive association among men for vitamin E and zinc intake. The observed gender differences warrant further investigation.