Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 38) Show all publications
Högfeldt, A.-K., Malmi, L., Kinnunen, P., Jerbrant, A., Strömberg, E., Berglund, A. & Villadsen, J. (2018). Leading the teacher team - balancing between formal and informal power in program leadership. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(1), 49-65
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Leading the teacher team - balancing between formal and informal power in program leadership
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Tertiary Education and Management, ISSN 1358-3883, E-ISSN 1573-1936, Vol. 24, no 1, p. 49-65Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This continuous research within Nordic engineering institutions targets the contexts and possibilities for leadership among engineering education program directors. The IFP-model, developed based on analysis of interviews with program leaders in these institutions, visualizes the program director's informal and formal power. The model is presented as a tool for starting a shared discussion on the complexities of the leadership of engineering program development. The authors liken program development to hunting in teams. Each individual expert in the program is needed, and all experts will need to work and collaborate for the same target. This calls for strategic and long-term thinking of engineering education development. Institutions should support the development of both formal structures as well as informal leadership skills among their program directors, but never fall for the temptation to see the program director as the only actor on the stage.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2018
Keywords
academic leadership, program director, engineering education, education development
National Category
Learning
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-226238 (URN)10.1080/13583883.2017.1384052 (DOI)000428754300004 ()
Note

QC 20180530

Available from: 2018-05-30 Created: 2018-05-30 Last updated: 2018-05-30Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A. & Leifer, L. (2017). Beyond design thinking - Whose perspective is driving the people-Centric approach to change?. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Building Community: Design Education for a Sustainable Future, E and PDE 2017. Paper presented at 19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, E and PDE 2017, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOslo, Norway, 7 September 2017 through 8 September 2017 (pp. 613-618). Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Beyond design thinking - Whose perspective is driving the people-Centric approach to change?
2017 (English)In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Building Community: Design Education for a Sustainable Future, E and PDE 2017, Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society , 2017, p. 613-618Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This research paper attempts to position fundamental principles of design thinking within a framework of problem-solving theory. The roles that are assumed in a co-creation community, team or workplace, are influenced by a champion who arises and systematically anchors alternatives and ideas once proposals are about to be realised. By embracing diversity, design thinking introduces interdisciplinary challenges that can lead to radical change and break-through innovation. This paper attempts to trace design thinking back to its foundational concern with the design of novel products, services, and business models. Regarding design thinking as a problem-focused (rather than solution-fixated) ethos, mindset or disposition, instead of merely a practitioners’ tool, we believe that this perspective is needed to deepen our understanding of design thinking. Hence, this paper provides a literature review at some depth, guided by a purpose-driven question: How do individual roles in an organisation become utilized throughout the anchoring and implementation of design thinking among stakeholders?.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society, 2017
Keywords
Anchoring, Co-creation, Design thinking, Organizational change, Problem finding, Roles
National Category
Design
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-224396 (URN)2-s2.0-85042074735 (Scopus ID)9781904670841 (ISBN)
Conference
19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, E and PDE 2017, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOslo, Norway, 7 September 2017 through 8 September 2017
Note

QC 20180320

Available from: 2018-03-20 Created: 2018-03-20 Last updated: 2018-03-20Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Jerbrant, A., Wingård, L., Andersson, M., Hedin, B. & Kjellgren, B. (2017). THE PEDAGOGICAL DEVELOPERS INITIATIVE: SYSTEMATIC SHIFTS, SERENDIPITIES, AND SETBACKS. In: 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22, 2017: . Paper presented at 13th International CDIO Conference.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>THE PEDAGOGICAL DEVELOPERS INITIATIVE: SYSTEMATIC SHIFTS, SERENDIPITIES, AND SETBACKS
Show others...
2017 (English)In: 13th International CDIO Conference in Calgary, Canada, June 18-22, 2017, 2017Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Pedagogical projects have often, at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 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 educational programs, implementing the CDIO syllabus, or strengthening the pedagogical development of larger parts of the faculty. To enable wider and more effective change, KTH top management therefore launched a universityencompassing three-year project in 2014, in which a group of highly motivated teachers from all schools at KTH were appointed part-time pedagogical developers (PDs). The PDs were given the task of promoting pedagogical development and facilitate cooperation and knowledge exchange among faculty members, as described in two previous papers at CDIO conferences. From 2017, the outcomes of this project are supposed to be integrated parts of the KTH line organization. The project has led to numerous actions, which would have been difficult to set in motion unless given the freedom in time to explore and to develop into a collective effort rather than a myriad of individual “stand-alone” examples. By addressing key areas for pedagogical development, our group of dedicated faculty have tried to surpass the suboptimal "lock-in" of strict individual reasoning and to deal with surfaced questions and relevant issues in a broader collective manner. 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 discussions with faculty at KTH, confirmed the need for clearly defined, tangible incentives for teachers, motivating them to participate in pedagogical development activities, even if this means less time left for the traditional pathway to rewards within academia, i.e. research. 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 educations, lessons learned along the way, and visions yet to be realised.

Keywords
pedagogical developers, educational change, change agents, faculty development, CDIO standards
National Category
Pedagogical Work
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-213962 (URN)
Conference
13th International CDIO Conference
Note

QC 20170919

Available from: 2017-09-07 Created: 2017-09-07 Last updated: 2017-11-10Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Jerbrant, A., Wingård, L., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., . . . Kjellgren, B. (2016). The pedagogical developers initiative - development, implementation and lessons learned from a systematic approach to faculty development. In: Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016: . Paper presented at 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016 (pp. 497-508). Turku University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The pedagogical developers initiative - development, implementation and lessons learned from a systematic approach to faculty development
Show others...
2016 (English)In: Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016, Turku University , 2016, p. 497-508Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This paper presents a systematic, university--wide approach to creating an encompassing movement towards faculty development. In 2014, KTH Royal Institute of Technology launched the pedagogical developers initiative, appointing part--time pedagogical developers among teachers from all schools of KTH, to implement and strengthen good teaching and learning practices among faculty and students. They are teachers active in different educational programmes, with experience of, and interest in, pedagogical issues. In line with CDIO standard 10, the purpose of the pedagogical developers’ initiative is to facilitate cooperation and knowledge exchange between faculty members, and to establish communities of practice. The paper presents the activities, processes for developing these activities and preliminary results from the initiative’s second year, which focused much on supporting faculty development by putting into place a series of workshops, a format chosen for its combination of active community-building learning and time efficiency. The topics of the workshops emerged to meet faculty needs identified by the pedagogical developers during the first year. The workshops were created by smaller teams of pedagogical developers from different schools of KTH. This enabled a wide array of experiences and perspectives to be incorporated into the workshops. Main focuses of the workshops have been on creating internal discussions in dynamic communities of practice on specific subjects of interest, and on creating forums for exchange of ideas, open to the whole faculty. During Autumn 2015, the workshops have been offered as voluntary add-on parts of the basic course in teaching and learning offered to faculty at KTH. This first round of workshops generated a positive interest from teachers, and participant feedback indicates that they particularly appreciated the opportunity to work directly with their own courses and the opportunity to discuss pedagogical aspects with peers. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Turku University, 2016
Keywords
Pedagogic development
National Category
Pedagogical Work
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-202516 (URN)978-952-216-610-4 (ISBN)
Conference
12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016
Note

QC 20170306

Available from: 2017-02-24 Created: 2017-02-24 Last updated: 2017-06-29Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A. & Leifer, L. (2016). TRIPLE-LOOP-LEARNING: AN INSTRUMENTATION MODEL FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN INNOVATION EDUCATION. In: DESIGN EDUCATION: COLLABORATION AND CROSS-DISCIPLINARY. Paper presented at 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE), SEP 08-09, 2016, Aalborg Univ, Aalborg, DENMARK (pp. 77-82). The Design Society
Open this publication in new window or tab >>TRIPLE-LOOP-LEARNING: AN INSTRUMENTATION MODEL FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN INNOVATION EDUCATION
2016 (English)In: DESIGN EDUCATION: COLLABORATION AND CROSS-DISCIPLINARY, The Design Society, 2016, p. 77-82Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This paper presents a framework for engineering design innovation education. This is discovery research in a purely qualitative sense. The authors, both highly experienced educators, are reflecting upon their practice of delivering team-based new product development courses at the master's degree level at deeply different universities in Sweden and the United States of America. In both cases, industry partners bring real-world projects and funding to the curricula. They have, as their primary objective, the development of talented new product development leaders. In both cases there is no intellectual property attachment to the funding. This paper seeks to make important distinctions about common language and practices within different regional and academic cultures. We are hopeful that our observations and the presented framework will draw others to deepen our understanding through next generation quantitative studies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
The Design Society, 2016
Series
E&PDE
Keywords
Innovation, course instrumentation, learning elements, project-based learning
National Category
Engineering and Technology Learning
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-197829 (URN)000387927800013 ()978-1-904670-78-0 (ISBN)
Conference
18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE), SEP 08-09, 2016, Aalborg Univ, Aalborg, DENMARK
Note

QC 20161227

Available from: 2016-12-27 Created: 2016-12-08 Last updated: 2016-12-27Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., El Gaidi, K., Havtun, H., Hedin, B. & Kjellgren, B. (2015). Kommer det på tentan?: Uppfattningar om motivation och demotivation bland studenter på ingenjörsutbildningar. In: : . Paper presented at 5:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar, Uppsala universitet, 18–19 november 2015.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Kommer det på tentan?: Uppfattningar om motivation och demotivation bland studenter på ingenjörsutbildningar
Show others...
2015 (Swedish)Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Motivation är en av de viktigaste drivkrafterna bakom människors handlingar. Hur en student klarar sina studier beror till stor del på graden av motivation, men också på graden av demotivation. Vi har i den här studien valt att utforska upplevda källor till studenters motivation och demotivation i ingenjörskurser. Dessa har kodats och kategoriserats i termer av kontext, struktur och lärare, och resultatet har jämförts med en liknande omfattande undersökning från USA. Resultaten visar att frågor rörande kurs ens struktur i högre grad anges som viktiga både för motivation och demotivation för våra studentgrupper, jämfört med den andra undersökningen. Vidare förekommer synpunkter kring lärarens förmåga att förklara och lärarens attityd till studenterna i betydligt högre omfattning än lärarens ämneskompetens i sig, vilket kan ses som stöd för att pedagogisk och didaktisk skicklighet bör vara starkt meriterande för undervisande personal. En slutsats är att lärare har mycket stora möjligheter att påverka studenternas motivation både positivt och negativt, och att det är av stor vikt att lärare är både medvetna om, och har verktyg för att hantera, detta.

 

National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-177792 (URN)
Conference
5:e Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar, Uppsala universitet, 18–19 november 2015
Note

QC 20151210

Available from: 2015-11-26 Created: 2015-11-26 Last updated: 2015-12-10Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Johansson, H. B., Jerbrant, A., Andersson, M., Hedin, B., . . . Kjellgren, B. (2015). The Pedagogical Developers Initiative – Changing Educational Practices and Strengthening CDIO skills. In: Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015: . Paper presented at 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Pedagogical Developers Initiative – Changing Educational Practices and Strengthening CDIO skills
Show others...
2015 (English)In: Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015, 2015Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

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.

National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-177787 (URN)
Conference
11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015
Note

QC 20151210

Available from: 2015-11-26 Created: 2015-11-26 Last updated: 2016-07-04Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., Blackne, J. & Jansson, N. (2014). Proposing a Feedback System to Enhance Learning Based on Key Performance Indicators. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Proposing a Feedback System to Enhance Learning Based on Key Performance Indicators
2014 (English)In: International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, ISSN 2155-496X, Vol. 3, no 1Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper proposes a feedback system that is based on the self-evaluation of perceived productivity as a mechanism for detecting deviations in an engineering design student project. By monitoring key performance indicators, project members used feedback loops to recognize alarming patterns and act accordingly. The study is based on descriptive survey data that addressed three factors of influence: perceived productivity, perception of stage completion, and work-activity distribution. The productivity data was analysed by detecting patterns in the form of peaks and lows and by combining the patterns with qualitative data from observations and documented work activities. Measurements were taken every time the project team got together; 33 occasions during the course of the project, resulting in a total of 280 student responses for productivity (P) and completion (C) and 115 student replies for work activity distribution. The findings provide an extraction of peak values and low values that enables tracking of critical incidents. Through an in-depth activity log, each value was enriched with lessons learned about what took place and the consequences for the project, thus enhancing learning from past activities through systematic feedback sessions. The accumulated set of data provided distinguishable patterns for the project team to interpret. Over time this made student actions more proactive, activity execution more distinct and purposeful, and resource allocation in combination with feedback reflections more refined.

National Category
Learning
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-143339 (URN)10.4018/ijqaete.2014010101 (DOI)
Note

QC 20140520

Available from: 2014-03-19 Created: 2014-03-19 Last updated: 2014-05-20Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A., Ritzén, S. & Bernhard, J. (2014). Reforming engineering education - A feasibility analysis of models for innovation. In: SEFI Annual Conference 2014: . Paper presented at SEFI 2014: 42nd Annual Conference, 15 September - 19 September 2014. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reforming engineering education - A feasibility analysis of models for innovation
2014 (English)In: SEFI Annual Conference 2014, European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) , 2014Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), 2014
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-176218 (URN)2-s2.0-84939201413 (Scopus ID)
Conference
SEFI 2014: 42nd Annual Conference, 15 September - 19 September 2014
Note

QC 20151106

Available from: 2015-11-06 Created: 2015-11-02 Last updated: 2015-11-06Bibliographically approved
Berglund, A. (2013). Compose or decompose - Resource allocation in engineering design projects. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013: . Paper presented at 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013, 5 September 2013 through 6 September 2013, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 362-367).
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Compose or decompose - Resource allocation in engineering design projects
2013 (English)In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013, 2013, p. 362-367Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This is a paper that reviews the planning, execution and reflection of the collaborative writing efforts made by students when composing their final design project reports. Past research has indicated collaborative writing (CW) as one of the most challenging task that could be assigned to student groups [1]. CW is a process that involves project management, including resource allocation and essentially a great portion of writing skill. Whereas numerous engineering design projects highlight the uniqueness and creative aspects brought forward and the process in which this was created - the final piece of the puzzle how the final report was established is a phenomenon that get dimmed. There is dualistic propagation of parallel processes where the 'artifact' constitutes the main design work and where the efforts made to produce a written report relates to the other. A tradition that maybe is obsolete in some places but that has a life of its' own in other domains. The more administrative work involved with compiling a report of 'good enough' character whilst motivating and supporting each other should be balanced against the activities involved in producing the final output/design/prototype. This study is based on interviews and written 'pros and cons' reflections with project participants, project documentation and lecturer's reflections. Early indications show that communication and iterative work processes, allowing cross-checking, validation and confirmation is crucial for engaging greater commitment to the collaborative writing process. Independently of project management style and delegations made; labour intensity and work distribution of activities seem to propagate a skew execution of work. This is especially noticeable when administrative functions are weak amongst project members, which can be a consequence when putting students from various programs/disciplines/schools in a joint exercise of this type. Based on the findings, the paper stipulates a set of preventive coaching tips to guideline collaborative writing efforts and endorsing increased rigor to the final report and its process. Establishing this set of awareness among students would ultimately minimize uncertainties and dilemmas prior to 'entering the boat' - when the ship has sailed so has also its crew and based on how well they master to serve and execute their skills - so will also the trip be remembered - pleasant or horrific - taking them to paradise or hell.

Keywords
Collaborative writing, Project work, Reflections, Resource allocation
National Category
Design
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-150837 (URN)2-s2.0-84891292686 (Scopus ID)978-190467042-1 (ISBN)
Conference
15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013, 5 September 2013 through 6 September 2013, Dublin, Ireland
Note

QC 20140911

Available from: 2014-09-11 Created: 2014-09-11 Last updated: 2014-09-11Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-2304-3148

Search in DiVA

Show all publications