.
I went to KTH's bi-annual "Storträffen Meetup" [perhaps "the Large-gathering Meetup"?]. It's a big bazaar of discussions, workshops, demos - a mix of different teaching and learning-related topics - and all KTH's teachers are invited twice per year. Even some students show up, but I'm not sure how they find out about it.
Besides an opening session with a keynote, the main activity is three rounds of discussions and there are about a dozen different topics to choose from during each round. I think the basic idea is very good, this is exactly how teachers can discuss and develop their skills, their networks and their judgement - but talking to other teachers. To display the breadth of the program, here are a few examples of what was offered:
- "KTH's courses for professionals" [e.g. continuing education]
- "Peer assessment as a learning activity and a time-saving strategy"
- "What is the role and responsibility of [ph.d.] co-supervisors? Should the role be clarified?"
- "Bring a text and let us use it to create a formative quiz with the help of AI"
- "A new language policy for KTH".
About half of the topics were in English and half in Swedish, but at the autumn meetings it's mostly or exclusively in Swedish. The main theme for this semester's meetup was "Teaching for the Future - with today's resources and challenges". That felt like a slightly depressing and defensive theme because I read it as "we will have to do more with less resources - already today" - but perhaps I misunderstood it and there's a more benevolent interpretation?
I went to three different rounds of discussions and write a short blurb about each below.
- Support for course guidelines on the use of generative AI
- Sapere Aude - own responsibility for learning
- Course evaluation - strategies for higher response rates
1) Support for course guidelines on the use of generative AI
"In March 2025, the Faculty Council made a decision as to how we should inform students about how generative AI tools may or may not be used in each course. At this session, we will present support materials for how you can adapt course-specific information about the use of generative AI based on learning objectives, the nature of the tasks, or pedagogical considerations."
KTH has developed four different templates that teachers can use (copy, adapt) in their course description and that concerns students' use of AI in a course. The templates represents different positions from "you are not allowed to use any AI for any task in this course" to "go ahead and use as much AI as you want". Many teachers had many questions and it was clear that the questions were built on first-hand experiences. It was also however clear that many teachers wanted clear unambiguous answers to questions that are evolving at a fast pace and where no one knows the answer (e.g. how much and where should AI should be allowed in courses?). I also thought there was an undercurrent of "this is how I teach my course; how should the course adapt to the existence of advanced AI tools?" and not enough of "AI will upend many things and we will therefore have to change some of the ways we teach and examine students". Instead of stipulating that students can't use AI in a course, isn't it easier to change the way the course is taught and examined in such a way that it doesn't make sense to use AI (for example play a game or provide an experience and have students write down their reflections about it).
At the workshop I got a handout with examples of how generative AI can be used as fodder for thought and discussions and some examples were: "generate computer code", "find bugs in my code", "improve language and grammar", "summarise course literature or articles", "generate images for a presentation", "suggest a structure for a report", "help explain terms" and "support during a home exam". What is ok and what is not ok?
2) Sapere Aude - own responsibility for learning
Sapere Aude – ‘dare to know’ – is more relevant today than ever. In a time when we constantly need to remind ourselves of what responsibility means, especially in education, the question of who bears responsibility for learning becomes central. Is it the teacher, the curriculum – or the individual student? We will take as our starting point the line of the history of ideas that has shaped the idea of education, from Kant to Sebastian Rödl, and highlight how a true educational process means actively putting words to what one does, in the ongoing process of discovering who one is.
This discussion was hosted by two master's students and that was a big reason for why I went. Another reason is that an acquaintance told me to go as her daughter was one of the students. I am very sympathetic to the intention, but it's hard for any students suggest an intriguing topic, prepare good questions and then manage to exert control over a roomful of teachers who are used to talking and are used to having others listen. The students had very good questions but perhaps they were too good? As soon as they posed a question, several teaches wanted to talk and it was hard for them to interrupt and steer the discussion. I enjoyed the activity but kept thinking that it could have been better had they thought through the format (and not just their questions) beforehand. But it might have been hard for two students to control a roomful of teachers during any conditions... This is the exact opposite problem of what sometimes happens when you teach; you ask a question and you can hear a pin fall in lecture hall with 100+ students present.
3) Course evaluation - strategies for higher response rates
How can we increase student participation in course evaluations? We’ll start with a brief example from one teacher’s successful strategy, then open up for discussion and idea-sharing around what has worked — and perhaps also what hasn’t — in different course contexts.
I attended the workshop to get some insights into techno-instrumental reasoning and, truth be told, of hearing about a practical example of "functional stupidity" (following all the rules but still doing things wrong or doing the wrong things). I asked some critical questions and one of the workshop organisers said "look, we have this new automatic course evaluation system, but the response rate is low and KTH leadership wants these numbers to increase". I thought - but did not ask - "so how is this my problem?". My allegiance is to my students and to making my course the best course it can be, and I just don't think course evaluations are a helpful instrument in that endeavour. I thing there are many other ways for me as a teacher to get useful information about what my students think about the course and also better ways for students to express their opinions and feel that they are getting heard. I do understand that someone somewhere wants more information (someone somewhere always wants more information), but I don't see that it's in my interest or more to the point, in the interest of the profession, to feed the hunger of the evaluation monster. It is much more rewarding to think of practical ways of improving the course little by little, year by year, than to spend precious time producing information (or misinformation or disinformation) that makes someone far removed from the course imagine they know how to "fix it". [END RANT]
I still think Storträffen is great though!
-------------------
Storträffen is pitched like this:
As always, since 2018, everyone at KTH — faculty, staff, and students alike — is warmly welcomed to the Storträffen Meetup, where current, relevant educational topics are discussed in an engaging, thought-provoking, and stimulating format.
You can network and get to know new people at KTH, or you can choose to dive deeper into various topics by listening to and participating in different presentations. All participants are offered a light lunch, coffee, and fruit.
Warmly welcome from the Faculty Council in collaboration with KTH Högskolepedagogik/dept Learning.
.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar