Increasing the quality of education/dig where you stand

.

My school (School of Computer Science and Communication) has some extra money (500 000 SEK, long story) and decided to use it to set up a fund for pedagogical development and for supporting practical projects with the potential to increase the quality of education. An application to this fund can't be tied to a specific course, but should rather be more generally useful, i.e. of benefit to the school, to an educational program, to a specific type (class) of courses etc.

The deadline for applications was Wednesday this past week. There was a list of criteria for how the applications would be evaluated, most of it copied from a similar long-time project at Uppsala University (with applications available online for review). I handed in two applications. Already Friday I knew that not that many applications had been handed in. In fact, if all the money that all teachers applied for was added up, that sum would not exceed the money available by a huge amount (but there were a few applications where the applicant had not specified the amount of money asked for - which makes this calculation slightly more complicated). All in all, almost all applicants can get almost all the money they asked for though. Altogether this sounds very promising, but I won't unfortunately get to know if I will get any funds until sometime in March (the projects are supposed to run during the next academic year).

Unfortunately, I'm already having second thoughts. If I apply for money for a project that will pay for, say, 80 hours of my time, I have a distinct feeling that it is very easy to promise (a lot) more in an application than what can be accomplished in the 80 hours that will be financed. That is, if I get the money I have asked for, I think I might just have created more work for myself. On the other hand, these are self-defined projects, i.e. stuff I really would like to do, and that is naturally very motivating and gratifying.

Below are (parts of the applications for) my two projects. I've shortened, edited and pasted text from the applications and beyond the title, you'll have to excuse me for not translating the running text into English (anyone truly interested can get in touch with me!).

-----------------------------

Supporting students' studying habits in the age of procrastination

Applicants: Daniel Pargman and Björn Hedin (CSC/Media technology)

Bakgrund: På civilingenjörsprogrammet i medieteknik finns en ”programintegrerande kurs” som är obligatorisk för alla studenter i årskurs 1-3. Sökande Daniel Pargman är ansvarig för kursen, medsökande Björn Hedin har tidigare varit ansvarig för kursen och båda har varit involverade i att utforma årets tema. För studenter i årskurserna 4-5 är det valbart att följa verksamheten i kursen och sammanlagt följer mellan 200 och 300 studenter aktiviteterna. Dessa studenter uppdelade i 36 seminariegrupper som leds av 9 lärare.

Årets (2011/2012) tema för kursen är ”prokrastinering”, det vill säga att ”uppskjuta till morgondagen, en annan dag eller en senare tidpunkt; fördröja” (Nationalencyklopedin). Resultaten från höstens aktiviteter visade med oroande tydlighet att prokrastinering är ett mycket stor problem för våra studenter, och dessa resultat ligger i linje med tidigare forskning som visar att 80-95% av studenterna prokrastinerar (Ellis & Knaus 1979). Resultaten indikerade dessutom att dessa problem har förvärrats till följd av nya tekniska landvinningar och den på detta följande ökningen/utbredningen av dataspel, nedladdningsbara TV-serier, Facebook, Twitter, andra sociala medier, smartphones etc.

Problem: Arbetet kring prokrastineringstemat har resulterat i mycket spännande och uppskattade seminarier, men, resultaten av seminariediskussionerna och de tankar och reflektioner som finns dokumenterade kommer om inga extra medel tillskjuts att med största sannolikhet att förbli där de är (dvs. utspridda och långsamt bortglömda).

Utifrån denna bakgrund är syftet med vår ansökan att äska medel för att:

1. samla in och analysera det av studenterna genererade materialet
2. matcha detta med redan gjord forskning inom området samt
3. anpassa och utveckla förslag och åtgärdsplaner för hur man kan stävja och motarbeta studenters prokrastineringstendenser till lokala förhållanden (Sverige, KTH) samt till dagens mobil- och dator-vanor.

-----------------------------

Better project courses

Applicants: Daniel Pargman (CSC/Media technology), Sara Lempiäinen and Fabian Wahlgren (students at CSC/Media technology)

Bakgrund: Projektkurser är intressanta och attraktiva av flera olika skäl. Projektformen förbereder studenterna inför denna i arbetslivet vanligt förekommande arbetsform. Projektkurser ger dessutom studenter möjlighet att i högre utsträckning själva välja vad de vill engagera sig i och vad de vill jobba med. Detta borde kunna leda till nöjdare studenter och bättre resultat både vad beträffar individens lärande och projektets resultat. Alltför ofta når våra projektkurser dock inte sin fulla potential. Detta projekt syftar till att ändra på detta. I denna ansökan syftar termen ”projektkurs” till kurser där man jobbar i grupper (mer än två personer) och där projektuppgiften utgör en stor del av kursens innehåll, genomförande och examination.

Problem: Projektkurser ”tas inte alltid på allvar” av studenterna – och resultaten blir därefter. Detta problem kan i sin tur delas upp i två delar:

• Problemet är studenterna: en (alltför stor) del av studenterna tar inte projektkursen och projektuppgifter på tillräckligt stort allvar.
• Projektkurser och projektuppgifter är inte formulerade/utformade på ett sådant sätt att de är värda att tas på allvar av studenterna.

Andra utmaningar i projektkurser som vi har identifierat är:

• Vissa projektkurser har betyg Pass/Fail. Kraven är låga och endast en direkt undermålig arbetsinsats från studenternas sida kan rendera betyget ”fail”. Frånvaron av distinktioner (i form av betygssteg) manar inte heller alltid till ambitiösa och väl genomförda projekt.
• Inte sällan bedöms endast slutresultatet emedan den lika viktiga processen förbigås/inte tas i beaktande. Hur kan man löpande examinera projektkurser för att premiera löpande arbete och arbetsprocessen?
• Hur ska man bedöma (och betygsätta) yta, idéer, koncept och ”flashiga” presentationer i förhållande till djup, arbetsinsats, realisering och (medieteknisk) gestaltning?
• Arbetsfördelningen kan lätt bli ojämn. Någon eller några gör huvuddelen av arbetet emedan andra ”flyter med” – CSCs hederskodex till trots.
• Alla i en grupp är inte nödvändigtvis ”värda” samma betyg. (Hur) kan man sätta olika betyg på studenter som jobbat tillsammans?
• Hur kan man utforma bättre uppgifter som i större utsträckning engagerar studenterna och aktiverar deras vilja att lära sig och att göra det mest av kursen och av uppgiften?
• Vilka kunskaper och praktiska verktyg borde studenter ha om projektarbete och projekt som arbetsform för att kunna genomföra projekt och projektkurser på bästa sätt?

Förväntade effekter samt nyttor för programmet och CSC-skolan: Medsökande Sara och Fabian är studenter på medieteknikprogrammet. I detta projekt har vi valt att i första hand undersöka de fyra projektkurser som ges på civilingenjörsprogrammet i medieteknik, men vi förväntar oss att resultaten av detta projekt kommer att vara tillämpbara även i andra projektkurser som ges på CSC och annorstädes.

Vår målsättning är även att lägga en grund till att projektkurserna på medieteknikprogrammet ska samordnas bättre så det uppstår en ökad grad av samsyn, koordination och variation mellan och över dessa kurser, samt att det för studenternas del ska gå att urskilja ett sammanhang och en progression mellan projektkurserna och årskurserna.

.

Giving kick-ass presentations in the age of social media

.
We had a "pedagogical seminar" on this topic ("Giving kick-ass presentations...") at my department this week. I introduced the topic at the seminar, but the majority of the time (which was only 45 minutes) was spent discussing the issue of "social media + lectures/classrooms" in smaller groups. We finished the seminar by presenting the results to each other during the last 10 or so minutes.

The background to the seminar is perhaps interesting in itself:

1) I gave a course about social media this past autumn
2) One student wrote a blog post about a Fastcompany.com article called "Giving kick-ass presentations in the age of social media".
3) I sent a mail to people at my department with a link to the article in question.
4) Because of the mail, I was invited to host a pedagogical seminar on this topic.

The short article treats the new rules of giving public speeches to a wired (and demanding) audience. What do you do when your audience doesn't look at your while you talk, but rather down, at their screens? What are the implications of your audience being able to "check the facts" in realtime while you deliver your talk? What does it mean that you can have a second (remote) audience that "listens in" on your speech and that is (much) larger than the one you have in front of you? And do you have to understand Twitter as a speaker/lecturer and also "mix in tweetable quotes" in your talk/lecture?

The article was written from the point of view of public speakers at conferences and similar events, so some aspects were perhaps not directly applicable to university teachers giving lectures in courses. A speaker at an event has higher demands on being "entertaining and insightful", while the demands on delivering facts and "correct knowledge" probably are higher on a teacher. The lecture might be less exciting, but it might at the same time be OK for a teacher to be a little bit less "exciting" and more factual-oriented?).

Quite a few people turned up at the seminar. I was also a little surprised, because my guess beforehand was that teachers in general would hesitate or be more negative about the pressure that social media can exert on them to change the way they teach, than they would be positive about the possible benefits. But perhaps only teachers who had a positive attitude towards using social media in higher education showed up for the seminar?

Here are some of the suggestions that our short "brainstorming session" turned up:

- How can better Q-and-A sessions be organized, does the teacher need a (student?) "helper" who filters and chooses questions? Who benefits, what are the potential drawbacks compared to raising your hand and speaking out loud in a lecture hall?

- We first need to think about the relevance (or irrelevance) of Twitter in relationship to academic knowledge and academic articles.

- Yesterday students brought a (free) newspaper to the lecture, today they have their phones. At least reading a text on their phones doesn't make a lot of nice! (This is a very pragmatic attitude.)

- We should support/educate/talk more among lecturers about how to embrace these new technologies. How can we take advantage of these devices and services so as to increase the interaction between lecturers and their audiences?

- We should also support/educate the students so as to use the devices "correctly" or responsibly (e.g. not to play games or listen to music while at a lecture).

- Some teachers have done experiments with "clickers", i.e. the lecturer poses a question and students click the right alternative (A, B, C or D). The answer (nice bars or a pie chart) appears directly and the teacher can decide whether to (for example) go on in the lecture or continue to explain a concept. The clickers (hardware) cost money, but there are nowadays also iPhone apps with the same functionality (but not everyone has an iPhone/smartphone). One teacher has experimented with low-cost alternatives in the form of color cards. Four cards with different colors, please make your choice and hold it up.

- We should explore social media functionality in our own social media-enabled system, KTH Social.

- Everything that engages and activates students is worth trying!

.

CESC workshop

.

I participated in a 24-hour workshop that was organized by the Center for Sustainable Communications (CESC) just as I did (and wrote about) last year. We hopped on a chartered bus and left for a conference facility where we had lunch and headed back for Stockholm a day later. There were perhaps around 40 participants and the majority were researchers from KTH. A minority of the participants represented center "partners" (representing commercial companies or other institutions such as the city of Stockholm etc.)

CESC is a "Center of Excellence" and has been awarded 10 years of funding from Vinnova, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems. Those 10 years are divided into three periods and the center is evaluated after each period. The evaluation of the second period will happen during the end of this spring, and continued financing for the third period hinges on the evaluation. The coming evaluations was a topic at the workshop, but much more emphasis was placed on generating ideas and ramping up discussions about new projects for the third period in relation to some or all of the four CESC four strategic areas; people, cities, impacts and methods and tools:

- People - people, practices and behaviors in a sustainable ICT society

- Cities - sustainable solutions for ICT in cities

- Impacts - Sustainability impacts of ICT and media

- Methods and Tools - Methods and ICT tools for sustainability assessments

It is easy for groups of people who already know each other and have similar interests (or who already work in the same project) to cluster and work together. The organizers did not want that to happen so the workshop participants were instead divided into groups more or less randomly and then worked in those same groups during all four sessions (corresponding to the four strategic areas above). This was both good and bad. Good for the reasons stated above (breaking up established groups, "forcing" people to get to know and work with other, new acquaintances). Mixing people with different backgrounds and interests on the other hand makes it difficult for groups to form coherent visions rather than "patchwork" lists (a little bit of this and a little bit of that).

I was happy with the work of my group and two of the "proposals" (suggestions/ideas) we worked on were of great interest to me:

Personal carbon emissions for better city living

- Identify top 3 (or 4 or 5) CO2/energy hogs in our daily lives

- Study examples of bonus point systems ("alternative currencies"). Create a system for collecting data about (personal) CO2 emissions (which becomes an alternative CO2 currency).

- Reward low spenders with cultural experiences.

Personal carbon emission schemes are reminiscent of rationing schemes (of for example food and fuel during war or times of crises). The addition of a market for buying and selling unused emission rights does away with the black market by economically "punishing" high spenders and "rewarding" low spenders through the exchange of money for emissions rights. This inherently makes such schemes unappealing for the rich and powerful (high spenders).

Our suggestion was to instead reward low spenders by giving away something that is relatively inexpensive to provide, but that potentially is very valuable for the person receiving it - cultural experiences. This could encompass wavering the costs for an "environmental hero" entering any public swimming pool or giving away theatre tickets or tickets to sports events (otherwise empty seats?) for free. What is ingenious about this idea is that people who refrain from vacationing in Thailand for environmental/CO2 reasons are exactly those who instead would probably very much appreciate the consumption of cultural experiences right where he/she lives.

Much more was said about this proposal, including how to make the scheme "social" (without compromising the integrity of participants), e.g. competing against average, or introducing intangible rewards that would add prestige to lifestyles that decrease CO2 emissions. I have previously written up some ideas in my master's thesis proposal about creating a CO2 currency (written in Swedish).

The second proposal that I find exciting has much to do with the master's thesis proposal that I and my colleague Jorge wrote during the autumn, "Green distance work in Sweden". It is an "anti-city" proposal (in relation to the CESC strategic area of "cities"). How does/can ICT allow people to settle and work from the countryside and outside of the larger cities? We would be especially interested in people who do this because of personal convictions and a "green agenda" (lowering their CO2 emissions, growing some of their own food etc. but still relying on ICT as an enabler of a modern "Green wave 2.0" lifestyle.

After writing up and handing over our notes, I have no idea how these and other proposals will be utilized. I guess (hope) I will find out during the spring.

.