Camilla Østerberg Rump

Getting it right: conceptual development from student to experienced engineer

In an empirical study, the use of knowledge by two groups of students and a group of professional engineers’ use of knowledge when solving complex problems was investigated. The applied method was adopted from similar investigations within the field of medicine. Qualitative analysis of problem descriptions, solutions and interviews show interesting differences between novice, intermediate and expert groups. Results resembling those found in medicine are reported.

Opportunities to learn scientific thinking in joint doctoral supervision

Research into doctoral supervision has increased rapidly over the last decades, yet our understanding of how doctoral students learn scientific thinking from supervision is limited. Most studies are based on interviews with little work being reported that is based on observation of actual supervision. While joint supervision has become widely used, its learning dynamics remains under-researched and this paper aims to address these gaps in research by exploring learning opportunities in doctoral supervision with two supervisors. The study explores how the tensions in scientific discussion between supervisors can become learning opportunities. We combine two different theoretical perspectives, using participation and positioning theory as a sociocultural perspective and variation theory as an individual constructivist perspective on learning. Based on our analysis of a complex episode we suggest that multiple supervisors can add value to supervision through authentic practice of scientific argumentation.

The Role and Means for Tertiary Didactics in a Faculty of Science

Until a few years ago, university teaching of science was considered the specialists’ private craft in Danish research universities. Excellent research remains the main parameter in young scientists’ careers. But for the same reasons as elsewhere – including broader student populations and higher demands on efficiency of educational programmes – universities are increasingly preoccupied by the quality of their teaching, as are funding authorities. The notion of quality may be rather vague, and the means for improvement similarly unclear. This chapter is an attempt to analyze the potential roles and contributions of the didactics of science and mathematics towards the articulation and response to these demands for “quality teaching”. In the continental European tradition, we talk about the didactics of a subject (such as geometry or physics) when we refer to the study of teaching and learning of that specific subject, as explained by, e.g., Chevallard (1999a). Notice that the subject area referred to may be very specific (e.g., “Newtonian mechanics”) or very general (e.g., “(natural) science”), although it is often an institutionally established discipline (e.g., physics). The pressure on universities for improved “throughput” manifests itself in numerous ways but primarily through a broad scope of “top-down” initiatives (see Horst and Laursen, Chap. 10). Political or administrative demands may or may not originate in genuine pedagogical considerations, and it may or may not result in initiatives that are helpful for improving teaching quality. However, if we leave it to the individual university teacher to interpret these demands, they may often be seen as unnecessary additional administrative burdens rather than helpful tools for improving teaching quality. Since the result of any initiative intended to affect teaching (or learning) depends, ultimately, on the actual educational activities initiated by teachers, un-mediated top-down initiatives are likely to have either no effect or even a negative effect, if teachers spend time on something they perceive as irrelevant extra administration and less time on students and teaching. On the other hand, the past 30 years of experience show that if teaching is not focused but is left to the individual autonomous teacher, teaching is unlikely to be

Educational Enhancement in the Disciplines: Models, Lessons and Challenges from Three Research-Intensive Universities

In this chapter, we argue for the centrality of the unique languages, cultures and traditions of the academic disciplines to university teaching and learning and for the need to redefine the relationship between disciplinary and educational experts when enhancing education in research-intensive universities. We propose a conceptual framework that privileges the discipline as a key factor in designing educational enhancement strategies, while acknowledging institutional and national contexts. This framework guides an examination of three specific case studies from three different research-intensive universities (University of Copenhagen (UCPH), University of Leuven (KU Leuven), University of Oxford), each with its own history of educational development and enhancement strategies over the past several decades. We outline the method for writing and interrogating those cases. The cases highlight challenges associated with efforts to enhance teaching and learning in research-intensive universities and the role the disciplines can play in those efforts. We conclude with recommendations for educational enhancement practice drawn from this analysis of multi-institutional cases.