**1.1 Programme coherence and the programme triangle**

A vocational education, such as engineering education and teacher education, can suffer from fragmentation [1–3]. Based on interviews with 20 graduated engineers, Nilsson found that the engineers 'view their education as compartmentalized or fragmented, and they lack a main thread in the educational programme' [3]. It may even be the traditional organisation of education that causes this [4]. The gap between theory and practice in education is argued to stem from a situation where, according to Schön, 'the privileged knowledge held in the research university is broken up into territorial units. Each field of subject matter is the province of a department, and within each department, knowledge is further subdivided into courses, the provinces of individual professors' [5]. Teachers/faculty from all departments involved in a study programme will need to cooperate [6], together creating, as Guardini put it, a 'living image of what it means to be a teacher, a man of law, or an engineer' [7, 8]. Jessop et al. [4] proposed 'Taking a programme approach clarifies

the interconnectedness of units of study, emphasizing that an undergraduate degree is subject to a curriculum design process where the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts".'

Within professional education, the concept of *programme coherence* has emerged as a way of understanding and counteracting a fragmented education [9] and to 'bring into focus the complexity of the meaningful interrelationships between theory and practice' [10]. Tatto's starting point of programme coherence still holds as a definition for many subsequent professional educational researchers, stated as 'shared understandings among faculty and in the manner in which opportunities to learn have been arranged (organizationally, logistically) to achieve a common goal' [11].

The Swedish Higher Education Ordinance states that all first and second cycle education should be carried out in the form of courses. Courses form the concrete level in education. It is within the courses the teaching and learning should take place. The two *key actors* in courses are *instructors* and *students*. The courses may be organised into education programmes, and each course should have a course syllabus and each programme a programme syllabus. There should be intended learning outcomes stated for each course and education programme. The Higher Education Ordinance specifies qualitative targets, in compliance with the European Dublin descriptors, for each higher education qualification. The programme syllabus and qualitative targets, together with the learning outcomes of the courses included in the programme, form a formal/written specification of the education. For each education programme, there is often a *programme director* (or a group with the same authority), who is responsible for the abstract specification. This is the third *key actor* in our model.

The formal curriculum may be superficial or quite detailed. Over 100 engineering institutions follow the CDIO initiative, which emphasises the programme perspective [12], with a 'curriculum organized around mutually supporting courses,' represented by a matrix defining the progression of different skills through the courses in the programme. However, as we described above, there is a gap between theory and practice in education that has to be handled.

In the typology of curriculum representations by van den Akker [13], the *intended curriculum* includes both the ideal curriculum (the vision or basic underlying philosophy) and formal/written curriculum, the *implemented curriculum* is the operational curriculum perceived by the instructors, and the *attained curriculum* is the experiential learning of the students.

According to *variation theory*, the object of learning, or what the students need to learn to achieve the desired learning objectives*,* involves three parts: The *intended* 

**203**

*Programme Integrating Courses Making Engineering Students Reflect*

model, called the *programme triangle* (see **Figure 1**).

*object of learning* will be the starting point for a lesson, course or unit. The *enacted object of learning* is the actual possibilities for learning that are provided. The actual learning that takes place in each individual student is referred to as the *lived object of learning* [14]. This corresponds nicely to the intended, implemented and attained curriculum, respectively, from van den Akker's typology, and is used in our new

The programme director tries to influence the instructors and students so that the concrete courses (implemented curriculum) will comply with the programme

In a *coherent programme* we suspect that the intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum and the attained curriculum are the same or close to the same. The coherence can be improved by making the six relations between the three key

There are different processes, courses and structures that can be used to strengthen programme coherence. Examples of such activities, and which edges in

• Meetings of instructors (strengthening P ← T and T ← P relations)

• Academic introduction activities (L ← P and L ← T relations)

• Programme integrating courses (strengthening all six relations)

• A study skills and study strategies module (strengthening the L ← T relation)

• Information meetings for the students (L ← P and possibly P ← L relations)

• Course and programme questionnaires, graduate and alumni surveys (T ← L

In this chapter, we will focus on programme integrating courses and show how

*Self-regulated learning* refers to the degree to which individuals can regulate aspects of their thinking, motivation and behaviour during the learning process [15]. It is learning that is guided by *metacognition* (thinking about one's thinking), *strategic action* (planning, monitoring and evaluating personal progress against a standard) and *motivation to learn*. Therefore, self-regulated learning would strengthen the L ← P and L ← T relations in the triangle. There are several studies showing the importance of self-regulated learning for academic achievement, e.g. [16, 17]. Zimmerman [18] states that self-regulated learners use systematic and controllable strategies and concern their responsibility for achieving the learning outcomes. Students who are aware of the long-term goal of their programme, why they are taking the courses that they are taking and how they should study opti-

Another self-regulated process is *reflective practice*, which is the capacity to reflect on action to engage in a process of continuous learning. Schön [5] was one of the founders of this field. Reflective practice contains strategies for teachers to

director's abstract picture of the programme (intended curriculum).

actors stronger, i.e. strengthening the edges of the programme triangle.

the programme triangle they are meant to strengthen, are:

• Student representatives and meetings (T ← L relation)

and P ← L relations)

**1.2 Self-regulated learning**

they strengthen the programme coherence.

mally, should be better prepared for their studies.

handle the T ← P and T ← L relations in the programme triangle.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88253*

**Figure 1.** *The programme triangle.*

*Programme Integrating Courses Making Engineering Students Reflect DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88253*

*Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century*

its parts".'

the interconnectedness of units of study, emphasizing that an undergraduate degree is subject to a curriculum design process where the "whole is greater than the sum of

The Swedish Higher Education Ordinance states that all first and second cycle education should be carried out in the form of courses. Courses form the concrete level in education. It is within the courses the teaching and learning should take place. The two *key actors* in courses are *instructors* and *students*. The courses may be organised into education programmes, and each course should have a course syllabus and each programme a programme syllabus. There should be intended learning outcomes stated for each course and education programme. The Higher Education Ordinance specifies qualitative targets, in compliance with the European Dublin descriptors, for each higher education qualification. The programme syllabus and qualitative targets, together with the learning outcomes of the courses included in the programme, form a formal/written specification of the education. For each education programme, there is often a *programme director* (or a group with the same authority), who is responsible

The formal curriculum may be superficial or quite detailed. Over 100 engineering institutions follow the CDIO initiative, which emphasises the programme perspective [12], with a 'curriculum organized around mutually supporting courses,' represented by a matrix defining the progression of different skills through the courses in the programme. However, as we described above, there is a gap between

In the typology of curriculum representations by van den Akker [13], the *intended curriculum* includes both the ideal curriculum (the vision or basic underlying philosophy) and formal/written curriculum, the *implemented curriculum* is the operational curriculum perceived by the instructors, and the *attained curriculum* is

According to *variation theory*, the object of learning, or what the students need to learn to achieve the desired learning objectives*,* involves three parts: The *intended* 

arranged (organizationally, logistically) to achieve a common goal' [11].

for the abstract specification. This is the third *key actor* in our model.

theory and practice in education that has to be handled.

the experiential learning of the students.

Within professional education, the concept of *programme coherence* has emerged as a way of understanding and counteracting a fragmented education [9] and to 'bring into focus the complexity of the meaningful interrelationships between theory and practice' [10]. Tatto's starting point of programme coherence still holds as a definition for many subsequent professional educational researchers, stated as 'shared understandings among faculty and in the manner in which opportunities to learn have been

**202**

**Figure 1.**

*The programme triangle.*

*object of learning* will be the starting point for a lesson, course or unit. The *enacted object of learning* is the actual possibilities for learning that are provided. The actual learning that takes place in each individual student is referred to as the *lived object of learning* [14]. This corresponds nicely to the intended, implemented and attained curriculum, respectively, from van den Akker's typology, and is used in our new model, called the *programme triangle* (see **Figure 1**).

The programme director tries to influence the instructors and students so that the concrete courses (implemented curriculum) will comply with the programme director's abstract picture of the programme (intended curriculum).

In a *coherent programme* we suspect that the intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum and the attained curriculum are the same or close to the same. The coherence can be improved by making the six relations between the three key actors stronger, i.e. strengthening the edges of the programme triangle.

There are different processes, courses and structures that can be used to strengthen programme coherence. Examples of such activities, and which edges in the programme triangle they are meant to strengthen, are:


In this chapter, we will focus on programme integrating courses and show how they strengthen the programme coherence.

#### **1.2 Self-regulated learning**

*Self-regulated learning* refers to the degree to which individuals can regulate aspects of their thinking, motivation and behaviour during the learning process [15]. It is learning that is guided by *metacognition* (thinking about one's thinking), *strategic action* (planning, monitoring and evaluating personal progress against a standard) and *motivation to learn*. Therefore, self-regulated learning would strengthen the L ← P and L ← T relations in the triangle. There are several studies showing the importance of self-regulated learning for academic achievement, e.g. [16, 17]. Zimmerman [18] states that self-regulated learners use systematic and controllable strategies and concern their responsibility for achieving the learning outcomes. Students who are aware of the long-term goal of their programme, why they are taking the courses that they are taking and how they should study optimally, should be better prepared for their studies.

Another self-regulated process is *reflective practice*, which is the capacity to reflect on action to engage in a process of continuous learning. Schön [5] was one of the founders of this field. Reflective practice contains strategies for teachers to handle the T ← P and T ← L relations in the programme triangle.


#### **Table 1.**

*Hierarchy of reflection levels.*

#### **1.3 Reflection and levels of reflection**

In the programme integrating courses, reflection assignments, orally and in writing, are heavily used as a tool to both strengthen the programme coherence and promote self-regulated learning among the students.

The students are regularly given reflection assignments on different topics, related to Zimmerman's learning strategies mentioned above [18]. The students get feedback on their reflections in several ways: written peer feedback, written feedback from the mentor and feedback in the oral discussions at the seminar. Feedback is important to facilitate self-regulation [19].

We soon noticed that we would need to encourage the students to write deeper reflections. It is known that students may experience difficulties when being asked to reflect on a given topic, which can lead to more descriptive than reflective texts [20, 21]. In order to help students to improve their ability to reflect more deeply, Kann and Magnell developed a model, summarised in **Table 1** [22], based on research by Hatton and Smith [21]. In Section 4.4 we will explain how these levels can be useful in order to support our students to create sophisticated reflections and to use their reflections to improve self-regulated learning.

#### **2. Programme integrating courses**

The first *programme integrating course,* of the type considered in this chapter, was developed by Björn Hedin and given in 2008, for engineering students in Media Technology at KTH [23]. This course will be denoted PIC1 below. In 2010, a course based on PIC1 was introduced for Computer Science and Engineering students at KTH (denoted PIC2). These courses have the same structure and differ only in some details. We have chosen PIC2 as the reference course in this chapter.

The programme integrating course is not at all an ordinary engineering course; it can be characterised as a meta-course. The intended learning outcomes and aims of the course are presented in **Table 2**.

A Swedish master of science in engineering education takes 5 years. At KTH, the first 3 years (first cycle) of each engineering programme consist mostly of mandatory courses. In year 3, the student chooses a master's specialisation for the last 2 years of their education (second cycle). These master's specialisations are also possible to take as separate master's programmes for external students. The success of PIC1 and PIC2 made us realise the need for a programme integrating course also in the master's programmes. We were even approached by students who had taken PIC2, expressing interest in a continuation of the PIC. In this chapter, we will use the PIC in the Master of Science in Computer Science as the example of such a course. We will denote it PIC3.

The students in each programme integrating course are divided into seminar groups. Each group consists of students from different years of the programme and one mentor, a teacher on the programme. The course is centred around four reflection

**205**

*Programme Integrating Courses Making Engineering Students Reflect*

• Use academic calendars, course syllabuses, intended learning outcomes and grading criteria to plan their

• Review critically and reflect on both the setup and implementation of the education as well as their own

• Reflect on different topics relevant for the education and the professional role, such as progression in subject knowledge and generic skills, plagiarism, own responsibility, study technique, procrastination, internationalisation, health, minorities and equality, student influence and quality of education

• Obtain an overall picture of the education and thereby better understanding of the importance of each

**Course PIC1 PIC2 PIC3** Number of years 3 3 2 Cycle First First Second

Year first given 2008 2010 2014 Number of groups 20 39 24 Number of mentors 6 13 12

Length of seminar 80 minutes 60–70 minutes 50 minutes

Media Technology Computer Science and

Engineering

10–12 12–14 16–18

Yes, point system Yes, two levels No, pass/fail

Yes, point system Yes, two levels No, pass/fail

Yes, from 2018 Yes, within the

Computer Science

group

• Identify their need for additional knowledge and continuously develop their competence

• Analyse and evaluate social and ethical consequences of computer applications

• Make informed choices both during the education and thereafter

• Influence the development of the programme

*Intended learning outcomes and aims of the course.*

seminars each year, each with a dedicated topic, such as procrastination or ethics. Before each seminar, the students are asked to study the topic and write a reflection based on their own experiences. The four-level reflection hierarchy in **Table 1** has been used in PIC1 and PIC2 for several years now. At each seminar, the students also reflect upon recently taken courses. The reflection is shared to the group members including the mentor, who asynchronously discuss the texts online (using either Google Documents or the Peergrade.io system). The topic and the courses are then discussed further at a physical meeting, sometimes in the form of a walking seminar [24], where the group discusses the topic while walking in the woods behind campus.

group

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88253*

studies in both the short and the long view • Plan and carry out assignments in stipulated time • Make well justified specialisation and course choices

study achievements

In order to:

**Table 2.**

individual course

Part of education programme

Number of students per

Grading of seminar

Grading of reflection documents

Peer comments Yes, within the

*Data about the three instances of PIC discussed in this chapter.*

group

activity

**Table 3.**

Having passed the course, the student should be able to:

Having passed the course, the student should be able to:


#### **Table 2.**

*Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century*

**1.3 Reflection and levels of reflection**

solve problems

*Hierarchy of reflection levels.*

**Table 1.**

taking society into account

promote self-regulated learning among the students.

to use their reflections to improve self-regulated learning.

details. We have chosen PIC2 as the reference course in this chapter.

is important to facilitate self-regulation [19].

**2. Programme integrating courses**

the course are presented in **Table 2**.

In the programme integrating courses, reflection assignments, orally and in writing, are heavily used as a tool to both strengthen the programme coherence and

1.Technical writing just describing personal experience, events and action in a specific situation

3.Dialogic reflection considering alternatives exploring alternative viewpoints and alternative ways to

4.Critical reflection from a broader perspective thinking about the effects upon others of one's actions,

2.Descriptive reflection analysing one's performance, giving reasons for actions taken

The students are regularly given reflection assignments on different topics, related to Zimmerman's learning strategies mentioned above [18]. The students get feedback on their reflections in several ways: written peer feedback, written feedback from the mentor and feedback in the oral discussions at the seminar. Feedback

We soon noticed that we would need to encourage the students to write deeper reflections. It is known that students may experience difficulties when being asked to reflect on a given topic, which can lead to more descriptive than reflective texts [20, 21]. In order to help students to improve their ability to reflect more deeply, Kann and Magnell developed a model, summarised in **Table 1** [22], based on research by Hatton and Smith [21]. In Section 4.4 we will explain how these levels can be useful in order to support our students to create sophisticated reflections and

The first *programme integrating course,* of the type considered in this chapter, was developed by Björn Hedin and given in 2008, for engineering students in Media Technology at KTH [23]. This course will be denoted PIC1 below. In 2010, a course based on PIC1 was introduced for Computer Science and Engineering students at KTH (denoted PIC2). These courses have the same structure and differ only in some

The programme integrating course is not at all an ordinary engineering course; it can be characterised as a meta-course. The intended learning outcomes and aims of

A Swedish master of science in engineering education takes 5 years. At KTH, the first 3 years (first cycle) of each engineering programme consist mostly of mandatory courses. In year 3, the student chooses a master's specialisation for the last 2 years of their education (second cycle). These master's specialisations are also possible to take as separate master's programmes for external students. The success of PIC1 and PIC2 made us realise the need for a programme integrating course also in the master's programmes. We were even approached by students who had taken PIC2, expressing interest in a continuation of the PIC. In this chapter, we will use the PIC in the Master of Science in Computer Science as the example of such a course. We will denote it PIC3. The students in each programme integrating course are divided into seminar groups. Each group consists of students from different years of the programme and one mentor, a teacher on the programme. The course is centred around four reflection

**204**

*Intended learning outcomes and aims of the course.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Data about the three instances of PIC discussed in this chapter.*

seminars each year, each with a dedicated topic, such as procrastination or ethics. Before each seminar, the students are asked to study the topic and write a reflection based on their own experiences. The four-level reflection hierarchy in **Table 1** has been used in PIC1 and PIC2 for several years now. At each seminar, the students also reflect upon recently taken courses. The reflection is shared to the group members including the mentor, who asynchronously discuss the texts online (using either Google Documents or the Peergrade.io system). The topic and the courses are then discussed further at a physical meeting, sometimes in the form of a walking seminar [24], where the group discusses the topic while walking in the woods behind campus.

In different PICs the students' reflections and participation are assessed in different ways and using different grading scales (see **Table 3**).
