Currently browsing “Academic Teaching” by Elmgren and Olding (2025)
We are using the book “Academic Teaching” by Elmgren and Olding in our “Introduction to Teaching and Learning” course. They came out with a new edition this year (2025; and to be fair, it was Elmgren and Henriksson before!) and we’ve got it in the office now! Here are my notes on a super quick (well, about 2.5 hours) browsing.
Before we start — there are many great books with general introductions to teaching and learning (I personally love Small Teaching, The New Science of Learning, Critical Teaching Behaviours, Invisible Learning, all for different reasons). One of the main reasons for that we are considering to continue using the Elmgren & Olding book is that it is written in the Swedish context (which is, of course, different from the predominant US context in a lot of the other literature) and that it exists in Swedish (plus in an English translation). Teaching culture depends a lot on context, so it is definitely a good idea to take that into consideration also in the materials we use!
Ok, let’s check how they write about things, starting with the chapter “knowledge and learning” and the deep vs surface approach to learning. Ah yes, the favourite model in Sweden! I think it is definitely helpful, but I also think that it is super important to very explicitly stress that whether a student takes a surface or a deep approach to learning is a choice depends on lots of things, like for example how important it is to them to learn specific content or to pass a specific exam, what else is going on in their lives at this specific moment, … Elmgren & Olding do write about “Students who adopt deep approaches to learning…“, but they also write about “Students with a deep learning approach …” (emphasis mine in both cases), so it does not become as clear as I would like that this is not some inherent quality in a student. They do address the strategic approach in the paragraph “What affects the choice of approach to learning?“, but unless someone reads the chapter very carefully rather than browsing the first pages to get a general idea, this comes too late and not explicitly enough.
Later, they write that “a non-academically inclined student does not study in the same way [as an academically inclined one] to satisfy his or her curiosity but is perhaps rather motivated by an ambition to find a good job. For these students, much is required if they are to be motivated to adopt deep approaches to learning.” This sentence leads into suggestions of what to do to motivate “these students“, but it rubs me the wrong way that there is this implicit hierarchy between the good students that study for the love of knowledge, and the ones that study to get a job. Judgey much? I also find the way they use “his or her” not really appropriate any more in 2025, why not use the much simpler, and more inclusive, “their“?
In the chapter “what promotes learning?“, the authors state that “a positive and unthreatening climate is achieved when the teacher shows respect for the students, their interests and their needs“, and then there are some examples for what teachers can do, like showing respect, and “attempting to embrace as many students as possible in selecting examples, anecdotes and jokes also paves the way for inclusive teaching and helps provide a sense of security”. No mention of the influence of other students on the learning climate, and of the importance of working with the whole group on a positive and unthreatening climate (let alone how to do that…). And in the following sections on active collaborative learning, variation, and feedback, I am missing some concrete suggestions for what teachers could try, or should pay attention to.
In the chapter “students” there is a nice overview over some statistics of who goes to university in Sweden, with mention of, for example, the fact that it is more likely that someone will pursue higher education if their parents also have higher education. Nice that this is included, and here it is really nice to have a book that is really from the Swedish context! (Also later, when they write about the Swedish Discrimination Act as the legal framework we are working within, as well as the Higher Education Act which mandates that students must be able to give feedback on courses)
In the part on motivation, self-determination theory and fixed/growth mindset, the authors point out that “teachers may also need to deal with a study culture where all the status lies in being smart and not having to put in much effort“, discuss stereotype threat, and also mention that “negative stereotypes about educational programmes, not least in cases where different programmes study a course jointly, may affect students belonging to a programme that is regarded as having less status” (but why not point out here how a teacher might deal with this situation specifically?).
The chapter on “the role of the teacher” uses the Kugel (1993) model, which I find very helpful, to discuss teacher development.
In “learning outcomes in higher education“, they state that “the public function of universities is wider than just supplying the workforce with competent manpower” (why use that term, though? Even the editor here on my blog automatically marks it as “likely insensitive language”!), and they define the term “Bildung” (which I am especially interested in right now because I just discussed last night how it is used differently in a German vs Scandinavian context). They write that “[Bildung] encompasses knowledge and judgement that exceeds the professional and/or academic, thus incorporating personal development and a broad cultural and political orientation well as a cultivation of the self with the fine arts“.
In the chapter on “teaching and learning activities“, there is so much stuff that I find it hard to motivate myself to read it. It would be so helpful if there were some graphics occasionally (like how to organise a jigsaw activity, or whatever, just break up all this text!). Now there is also more concrete advice on how to give feedback (would have been helpful if this chapter was referred to earlier when they first talk about the importance of feedback, though).
Then, there is a chapter on assessment, and then one on “educational development“. It’s a bit confusing to me why this chapter isn’t somehow grouped to the one about developing as a teacher, but I am sure there are reasons. Anyway, here we find a section about publishing, with a shoutout to the Swedish journal “Högre utbildning“, which I would have expected together with the previous SoTL sections. Not easy to navigate this book, at least on paper where you cannot as easily search for things as in a pdf!
In the preface to this third edition, they mention that AI is new and needs to be considered. Browsing this book, I did not notice any mention in the main body, but let’s check out the index! AI shows up 9 times (in these contexts: “It can be difficult at times [to] get students to do what is necessary for good learning: Students plagiarise or have AI produce text instead of writing their own text, […]” (p44), “courses can be set up to allow the use of AI tools for feedback” (p79), “AI can be used to answer questions” (p190), “AI can be used by the teachers or the students themselves” (p191), “Students use AI in their learning, and this can be a good thing, as itis a quick way to find answers and new ideas. AI competence is also something they will need in their lives after theur studies. This makes it important to for them to use a variety of tools and discuss the best ways to use them. At the same time, there’s a risk that they will take shortcuts that are not beneficial to them. To learn to write an academic text, it is not enough to critically evaluate texts that AI generates, even though it may be enticing. For assessed assignments, of course, regulations must be clearly laid down. For assignments designed solely to promote the students’ learning, what needs to be made clear to students is what will best enhance their learning” (p211), “Of course, AI can also be used in feedback situations. For students to be able to make use of it on their own, they need to know how various tools function and how they can be prompted to provide useful feedback. For the teacher, the realisation that the responsibility for feedback can’t be transferred to AI is important, not least in assessed assignments. Teachers also have to consider how assignments are designed and carried out in order to keep them from becomind simply a useless circle of AI-generated assignments that are answered with AI-generated information that, in turn, receives AI-generated feedback” (p252), in the context of take-home exams: “The disadvantages of the assessment form primarily involve the risk of plagiarism; it’s hard to determine whether the students themselves, or someone else or AU provided the responses submitted. The development of AI has influence[d] many courses to move away from take-home exams.” (p270), still in the context of assessment: “how easy is it to plagiarise or use AI in an impermissible manner? […] The form of examination is also relevant, and the ever greater possibilities of using AU are influencing what examination forms are used” (p298), and “Many universities have addressed the challenges presented by AI developments with policy texts that primarily focus on how the originality of students’ work should be ensured. However, the views of plagiarism and originality are called into question by new technology, where the boundary between human- and AI-generated products has been blurred (Luo, 2024). At the same time as students need to learn to use techincal tools in well-deliberated ways, on other cases it’s vital for students themselves to possess certain knowledge and have the capacity to tackle complex issues, express themselves or create entirely new thinking, permissible and impermissible.” (p299)), generative AI once (here they write “One intriguing notion — which has likely gained in currency as a result of the rapid development of generative AI — is that learning takes place also outside of human beings“), and that is it. No mention what that means for teaching or learning, for relationships (beyond that it is mostly mentioned in situations where it undermines relationships, because it replaces personal connection or because the assumption that students want to cheat is furthered). That is a bit disappointing!
What I am wondering with this book is whether we would want to use it as a textbook book or reference book. So far, we have used the previous version as a reference, recommending that participants check out chapters or sections they are curious about or are looking for information on. However here, the style is conversational and chapters are not stand-alone. For example, the chapter on cognitivism starts out with the sentence “cognitivism, unlike behaviourism, takes the functioning of the human brain as its point of departure“. Stylistically nice if we were reading the whole book, but not helpful when using it as a reference. Also, the structure is really not self-explanatory.
Which leads me to my second-to-last comment: I really like reading physical books (and this one is really pretty too, see featured image!), and I like the idea of giving participants in our courses a physical book to work with, to stick post-its in, to have on their desk or shelf as a reminder of the course. But I am wondering if we should also give participants the option of an e-book instead? The book exists as e-book, but as of today, LUB does not have it. But it might be worth buying electronic access to give participants the choice between physical and electronic access, also to avoid buying and handing out physical books that people don’t want because they work only electronically these days? Plus I would love a pdf version so I can more easily search for stuff; finding all the AI mentions was a bit of a pain! Providing access to the electronic version would also give us the opportunity to recommend several different books, and we could always invite participants to pick their favourite that we then give them on paper if they so choose?
Last comment: It might be because I come from a different culture myself, and because I usually read literature that is mostly from English speaking countries, but I find the language in some places quite off-putting and non-inclusive (I did not check whether that is just a translation issue, it might be at least in parts), and sometimes also reflecting a view of students that really does not work with my own ideas on partnership and co-creation (neither of which are listed as terms in the index, and now that I am looking there, neither is trust!), that I would not like to encourage in my courses. Anyway. So far so good, these are my thoughts on browsing the book.