Increasing student numbers in higher education, particularly in engineering and computer science, make it difficult for motivated lecturers to continue engaging in active teaching methods such as Flipped Classrooms and Work-Based Learning. In these settings, digital Peer Assessment can be one approach to provide effective and scalable feedback. In Peer Assessment, students assess each other’s performance whilst gaining useful reflection and judgment skills at the same time. This umbrella review of 14 review papers on the use of (digital) Peer Assessment in education provides a comprehensive overview of design choices and their consequences open to educational practitioners wishing to implement digital Peer Assessment in their courses, the type of tooling available and the possible effects of these choices on the learning outcomes as well as potential pitfalls and challenges when implementing Peer Assessment. The paper will inform and assist educators in finding or developing a tool that fits their needs.@en

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the state-of-the-art of competency measurement methods with an aim to inform the creation of reliable and valid measures of student mastery of competencies in communication, lifelong learning, innovation/creativity and teamwork in engineering education. We identified 99 studies published in three databases over the last 17 years. For each study, purpose, corresponding methods, criteria used to establish competencies, and validity and reliability properties were evaluated. This analysis identified several measurement methods of which questionnaires and rubrics were the most used. Many measurement methods were found to lack competency definitions and evidence of validity and reliability. These show a clear need for establishing professional standards when measuring mastery of competencies. Therefore, in this paper, we propose guidelines for the design of reliable and valid measurement methods to be used by educators and researchers.@en

Work to evaluate work-integrated learning experiences (2020), and the EJEE special issue on bridging the gap between engineering education and the world of practice by guest editors Buckley, Trevelyan, and Winberg (2021). What these publications show, among other things, is the wide variety of work-integrated experiences that universities offer. However, to properly study the contribution of internships to student learning and learning outcomes, it is important to understand the different types of internships that are offered. Internships vary greatly in length and can be a mandatory or elective part of the curriculum but also voluntary, either expected or not expected. Some have very clear learning objectives and deliverables whereas others only require the completion of the actual work experience. Shawcross et al. (2014)’s work is based on two-week-long team-based experiences, while at TU Delft internships only occur in the MSc programmes and are usually formally 3 months in length, but in practice, students prefer to extend to 5 to 6 months. Some may even continue within their place of internship to do their master’s thesis work (Kamp & Verdegaal, 2015), and in the USA many students do a summer internship often named coop (different from coop degree courses) as a summer activity. Hence the authors are creating an overview of the work-integrated learning landscape by developing a typology of internship variations by studying the internship possibilities at several engineering programmes in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This paper will present the first version of the typology developed. References Saunders-Smits, G. N. 2008. Study of Delft aerospace alumni, Delft University of Technology. Thesis (Ph.D.). Buckley, J., Trevelyan, J., & Winberg, C. (2021). Perspectives on engineering education from the world of practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.2000694 Dornan, T., Boshuizen, H., King, N., & Scherpbier, A. (2007, Jan). Experience-based learning: a model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students' workplace learning. Med Educ, 41(1), 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02652.x Kamp, A. & Verdegaal, F., (2015). How to make an industrial internship an integrated learning experience with rich learning outcomes and spin-offs. 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of IT, China, http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:75af0464-8429-405b-92ad-6df2f61317d2 Luk, L. Y. Y., & Chan, C. K. Y. (2020). Adaptation and validation of the Work Experience Questionnaire for investigating engineering students' internship experience. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 801-820. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20351 Schut, S., Maggio, L. A., Heeneman, S., van Tartwijk, J., van der Vleuten, C., & Driessen, E. (2021, Jan). Where the rubber meets the road - An integrative review of programmatic assessment in health care professions education. Perspect Med Educ, 10(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00625-w Shawcross, J. K., Ruth Brooks, D., Kay, J., & Ridgman, T. W. (2014). Short industrial placements – developing an activity framework to support teaching and learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, 4(3), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-06-2014-0019@en

In this paper, the transition from teaching on-campus to an online audience consisting of working professionals in an Aerospace Engineering context is described. The differences in the learner’s needs and the transition in teaching methods and style that is required from teaching staff is discussed. This is illustrated by two case studies: for Smart Structures and for Air Safety Investigation. Recommendations on how universities can contribute to Life Long Learning are given.@en

Large classroom sizes are a reality university educators need to contend with, particularly in the first year of a given cohort within a degree programme. Activating and engaging students in these large classroom environments present numerous sets of challenges. These challenges are exacerbated by student learning development needs in the early stages of the degree programme. In their first year, students are still adapting to a new learning environment and are developing new study skills and practices. Early success and failure in courses will shape intrinsic and extrinsic factors that will motivate the student in the remainder of their degree. Thus the perceived challenge of activating large classrooms early in a degree programme goes beyond simple engagement; beneath the core learning objectives of the course are implicit learning objective about developing effective motivation and study skills. This paper examines the efforts to reorganize a first year Mechanics of Materials course taught in the Bachelor of Engineering Programme within the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology University to address this need using a Blended Learning approach.@en

Although aerospace traditionally has always had a multidisciplinary approach to engineering and design, the increasing complexity of aircraft and spacecraft and the rapid digitization within the aerospace industry has led to a large number of related engineering and scientific disciplines such as electrical engineers, computer scientist to work much more directly within the aerospace domain than before. Next to that there is a shortage of highly trained engineers worldwide to meet demand. As a result, there is a clear need to provide basic knowledge to non-aerospace engineers working in the field and to motivate and attract more people to engineering and aerospace in particular. This paper details how the creation of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) at an introductory level in Aerospace Structures and Materials provides an efficient and fit-for-purpose tool to achieve both aims. The paper will discuss the course design, the course set up, the course evaluation and how the course fits within the online learning philosophy of Delft University of Technology. It will use learning analytics to analyze our learners and their needs.@en

The gender divide for women in the engineering domain in academia is still very large today, even though most institutions are committed to changing this. Although there are slow improvements in the number of women working in academic positions in Engineering, the Netherlands, in particular, is still lagging badly behind the rest of Europe with women making up only 17.6% of all full professors in the engineering domain and for 25.7% in the entire academic domain. This is despite many efforts across the board to improve this situation. The situation is even worse in the field of Aerospace Engineering and within this field, the lack of progress is not unique to the Netherlands with similar issues being reported in the United States of America and wider afield. This paper reports on research on the capacity building among women required within the aerospace engineering domain to reach the commonly defined critical mass percentage of 30% of women full professors using metrics on career progress and on as well as labour market data on the career development of Aerospace graduates to show where potential new interventions can be made. @en

Grounding the design of educational interventions and their analysis in theory allows us to understand and interpret results of interventions and advance educational theories. Moreover, building an understanding of which educational theories are used and how they are used can build a consensus among researchers and mature the research in a field. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which educational theories are used to ground the design, analysis, and evaluation of learning activities in engineering education. For this purpose, we developed a coding instrument to determine: (1) which educational theories are expressed in studies investigating learning activities and interventions, and (2) the extent to which these theories inform (a) the design of an intervention and (b) the analysis of that intervention. The instrument was applied to a sample of 12 studies from an existing literature review on collaborative engineering design activities to demonstrate the relevance of the developed framework. Results reveal that most studies refer to educational theory, primarily pedagogical approaches such as project-based learning. Furthermore, half of the time, the design of learning interventions is grounded in theory, however, the evaluation of those interventions is often not connected to educational theories.@en

In 2020, a new two-year MSc programme in robotics was launched. Unlike most existing robotics programmes, which approach robotics from a specific discipline, this programme aims to train multi-deployable robot generalists using a cognitive approach (no hardware creation). The field of robotics is multidisciplinary by nature and educating students on how to approach projects with a multidisciplinary mindset is at the forefront of the programme. Hence, at the end of the first year, students are thrust into experiencing the true multi-disciplinarity of the robotics field in a synthesizing, multidisciplinary project-based course. In this 5 EC course, students work together in groups of 5 on an industry-based assignment making a translation of societal issues from different perspectives (human, sustainability, safety, ethics, economic, etc.) into intelligent robot solutions. Each team develops and tests a complete, integrated software package for a complex robot system in a simulated environment and implements it in a real robot at the end of the course. Various robots are used, each related to a different case study which is taken on by multiple teams. Students are supported in their project with workshops and minilectures on transferable skills, systems engineering and the Robot Operating System (ROS). This paper describes the development, implementation, and results of the course over its first three years of running. It will present lessons learned from the perspectives of all parties involved: lecturers, technical staff, industry, and students as well as future plans and recommendations for others looking at creating similar courses.@en

Although accreditation bodies emphasise communication competencies development in engineering curricula due to its importance for future engineers, the focus is often mainly on oral presentation and written reports. A communication activity was created to practice and reflect on students’ communication competencies including describing information in a short time, listening skills, and ask and respond to questions. This activity was implemented at five different European engineering universities involving 393 students. This study explores the effectiveness of this activity as a case-study of game-based learning to practise and reflect on engineering students’ communication competencies. A mixed-method approach measuring students’ communication performance, their perceived communication competencies, and the benefits of this activity to students was used to explore the game characteristics that make the activity effective. The findings of the scoring rubric and the questionnaire used showed that this activity is effective. Because it is engaging and set by rules, students actively participated during the activity, reflected on their effective and ineffective communication competencies, the existing communication barriers and styles, gained awareness, experienced communication in teams, and cooperated with different people. This study highlights the effectiveness of a small intervention using a proven communication activity, which is freely available as OpenCourseWare through TU Delft for anyone to use.@en

Contribution: This study reports on a reliable and valid instrument that measures engineering students' perceptions of their competency levels. A better understanding of students' needs in engineering curricula will support the development of engineering students' transversal competencies. Background: Prior research has investigated how engineering students perceive competency levels in transversal competencies. However, limitations in the competency definition, psychometric properties, and generalizability were found. Research questions: 1) What is the reliability and validity of the competency level instrument? and 2) what are the transversal competency level perceptions of engineering Bachelor and Master students? Methodology: A questionnaire consisting of 36 transversal competencies was designed based on an existing industry model and administered to 1087 engineering Bachelor and Master students from the University of Technology, The Netherlands. Validity and reliability were tested through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's alpha. Findings: EFA resulted in five scales with reliable Cronbach's alpha values. CFA demonstrated a good model fit for the five-factor model with 25 items. Students perceived they are most competent in teamwork and lifelong learning competencies and less competent in entrepreneurial competencies.@en

To assist in resolving the perceived lack of transversal competencies (TCs) of engineering graduates by industry, this study investigates the characteristics of transforming an existing industry TC instrument for use in engineering education. The instrument consists of 36 nuanced sub-competencies with the corresponding definitions and descriptive mastery levels. This instrument was first used to determine required TCs mastery levels for BSc and MSc graduates by European industry and subsequently, using two representative curricula as case studies to map TCs course outcomes and lecturer perceptions of TCs course outcomes, using interviews for further exploration. The main findings are that the TC instrument is suitable to determine desired industry mastery levels as well as to map TCs course outcomes both in formal documentation and by lecturers. Also, a gap between the formal and perceived curriculum was found i.e. discrepancies in reported TC learning outcomes between formal documentation and lecturer-reported TCs in courses.@en

Recent research by KU Leuven showed that 33% of the engineering graduates in Flanders changed jobs in the first year, with 60% of those citing job content as a reason. Also, industry often reports that recent graduate hires lack the right skills for the job. It appears that students seem to enter the labour market less prepared both in perception and skill level. This study investigates the perceptions of first-year students on their future role and the competencies they need by developing an engineering role model on the business model of Tracey and Wiersema. The premise of the PREFER-model is that most vacancies for junior engineers fall into one of three roles: Product Leadership (i.e., focus on radical innovation), Operational Excellence (i.e., focus on process optimization), and Customer Intimacy (i.e., focus on client-tailored solutions). A survey was administered to first-year students from the three largest engineering degrees in Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands. A total of 197 students in Belgium (KU Leuven – Engineering Technology), 89 students in Ireland (TU Dublin – Engineering), and 372 students in the Netherlands (TU Delft – Aerospace Engineering) participated. In this survey, students were also asked to express their preference for three fictional job vacancies reflecting the three different roles. The results showed that first-year students do not have a clear view of the future and have an idealized perception of the engineering profession centred around the Product Leadership role. Students were also found to overestimate their level of preparedness when it comes to their mastery of competencies. It is suggested that having a discerning professional roles model as well as instruments that allow students to assess their role alignment and associated role competencies will help mitigate these issues.@en

The increasing global demand for robotics expertise led the Delft University of Technology to launch a two-year Master of Science programme in Robotics in 2020. The programme was designed to educate versatile robotics engineers capable of overseeing the entire process from conception of robotics systems to implementation. The curriculum integrates disciplines such as machine perception, artificial intelligence, robot planning and control, human-robot interaction, and ethics, and emphasises personal development through a course called Portfolio, which was later rebranded as Vision and Reflection. The effectiveness of the programme was evaluated by conducting a survey among the first cohort of students. The online survey, completed by 21 alumni, assessed the programme’s alignment with graduates’ career paths and their perceptions of the programme. Most respondents (81%) secured employment, with 69% in robotics, and all others had consciously chosen different fields. On average, graduates found jobs in under a month. Common job titles were Robotics Engineer and Software Engineer. However, graduates least appreciated the original Robot & Society and Portfolio courses. The recently rebranded Vision and Reflection course is expected to improve student engagement by focusing on meaningful reflection rather than documentation. Overall, the programme received positive feedback, with 88% of respondents saying it provided a comprehensive robotics education, and 94% stating they would choose it again. However, the evaluation was limited to the more successful half of the cohort, indicating the need to assess the experiences of the remaining graduates, who took over 2.5 years to complete their degrees. @en