The field of innovation evaluation in engineering education is growing, yet the perspectives of educators and educational support staff are often overlooked. As a result, critical factors such as relevance, context, and long-term value can go unrecognized, limiting both the effectiveness of evaluations and stakeholder engagement. This workshop builds on findings from a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) study conducted at a European university of technology, where engineering educators and support staff collaboratively identified and ranked 104 criteria for evaluating educational innovations. Early findings revealed a strong emphasis on qualitative aspects, such as workload, student well-being, and alignment with stakeholder needs, ranked above concerns such as scalability and regulatory compliance. The workshop has two aims: to broaden the study by involving an international group of participants from diverse professional roles, and to introduce the engineering education community to a more inclusive and stakeholder-informed view of 'quality'. Participants will collaboratively reflect on and further develop the list of evaluation criteria, and group them into conceptual themes. By the end of the session, participant groups will have explored and developed categorizations of evaluation criteria.

This practice paper deals with the curriculum renewal of the Bachelor’s Bouwkunde program of the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TU Delft. It focuses on design education as a form of CBL and its pedagogical fundamentals in particular. The paper describes the program and the intentions for curriculum renewal, followed by an explanation of the new learning objectives and assessment strategy. Finally, it touches upon the team development process and lessons learned so far.

Holistic learning objectives and a holistic assessment strategy were developed to foster the curriculum renewal objectives and accommodate the integrative nature of design, design thinking, and design education. The design program’s learning objectives are based on four strongly related skills that were further detailed for every course: position, knowledge, research, and communication. To do justice to the importance of coherence and interaction between these four different parts, design needs to be assessed holistically. At an abstract level, aspects that count for all spatial designs were formulated, no matter how different they appear in various design outcomes: coherence & meaning, correctness & elaboration, communication, and research. However, they are strongly connected and are hard to assess independently.

In the academic year 2024-2025, the renewed learning objectives and assessment strategy are used in education practice. We expect these will help to address the essence of developing and assessing (design) proposals to intervene in complex systems. Its use will be actively monitored, and the outcomes will be used to improve next year’s curriculum.

This workshop addresses the critical need for Curriculum Agility (CA) in contemporary engineering education, defined as the ability of a curriculum to be responsive and adaptable to rapid changes in society, industry, and student and university faculty needs by dynamically adjusting its structures, learning outcomes, and activities. Participants will explore the rationale behind CA, emphasizing its role in mitigating the Stakeholder Expectation Error that arises when educational programs fail to meet evolving stakeholder demands. The workshop delves into the concept of CA as a responsively organized education with dynamic learning content and flexible pedagogies, supported by the continuous development of staff. The ten principles of CA are discussed, which were formulated through extensive research and co-creation within the international engineering education community. The workshop also introduces the CA Self-Mapping Protocol, a facilitated, multi-level, cocreative process, designed to enable higher education institutions to assess and enhance their CA. This protocol, developed and refined through workshops and pilot studies at various European institutions, facilitates curriculum stakeholders to come to a shared understanding regarding the current state of CA and identify strategic actions for future improvement. Participants will gain insights into the protocol's key phases—Informing, Probing, Envisioning, Strategizing, and Prioritizing—and its emphasis on inclusive dialogue. The expected outcomes include a comprehensive understanding of CA, its guiding principles, and the value of the Self-Mapping Protocol as a tool for strategic curriculum innovation to ensure sustained quality and relevance of engineering programs.

Part of TU Delft’s Climate Action program is developing climate action pedagogies at the classroom and course levels. This contribution presents our open pedagogical language that shares evidence-informed instructional design principles and teaching practices in which students not only learn about urban climate change and sustainability but, in particular, about intervening in society or industry (action!) and its effects in everyday practice. In addition to technical system knowledge, this type of education provides students with crucial ecological and social entrepreneurship skills.

The building blocks of this language are so-called pedagogical patterns, which describe a specific (set of) instructional design principle(s) of a course or classroom setting. Each pattern is presented in a comparable way via a given template that asks for [i] a title, [ii] an illustration, [iii] a hypothesis or statement on the value this pattern brings, [iv] the evidence from teaching practice and/or the educational scientific knowledge supporting the pattern, [v] a brief description of practical implications when implementing or using the pattern, [vi] the relation to other patterns. Pedagogical patterns are not prescriptive; they show what educators could do pedagogically.

Our first pedagogical patterns are based on the teaching practices of our Delft Climate Action educators and focus on:
*citizen science approaches focusing on the adaptation of the urban area to the weather and climate of tomorrow.
*interdisciplinarity for climate adaptivity in urbanised delta regions, where students work for and with a local government or stakeholder related to urban heat, drought, air pollution, and flooding.
* entrepreneurship in the built environment, where students develop a design and entrepreneurial plan for a sustainability challenge.
* action research focusing on socio-spatial inequality, diversity, resilience, and well-being for a climate challenge in a collaborative way with practitioners and community members.

Within six institutions, Chalmer’s University of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Eindhoven University of Technology, NTNU, Queen’s University Belfast, and Umeå University, activities of self-mapping Curriculum Agility have taken place, facilitated by the co-creators of this work. In this paper, they reflect on enablers of Curriculum Agility that they identified during the self-mapping process at their respective institutions. By putting a spotlight on enablers, ways to overcome obstacles are exemplified, when the ambition is to proactively futureproof an engineering curriculum. These enablers help in four curriculum innovation areas, which each have their own challenges: (1) Continuously adjusting learning content in courses, creating a need for a teaching and learning system with more dynamic learning goals and on-the-go, reciprocal expertise development. (2) Implementing or refining flexible education pedagogy and didactics to tailor to and being inclusive of the diverse student populations entering university. (3) Working with a responsive organisation and a continuously-change-facilitating management, where engagement and ownership of educational innovation is shared, and innovation space is constructively created where desired and needed. (4) Continuously developing all academic staff involved in engineering education innovation, for informed decision-making and shared understanding of the pedagogic and (inter- and trans-) disciplinary innovations needed to keep the engineering programme relevant and of high quality. This paper highlights positive examples of Curriculum Agility, and how its characteristics and principles can be implemented in a variety of university contexts with different organisational structures.

While courses are periodically updated and improved with the integration of new teaching methods and technologies, we still lack a systematic, research- informed method for evaluating educational innovations. Existing evaluations often lack contextual transparency to enable transferability to other courses and are mostly limited to student surveys. To take on this problem, we developed a framework for evaluating innovation in courses. The accompanying poster will present elements from this framework. The results presented in the accompanying poster are based on two literature reviews and a workshop. The framework prescribes an iterative process: (1) analysis of the innovation and its context of implementation, and (2) development of the evaluation plan. To apply the framework, both a formal (consultancy format) and an informal method (workshop) have been developed. Educators can use the framework to take a more scholarly approach to evaluating educational innovations for better decision-making, and to make teaching achievements more visible.

It is recommended to integrate specific management competencies in academic education to support the transition towards environmentally sustainable practices, particularly in the construction and real estate sector. This paper explores how architectural management education can integrate environmental sustainability within its current university programmes. In recent years TU Delft explored and experimented with various education initiatives to bring forward environmental sustainability knowledge and to connect with policy, societal and industry practices. This paper describes what we learned from both bottom-up and top-down initiatives implementing environmental sustainability in construction and real estate management education. Bottom-up educational initiatives show that knowledge about transition policies, stakeholder experiences, business models and management practices from a European perspective can help students across the globe to apply knowledge into their local context, reflecting on the overarching management principals across stakeholders, institutions, academic disciplines and cultures. Top-down initiatives show that the university has a vision on integrating sustainability in its curriculum, but that integrating environmental sustainability in construction and real estate management education is still challenging. Adapting the academic curriculum to integrate building and portfolio responses to environmental challenges might be a way forward and the experiences from numerous elective courses and educational initiatives can be a basis to identify the development of a future standard curriculum.

Future-proof engineering curricula can cope with fast-changing circumstances, and the opportunities and threats these bring along in the context of the curriculum. Curriculum Agility (CA) is a concept aimed at helping higher education institutions analyse how responsive their programmes are to changes in society, industry, and student characteristics and needs. The CA model describes features needed to adapt curricular and organizational structures, learning content and outcomes, learning activities and pedagogies, staff development, and examination design in a timely and proactive manner. Based on the model, a CA Self-Mapping Protocol has been developed that aims to actively engage and simultaneously enable curriculum stakeholders in the self-mapping process. It was tested at five European universities and at different levels, i.e. university, department, and program level. Leading questions focused on the effects of the CA self-mapping process; and what that could mean for the set-up of the protocol. The aim of this paper is to present to what extent, and in which form, the self-mapping protocol, as a design-thinking, guided dialogue with multiple stakeholders, is valuable and feasible in different higher engineering education institutional contexts. All facilitators were able to adjust the protocol to local contexts. And although there were all kinds of differences (of use and process) between the institutes, what ‘stands firmly’ is the importance of the negotiating understanding of what CA is and what it means to the local context. The presence of the ten principles were instrumental to ‘guarantee’ that people were discussing and considering the themes that needed to be addressed.

Evaluation of educational innovation at the course level is dominated by frameworks that are linear, built on simple models, lack grounding in theory, and are generally not flexible enough to provide actionable recommendations for improvements. Moreover, the guidelines provided by existing literature are difficult to transfer to other contexts as most of these are aimed at specific innovations only. Therefore, there is a need for a new approach that is flexible enough to enable adaptation to different contexts, and that draws on the strengths of existing evaluation traditions. This paper forms a starting point for a larger research initiative for developing a comprehensive innovation evaluation framework. The context of the paper is a project based within the four universities of technology in The Netherlands (4TU) dedicated to strengthening collaboration in engineering education and research needed to take on global societal problems. The potential reach of our framework has implications for the wider field. This paper describes the results of an exploratory literature review to draw on the strengths of various evaluation theories to develop a new approach to evaluating educational innovation in courses. Value, Methods, and Use are the main components identified for this approach. Secondly, we developed a workshop to pilot this approach. Lastly, the workshop was presented to educational researchers, engineering educators, and educational advisors. We share lessons learned from the workshop and conclude with descriptions of future research to refine the framework to prepare its application in real innovation initiatives.

Het boek Academische Vaardigheden voor Bouwkundigen geeft een verdiepend beeld van bouwkunde als wetenschappelijke discipline, gaat expliciet in op de relatie tussen ontwerp en onderzoek en richt zich met name op praktische vaardigheden die bouwkundestudenten ontwikkelen gedurende hun bacheloropleiding in Delft. Het boek is opgebouwd uit vier delen. Deel A richt zich op de plaats van bouwkunde binnen de wetenschap. Deel B richt zich op basisvaardigheden: algemene academische vaardigheden voor bouwkundigen. Deel C diept specifieke bouwkundige methoden van onderzoek uit. Deel D, het laatste deel, is enerzijds gericht op de praktijk en anderzijds op reflectie. Door deze brede opzet kan het boek niet alleen direct gebruikt worden door studenten en docenten in de leerlijn Academische Vaardigheden, maar juist ook in de andere leerlijnen en modulen. Tevens is het boek een naslagwerk voor andere Bouwkunde- en Architectuuropleidingen in binnen- en buitenland dat inzicht geeft hoe wij binnen de faculteit Bouwkunde van de TU Delft aankijken tegen het vakgebied en welke academische vaardigheden daar op bachelorniveau bij horen.

Based on the understanding of the built environment as result of competing claims on space that must be resolved via recognition, fair distribution of burdens and benefits of our human association, respect and care for the planet and just procedures to decide on those claims, Spatial Planning and Strategy is a chair in the Department of Urbanism within the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment of the Delft University of Technology, committed to helping create sustainability, resilience and spatial justice through the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Climate Agreement and the European New Deal, among other frameworks. This commitment is reflected in activities, events, and courses. We are concerned with knowledge about the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of strategic and urban planning tools – visions, strategies, plans and programmes.

Rondetafelsessie met Remon Rooij, Olaf Oosting Michiel Susebeek, Hans Wamelink, Emma de Wijs, Indy van de Sande, Helmut Thoele.

In this paper, we take the position that teaching engineering itself is a design science. Engineering educators worldwide creatively design, implement, and evaluate new ways of teaching to facilitate the learning of their students and to respond to various societal challenges. Sadly, their teaching and course design discoveries often remain with them. By representing successful experiences in engineering education as structured pedagogical patterns, we could develop this vital professional knowledge collectively into a so-called pattern language. The pattern language method acknowledges the complexity of instructional design and divides it into smaller and more understandable pieces. One piece is called a ‘pattern’. This paper aims to set the argument of why and how to develop a pedagogical pattern language for engaging and activating engineering education. In Delft, we see this pedagogical language as a part of TU Delft’s so-called ecosystem approach toward learning and teaching. TU Delft recognizes the need among students for impact-driven education that matches the way this generation learns and what our society needs. Successful ecosystem pedagogies will be the core of the intended pedagogical pattern language. It is our idea to develop this pattern language in close cooperation with the teaching communities of TU Delft, that is the TUD Teaching Academy, the 4TU Centre of Engineering Education, and CDIO.

Although for millennia the Mediterranean has facilitated the exchange of goods and people, in recent decades, it has been treated as a border between continents, nations and supranational institutions, with the European Union on one side and MENA region on the other. Yet pressing issues related to migration, climate change and pollution reveal problems with the border approach. In 1995, the Barcelona Process culminated in the creation of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and the UfM Urban Agenda in an attempt to better connect countries around the Mediterranean. To concretise this agenda, TU Delft and the authors of this text were invited to work with DG-Regio, UNESCO, the EIB (European Investment Bank), and the ministries in charge of spatial planning in Member States, to draft the UfM Strategic Action Plan for Sustainable Urban Development. The goal of the Action Plan is to enhance the strategic and integrative value of spatial planning interventions in each country. Based on the personal reflections of the authors and the detailed communication with the institutions involved in the making of the plan, the article presents the history and the conceptual framework of the making of the UfM Strategic Action Plan. It concludes by highlighting the hurdles that the UfM Strategic Action Plan faces as a new transnational policy framework for the transfer of policy from the European Union to the MENA region (Middle East and the North of Africa). Such challenges are not only based on content, but they are also related to the frames and structures within which policy is developed and exchanged.

Reflection is a term often heard. But what is actually meant by it in the context of engineering education? How do we see reflection being applied in engineering, and where? To what could it contribute? And what are challenges involved? In 100 days, ‘Reflection in Engineering Education’ has been explored through journal clubs, conversations, presentations, a case pitching workshop, and peer exchange among scientific staff and educational support. This paper outlines this exploration with the aim of making reflection more accessible and concrete within the context of TU Delft Engineering Education.

For universities, educational change at institutional level is a slow process [1], [2]. To keep up with societal and technological advancement, education innovation project leaders at universities need practical guidelines and procedures in place that will enable sustainable and scalable innovation that can meet the needs of industry as we transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 [3]. To develop such guidelines and procedures, we need to conduct socially responsible, evidence-based educational research [4]. This paper is part of a larger study during which we will conceptualize the planning and evaluation of innovation in engineering education at the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). From this conceptualization, a framework for planning and evaluation of education innovation will emerge. The data collection process will take place in six phases: (1) Exploration of the problem (2) feasibility studies; (3) conceptualization and development of the framework; (4) piloting of the framework and its associated processes; (5) field study; and lastly, (6) evaluation of the framework. This paper provides an initial overview of the literature, as well as an explanation of the proposed research methodology.

During past decades, Territories in-Between (TiB) have gained increased attention among researchers in the field of urban planning and design. TiB are often considered to be underused, lack spatial quality and are under mounting pressure of urban densification. However, the rich diversity of land uses and abundance of semi-open spaces in the TiB provide unique habitats and social-ecological potentials, different from exclusively urban or rural landscapes. Therefore, urban planners and designers should reconsider conventional planning and design approaches towards these kinds of territories. The objective of this paper is to present a holistic planning and design approach towards TiB which acknowledges and strengthens its unique social-ecological potentials on local and regional scales. The new spatial planning concept that was developed through a ‘research-by-design’ process is called: The Recovering Membrane. This concept was developed for the city of Rotterdam. The Recovering Membrane is defined as a spatial layer of interaction between two distinctive living environments – urban and rural – and various human and non-human actors in them. The research puts forward that design for the TiB should consider the urban fringe as a distinctive kind of TiB with unique social-ecological potentials. Moreover, spatial design should strengthen existing spatial qualities of the TiB, to protect its pressured, yet highly valuable, characteristics. Additionally, local nature-based interventions can provide an important tool for placemaking in the TiB, especially when integrated with long-term and large-scale area transformations.

The Department of Urbanism of the TU Delft is organised in six sections: Spatial Planning & Strategy (SPS), Urban Design, Environmental Technology & Design, Urban Studies, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Data Science. SPS has three distinct and complementary pillars: (i) Spatial Planning & Strategy, (ii) Regional Design and Planning, and (iii) International Urbanisation & Development Planning. Spatial Planning at TU Delft has an evident, but unique relationship with spatial design, focusing on the development and transformation of spatial form, composition, patterns, structures, and networks. [...]