This paper elaborates on a form of university-industry cooperation called 'collaborative PhDs'. Engineers working at companies or governmental organisations get the opportunity to do a PhD at the university. The aim of these science-based collaborations between academia and industry is to increase the impact of research on sustainable development. However, to fulfil this promise, how should doctoral engineering education for collaborative PhD tracks look like? A literature search, a benchmark on successful doctoral education programmes, in-depth interviews with 10 PhD candidates and their supervisors, as well as observations of meetings, revealed the requirements for a track that is consistent with the relationship and everyone's interest in it, as well as the needs and talents of the PhD candidate. The conclusion of the research is that collaborative PhD candidates come to the university to conduct research, but do not intuitively fit into the academic world. Some feel squeezed between their jobs as, for instance, project managers on the one hand and doctoral candidates at the university on the other hand. This research led to 10 recommendations for setting up a track within the graduate school.

Group learning activities (GLAs) are commonly used curriculum activities in teacher education. The aim of this study was to determine which components of GLAs students perceive as significant for their learning. Student teachers from six Dutch universities of applied sciences completed a survey about GLAs they participated in. Findings show that students’ evaluations of task characteristics and group constellation are related to their perceived increase in domain knowledge. Furthermore task characteristics and guidance are related to students’ perceived development as primary school teachers. Verbal interaction and engagement partially and fully mediate several relationships between GLA components and learning outcomes.

The aim of this study was to describe how teacher educators design and implement group learning activities (GLAs). We used the Group Learning Activities Instructional Design (GLAID) framework to analyse their descriptions. The GLAID framework includes eight components: (1) interaction, (2) learning objectives and outcomes, (3) assessment, (4) task characteristics, (5) structuring, (6) guidance, (7) group constellation and (8) facilities. Interviews with 23 teacher educators were analysed to acquire an in-depth understanding of how they design and implement GLAs. We conclude that teacher educators use all the components of the framework, but they report difficulties with structuring GLAs. The facilities component was mentioned by only nine teacher educators. We discuss these findings and comment on the usefulness of the GLAID framework for teacher education.

Group Learning Activities (GLAs) are a key ingredient of course designs in higher education. Various approaches for designing GLAs have been developed, featuring different design components. However, this has not yet resulted in clear guidelines for teachers on how to design GLAs. The purpose of this thematic review is to synthesize insights from various approaches for designing GLAs into one comprehensive framework. This comprehensive framework, the Group Learning Activities Instructional Design (GLAID) framework, includes eight components: (1) interaction, (2) learning objectives and outcomes, (3) assessment, (4) task characteristics, (5) structuring, (6) guidance, (7) group constellation, and (8) facilities. Each component, associated design decisions, and the corresponding design process are described. The GLAID framework aims to guide teachers in higher education in designing, implementing, and evaluating GLAs in their courses.

The concept of Knowledge Triangle (KT) links together research, education and innovation and replaces the traditional ‘one way’ flow of knowledge, essentially from research to education, by a ‘both ways’ circular motion between all the corners of a triangle that, besides research and education, also includes innovation, the ‘poor relation’ of many universities. What are the main issues – barriers and drivers – and what could be done in order to make the concept of KT a strong reality in engineering education? In this paper, the authors intend to bring some answers by analysing three cases coming from actors operating at the three corners of the KT: students, academic staff and engineers in industry.