Examples of Enablers for Curriculum Agility

Conference Paper (2025)
Author(s)

Suzanne Brink (Umeå University)

Carl Johan Carlsson (Chalmers University of Technology)

Mikael Enelund (Chalmers University of Technology)

Sonia M. Gomez Puente (Eindhoven University of Technology)

Elizabeth Keller (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)

Reidar Lyng (Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU))

Charles McCartan (Queen's University Belfast)

R.M. Rooij (TU Delft - Spatial Planning and Strategy)

Research Group
Spatial Planning and Strategy
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Spatial Planning and Strategy
Pages (from-to)
603-614
Publisher
Chalmers University of Technology
ISBN (electronic)
978-91-88041-62-3
Event
21st International CDIO Conference (2025-06-02 - 2025-06-05), Melbourne, Australia
Downloads counter
10
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

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.