Creating Flexible Learning Paths: Integrating Competencies and Modular Learning for Engineering Graduates Addressing Societal Challenges

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Verkuilen, A., van, H. Broekhuijsen., Hoogendorp, G., & Hegberg-Go, S. W. (2025). Creating Flexible Learning Paths: Integrating Competencies and Modular Learning for Engineering Graduates Addressing Societal Challenges. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631790. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. CREATING FLEXIBLE LEARNING PATHS: INTEGRATING COMPETENCIES AND MODULAR LEARNING FOR ENGINEERING GRADUATES ADDRESSING SOCIETAL CHALLENGES A. Verkuilen a, 1 , S.W. Hegberg-Go a, 2 , G. Hoogendorp a, 3 , H.L. van Broekhuijsen a, 4 , M.A. Bothof a, 5 a The Hague University of Applied Science, Delft, The Netherlands, 0009-00044146-2129 Conference Key Areas: Curricular Development, Engineering Skills Keywords: Flexible Learning, Competency-Based Education, Modular Curriculum, Project-Based Learning, Challenge Based Learning, Societal Impact ABSTRACT This paper outlines a modular, competency-based flexible‐learning approach at The Hague University of Applied Sciences that prepares engineers for complex societal challenges. Grounded in real-world projects, it combines a flexible Body of Knowledge & Skills with cumulative, context-driven competency development. Across the curriculum it creates Minimal Viable Learning Paths (MVLPs) that let students personalise trajectories to their prior knowledge and goals. This flexibility fosters engineers who can adapt to evolving societal needs, collaborate across disciplines, and transfer knowledge between contexts—essential capabilities for addressing the multifaceted challenges facing society today. Early implementation results demonstrate increased student engagement, improved retention rates, enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration, and stronger alignment with industry and societal requirements. This paper presents the conceptual framework, implementation strategies, and preliminary outcomes of this flexible learning approach, offering insights for engineering educators seeking to develop adaptable, society-oriented curricula. 1 A. Verkuilen, [email protected] 2 S.W. Hegberg-Go, [email protected] 3 G. Hoogendorp, [email protected] 4 H.L. van Broekhuijsen, [email protected] 5 M.A. Bothof, [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Engineering education faces a challenge: preparing graduates for evolving technology and complex societal needs. Fixed curricula often struggle to adapt quickly to emerging needs, potentially creating graduates who are technically proficient but lack the adaptability and contextual understanding required to apply their knowledge effectively in service of society. Research shows the need for flexibility in higher education curricula to support interdisciplinary learning, digital adaptability, and the integration of real-world problem-solving into academic training (Klaassen et al., 2025; Salayevich & Raxmatovna, 2025). Systematic reviews on flexible curriculum design emphasise that modular, skills-first architectures improve employability and lifelong learning capacity when coupled with clear credit-transfer mechanisms (Caratozzolo & Siegel, 2025; OECD, 2024). These insights build on earlier transferable-skills models in engineering curricula (Chadha & Heng, 2024) and on empirical analyses of challenge-based learning implementation across European institutes (Doulougeri et al., 2024). In response to this challenge, the flexibility project at the Faculty of Technology, Innovation & Society at The Hague University of Applied Sciences integrates flexibility into every layer of the curriculum—learning outcomes, learning environments, and assessment structures. This aligns with frameworks that promote personalized learning pathways, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the use of digital tools to support competency-based education (Vento, 2025; Camacho-Zuñiga et al., 2025). It creates adaptive pathways that develop both technical competencies and the broader skills needed to address societal concerns. Flexibility improves engagement and learning outcomes by allowing students to navigate their educational journey (Fauzi et al., 2025). Digital resources and modular curricula enable this transformation (Mizomov, 2025). This paper outlines a flexible, competency-based learning in engineering education and examines how this model prepares graduates who can navigate and contribute to the complex interface between engineering and society. Our framework recognizes that engineering competencies build cumulative learning pathways that foster both student autonomy and mastery while maintaining strong connections to societal needs. Well-known curriculum models—SPICES (Harden, 1984), Constructive Alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), and heutagogy (Blaschke & Hase, 2019)—position flexibility along axes of control, integration and autonomy. In engineering CDIO embeds personal and interpersonal skills within a Conceive– Design–Implement–Operate lifecycle and pairs it with personal and interpersonal skills (Crawley et al., 2014), while Programmatic Assessment replaces siloed exams with portfolio-based decisions (Van der Vleuten et al., 2012). Reviews also show higher employability when communication, teamwork, and project-management skills span modules (Chadha & Heng, 2024). Yet no model combines (i) micro-credential portability, (ii) 2–6 ECTS competency-linked modules, and (iii) a “minimal viable” path letting students assemble credit for a chosen challenge. Our Minimal Viable Learning Path (MVLP) realises that trio by mapping each module to EQF levels and issuing stackable EU micro-credentials (Council of the European Union, 2022), extending CDIO into a cross-programme ecosystem with a single portfolio spine. 2 CONTEXT AND PRACTICAL WORK 2.1 Conceptual Framework The flexible learning paths approach fundamentally reconceptualizes the relationship between learners, educational content, and societal contexts. Traditional curriculum design often prioritizes comprehensive content coverage organized in fixed sequences. Our model centers on student agency, competency development, and societal relevance, recognizing that preparing engineers to address complex challenges requires more than technical knowledge acquisition alone. Table 1: The continuum of traditional and flexible approaches to engineering education Dimension Traditional Approach Flexible Learning Paths Approach Curriculum Structure Predominantly linear, semester-long courses (Harden, Sowden & Dunn, 1984) Modular competencies with multiple pathways mapped to competencies (Council of the EU, 2022) Knowledge Integration Mostly within single courses; capstone design in final year (Sheppard et al., 2008) Through authentic projects addressing societal or industry challenges (Graham, 2018) Student Progression Cohort-paced; seat-time is proxy for learning (Harden, Sowden & Dunn, 1984 & Biggs & Tang, 2011) Personalized learning trajectories, progression on demonstrated mastery (Council of the EU, 2022 & Chadha & Heng, 2024) Assessment Focus Discrete exams emphasising content recall (Biggs & Tang, 2011) Programmatic assessment of competences via portfolio & staged decisions (Van der Vleuten et al., 2012) Industry Connection Concentrated in senior-year capstone (Prince & Felder, 2006 & Silverstein, 2013) Integrated throughout the curriculum (Graham, 2018) Societal Relevance Often implicit or abstract (Sheppard et al., 2008) Explicit via challengeor mission-oriented projects (Graham, 2018) Interdisciplinary Learning Limited, usually elective (Sheppard et al., 2008) Embedded in learning environments in project teams (Graham, 2018) The flexibility framework comprises three interconnected components: 1. Competency-based progression that focuses on the development of professional capabilities through demonstrable outcomes. A competency is a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable an individual to perform tasks effectively in a specific context, Mulder et al. (2007). 2. Modular knowledge structures that organize Body of Knowledge & Skills (BoKS) in components of one or more modules rather than in one module only. We consider them building blocks, that can be used in different modules or even stand alone. 3. Authentic learning environments that situate competency development within real-world contexts addressing societal challenges. This integration enables students to (co-)construct individualized learning trajectories—what we term "Minimal Viable Learning Paths" (MVLPs). They maintain educational coherence while accommodating diverse starting points, learning preferences and needs, and professional aspirations, see Figure 1 for a visualization of a learning trajectory. 2.2 Implementation strategy Competency framework and modularization The curriculum is structured around engineering competencies that align with both professional standards and societal needs. Each competency is broken into subcomponents—Learning Outcomes (LOs)—with the BoKS elements serving as indicators for success. This structure allows students to demonstrate competencies in multiple contexts while ensuring sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge. The modularization process involved: • Deconstructing traditional courses into discrete knowledge components • Identifying competency elements and performance indicators that can be demonstrated in multiple contexts. • Mapping societal challenges to competency domains to ensure relevance To operationalise the modular BoKS, each knowledge component is tagged to a competence element, an EQF-level descriptor, and an analytic rubric that specifies novice, proficient and expert performance. Students trigger assessment only when their digital portfolio contains artefacts that meet the rubric for the targeted level. Example: Professional-Skills Track: PS-101 Professional Skills Studio (5 ECTS) The goal of PS101 is to equip first-semester students with programme-wide competencies in audience-appropriate communication, learning-to-learn & metacognition, project planning & time-management, and collaborative project work. PS101 is flanked by an engineering project which is specific to the programs of Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Mechatronics. One digital portfolio holds all artefacts; the single rubric lets any trained assessor evaluate Figure 1: A visual representation of the Minimal Viable Learning Path concept. Professional-Skills growth, reducing workload and ensuring consistency. Students immediately apply each skill in their real project context—an approach shown to raise ownership and transferability in comparable CDIO implementations (Al-Subaihi, Nielsen, & Larsen, 2022) and in THUAS’ own integrated-assessment pilot (HallengaBrink, Visser, & de Hei, 2018). On completion, students can (a) communicate engineering ideas to technical & lay audiences (ABET SO 3); (b) plan, monitor and adapt a project schedule (CDIO Std. 9); (c) act as an effective, inclusive teammember (ABET SO 5) Learning Environments & Flexibility Challenge-based projects anchor every module, positioning competency growth in societal contexts. Mixed-year teams from Mechanical, Electrical and Mechatronics programmes work on the same project brief, progressing from scaffolded tasks to open-ended problems as proficiency rises. Four flexibility dimensions underpin the design: temporal (multiple start points and variable pacing), content (students choose BoKS modules “just-in-time”), contextual (competences may be evidenced in different settings), and interdisciplinary (components can be mixed across engineering and allied fields). A living digital BoKS repository supplies on-demand resources and links artefacts to a common rubric, enabling personalised yet coherent Minimal Viable Learning Paths. Assessment approach Flexibility is temporal, content-driven, contextual and interdisciplinary, allowing students to pace, select, situate and broaden their learning. The assessment strategy balances structure and flexibility through: • Formative feedback that guides competency development in projects • Summative assessment focusing on demonstrated competencies rather than prescribed activities, so not dependent on a fixed learning track • Progressive mastery levels that acknowledge developing expertise • Self and peer assessment to develop reflective practice, self-regulatory and collaboration skills Implementation revealed three persistent hurdles: (1) scheduling assessorcalibration sessions, (2) giving students clear guidance in selecting modules, and (3) harmonising rubric language across programs. Regular 60-min calibration workshops, a unified “portfolio handbook,” and one cross-programme rubric mitigated all three. 3 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS 3.1 Student engagement and autonomy Implementation across several engineering programs has demonstrated significant positive impacts on student engagement (Colecchia et al, 2025). A 2023 institutional survey of n = 953 THUAS students showed 72 % interest in taking modules outside their programme, 72% also shows interest into taking modules that are more in line with their personal interests and 70 % interest in fully-online study options (Ruigrok Onderzoek & Advies, 2023). These findings informed the weight we gave to temporal and spatial flexibility. By offering challenge-driven pathways aligned with personal motivations, students experience increased ownership of their learning. This autonomy fosters deeper engagement, particularly evident in: • Improved retention rates deliver more robust projects addressing societal challenges and show improved retention, particularly among underrepresented students. Teaching-staff reflections during the four pilot iterations revealed a clear shift toward stronger student ownership: attendance at the very first assessment window climbed each cycle, and assessors consistently noted “an increase of students’ ownership for their learning process” accompanied by more purposeful portfolio curation (Hallenga-Brink, Visser, & de Hei, 2018). • Stronger connections between personal interests and academic plans. 3.2 Alignment with professional, societal and industry needs The dynamic structure of the curriculum enables continuous adaptation to evolving professional and societal demands. Through strategic collaboration with industry, government agencies, and community organizations, the institution develops learning environments addressing real-world challenges. This approach: • Ensures graduates develop skills relevant to current and emerging professional contexts • Creates pathways for students to engage with societal challenges from the beginning of their education • Facilitates continuous curriculum evolution in response to technological and societal changes • Strengthens the connection between academic learning and professional practice The Lectorates (applied research groups) at The Hague University of Applied Sciences have proven instrumental in creating these connections, bringing their expertise in specific societal challenge areas into the learning environments. 3.3 Interdisciplinary collaboration The flexible structure catalyzes enhanced collaboration across traditional disciplinary boundaries: • Students from different engineering specializations routinely collaborate on integrated projects • Faculty members engage in cross-disciplinary teaching and research, breaking down traditional silos • Industry and community partners bring diverse perspectives to project challenges • Shared competencies across disciplines create common language while maintaining specialization This interdisciplinary approach prepares graduates for the collaborative nature of addressing complex (societal) challenges, where solutions typically require integration of multiple perspectives and knowledge domains. 3.4 Program-specific outcomes The Industrial Engineering & Management programreported: • Reduced first-year dropout rates by 18% compared to the previous curriculum • Increased student satisfaction ratings for "relevance to professional practice" from 3.6 to 4.2 (on a 5-point scale) • More diverse student project outcomes addressing a broader range of societal challenges • Stronger engagement from industry partners in curriculum development These outcomes suggest that the flexible approach not only enhances student learning experiences but also strengthens connections between education and professional practice that better prepare graduates to address societal challenges. 3.5 From structure to specialization Early-stage university students benefit from a academic framework that offers stability, clear expectations, and guidance (Chance-Larsen, 2025). This structured approach enhances their sense of belonging and identity within their field of study, helping them develop confidence and foundational competencies essential for future specialization (Ramasepa et al., 2025). A progressive model of learning development—where students start with a structured curriculum and gradually gain autonomy—aligns with constructivist learning theories and student development models, such as Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). In this approach, scaffolding (structured support) in the early stages allows students to develop competence, after which they can explore more independent and interdisciplinary learning opportunities (Luo, Zhan, & Du, 2025). A curriculum should incorporate opportunities for specialization, differentiation, and interdisciplinary learning. Studies highlight that multidisciplinary and challenge-driven education models increase student engagement and prepare them for real-world problem-solving (Colecchia et al., 2025 & Vyas & Adhvaryu, 2024). Figure 2: A program can be depicted as a tree, which is strongly rooted. The tree trunk represents the core of the program, which gives the programm its identity. After a strong base a student is ready to branche out and broaden and deepen knowledge and skills. In essence, while a strong foundational curriculum in the first year provides structure, support, and identity formation, later years should promote self-directed learning, specialization, and interdisciplinary exploration. This approach ensures that graduates are both technically proficient and adaptable, equipping them with the necessary skills to navigate and contribute to the complex interface between engineering and society. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The flexibility project at The Hague University of Applied Sciences offers a robust model for rethinking traditional engineering education. By integrating modular and competency-based approaches throughout the curriculum, students are better prepared not only for professional success but also for meaningful engagement with societal and industry challenges. Several key implications emerge from this work: • First, the approach demonstrates that flexibility and academic rigor can coexist. By focusing on demonstrated competencies rather than fixed pathways, the model ensures quality while accommodating diverse learning needs and interests. This has particular significance for broadening participation in engineering education. • Second, the integration of societal challenges throughout the curriculum— rather than as separate "professional skills" components—creates graduates with a more holistic understanding of engineering's role in society. This prepares them to navigate the complex ethical, social, and technical dimensions of contemporary engineering practice. • Third, the model offers a scalable framework that can be adapted across different engineering disciplines and institutional contexts. While implementation requires significant rethinking of traditional structures, the modular nature of the approach allows for incremental adoption. • Fourth, this work highlights the importance of creating educational environments that mirror the complex, multidisciplinary nature of real-world engineering challenges. By structuring learning around authentic projects rather than abstract content, students develop not only technical knowledge but also the contextual understanding and adaptive capabilities essential for addressing society's evolving needs. • Finally, for transferability, the competency-rubric bundles are mapped to the European Qualifications Framework, enabling credit portability and micro-credential stacking across institutions (Cedefop, 2024). This design choice underpins the scalability of MVLPs beyond our university. As engineering education continues to evolve in response to changing societal demands, approaches that combine flexibility, competency focus, and authentic engagement with real-world challenges will be increasingly valuable. The model presented here offers one pathway forward, demonstrating how engineering education can prepare graduates not just as technical experts, but as adaptable professionals ready to contribute meaningfully to society's most pressing challenges. REFERENCES ABET. (2024). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2024–2025. Engineering Accreditation Commission.