Designing a new bachelor’s programme is a complex and collaborative effort. It involves not only aligning with national accreditation standards and institutional ambitions, but also ensuring the programme is future-proof, research-informed, and responsive to societal and industry needs. This process often requires intensive collaboration across faculties, careful curriculum design, and the balancing of pedagogical innovation with academic rigour. From defining learning outcomes to coordinating teaching teams and ensuring programme coherence, the process requires both creativity and structure.
At the time of this interview, we spoke with Marike ter Maat, who was an educational consultant at CELT (Centre of Expertise in Learning and Teaching) at the University of Twente. She was closely involved in the development of the Industrial Design Engineering bachelor’s programme, working alongside academic staff, programme directors, and external partners. Her experience provides valuable insights into the steps, tools, and decisions involved in bringing a new academic programme to life.
Looking back, what were the first concrete steps you and your team took when starting to design the programme?
Looking back, our first step was to reflect on why earlier redesign attempts had not progressed. Previous efforts often stalled because large groups of 10 to 15 people were involved, leading to too much discussion and no real progress. To avoid this, we agreed early on to approach the redesign differently.
We were informed that we would serve as members of a "steering team," which was kept deliberately small. It consisted of four people: the programme director, two professors with deepz expertise in the field, and myself as the educational consultant. The intention behind this composition was to bring together different forms of expertise—organisational oversight, subject-matter knowledge, and pedagogical perspective. In this way, the team could not only anticipate which topics would be most relevant in the years ahead but also make well-grounded decisions about the overall direction of the programme.
Instead of jumping straight into content, we focused first on defining the mission and vision of the programme and on clarifying what a future-proof curriculum should look like. One thing we did not do—but should have—was clearly define roles. Agreeing on responsibilities at the start would have made the process smoother, and I would strongly recommend it to others.
Can you walk us through the main phases of the design process — from early ideas to the final curriculum?
We used the ADDIE model to guide the overall process: Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.
- Analyse: We reviewed earlier attempts and gathered input from students, alumni, teachers, and industry to understand needs and expectations.
- Design: Based on the analysis phase, we formulated a mission, vision, and a set of Programme Intended Learning Outcomes (PILOs). To support these, we established guidelines aimed at creating a more study-friendly curriculum with fewer tests and greater student engagement. Building on this foundation, we developed a curriculum blueprint that outlined module themes, key topics, and a research and design methodology, all aligned with our mission, vision, and the university’s TOM model.
- Develop: Module teams—two or three teachers per module— came up with the idea of creating a blueprint visualizing the structure of the programme which would reflect the mission and vision. Then we ensured that the content, learning outcomes, and assessments would all be aligned (the constructive alignment) and also reflected in the blueprint. We facilitated regular sessions for alignment between the modules and the blueprint.
- Implement: The new programme was rolled out starting with year one, with regular support and feedback loops.
- Evaluate: We continuously collected feedback from students and staff to refine and improve the curriculum.
At the course and module level, we used Van den Akker’s Spider Web model, which ensures alignment between elements like learning goals, content, teaching methods, and assessment. It served as a visual checklist to help module teams avoid missing critical components. We also created an Excel-based curriculum mapping tool. Starting with the blueprint, teachers were asked to fill in learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and assessment formats to ensure constructive alignment across modules. This tool helped translate our vision into tangible educational activities and assessments, while maintaining consistency and clarity. The blueprint outlined each module's theme, linked content like research and design methodologies, and showed how complexity would grow over time. First-year modules were shared and foundational, while later ones allowed students to make choices.
To meet national and international standards, we embedded the Meijers criteria into our programme-level learning outcomes from the beginning. The steering team took responsibility for this integration, so teachers didn’t need to deal with the formal documents themselves.
Can you briefly describe what the curriculum looks like across the three years?
The curriculum is designed to provide a strong common foundation before allowing students to specialise progressively over the three years. In the first year, all students take the same core modules to build broad skills in industrial design engineering. From the second year, students choose courses within a module that match their interests and explore different roles or themes. The third year focuses on deepening specialisation through a minor and a graduation project tailored to each student’s pathway.
- First Year: All students complete four foundational modules on ideation, engineering basics, human-centered design, and mass production, providing a broad introduction to the field.
- Second Year: Students select cousesaligned with their interests, such as design, research, engineering, or management, including collaborative and thematic variations.
- Third Year: Students take a minor of their choice and complete a graduation project, either research- or design-focused, to finalise their specialised learning path.
This approach balances shared learning with flexible specialisation, preparing students to become adaptable, integrative professionals.
Credits to Tom Feij, Jeroen Beeloo and Remko Waanders.
At what points did you engage different stakeholders — such as students, lecturers, or industry partners — and how did their input shape the design?
Stakeholder involvement took place throughout the process. During the analysis phase, we interviewed current bachelor’s and master’s students, alumni, and teaching staff to understand their experiences and expectations. We also talked to the Work Field Committee—representatives from industry—once we had a solid draft in place, asking them to review and provide feedback. Their suggestions helped us align content with real-world needs. Every module development team had (at the beginning of the development phase a TA available who helped the team with the design of the module. During the implementation, we continuously asked students for feedback after each module. This helped us identify whether they found the courses relevant, useful, and aligned with their future careers. All this input influenced how we shaped the learning outcomes, module themes, and assessment approaches. We talked to students, alumni, and staff during the analysis phase. Later, we met with the Work Field Committee for external input. During implementation, we gathered feedback from students after each module to check relevance and effectiveness. Their feedback helped adjust learning outcomes and content.
What lessons have you learned from the process that might help others who are about to start designing a new bachelor’s programme?
There are a few key takeaways. Three key lessons:
Define roles and responsibilities clearly from the start. – who is responsible for what, and what decisions are made by the steering team versus module teams. Ambiguity caused confusion in our process.
Begin with a vision, not content. – always start with the bigger picture: define your mission and vision before discussing content; we required teams to present their work in structured formats—like posters or tables—which triggered useful feedback and dialogue This ensures coherence and helps align everyone’s expectations.
Structure communication among module teams—don’t just rely on informal meetings. We made teams present their ideas so others could ask questions, which improved coherence and helped avoid gaps, overlaps, and misalignment,
