Leadership and Mastery in Practice at the Erasmus School of Philosophy

"Leadership and mastery" is one of the five pillars of EUR's quality assurance vision. At the Erasmus School of Philosophy (ESPhil), this pillar comes to life through their recent bachelor curriculum overhaul. We spoke with Marie van der Gaag (Education Policy Officer) and Julien Kloeg (Bachelor Coordinator) about ownership, collaboration, and building buy-in for educational innovation.

What sparked the bachelor curriculum revision?

'The desire to move away from short teaching blocks had been brewing for quite some time, among both staff and students,' Marie explains. 'In a previous revision, we had opted for short five-week blocks so students could flexibly take courses alongside another degree programme. But we were losing something important in the process: time for reflection, opportunities to dive deeper into topics, and the chance to really get to know our students.'

But there were other catalysts too: 'The university-wide shift to a "Smarter Academic Year," our need to modernize digital teaching components, and our goal of strengthening Rotterdam's distinctive philosophy profile—all of these factors aligned to make this the right moment for change,' Marie adds.

How did you tackle the change process?

'Rather than calling teaching staff into our offices and dictating what they needed to do, we went to them—specifically to colleagues who were already collaborating on research themes,' Julien explains. 'Setting the right tone was crucial. It wasn't "we've decided you're going to do this," but rather: "we have an idea, and here's how we think it could work."'

Marie explains why this approach was so effective: 'Philosophy has a more flexible framework compared to fields like Psychology or Medicine. We don't have many mandatory content requirements, which means we can give our lecturers significant autonomy over what they teach. And subject matter is really where most of our colleagues' passion lies.'

This approach generated widespread support. 'We could really feel the enthusiasm for our plans,' Julien recalls. 'That simmering frustration Marie mentioned about the short blocks—I definitely picked up on that during those initial conversations.'

How did you structure the change process?

'We put together development teams with course coordinators, tutors, and advisors from the Community for Learning & Innovation (CLI) and Risbo,' Marie explains. 'For the tutors who lead our seminars, we deliberately chose people with solid experience under their belts.'

The teams met in the EduLab for development sessions. 'We're talking about six hours total—two three-hour sessions—so it was a real time commitment,' Julien notes. 'Some academics might have found tools like storyboarding a bit... fluffy, but it was actually a great way to get everyone in the same room talking about their courses.'

Marie adds: 'We made these sessions mandatory for every group because when you let teams self-organize, you get wildly different results. This way, everyone developed their courses along similar lines, which became the real foundation for what we're offering now.'

How did the collaboration with the Community for Learning & Innovation and educational specialists work out?

'There was definitely an adjustment period when it came to working with educational specialists,' Marie says with a knowing smile. 'Our teaching staff feel very much like owners of their teaching and have strong convictions about how to deliver their courses effectively. So when someone from CLI suggested we create 7-minute knowledge clips to hold student attention, you could practically see the whole team recoil.'

Julien elaborates: 'My colleague Jamie van der Klaauw and I found ourselves playing mediator quite a bit. There are insights from educational psychology that can be valuable, but philosophers naturally have some theoretical reservations about certain approaches.'

Marie continues: 'Having someone from Philosophy in the room who could bridge that gap was invaluable. It also helped that we started with some of our most enthusiastic lecturers as pioneers—they helped pave the way for the others.'

What role did skills development play in the revision?

'One of our curriculum's weak spots was that students were definitely developing skills, but it wasn't explicit enough for them,' Marie explains. 'They'd reach their thesis and panic: "I have no idea how to do this!" when actually they did know—they just needed to connect the dots from their previous courses.'

'Now we have five explicit skill categories woven throughout the curriculum that students work on in seminars. We've also given tutors much more responsibility in this area,' she continues.

How do you monitor the quality of the new curriculum?

'We hold pre-block meetings with all involved teaching staff and tutors before each block begins,' Julien explains. 'We review any content changes and confirm our agreements. Then after each block, we have post-block meetings where we discuss the courses and evaluations to identify what needs tweaking for next year.'

How did students contribute to the change process?

'We spent a lot of time early on figuring out how to meaningfully involve students,' Marie admits. 'We ultimately decided to work through student representation. The programme committee surveyed students about potential curriculum improvements. We got a really useful list—we couldn't implement everything, but it was encouraging that many of their suggestions aligned with what we were already planning.'

Marie acknowledges a missed opportunity: 'Looking back, we probably should have created a formal midpoint feedback session once our plans were more concrete: "Here's what we're thinking—any red flags or suggestions?"'

What do you consider the key success factors of this change process?

'It addressed a real need that people actually felt,' Julien responds without hesitation. 'And we trusted teaching staff to develop the details rather than imposing some rigid pedagogical model.'

Marie adds: 'I think establishing clear parameters from the coordination level was essential. Some things were non-negotiable—like block duration and adding a reflection week before exams. But we gave teaching staff real ownership over course content.'

Marie continues: 'The management team was completely aligned on these parameters,' she continues. 'That gave everyone clarity about their scope for creativity and innovation.'

Julien highlights one final factor: 'Our flat organisational structure makes a huge difference. There's no ivory tower here—management and teaching aren't separate worlds. You're literally collaborating on new education together. Those short lines of communication are game-changing.'