Balancing Research and Teaching: My Take on the Computer Science Program at TU Delft

A few weeks ago, I shared a short article [1] about the ongoing struggle between good research and good teaching. This is a big challenge in academia, and it has real consequences for both our education system—since we’re shaping the next generation of graduates who will drive society and the economy—and our research, which is supposed to lead to long-term innovations and benefits for society, both socially and economically.

I don’t have a silver bullet for this challenge, but I’ve noticed some interesting trends at our department (Computer Science) at 荷兰代尔夫特理工大学 that feel like steps in the right direction.

Quick disclaimer before you read on:?

I’m sure other universities are taking similar approaches. My goal here is to share some observations that motivated me to write this piece. Bear with me if it’s a bit longer than the typical LinkedIn post—there’s a lot to unpack!

Similarly, this article only focuses on my experience and information from computer science program of TU Delft. While other faculties might have similar structure, this article does not reflect or provide any view on education in TU Delft as a whole.?

Background?

A few years ago, TU Delft introduced an English bachelor’s program in computer science. The program quickly became popular, and the surge in applicants created a staffing challenge for the faculty. To manage the increased workload, the department initially recruited master’s graduates as lecturers to help support some of the larger courses. ?

What started as a short-term fix eventually led to a more structured solution: forming a permanent teaching team made up of educators/lecturers whose primary focus is teaching rather than research. Interestingly, these lecturers don’t necessarily need to hold a PhD.

At first, I’ll admit my reaction was probably what you’re thinking now: “Is this just a cost-cutting move?” But after joining TU Delft and being involved in a bachelor’s course with around 500–600 students, my perspective changed completely. The course is built around gamification [2] (yes, really!), which adds an extra layer of complexity to teaching and organizing. Managing such a large and dynamic course means relying on a team of about 30 teaching assistants?—and that’s where the dedicated teaching staff makes a real difference.?

Observation 1: Passion for Teaching?

In my very first conversation with the teaching team, I could feel that they’re not just here for the job—they genuinely love teaching. In academia, most people juggle three main roles: teaching, research, and administration. The reality is that many academics are hired based on their research merits, which means teaching can get pushed to the back burner.?

That’s why it’s refreshing to work with people whose primary motivation is teaching. Their passion translates into a better learning experience for students—and that’s not something you can fake.

Observation 2: Open to Change?

Taking over or introducing a new course can be daunting, especially when it involves making changes. As you may have experienced, the typical reaction to such a situation in many academic environments is, “If we change this, we’ll have to adjust everything else too!” And no one wants that extra overhead, understandably so.?

But what surprised me about the teaching team is their openness to change. When new ideas come up, the first questions are usually:?

• How will this affect student learning??
• What do the teaching assistants think??
• Is there enough time and energy to implement this properly???

The conversations are always centered around improving the student experience rather than protecting the status quo. That mindset makes a big difference.

So… Is this a good idea in the long run??

I’m sure some of you are already thinking:?

• Will the quality of education decline if we hire people without PhDs??
• What happens if the passion fades in 10 years, leaving us with teaching staff who might not be as effective in their main focus, i.e., teaching anymore?
• Aren’t we supposed to combine research and teaching so that students are exposed to cutting-edge developments??
• How will students develop a research mindset if their lecturers aren’t researchers??
• If professors aren’t teaching, aren’t we turning universities into research institutes rather than places of learning??

These are valid questions, and I’ve been thinking about them too. But I’ve seen some strategies at TU Delft that might offer a balanced solution.

1. The Two-Lecturer Model?

Having two responsible lecturers in the course: one from the teaching team and one from the academic/research staff. This setup addresses some of the biggest concerns:?

• It ensures that the course content remains connected to the latest research developments.?
• It improves course quality because a dedicated educator is focused entirely on the teaching side.?
• It creates a positive feedback loop where both research and teaching improve each other.?

2. Rotating Teaching Assignments?

Teaching staff regularly rotate between different courses. Preparing for a new course is a big effort (which is why many academics dread it), but teaching team's focus allows for such efforts once every few years. This approach has some real benefits:?

• It keeps the courses fresh since new perspectives are introduced every few years.?
• It prevents normalcy and helps keep motivation high.?

Final Thoughts?

This model isn’t perfect, and it raises some tricky questions about the role of teaching and research in higher education. But from what I’ve seen so far, it creates a more balanced system where students benefit from both passionate teachers and cutting-edge research.

I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this model or other models out there that are working well?

[1] Asadi, A. (2025). "The Struggle Between Good Teaching and Good Research". URL: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/struggle-between-good-teaching-research-arash-asadi-x0txe

[2] Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer.