Background This article explores the contradiction that has developed between market‐driven and academic strategies of response to the challenges facing engineering and engineering education. In these contending response strategies there are deep‐seated, underlying historical tensions at work. Purpose This article aims to create a theoretical and conceptual framework, which allows engineering educators to reflect on their perceptions and practices in regard to institutional change and reform. Design A historical review traces the history of the tensions between different traditions of engineering education from their medieval roots through the institutionalization of engineering education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and discusses the different conceptions of engineering and engineering knowledge on which they are based. We then relate the historical review to educational conceptualizations of the university as well as curriculum models. Results On the basis of a synthesis of the historical and educational perspectives, we present an analytical distinction between three modes of engineering education. We propose a transformation to an integrative mode that is less prominent historically, but growing in importance. By introducing the term hybrid learning, we furthermore outline important aspects to be considered in the process of transforming engineering education. Conclusions We conclude by inviting engineering educators, students, administrators, and policy makers to consult our theoretical and conceptual framework and consider a transformation to an integrative mode. This integrative mode is designed to foster hybrid learning, a contextual, transformative, collaborative, and situated learning approach that holds potential in facing the increasing complexity of engineering.