Asee peer logo

Invited Paper - Fostering a Culture of Professional Faculty Development and Recognition of Engineering & Engineering Technology Educators

Download Paper |


2013 ASEE International Forum


Atlanta, Georgia

Publication Date

June 22, 2013

Start Date

June 22, 2013

End Date

June 22, 2013

Conference Session

Track 3 - Session I - Faculty Development

Tagged Topic

Invited - Faculty Development

Page Count


Page Numbers

21.42.1 - 21.42.14



Permanent URL

Download Count


Request a correction

Paper Authors


Dirk Schaefer P.E. Georgia Institute of Technology

visit author page

Prof. Dirk Schaefer serves on the faculty of the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Prior to joining Georgia Tech, Schaefer was a Lecturer in the School of Engineering at Durham University, UK. During his time at Durham, he earned a Postgraduate Certificate in “Teaching and Learning in Higher Education”. He joined Durham from a Senior Research Associate position at Stuttgart University, Germany, where he earned his Ph.D. in Computer Science. Over the past 15 years, Schaefer has conducted research on product modeling, variant design, product lifecycle management, design-with-manufacture integration, standardized product data exchange, as well as digital and virtual engineering. His current research focus concerns the highly topical area of Cloud-based Design and Manufacturing (CBDM). A passionate educator, Dr. Schaefer also conducts research on Design Education, Personalized Learning, Distance Learning, and Professional Faculty Development. He has published more than 120 technical papers on Computer-Aided Engineering & Design as well as Engineering Education, and has presented his work at numerous national and international conferences, symposia, and workshops around the world. Dr. Schaefer serves as editorial advisory board member and reviewer for several international journals in his field. In addition, he is a registered Professional Engineer in Europe (Eur Ing), a Chartered Engineering (CEng), a Chartered IT Professional (CITP), and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) in the UK, as well as registered International Engineering Educator (Ing-Paed IGIP).

visit author page

Download Paper |


Fostering a Culture of Professional Faculty Development and Recognition of Engineering & Engineering Technology Educators1. Motivation and BackgroundFew would disagree with the idea that educating the next generation of leaders in both academiaand industry is at the heart of what engineering education is all about. This requires identifyingthe technological needs for the future, developing curricula with corresponding content, anddelivering this content to learners in a variety of formats. While many faculty are dedicated tobecoming outstanding educators, the general assumption is that holding a PhD in a core technicalarea is sufficient to be qualified as an academic educator. This no longer holds true (and maybenever did). The educator of today and near tomorrow needs to be able to teach in a number ofdifferent educational settings, including on-campus class rooms, asynchronous distance learningper video, virtual online learning environments for individual learners, or even massive openonline courses (MOOCs) with perhaps more than a hundred thousand enrolled students on theInternet. As more and more IT-enabled learning environments and educational online toolsemerge, new forms of instructional techniques, related pedagogical approaches to foster studentlearning in such settings, as well as associated examination and assessment methods are to bedeveloped. In addition, the educator of today and near tomorrow is expected to know how tobest address the learning needs of students from all walks of life, generations, countries andcontinents, and cultural backgrounds.While Engineering and Engineering Technology (EET) departments have long adapted to thechanging societal needs and revised their curricula so that their graduates will possess relevantskills and knowledge vital to industry and other potential employers, another key question needsto be addressed: “Who is going to educate and prepare the next generation of engineeringeducators?”1 Although it may seem obvious that becoming a professional educator and obtainingthe relevant competencies and skills requires at least some amount of formal qualification,training and experience, current practice still does not sufficiently address the precedingquestion. In parallel with the changing EET curriculum, there has been a long-standing call tostrengthen EET educators’ capabilities and preparation to perform the task of educating students.This latter call, however, had remained virtually unanswered for more than a century.2Over the past couple years, professional faculty development and recognition has been identifiedto be a critical dimension among the many complexities of transforming engineering educationas a whole. For example, recent discussion within the engineering education community hasincluded how to document progressive skills in scholarly teaching3, how to evaluate facultyinstructional scholarship4, and whether a philosophy of engineering education can improve thepractice of engineering education 5-7. As these types of discussion move forward, it will behelpful to provide some context as to how these ideas might formally manifest themselves. Thisneed is echoed in the report Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation inEngineering Education, which involved many key players in engineering education8. In thefollowing section, an overview of existing models for faculty development and recognition inteaching in higher education from around the world is provided.2. Professional Faculty Development and Recognition around the WorldAround the world, several programs to support professional qualification, development and/orrecognition for those teaching in Higher Education are known. They vary considerably in scope,administration and reputation9. An analysis of existing models reveals the followingprogrammatic elements to guide comparison:  Who is the governing association or body for the professional development program? – These may be state entities, national or international societies, associations or academies, institutions, etc.  Who is responsible for professional development program enforcement? – Enforcement may occur through accrediting agencies, state agencies, institutions, associations or academies, etc.  How is the professional development program implemented at the national level? – The program may be nationwide, international, or locally controlled.  How is the professional development program implemented at the local level? – Internal or external personnel may coordinate, deliver, and document professional development activities. Mentors may or may not be used or required.  How is the professional development program included in accreditation? – Accreditation may require teaching certification for all or some faculty, documentation of professional development activities, or other teaching related items.  Is participation compulsory or voluntarily? – Participation requirements vary widely.  Who is/are the target group(s)? – While some countries focus on professional development for junior faculty, others address all those teaching in technical, engineering-related domains.  What is the professional development program duration? – There may be multiple sequential levels of professional development activities and/or achievement, and programs vary from short courses to continuous development.  What is the professional development program content? – Cultural expectations regarding teaching and learning can heavily influence the content of the professional development activities.  How are qualifications recognized and/or rewarded? – Relationships between tenure/promotion and professional development vary from non-existent to tightly coupled.Clearly criteria, standards, and policy regarding professional qualification for teaching in highereducation are unique to each nation’s needs, interests, and cultural expectations. Initial trainingof university teachers has been established in every university in the United Kingdom, Norwayand Sri Lanka and is becoming increasingly common in many other countries. From beginningas small in scale, low in credibility and poorly supported, substantial training of 120-500 hoursduration is now well embedded in many institutions across multiple nations, is often compulsoryand is sometimes linked to probation or tenure. Major programs include a coherent series ofmeetings and various learning activities spread over a period of 4-18 months, usually withelements of both formative and summative assessment. Many of these programs are so-calledpostgraduate certificate courses subject to formal academic approval and quality assurance,which in addition lead to nationwide professional registration.9Significant progress with regard to professional qualification, development, and recognition ofengineering educators has been made in the UK. At some institutions, every new tenure-trackhire has to participate in and successfully complete a compulsory 30 credit hour accreditedtraining program in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education to pass probation and earntenure. Successful completion also leads to certification and professional registration, and hencenationwide recognition based on common standards.While the UK system mainly targets those teaching at university level, within the EuropeanUnion the focus is on all those involved with teaching technical, engineering-related subjects.The International Society of Engineering Education (IGIP) at their headquarters in Austria hascreated a training program open to all “teaching teachers”. Participation is voluntarily and oftenused as a means of continuous professional development to support career development.Successful completion of their program leads to professional registration as ING-PAED IGIP(International Professional Engineering Educator). IGIP, together with SEFI, the EuropeanSociety of Engineering Education represent the largest network of higher education engineeringinstitutions and of individuals involved in engineering education in Europe. It promotesinformation exchange about current developments in the field of engineering education betweenteachers, researchers and students in the various European countries.While both the British and the IGIP programs are accredited, other countries have just embarkedon the avenue of professional educational training. In Australia, for example, a number of effortshave been initiated at the federal level to ostensibly track and improve teaching quality.However, some claim these efforts are based on criteria that do not have the strength to makereal changes in the quality of teaching occurring in engineering. Nonetheless, there areindividual institutions whose engineering programs have made first moves towards more formalrequirements regarding teaching quality. As yet, little is known about correspondingdevelopments in Asia. Sources from Japan report on the development of a ranking scheme thatlinks salary of faculty to practical experience of an educator in their chosen field.Based on both statistical evidence as well as a substantial amount of informal and anecdotalevidence, the success of professional development programs in the educational sector hasencouraged more and more countries across the world to begin to implement various types ofprograms. There is also a growing demand for professional certification and registration in theeducational sector. Long-term, this might have a significant impact on faculty recruitment,promotion and tenure, salary development, and from an institutional perspective accreditationand fund raising. While these statements appear to hold true in general, there does not appear tobe any single “best option” to be implemented within the US in the short term considering thecurrent cultural and societal context.3. Opportunities and ChallengesUtschig and Schaefer have outlined important opportunities and challenges relating to formaleducation-related faculty development on a large scale10. Questions explored are: What majoropportunities exist regarding moving towards educational professional qualification for USHigher Education institutions, their faculty and students, industry, and society as a whole? Howcan resources be synergistically integrated to support such an effort? What are the majorchallenges or barriers present that must be overcome in order to create such a system?In response to these questions, they present a concept map to explore how faculty educationaldevelopment could support and greatly enhance an entire system revolving around facultydevelopment in teaching and learning. Utilizing and reflecting upon the literature, major issuesconsidered that relate to the questions above include various roles in the higher educationengineering community; relationships between educational research, student learning outcomes,and engineering faculty; resources supporting engineering education, and the implication ofdifferent faculty reward structures. Analysis indicates that pieces already in place offer greatpotential to create the Engineering Education of 2020 for “The Engineer of 2020” if key barriersare addressed. An at-a-glance overview of the challenges and opportunities identified andthoroughly discussed in their paper10 is presented below: Table 110 Opportunities and challenges regarding implementation of formal education-related faculty development on a large scale Opportunities ChallengesRoles  To provide clarity of purpose for all in educating our students (society).  As of today, there is no formal qualification needed to  To make the various roles of professional educators transparent to key teach in Higher Education. stakeholders of the university system (students, parents, industrial  PhD in core technical area does not necessarily mean partners). professor is qualified to be an effective educator.  Have a multi-level structure of professional educators who teach in  There is no professional recognition for educators. engineering disciplines (higher education, vocational training, short  Institutions – retain independence in light of pressures courses for continuous professional development, etc.). from national organization such as NAE, ASEE, NSF,  For high-level associations (NAE, ASEE, ABET, NSF, etc.) to help define etc. minimum content of professional development programs and accredit  Leading change for all in the face of traditional faculty such programs. autonomy …  Capitalize on admin heavy participation in leadership of national  Additional requirements and classifications based on organizations like NAE, ASEE… to effect change. demonstrated teaching knowledge/skills/ability.  Departments – chairs have opportunity to guide outcomes.  Disconnects between different needs for different  For institutions/department to certify individuals completing professional roles. training programs.Rewards  Formal recognition and certification for individual educators (faculty) after successful  National interest in and awareness of completion of a program (equivalent to P.E. in Engineering Education). professional Engineering Education needs  “Excellence in Learning and Teaching” recognition and certification for to be raised significantly. institutions/departments with a certain minimum percentage of professionally trained  Change of perception: traditional educators. engineering faculty needs to be  Alignment of formal faculty recognition with institutional missions. persuaded that Engineering Education as a research area is valuable and important  Preferred consideration/eligibility regarding grant applications (funds for learning and in any branch of engineering. teaching related research and development projects) for certified institutions/departments.  High-level associations, such as National Academy of Engineering, ABET, ASEE,  Better education for students taught by formally qualified and certified educators. ASME, IEEE, etc. need to buy into  Faculty freedom to embark on different or additional research area: scholarly professional development programs and Engineering Education related research. convey to engineering institutions and  Additional flexibility in presenting P&T portfolio contents departments that they are expected to  Increase of revenue for certified institutions/departments by offering professional move toward that direction. educational programs at various levels of certification to other departments and/or  Raise competition for and value of external participants. rewards giving recognition for excellence  Influence/power: certified institutions/departments/individuals may be asked to serve in teaching and learning. on high-level committees or task-forces charged with shaping the future of  Setting up a national committee to engineering education. oversee formal recognition and  Long-term, the number or percentage of professionally trained educators may play a certification process. role in accreditation.  Get industry support/buy in.Resources  Interdisciplinary research synergy leading to  Administration of professional development programs across all levels (national, additional grant opportunities. state-wide, institutional, departmental).  Current engineering education community can  Significant seed funding is needed to develop, administer and establish programs, take on the responsibility to lead this field of publish materials, advertise etc. professional development.  Increasing funds (internal and external) for teaching facilities and equipment.  Established teaching and learning centers  Providing time for faculty to take part in such programs. with engineering expertise may use their  Enhancing data demonstrating impact of faculty development in this area: ex; resources (faculty, staff, and facilities) to offer Flagship pilot programs targeting various levels of certification are needed to programs to other departments and external demonstrate usefulness and impact. academic units or participants.Relation-  Cross-disciplinary research between faculty from engineering and education leading  Institutions and departments do not haveships to joint scholarly publications and research grants. sufficient personal able to foster such  Funding agencies can further emphasize relevance of educational components to developments. their programs.  Overcome fear of making teaching and  Closer collaboration between high-level associations to jointly shape the future of learning a public exercise rather than Engineering Education at a national level. autonomous activity.  Elevate public image and occupational status of engineering educators.  Convey to public all the roles of an educator. They need to understand that it  Raise students’ and parents’ confidence in education offered at higher education means much more than the traditional institutions. teaching at school as practiced decades  High-level associations can work together toward a common goal. ago.  More frequent and active participation in international Engineering Education  Agree on how to evaluate performance on community to compare US standards to European and Asian standards in order to common scales and utilizing all become leaders on a global scale. stakeholders.Fortunately, current conditions in the US, as outlined in Table 1, display more opportunities thanchallenges. This indicates great potential for moving forward. Fostering and growingrelationships among the various constituents in the engineering education community, along withdelivering rewards that match the language in mission statements and professional expectationsfor promotion and tenure, are certainly possible under current conditions. However, thechallenges still represent significant barriers. Resources, both in funding and human capital, mayalways be insufficient unless a clear shift in roles occurs such that professional development andfaculty performance in engineering education philosophically become clear competitors withresearch. Currently, there is no infrastructure in place to support a philosophical shift in howfaculty, departmental, and institutional roles can leverage widespread implementation of facultydevelopment as educators in engineering. Nonetheless, overcoming these barriers is essential.Without doing so it will be virtually impossible to offer an Engineering Education of 2020 thatachieves the learning outcomes desired for The Engineer of 2020.4. Critical Program Elements for SuccessConsidering the context summarized above, a framework for a national faculty development andrecognition program may be constructed around three critical program elements that are deemedessential in developing any formal teaching and learning faculty development system intended toproduce widespread measurable impact11.Critical element #1: Programs will evolve and be supported by a nationally respected society oracademy.A sponsoring society or academy needs to fulfill a number of requirements.  Prominent and respected national reputation.  Member influence across many types of institutions concerning engineering education.  Stakeholder in the success of the program.  Able to commit resources to the program. o Time and space at national conferences and other events. o Web presence. o Participation tracking.  Highly visible and respected personality as a champion.  Viewed as independent of institutions it serves.  Linked to accrediting agencies and other oversight groups.  Significant member involvement in EET education research.Critical element #2: Programs will be supported by qualifying criteria or standards at severallevels of expertise with clear criteria at each level.Different levels of certification represent the continuous evolutionary journey one undergoes asan educator. The following three levels are proposed: Tier 1: Theory – foundations of teachingand learning. Tier 2: Scholarship – educational research and scholarly work in the field. Tier 3:Practice and Portfolio – reflective teaching portfolio development and peer mentoring.Tier 1 Content: Foundations of Teaching and Learning - Putting theory into practiceAreas of focus for this level of faculty development should include:  Learning styles/Learning processes.  Learning theory.  Course and curriculum design.  Constructive Alignment.  Active learning (student engagement).  Assessment and Evaluation.  Teaching with Technology.Tier 2 Content: Scholarship:In this level participants become engaged in a largely self-directed process of developing,documenting, and exploring their own ‘mental model’ of teaching and learning. The goal of Tier2 is to develop participants’ ability to:  Create effective instruments to collect evidence of student learning.  Interpret and evaluate the evidence in theoretical terms, appealing to the research literature on conceptions of learning, approaches to learning, and the (qualitative and quantitative) modeling of learning outcomes.  Consider implications of the evidence in terms of developing a basis for reflective practice .Tier 3 Content: Practice:The final stage of the learning process for program participants is to become reflectivepractitioners who pursue opportunities to help others understand what is happening in theirrespective teaching and learning environments. Individuals will participate in peer mentoringand peer coaching activities in order to accelerate their personal growth and to provide qualityfeedback to others using a variety of tools.Critical element #3: Programs will accommodate flexibility in implementation across a variety ofuniversity administrative structures and cultures.Each college and university deserves the authority to implement faculty development in waysthat make sense within its own institutional culture and administrative structure. Because eachinstitution can approach their system independently, the intent should not be to prescribe themethods, but rather the standards to which they must rise as measured through the outcomes theyachieve. These outcomes can then be held up to statewide or national standards reflected incritical element #2 and enforced via the sponsoring society as discussed in critical element #1.The system would thus reflect accreditation processes in that each institution writes their ownoutcomes and designs systems to achieve those outcomes in light of the accountability beingtackled through an external entity. Keeping these guidelines in mind it is recommended thatindividual institutions should control (1) specific curricula (2) content emphases or specialties (3)timelines (4) participants, instructors, and mentors and (5) inclusion/weighting in the tenureprocess. However, they should not control (1) certification levels and (2) certification standards.5. A Framework for a National Initiative and a Proposed Level 1 CurriculumThe American Society for Engineering Education has recently proposed a national level facultydevelopment system for EET educators called COMPetencies in Learning for Engineering andEngineering Technology Educators (COMPLEETE), formerly called SPEED (2010)12-13. As thefoundational development of a sustainable long-term system, they describe four goals in theirproposal:  Define a framework of core teaching competencies and associated metrics.  Design an adaptable curricular framework for imparting the core competencies.  Establish administrative processes for recognizing faculty attainment of specific teaching competencies and certifying instructional development providers in implementing aspects of the curricular framework for imparting core teaching competencies.  Engage multiple constituencies throughout the design, development and early implementation phases for the above goals and the overall program.In a nutshell, COMPLEETE is an initiative for a national program to build and recognizeeducator excellence in engineering and engineering technology. This recognition occurs as theeducator progresses through three levels of achievement. These are a foundational levelrepresenting critical areas of competence which contribute to building quality teaching andlearning environments in any setting, a scholarly practitioner level where participants furtherstrengthen their skills and begin to systematically investigate learning in their classrooms, and areflective mentor level where participants contribute and give back to the engineering andengineering technology community of practice12.In a recent paper, Utschig et al. propose a teaching and learning curriculum for COMPLEETEbased on current national trends14. The proposed curriculum is based on a comparison of nineexisting faculty development programs including STEMES15, EXCEED16, Pacific Crest17,NETI18, U-Michigan19, Northern Illinois20, and CIRTL's Delta program 21 within the US, plusinternational models from the UK1 and IGIP22. These programs have informed the structure andcontent of the proposed curriculum, which is specifically targeted to benefit engineering andengineering technology instructors in higher education. In the current proposal, only level 1 ofthe COMPLEETE framework is addressed because the initial efforts of the COMPLEETEprogram will focus on this level, and further because the proposed curriculum will likely beadapted based on community input, implementation, and review, thus defining more detailedneeds for levels 2 and 3 over time.Level 1 – Foundations:A. Proposed Level 1 Aims:  To provide an overview of teaching and learning practice and theory in Engineering and Engineering Technology Education, addressing the core knowledge and professional values educators are expected to have to be able to teach effectively and efficiently at their respective institutions.  To begin to establish in participants a culture of reflective practice and evaluation of their own teaching practice, and of the learning of their students; and to build a broader community of practice among practitioners.B. Proposed Level 1 Learning Outcomes: Upon successful completion of Level 1 participants will:  Have evaluated aspects of their current teaching practice within the context of learning and teaching literature (reflecting knowledge and critical understanding of the following teaching and learning activities: teaching and the support of learning; contribution to the design and planning of learning activities; assessment and giving feedback to learners; developing effective learning environments and learner support systems).  Have gained an understanding of the learning process, drawing on recognized learning theories.  Have developed an understanding of students, including issues of intellectual and social development, learning styles and differences in student approaches to learning.  Have been engaged in instructional design at lecture, module, course, or curriculum level.  Have been exposed to various methods of instructional delivery, including an overview of teaching methods appropriate for different instructional goals and environments, including both large and small classes.  Have designed and used appropriate methods to assess student learning and give feedback to learners.  Have developed an understanding of how to make effective use of educational technology.  Have engaged in reflective practice and continuous learning.The proposed curriculum which accompanies these goals and intended outcomes is built fromthe overarching criteria proposed in the COMPLEETE project as presented in variouspublications over the past couple years2,12-13,22-24. The curriculum revolves around seven areas ofcore competency which were first articulated as a synthesis of faculty development needs by anexperienced faculty development expert in engineering on the original SPEED team and thenrevised based on discussion among others on the SPEED and, later, COMPLEETE project team.The seven areas or core competence are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Core Competency Areas Area Title 1 learning theory 2 student development 3 instructional design 4 instructional facilitation methods 5 assessing and providing feedback 6 instructional technology 7 reflective practiceIt is also consistent with previously proposed critical elements for successful facultydevelopment programs at a national level in the US11 and serves as one response to numerouscalls for a national reform. Finally, it integrates with values and programming already presentwithin ASEE25, serves as a foundation for further development at higher levels, and is flexible tosuit the needs of a diverse instructional community.DRAFT MODULE STRUCTURE for LEVEL 1The first five modules are proposed as required core modules for all COMPLEETE participants.These modules are well represented in existing curricula and thus form a broad and generallyagreed upon foundation of teaching and learning competencies desired for engineering andengineering technology educators.A. Core Module 1 – Learning Theory:Outcome: Understanding the learning process, drawing on recognized learning theories.Narrative: A practical overview of theories of learning and teaching in Higher Education, with afocus on the disciplines of engineering and engineering technology. This includes an overview ofcurrent cognitive and constructivist learning theories with a focus on their application toundergraduate instruction.  Understanding student learning.  Constructivism.  Approaches to learning: deep learning, surface learning, strategic learning.  The Kolb learning cycle.  SOLO taxonomy of levels of understanding.  Bloom’s taxonomy of learning.  Learning styles.  Problem-based Learning.  Project-based Learning.B. Core Module 2 – Student Development:Outcome: Understanding students, including issues of intellectual and social development,learning styles and differences in student approaches to learning.Narrative: An introduction to understanding elements of student development which impactteaching and learning such as students intellectual and social development, learning stylepreferences and approaches to learning.  Encouraging student motivation.  Teaching and learning in small groups.  Teaching and learning in large groups.  Student supervision: one on one, e.g. projects, theses, dissertations, etc.  Reflective practice.  Ethics.C. Core Module 3 – Instructional Design:Outcome: Introduction to instructional design, including both course and curriculum design.Narrative: An introduction to the theory of constructive alignment (of intended learningoutcomes, learning and teaching methods and assessment) to be used in course and curriculumdesign.  Organizing teaching and learning.  Outcome-based planning.  Module and course design.  Constructive alignment (Biggs).D. Core Module 4 – Instructional Facilitation Methods:Outcome: Instructional delivery, including an overview of teaching methods appropriate fordifferent instructional goals and environments, including both large and small classes.Narrative: An overview of instructional techniques that might be employed in large group orsmall group teaching situations, with an emphasis on approaches that might shift theenvironment of the classroom from teacher-centered instruction toward student-centeredlearning.  Structuring lectures.  Increasing student-teacher interaction.  Managing the Classroom Learning.E. Core Module 5 – Assessing and providing feedback to learners:Outcome: Designing and using appropriate methods to assess student learning.Narrative: Purpose of assessment, principles of assessment, formative and summativeassessment, methods of assessment, assessing groups, peer and self-assessment, devisingassessment criteria, providing feedback.  Assessment and evaluation.  Formative and summative assessment.  Methods of giving feedback.  Assessment methods/tools.  Developing rubrics.The next two modules are proposed as electives. A COMPLEETE participant would choose atleast one of these two modules to attain level 1 in the COMPLEETE curriculum. Some, but notall, existing curricula address these modules in a significant way.A. Elective Module A – Instructional Technology:Outcome: Making effective use of technology.Narrative: An introduction to available tools and the effective use of technology to promotelearning, including principles of e-learning.  E-learning.  Virtual Learning Environments.B. Elective Module B – Reflecting on learning and teaching:Outcome: Engaging in reflective practice and continuous learningNarrative: An introduction to the role of reflection in professional practice.  Reflective practice (currently this topic remains distinct to this module, but upon further discussion will likely be distributed throughout the curriculum, with a focus reach in this elective module).  Developing portfolios.  Classroom peer observations.To see the above national framework or curriculum put into practice, a transformation ofengineering education crossing traditional collaborative boundaries will be required.6. Closing thoughtsFrom an international perspective, there are a number of exciting opportunities to further foster aglobal culture of professional EET faculty development and recognition. Educators who haveearned professional registration and recognition based on a national standard in their homecountries should be provided an opportunity to have their registration transferred or extended toobtain an equivalent status in another country in which they practice. This may require nationalengineering education associations to partner and create mutually agreeable mappings of nationalstandards, or perhaps an overarching international standard. Such an endeavor might beapproached in a way similar to how professional engineering registration is handled in Europa.Professional Engineers registered in one country, for example Chartered Engineers (CEng) fromthe UK, may become registered professional European Engineers (Eur Ing) if they meet a set ofoverarching requirements that are accepted by all partnering national engineering association.In light of the preceding, we might also think about extending the current ASEE COMPLEETEmodel to international level to develop an overarching program in collaboration with ourinternational peer organizations. Through a global, international provider network of contentmodules and the use of modern technology, for example MOOCs, it could become possible tocreate a highly customizable system that leads to professional registration and recognition as, forlack of a better term, Global Engineering Educator and at the same time allows to personalize ortailor the program content for an individual in a way that best corresponds to his or her nationalrequirements.AcknowledgementsThe material presented in this paper was compiled mainly from a number of articles previouslypublished by the members of the SPEED/COMPLEETE Working Group, namely Dirk Schaeferand Tristan T. Utschig (Georgia Institute of Technology), Donald P. Visco, Jr. (University ofAkron), J.P. Mohsen (University of Louisville), Norman L. Fortenberry (ASEE), Michael Prince(Bucknell University), and Cynthia Finelli (University of Michigan).Bibliography1. Schaefer, D. (2007): “Advising the Advisor: Professional Development of Junior Faculty.” In: Thomas, B. (Ed.), ASEE Southeastern Section Annual Conference: "Advancing Scholarship in Engineering Education: Lessons Learned From a Year of Dialogue," Louisville, Kentucky, USA, April 1-3, 2007, pp. 2.12.2. Melsa, J.M., Mohsen, J.P., Schaefer, D. and D. Visco Jr. (2009): “Strengthening the Performance of Engineering and Technology Educators across the Disciplines (SPEED)” 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas, June 14-17, 2009.3. Fortenberry, N. (2005): Panel Discussion: Engineering Education and R&D: Building Capacity and Building th Community. 35 Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis.4. National Academy of Engineering (2009): Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured is What Gets Improved. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.5. Smith, K. (2003): Educational Philosophy. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(3), 203-205.6. Heywood, J. (2007): Special Session: Can Philosophy of Engineering Education Improve the Practice of th Engineering Education? 37 Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Milwaukee.7. Heywood, J., Carberry, A., and Grimson, W. (2011): A Select and Annotated Bibliography of Philosphy in Engineering Education. Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) 2011 (pp. PEEE-1-PEEE-26). Rapid City: IEEE Conference Publications.8. ASEE (2009): Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education – Phase 1 Report. Washington, D.C.: ASEE.9. Schaefer, D. and T.T. Utschig (2008): “A Review of Professional Qualifications, Development, and Recognition of Faculty Teaching in Higher Education around the World,” 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 22-25, 2008.10. Utschig, T.T. and D. Schaefer (2008): “Opportunities and Challenges in Professional Education-related Faculty Development in the US.” 2008 IEEE - Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, New York, October 22-25, 2008.11. Utschig, T.T. and D. Schaefer (2008): “Critical Elements for Future Programs Seeking to Establish Excellence in Engineering Education through Professional Qualification of Faculty Teaching in Higher Education.” IACEE 11th World Conference on Continuing Engineering Education, Atlanta, Georgia, May 20-23, 2008.12. Visco, D., Schaefer, D., Utschig, T.T., Mohsen, J.P., Fortenberry, N.L., M. Prince, and C. Finelli (2010): “Preparing for Participation in SPEED: An ASEE Initiative for a Nationally Recognized Development Program for Engineering Educators.” 2010 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky, June 20-23, 2010, paper # AC2010-1940.13. Schaefer, D., Visco, D., Utschig, T.T., Mohsen, J.P., Fortenberry, N.L., M. Prince, and C. Finelli (2010): “SPEED - An ASEE Initiative for a Nationally Recognized Development Program for Engineering Educators.” 2010 ASEE- SE Annual Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia, April 18-20, 2010.14. Utschig, T., Schaefer, D., and D. Visco (2012): “A Proposed Teaching and Learning Curriculum for SPEED Based on Current National Trends” 2012 IEEE - Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, Washington, October 3-6, 2012, paper # 1569562127.15. Center for the Integration of Research Teaching and Learning, "The 12th Annual Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Scholars Program," 2007. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].16. American Society of Civil Engineers, "ExCEEd: Excellence in Civil Engineering Education," 2012. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].17. M. Rhiner, L. Abernathy, J. Weglarz, R. Jaffe, M. Thomas and C. Stephenson, "Master Teacher Program," 2011. [Online]. Pacific Crest. Available: [Accessed 2012].18. The National Effective Teaching Institute, "The National Effective Teaching Institute," [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].19. University of Michigan College of Engineering, "Certificate in Engineering Education Research," [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].20. Northern Illinois University College of Engineering, "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The CEET Faculty Development Program on Teaching and Learning," 2009. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].21. University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning, "Delta Program," 2012. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 2012].22. E. Lickl, "Engineering Education Societies in Europe and the Needs of Industry," in ASEE Distinguished Lecture Series, Louisville, KY, 2010.23. J.P. Mohsen, “GUEST EDITORIAL – SPEED: A Concept for Enhancing the Quality of Engineering Education,” Journal of STEM Education, Vol.10, No. 1, 2009, pg. 5-6.24. J.P. Mohsen, “PRESIDENT'S LETTER – Professional Development Is Key” PRISM, ASEE, Sept. 2009.25. American Society for Engineering Education, "American Society for Engineering Education: About--> The organization --> Our Mission." [Online]. Available: mission. [Accessed 2012].

Schaefer, D. (2013, June), Invited Paper - Fostering a Culture of Professional Faculty Development and Recognition of Engineering & Engineering Technology Educators Paper presented at 2013 ASEE International Forum, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--17247

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015