Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations

B ackground Economic globalization, rapid advances in technology and cognitive science, and a worldwide movement toward outcomes‐based program accreditation increasingly require changes in the traditional model of engineering education design and delivery. As yet, no validated framework exists for designing instructional development programs that would equip engineering educators to make those changes. Existing programs consequently vary considerably in scope and effectiveness across countries and institutions. P urpose This article reviews the content and structures of instructional development programs around the world and formulates a robust framework for designing and delivering effective programs for engineering educators. S cope /M ethod Literature on the design, implementation, and evaluation of instructional development programs is reviewed and summarized. Five criteria drawn from Raymond Wlodkowski's theory of adult learner motivation (expertise of instructors, relevance of content, choice in application, praxis [action plus reflection], and groupwork) are proposed as a framework for designing engineering instructional development programs, and the framework is applied to formulate recommendations for making programs effective. Research questions that should be explored to validate the framework are suggested. C onclusion Wlodkowski's five‐factor theory of adult learner motivation provides a good framework for the design of engineering instructional development programs. The criteria are compatible with the cognitive science‐based How People Learn instructional model and also with recommendations of faculty development authorities. Making engineering instructional development effective at an institution will require applying the criteria to program design and delivery and creating an institutional expectation of faculty participation in the programs.