Application Components

Required Components for Endorsement Application

Applicants seeking the ASEE Engineering Teacher Professional Development Endorsement will submit: (1) an official program summary; (2) a statement of need and vision; and (3) a self-study with supporting text and video evidence.

 

DOCUMENT 1: OFFICIAL PROGRAM SUMMARY

Create a 1-2 page text-only summary of your teacher professional development program for inclusion on the ASEE website. This summary should be in an editable (e.g., Word) format and should includes the following section headers:

• Organization Name: The name of the organization offering the professional development.
• Application Contact: The name, title, email address, and telephone number of the person to whom inquiries and notifications about the endorsement application should be addressed. Note that this information will NOT appear on the ASEE public page.
• Program Name: The name of the professional development offering.
• Program Website: The full url of the most relevant website.
• Geographic Reach: The geographic locations (e.g., states, regions) served by the professional development, as well as the location(s) at which the professional development is offered.
• Frequency: How often the professional development is offered.
• Duration: How long the initial professional development activity lasts, not counting longitudinal support.
• Purpose: The primary purpose of the professional development.
• Learning Objectives: List the primary learning objectives for participants as completions to this phrase: “Teachers who complete the professional development will…”
• Engineering Content: The engineering content covered by the professional development, including how teachers engage with that content.
• Engineering Pedagogy: The pedagogical content covered by the professional development, including how teachers are exposed to that content.
• Program History: How long the organization has been offering this program, including any relevant statistics.
• Results to Date: How/by whom the evaluation was conducted; what the evaluation says.

Please note that a program’s endorsement is linked to this summary document. While minor program adjustments are normal over time, significant changes to the program described in this summary will render the ASEE endorsement null. In this case, the organization offering the program will need to re-apply to obtain a new endorsement for the altered program.

Download: Document #1: Official Program Summary

 

DOCUMENT 2: NEED AND VISION

In 1-2 paragraphs, describe the need that the program is designed to meet and the unique value that the program brings to addressing this need. Describe the target audience, how are they related to the statement of need, and the degree to which the program is reaching this target audience.

Download:  Document #2: Need and Vision

 

DOCUMENT 3: DESCRIPTIVE SELF-RATING

Complete the self-rating rubric. The following guidance may be useful.

 

PART I: Engineering Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Standards A-B) The purpose of the self-rating on Standards A and B is not to evaluate program quality, but to describe the intended focus of a particular program with respect to engineering content and pedagogy. Nevertheless, because engineering teacher professional development should address engineering content and pedagogy in a substantial and meaningful way, endorsement requires a minimum of 6 self-ratings of high or moderate emphasis on Standard A and a minimum of 13 self-ratings of high or moderate emphasis on Standard B. Note that the ASEE Endorsement does not imply any judgment of whether a program has selected the “right” focus for its activities; rather, it simply certifies that the program has provided adequate evidence to support its claimed high or moderate emphasis on each element.

 

For each element/sub-element of Standard A (Engineering Content and Practices) and Standard B (Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching Engineering):

(1) select the degree of program focus (i.e., high, moderate, low, none);

(2) write a statement justifying your claim; and

(3) cite supporting evidence (e.g., documentary, video), being as specific as possible (e.g., “see minutes 4:12-5:27 of video”) and following the guidance in “A Note About Evidence”.

 

PART II: Engineering as a Context; Curriculum and Assessment (Standards C-D) As with Standards A and B, the purpose of the self-rating on Standards C and D is not to evaluate program quality but to describe the program’s emphasis on engineering as a context for teaching and learning (Standard C) and curriculum and assessment (Standard D). Although program emphasis may vary widely with respect to these standards, it is expected that every engineering teacher professional development should address at least approximately one third of each standard with moderate or high emphasis. For this reason, endorsement requires a minimum of 1 self-ratings of high or moderate emphasis on Standard C and a minimum of 4 self-ratings of high or moderate emphasis on Standard D. Note again that the ASEE Endorsement does not imply any judgment of whether a program has selected the “right” focus for its activities; rather, it simply certifies that the program has provided adequate evidence to support its claimed high or moderate emphasis on each element.

 

For each element/sub-element of Standard B (Engineering as a Context for Teaching and Learning) and Standard D (Curriculum and Assessment):

(1) select the degree of program focus (i.e., high, moderate, low, none);

(2) write a statement justifying your claim; and

(3) cite supporting evidence (e.g., documentary, video), being as specific as possible (e.g., “see minutes 4:12-5:27 of video”) and following the guidance in “A Note About Evidence”.

Download: Document #3: Descriptive Self-Rating

 

DOCUMENT 4: SELF-RATING ON PROGRAM QUALITY INDICATORS

Whereas Standards A through D describe a program’s areas of focus, the elements of Standard E lie at the heart of what is required for high-quality professional development in any discipline. For this reason, the ASEE Endorsement in this area constitutes a judgment of program quality. To earn Endorsed status, a program must demonstrate a moderate or high degree of emphasis on every row of this matrix.

 

For each element/sub-element of Standard E (Alignment to Research, Standards, and Educational Practices):

(1) select the degree of program focus (i.e., high, moderate, low, none);

(2) write a statement justifying your claim; and

(3) cite supporting evidence following the guidance in “A Note About Evidence” and meeting the requirements described below for each element.

The following supporting documentation (i.e., evidence) is required for this section of the application:

• For E1-1 – Be developed and refined in collaboration with experts in the fields of engineering, engineering pedagogy, and teacher professional development:
  • A list of the people involved in the development and refinement of the program, their field(s) of expertise (i.e., engineering, engineering pedagogy, or teacher professional development), their qualifications, and their relevant roles and responsibilities;
  • A description of the process by which the program was initially developed; and
  • A description of the process by which the program is refined.
• For E2-1 – Be developed and refined in collaboration with stakeholders (g., state education agency personnel, school administrators, teachers):
  • A complete list of stakeholder groups, including an explanation of how this list is complete; and
  • A description of how each stakeholder group was involved in the development and refinement of the program.
• For E3-1 – Enable participants to experience the curriculum that they will teach:
  • (Option 1: For programs centered around a specific curriculum) A detailed description of the curriculum, a detailed description and schedule for the professional development, a mapping of the latter to the former showing the degree to which the claimed emphasis is achieved, and a supporting video; or
  • (Option 2: For programs not centered around a specific curriculum) An illustrative and representative example of the curriculum that might be selected, adapted, or developed by the participating educator, a detailed description and schedule for the professional development, a mapping of the latter to the former showing the degree to which the claimed emphasis is achieved, and a supporting video..
• For E4-1 – Model effective engineering teaching practices:
  • A statement of the project’s philosophy with respect to effective teaching practices (e.g., what these practices are, why they are relevant, how they are modeled);
  • A list of the people involved in the delivery of the program, their qualifications, and their relevant roles and responsibilities with respect to modeling effective engineering teaching practices; and
  • Video evidence showing multiple examples of such modeling during PD.
• For E5-1 – Employ differentiated instruction techniques:
  • A description of how the professional development provider gathers information about the participants’ background or experience in content and pedagogical content knowledge;
  • Sample instruments used to collect this background information; and
  • If applicable, illustrative examples of how the program differentiates instruction in response to the information collected.
• For E6-1 – Be guided by formative assessment:
  • A description of how and when the professional development provider employs formative assessments to check for participant understanding;
  • Sample assessment instruments used for this purpose; and
  • If applicable, illustrative examples (including video) of how the program is modified in real time in response to the results.
• For E7-1 – Encourage risk-taking by participants:
  • A statement describing the program’s position on facilitating intellectual risk-taking among adult learners;
  • A detailed description of the ways in which such risk-taking is actively and explicitly encouraged during PD; and
  • Illustrative examples of the program’s experience with fostering such behavior.
• For E8-1 – Be longitudinal:
  • A description of the program’s longitudinal engagement with participants;
  • Ongoing participation rates and durations of participants; and
  • Written or video evidence of these ongoing activities.
• For E9-1 – Evolve through a process of continuous improvement that employs ongoing evaluation, assessment and revision:
  • A description of the evaluation process;
  • Sample instruments;
  • Evidence of external evaluation; and
  • Evidence of program adaptations made in response to evaluation results.

Download: Document #4: Self-Rating on Program Quality Indicators

 

DOCUMENT 5: TABLE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE

To provide a reference for all video evidence and to ensure that applicants adhere to time restrictions on video evidence, ASEE requires completion of this table. Complete one row of the table for each individual clip submitted, providing:

• Segment Number: Used to index the clips.
• Description: A brief description of what is shown in the video (e.g., teachers developing a design challenge statement)
• Citations in Applications: List each time that the video is cited as evidence in the application (e.g., Standard B1.1, Standard E2) and the timestamp of each citation.
• Length: Total length of the clip. (Note that you will sum these lengths in the last row of the table.)
• Link to Video: Clickable link to video.
• Password (if needed): Provide the password that reviewers will need to view the video.

Note that the applicant is responsible for securing all required permissions and consent from individuals shown in video clips.

Download: Document #5: Table of Video Evidence

OPTIONAL

DOCUMENT 6: MULTI-SITE PROGRAM QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

If your PD is replicated at multiple sites, then you may apply for mutli-site endorsement by submitting a description and evidence of your train-the-trainer model, your onboarding process for new sites, and your ongoing quality control measures.

Download: Document #6: Multi-Site Program Quality Control Plan