them the authority to engage in meaningful dialogue in the college of engineering and throughout the larger institution.

• Seek to develop the appropriate number of evaluators who have the knowledge, skills, and experience to provide rigorous, meaningful assessments of instructional effectiveness (in much the same way that those institutions seek to ensure the development of the skills and knowledge required for excellent disciplinary research).

• Seek out and take advantage of external resources, such as associations, societies, and/or programs focused on teaching excellence (e.g., Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Higher Education Academy [U.K.], and Professional and Organizational Development Network), as well as on-campus teaching and learning resource centers and organizations focused on engineering education (e.g., the International Society for Engineering Education [IGIP]² and the Foundation Engineering Education Coalition’s web site devoted to Active/Cooperative Learning: Best Practices in Engineering Education http://clte.asu.edu/active/main.htm).

Leaders of the engineering profession (including the National Academy of Engineering, American Society for Engineering Education, ABET, Inc., American Association of Engineering Societies, the Engineering Deans’ Council, and the various engineering disciplinary societies) should:

• Continue to promote programs and provide support for individuals and institutions pursuing efforts to accelerate the development and implementation of metrics for evaluating instructional effectiveness.

• Seek to create and nurture models of metrics for evaluating instructional effectiveness. Each institution, of course, will have particular needs and demands; however, nationally known examples of well informed, well supported, and carefully developed instructional evaluation programs will benefit the entire field.