Conference Session

Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 9

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Richard T Buckley P.E., United States Air Force Academy

Tagged Divisions

Faculty Development Division (FDD)

submissions for a physics course was five [9].Late penalty and bonus pointsFor all semesters, homework assignments had a published due date on the syllabus, typically twolessons after the topic was covered in class. Two separate policies were used over the course ofthe study. 1. In the Fall of 2021, there was no late penalty associated with the syllabus due date. Students had the ability to submit assignments up to the close of midterm grades for homework assigned before midterms, or up to the close of the semester for homework assigned after midterms. Students received feedback on each submission and full credit. No submissions were allowed after the midterm/final close of grades. Assignments

Conference Session

Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 3

Collection

2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Swetha Nittala, Uber Technologies; Sheri D. Sheppard, Stanford University; Helen L. Chen, Stanford University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Faculty Development Division (FDD)

out how to operationalize them in theirclassrooms. Research has shown that faculty interested in pedagogical transformation areoften overwhelmed by the many tools, frameworks, and theories available [13]. One of theobjectives of this paper is to remove this burden on faculty and instructors by providing themwith an organized checklist of inclusive teaching practices stemming from variedframeworks, along with some easy-to-use resources, strategies, and examples, all in a singleresource. Further, our inclusive course design checklist is organized around the variouscomponents of teaching (e.g., writing the syllabus, selecting/training TAs, etc.) so it is (wehope) more pragmatic, accessible, and implementation-ready to educators, all the

Conference Session

Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 10

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Nyna Jaye DeWitt, University of Georgia; Animesh Paul, University of Georgia; John Ray Morelock, University of Georgia

Tagged Divisions

Faculty Development Division (FDD)

structure. During theimplementation in ECAM this was done by reviewing material on the Learning ManagementSystem (LMS) and meeting with the faculty member who led the course. LMS content consistedof the syllabus and assignments. Throughout this review process, observers stated that theyprimarily identified learning objectives to see if they were being applied during Section B of thepeer observation process. Evaluator faculty also identified any improvement areas in this area.For lecture-based courses, observers discussed which sections were to be evaluated based on thegoals for the observation and the planned activities for the class period.Section BSection B of the peer observation process is the evaluation period. This step was assessed basedon

Conference Session

Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 1

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Robert A Linsenmeier, Northwestern University; Jennifer L. Cole, Northwestern University

Tagged Divisions

Faculty Development Division (FDD)

available to students a written details should be 2. Having a syllabus, contract description of each course before conveyed to students 3. Clarity/transparency in policies student registration Professors... primary It is essential to the university's mis- 3. New and revised responsibility to their sub- sion to discover, produce, and com

Conference Session

Faculty Development Division (FDD) Technical Session 1

Collection

2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mireia Perera-Gonzalez, Northeastern University; Shiaoming Shi, Northeastern University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Faculty Development Division (FDD)

University,instructed by the authors of this paper, were evaluated (104 total students, roughly 50/50 ratio menand women). They were tasked to analyze a CRISPR/Cas9 publication by R. Barrangou et al. asthe first assignment of the course, then they had a lecture on academic honesty, and they wereasked to repeat the assignment if their similarity score was above 20 % (optional if < 20 %). 29students repeated the assignment.Demographic information (country of origin, undergraduate/graduate background, languages) wascollected from voluntary surveys and combined with the Turnitin data. In cohort 2 (Fall 2022), wecarried a more exhaustive evaluation of academic honesty[10] from a voluntary survey to gageunderstanding of the university guidelines[11