Conference Session

Working Together: Approaches to Inclusivity and Interdisciplinarity

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Valeriya Yudina, Higher School of Economics; Yulia Skrupskaya, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Victor Taratukhin, SAP Silicon Valley and University of Muenster; Elvira Kozlova; Natalia Pulyavina, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Paper ID #34494Bringing Together Engineering and Management Students for aProject-Based Global Idea-thon: Towards Next-Gen Design ThinkingMethodologyValeriya Yudina, Higher School of EconomicsYulia Skrupskaya, National Research University Higher School of EconomicsProf. Victor Taratukhin, SAP Silicon Valley and University of Muenster Victor Taratukhin received his Ph.D. in Engineering Design in 1998 and Ph.D. in Computing Sciences and Engineering in 2002. Victor was a Lecturer in Decision Engineering and Module Leader (IT for Product Realization) at Cranfield University, UK (2001-2004), SAP University Alliances Program Director

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade II

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sean Moseley, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Paper ID #6491Getting Started With Screencasting: A Tool to Supplement Classes, AnswerStudent Questions, and Provide Guided Analysis Practice.Dr. Sean Moseley, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Sean Moseley is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech- nology. He received a B.S. from The Georgia Institute of Technology and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. Page 23.640.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013

Conference Session

Training and Support for NEEs

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Te-shun Chou, East Carolina University; John Barry DuVall, East Carolina University; Kamalesh Panthi, East Carolina University; Tijjani Mohammed, East Carolina University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Paper ID #5786TECS-TRAIN – A Faculty Mentoring Program for Enhancing Quality, In-teraction, and Communication in Online and Blended Learning CoursesDr. Te-Shun Chou, East Carolina University Dr. Te-Shun Chou is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Technology Systems at East Carolina University (ECU). He received his Bachelor degree in Electronics Engineering and both Master’s degree and Doctoral degree in Electrical Engineering at Florida International University. His research interests include machine learning, wireless communications, and network security, especially intrusion detection and incident response.Dr

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade II

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Robert A. Chin, East Carolina University; I. Richmond Nettey, Kent State University; Edem G. Tetteh; Philip Weinsier, Bowling Green State University, Firelands

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

AC 2012-5374: NEGOTIATING THE TENURE AND PROMOTION PRO-CESSDr. Robert A. Chin, East Carolina University Robert A. ”Bob” Chin is a Full Professor in the Department of Technology Systems, East Carolina Uni- versity, where he has taught since 1986. He is the current Director of publications for the Engineering Design Graphics Division and Editor for the Engineering Design Graphics Journal. Chin has served as the Engineering Design Graphics Division’s annual and mid-year conference Program Chair, and he has served as a review board member for several journals including the EDGJ. He has been a Program Chair for the Southeastern Section and has served as the Engineering Design Graphics Division’s Vice Chair and Chair

Conference Session

INVITED PANEL: Preparing your Teaching Portfolio

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kay C Dee, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Glen A. Livesay, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Julia M. Williams, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Paper ID #10003Preparing Your Teaching PortfolioDr. Kay C Dee, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Kay C Dee received a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, and M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. After completing her graduate work, Kay C joined the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. She later joined the faculty at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. She served as the founding Director of the Rose-Hulman Center for the Practice and Scholarship of Education, and is currently the

Conference Session

Technology for Faculty Development and Classroom Management

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rebecca Marie Reck, Kettering University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

-Bass.6. Hahn, L.D. and C. Migotsky, Formative Classroom Observations for New Faculty. ASEE Conferences: Seattle, Washington.7. Furtak, E.M. My Writing Productivity Pipeline. 2016. 2017.8. Boice, R., Advice for New Faculty Members: Nihil Nimus. 2000, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.9. Allen, D., Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. 2001: Penguin Group.Appendix – SurveyDemographics 1. What is your current title? a. Lecturer b. Assistant Professor c. Associate Professor d. Professor e. Other 2. What is your tenure status? a. Tenure-track (or equivalent) b. Tenured (or equivalent) c. Non-tenure-track 3. If applicable, how many

Conference Session

New Engineering Educators 3 - Grading: Grate or Great

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Jennifer Pascal, University of Connecticut; Troy J. Vogel, University of Notre Dame; Kristina Wagstrom, University of Connecticut

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

students over what theylearn and how, while also decreasing time spent on higher quality evaluation. Specifications grading, an evolution of contract grading [1], is a novel grading approachintroduced by Nilson [2] designed to help motivate students to focus on learning rather thanfeeling the need to obsessively count points. In a specifications grading approach, facultyprovide clear specifications of what is required to earn a given grade in the class. Rather thanbasing grades on point totals or a weighting system, students are given the option to completespecific assignments or bundles of assignments that link to a specified grade. Each assignment isgraded on a pass/fail basis where passing is typically defined as B or B+ level work

Conference Session

New Engineering Educators: Tricks of the Trade I

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Edward Gehringer, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

. Page 12.1550.31 Data comes from a survey posted to two listservs, SIGCSE-members@acm.org (Computer Science) and theEngineering Technology listserv (etd-l@listproc.tamu.edu) in January 2007. Responses were received fromapproximately three dozen programs.Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 2Copyright  2007, American Society for Engineering Education3. Contracts and assessmentIn most cases, independent studies are graded on the same scale as other courses (A, B, C, etc.).However, a substantial number of institutions grade them pass/fail, and sometimes the student orthe instructor chooses whether they are to be pass/fail or letter-graded. The reason for requiringpass/fail

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jennifer L.W. Carter, Case Western Reserve University; Brian Yuhnke Jr, Case Western Reserve University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

assessments were assigned and submitted online using Blackboard learning manage-ment system.14 Homework assessments were designed in two parts: Part A was multiple choiceand matching type questions, and Part B was computational based questions that required studentsto apply formulas to solve engineering problems. In an effort to curb copying, the computationalbased problems were designed so that the numerical values changed with each attempt. Home-works were graded with a two part mastery score, meaning students only received credit for thehomework if they mastered each part of the assignment. Students were permitted two attemptsto achieve the necessary mastery for Part A and an unlimited number attempts were permitted toachieve mastery of Part B

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade in Teaching II

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Adrian Ieta, State University of New York, Oswego; Thomas Doyle, McMaster University; Rachid Manseur, SUNY-Oswego

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

adjustments to the grades. For instance, ifnobody in the group was able to solve a particular problem the score associated with it may be added tothe raw scores. Control over the average of a set of grades is limited by the value of the highest rawscore, which may sometimes be a disadvantage.3. Flat scale (b) (M3)Raw scores are translated by a certain number but the highest scaled score and other scores can belarger than 100 %.y% = x%+ b% (3)(b= an arbitrary percentage)For instance, all but one raw score are within 35%-80% and there is one single score of 96%. Accordingto the instructor’s judgment, an x = 10% is added to all scores in order to obtain the numerical grade.Hence, 35 is scaled to 45 (= 35%+10%), 80 is scaled

Conference Session

Enhancing Teaching and Research

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Kweku Brown P.E., The Citadel; Dimitra Michalaka P.E., The Citadel; Nandan Hara Shetty, The Citadel; William J. Davis P.E., The Citadel

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

containedmatching, true/false and short numeric answer questions. See Figure 1 for sample Surveying Ipre-test/post-test questions.Figure 1: Sample pre/post test questions from Surveying ISurveying II – The Surveying II pre-test and post-test was worth 35 total points and comprisedmainly of multiple-choice and true/false questions on surveying II concepts. This test alsocontained surveying acronyms and short numeric answer questions. See Figure 2 for sampleSurveying II pre-test/post-test questions. The full pre-tests/post-tests for Surveying I andSurveying II are in Appendix A and Appendix B respectively.Figure 2: Sample pre/post test questions from Surveying IIData Collection SummaryOverall, during this research, a total of 1218 tests (pre and post) were

Conference Session

Survivor: The First Few Years

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth Creamer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Tonya Saddler, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Margaret Layne, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

recognized as one of the strongest influences on academic scientists’ and engineers’productivity1 and satisfaction2. Perceptions of climate reflect policies, practices, and interactionsat both a local level, as within a lab or department, and at more global level of the college oruniversity. The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE), anemerging voice from Harvard University about faculty careers, measures climate to include (a)personal and professional interactions with colleagues, (b) opportunities for collaboration, (c)sense of fit, (d) intellectual vitality of the senior faculty, (e) fairness of evaluation, (f) equitabletreatment, and (g) support for professional development. Perceptions of climate at the more locallevel

Conference Session

Assessment of Student Learning – New Engineering Educators Division

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Hani Serhal Saad, Eastern Washington University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

-changes cases. The final project is an extensivereport on a fictitious experiment the students have designed and supposedlyexecuted. The idea is not to have them execute the experiment, but write effectivelyabout it. Grading is done without the grader knowing whether the student is from aclass where these changes were implemented or not. The assessment was doneusing six criteria that include: (a) document structure (b) objectives and conclusion,(c) grammar and spelling, (d) quality of writing, (e) depth of analysis and (f)scientific integrity. The results obtained show increases of 8% for categories (a),(c) and (d) , 14% for category (b), 7% for category (f) and a decrease of 3% forcategory (e). These results suggest that the changes implemented

Conference Session

New Engineering Educators Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Faisal Shaikh, Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

significantly limited its widespread adoption but is still a well researched andstudied topic3. This method allows only discrete and limited types of responses (eg. A, B, C orD), so questions have to be restricted to multiple choice type of questions.The third method (ABCD voting cards) in which each student has 4 big voting cards (each withA, B, C and D printed on it) and votes for an answer, solves the bigger drawbacks of the clickermethod by simplifying the entire response process4. It ends up loosing anonymity (if studentslook at others’ cards) and is also restricted to multiple choice type questions. Additionally,students do not get a glimpse of the class response in this method, unless the instructor informsthem how the class voted. Counting of

Conference Session

NEE - 3: Improving Homework and Problem-solving Performance

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Emily Kate Bierman, The Citadel; Timothy Aaron Wood Ph.D., The Citadel; Jeffery M Plumblee II, The Citadel

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

each homeworkassignment is similar between the two courses. The number of homework’s assigned in bothclasses is the same. Syllabus excerpts regarding the homework policy for MECH 310 and MECH311 are in Table 1 and 2.Table 1. MECH 310 Syllabus ExcerptHomework is a practice in applying new course concepts. Effort is more important thancorrectness. Working in groups is allowed and encouraged. Any late homework will automaticallyget 50% of the points reduced unless the instructor is notified the day before the homework is due.Document aid of any kind received on all homework, e.g. Jane Doe helped with part (b)or referred to solution on the internet for this problem. You do not need to document aidreceived from the instructor. You must turn in all

Conference Session

Faculty Development Toolkit

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

William Jordan, Baylor University; Bill Elmore, Mississippi State University; Walter Bradley, Baylor University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Station, TX, March 2001. In CDbased Proceedings (no page numbers).4 Jordan, W., and Elmore, B., Making Personal Technology Work Appropriately, presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Scientific Affiliation, Grantham, PA, August 2005.5 Bruce, Lori, and Bruce, J.W., Maximizing your Productivity as a Junior Faculty Member: Balancing Research,Teaching, and Service, presented at the A.S.E.E. Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, June 2004. In CD basedProceedings (no page numbers).6 Minerick, Adriene, and Keith, Jason, Culture Shock: Acclimating as a New Faculty Member, presented at theA.S.E.E. Annual Meeting in Portland, June 2005. In CD based Proceedings (no page numbers).7 Davis, Justin, Strategic Planning for New Faculty: From What to How

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade in Research

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jason Keith, Michigan Technological University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Felder3, or the ASEE conference proceedings / engineeringeducation literature4-10.Glossary of “Research Topics”There are several terms used throughout this paper for your possible research topics.They are defined here for the convenience of the reader.Topic X Your PhD Dissertation TopicTopic Y A new research topic for you that is closely related to Topic XTopic A A “hot research topic” that is not related to Topic X or Topic YTopic B A “hot research topic” that is not related to Topic X or Topic Y (but is closely related to Topic A)Starting Up Your Research ProgramSince the number one expectation of a faculty member is to perform research or someother form of scholarly activity, this is where the

Conference Session

The Care and Keeping of Graduate Students - GSD Tech Session 6

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Catherine G.P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University; Katy Luchini-Colbry, Michigan State University

Tagged Divisions

Graduate Studies, New Engineering Educators

Roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education (pp. 397–456). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_8 3. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364 4. Jazvac‐Martek, M. (2009). Oscillating role identities: the academic experiences of education doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903068862 5. Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2011). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach

Conference Session

Tools and Strategies for Teaching Online Courses

Collection

2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University at Raleigh; Ashwini Menon; Guoyi Wang

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

ACBADDACBA 7 common answers A B B B D D A D B A of which 5 are incorrect. Incorrect answers are shown in red. Answers that the students had in common are highlighted in yellow. Of the 6 incorrect answers that the first student had, 5 were shared with the second student. Of the 7 incorrect answers that the second student had, 5 were shared with the first student. Figure 1. Multiple-choice plagiarism detection through common wrong answersThree commercial plagiarism-detection tools for multiple-choice exams are Integrity, S-Check,and CopyDetect. Integrity (http://integrity.castlerockresearch.com) is a standalone collusion-detection tool with a web interface. It

Conference Session

New Engineering Educators: Tricks of the Trade II

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Claude Villiers, Florida Gulf Coast University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Page 12.182.4the Superpave mix design criteria. They also performed laboratory testing on commonly usedCivil Engineering materials including asphalt binder, hot mix asphalt, aggregates, and Portlandconcrete cement. They analyzed and evaluated the data to make useful conclusions. Each studentwrote a final report on the mixture they designed. The student’s final grade for this class ispresented in Fig. 1. Two students obtained an A, two ended with a B+, while the other twofinished the class with Fs. The low performance was mainly driven by the student’s lack ofparticipation and discipline to return and complete all the assignments and tests. Materials (n=6), Pavements (n=15), Geometric Design (n=17), Highway (n=10

Conference Session

Tips and Tricks for Actively Engaging Students

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Daria Gerasimova, George Mason University; Margret Hjalmarson, George Mason University; Jill K. Nelson, George Mason University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Press, 2007).5. Freeman, S. et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS Early Ed. (2014). doi:10.1073/pnas.13190301116. Hake, R. R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998).7. Hora, M. T., Ferrare, J. & Oleson, A. Findings from classroom observations of 58 math and science faculty. Madison WI Univ. Wis.-Madison Wis. Cent. Educ. Res. (2012).8. Fiore, L. & Rosenquest, B. Shifting the culture of higher education: Influences on students, teachers, and pedagogy. Theory Pract. 49, 14–20 (2009).9. Hjalmarson, M. et al. Developing interactive teaching

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade in Teaching II

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Michael Foster, George Fox University; Justin R. Vander Werff P.E., Dordt College

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

with a high score just based on academic intelligence, but toend up with a total high score only if a student assesses him or herself as strong in academics,comfortable with topics and skills that are foundational to the course at hand, and good atworking with teams. (An example of a team index sheet is included in Appendix B.) Whenstudents complete and turn in the index sheets, the groups are generally established immediatelyduring class by sorting the completed index scores from highest to lowest and then distributingthe sheets, based on index only, to form groups with roughly the same total index scores. Thisdistribution is accomplished by using the sorted stack of index sheets and distributing them intostacks (one stack per group) in an

Conference Session

Tricks of the Trade for Teaching I

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kenneth McDonald, U.S. Military Academy

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

Page 11.751.7minutes describing everything he found and walking the class through the website. Not only wasit one of the better discussions of the semester, but it represented that the discussion andfeedback techniques helped students to assimilate and integrate the information learned in classand apply this information to analyze real world scenarios.Final grades were assigned near the end of the semester with 75% of the students achievingacceptable levels of class participation. A survey was given two lessons after instructor/classparticipation grades were assigned (appendix B). The results of the survey indicate the objectiveof enhancing the learning experience for students was achieved. Albeit not a perfect model, itseems the method

Conference Session

New Engineering Educators Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dimitra Michalaka P.E., The Citadel; William J. Davis P.E., The Citadel

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

76.2% Notes: 1.) The entire class consisted of 46 students. 2.) Quiz Average determined by averaging individual student scores based on the number of students who participated in quiz.Use of Clicker Quiz Results to Evaluate Effects on Small Group DiscussionClicker quiz questions were qualitative in nature and primarily tested concepts discussed inassigned readings or material covered in previous lectures. Each question was presented usingPowerPoint slides and students were allowed 30-seconds to read and answer the question viaclicker. After 30-seconds, student responses for each multiple-choice answer (A, B, C, D, and E) Page

Conference Session

Faculty Development: Creating successful NEEs

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrew Jackson, East Carolina University; Robert Chin, East Carolina University; Charles Coddington, East Carolina University; Paul Petersen, East Carolina University; Fonooni Hamid

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

details of thisnew mentorship program and its effectiveness thus far.Introduction Originally established in 1996 and presently administered by Dr. Dorothy HowseClayton, the primary mission of East Carolina University’s (ECU’s) “…Center for FacultyDevelopment is to provide faculty members with resources and services that foster and supporttheir efforts to create effective teaching and learning environments”.1 The Center (a) serves asone of the many sources of resources and materials appropriate for the common components ofthe tenure and promotion process, (b) helps facilitate the annual university-wide teaching awardsprogram, (c) helps facilitate the tenure track probationary term faculty's mandatory classroomobservation, (d) facilitates

Conference Session

Scaling class size and technology – New Engineering Educators Division

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Michael Allen Hayden Ph.D., Indiana State University; Randell W. Peters, Indiana State University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

instrument and/or procedure to collect the data, i.e., whatis the test and/or instrument? The instrument could be your eye or the PE exam. Measurement isdescribing the test results in an interpretable manner. Are you going to measure by points on atest, score on a rubric, what? Evaluation is making a decision or judgment about themeasurement or score. Does the student get an A or B? Did the student perform the behaviorwell enough or not? Ideally, the PI gives the teacher and student information about how the PI isevaluated and what it takes to pass or get a certain score for that PI.How to TeachHow to teach what you intend to teach can be understood, organized, performed, and evaluatedvia PIs. In essence, teaching entails the following. 1

Conference Session

Been There, Done That: Advice for New Faculty

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kevin Dahm, Rowan University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

each,descriptions of four levels of performance were written. These rubrics were published inChemical Engineering Education6, and two of the original 16 rubrics are shown in Table2. Levels of performance were mapped to letter grades (A, B, C and D/F) and the rubricswere passed out to students on the first day of Junior/Senior Clinic in order to clarifyexpectations for the course. Note that the rubrics are intended for overall evaluation of ateam project; separate mechanisms are needed for evaluating individual contributions tothe project. Most Rowan engineering faculty use the peer evaluation form designed byFelder.7The project supervisor evaluates a deliverable (mid-semester report, final report, finalpresentation etc.) by going through the

Conference Session

Scaling class size and technology – New Engineering Educators Division

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Peggy C. Boylan-Ashraf, San Jose State University; John R. Haughery, Iowa State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

, the number comparisons between taking theprerequisite courses in community college or within the university do not seem to be striking formechanics of materials and dynamics –however, it is for introduction to circuit. The resultsshowed that 36% of students who took the physics prerequisite (electricity and magnetism) atSJSU for introduction to circuit and received a B grade (B+, B, B-) failed the course –comparethis with 15% of students who took the physics prerequisite at a community college. It alsoshowed that 52% of students who took the physics prerequisite at SJSU for introduction tocircuit and received a C grade (C+, C, C-) failed the course –compare this with 36% of studentswho took the physics prerequisite at a community college

Conference Session

Best of the NEE

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

David Chesney, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

thatperception to make the story meaningful to the audience, our students.Using the earlier shaver story, it does not matter whether it was my brother-in-law, mother, child,or I who was learning the new skill. It does not matter whether the skill being learned wasshaving or painting a picture. The major lesson being communicated is that acquiring new skillstakes some risk.Remembering “The present is only a moment and the past is one long story. Those who don’t tell stories and don’t hear stories live only for the moment, and that isn’t enough.” I. B. Singer2 “When the student is ready, the teacher appears.” Chinese proverbThe first

Conference Session

Potpourri

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lea Marie Eaton, Stanford University; Sheri D. Sheppard, Stanford University; Helen L. Chen, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

New Engineering Educators

researchers and were generated based on experiencewith homework in STEM courses, both from a teaching and a student perspective. The surveywas composed of five main sections:1. General questions about the student’s school, year of study, major, and average number of problem sets assigned per week.2. Positive Homework Course. Questions relating to a homework experience in a STEM course that the student would describe as “positive.” a. Initial questions asked for the name of the course, and the type(s) of homework utilized in the course. The name of the professor was asked, but was optional. b. Then students were asked to rate on a scale from Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, to All of the Time, the amount to which they felt