Search

In this digital age of the computer, Internet, and social media and Internet of Things, e-assessments have become an accepted method to determine if students have learned materials presented in a course. With acceptance of this electronic means of assessing students, many questions arise about this method. What should be the format of e-assessment? What amount of time? What kinds of questions should be asked (multiple choice, short answer, etc.)? These are only a few of the many different questions. In addition, educators have always had to contend with the possibility that some students might cheat on an examination. It is widely known that students are often times more technologically savvy than their professors. So how does one prevent students from cheating on an e-assessment? Understandably, given the amount of information available on e-assessments and the variety of formats to choose from, choosing to administer e-assessments over paper-based assessments can lead to confusion on the part of the professor. This paper presents helpful guidance for lecturers who want to introduce e-assessments in their class, and it provides recommendations about the technical infrastructure to implement to avoid students cheating. It is based on literature review, on an international survey that gathers insights and experiences from lecturers who are using e-assessment in their class, and on technological evaluation of e-assessment infrastructure.

This paper presents an overview of established and innovative means and teaching approaches that contribute to higher students' attention during lecture. The results are based on an international survey among lecturers from eleven universities. This survey was initiated by three lecturers from different countries who met at EDUCON 2016. The objective was to collect teaching experiences about playful means that motivate students to be attentive during a lecture. The proposed teaching approaches fall into three categories: established teaching methods, unconventional extrinsic methods, and tools. We focus on the extrinsic methods and discuss 14 illustrative examples of these approaches.

Librarians within the Engineering Libraries Division (ELD) annually publish conference papers for the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). The existing ASEE rubric was not sufficient for our members, so we developed a new rubric as a charged committee for this task. We briefly discuss the sparse literature in this area, focusing on the use of rubrics and the rationale behind them. Due to this lack of literature, our committee primarily utilized additional sources such as rubrics found from other professional organizations in STEM and library fields. Our rubric is designed to encourage substantive feedback and growth of authors during the process, while clarifying the expectations for submissions. This rubric consists of overall guidance and specific needs, with flexibility for the different research methods and applications expected (i.e. work-in-progress/completed research, quantitative/qualitative, etc.). We implemented this rubric successfully for the 2021 conference cycle, but will further refine it as needed, based on feedback following future conferences. With scarce literature on conference peer review, we hope by sharing our work, others may also consider and improve their organizations’ processes.