Home Work Assignments

All questions regarding the content of homework assignments, their due dates, or request for extensions should be addressed to your instructor.

Prior to submitting assignments, please refer to the course syllabus for information about how to submit assignments. Your instructor may request that you submit assignments by an electronic tool (E-submit) on the course website, email or fax to the instructor, OR email or fax to EDGE Materials Handler.

How to submit homework assignments

Be sure to use the correct contact information for the EDGE Materials Handler (EMH) office.

Information to include (email):

Subject line
Include student's name, course abbreviation and number, and the homework assignment number. For example: John Smith, AA 450, HW # 1.
Include number of pages in the homework attachment.
Homework PDF Attachment
  • Ensure document is readable. Our office delivers directly to the instructor via email. If your homework is unreadable when scanned it will also be unreadable when your instructor receives it.
  • Label and number every page.
  • All homework assignments submitted via email must be sent as a PDF.

EMH will reply to your email to confirm receipt of your homework. The EMH inbox is checked hourly. However, please note we are only able to send confirmation of receipt during regular business hours Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm PST.

We highly recommend keeping a copy of your homework sent.

Tips for scanning documents

If scanning a document please pay attention to the scanner settings. The default settings of many scanners often create extremely large files that take much longer than necessary to download and print.

  1. Set the color to "black and white" or "2-bit depth" if possible.
  2. Set the dpi (dots per inch) level at 150-300, depending on what looks legible.
  3. If writing in pencil, or the writing is very light, put the scanner on a darker setting.
  • Allen, J., Coenen, J. Kaiser, F. & De Weert, E. (2007). WO-monitor 2004-2005 VSNU-kengetallen, analyse en interpretatie. VSNU Den Haag.Google Scholar

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classroom; goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Astin, A. (1984). Student Involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.Google Scholar

  • Barak, M. (2006). Instructional principles for fostering learning with ICT: teachers’ perspectives as learners and instructors. Education and Information Technologies, 11, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: a test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar

  • Brown, J. L., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Corno, L. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: teachers’roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Harris, R., & Haydn, T. (2008). Children’s ideas about school history and why they matter. Teaching History, 132, 10–48.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. A. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. In S. A. Aragon (Ed.), Facilitating learning in online environments. New directions for adult and continuing education, 10 (pp. 31–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

  • Jonassen J. T., & Blondal, K. S. (2005). Early school leavers and the dropout issue in Europe. Available at: http://www3.hi.is/~jtj/greinar/Back%20on%20track%20JTJ%20og%20Stella%202005.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2008.

  • Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist approach. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 418–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting life-long learning: perspectives on learning, vol. 1 (pp. 111–126). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Mulhenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Homework and achievement: explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: a critical review and synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol.1 (pp. 1–61). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar

  • Paschal, Weistein, & Walberg. (2003). The effects of homework on learning; a quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 97–104.Google Scholar

  • Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and nove technologies: some issues to be considered. Research Dialog in Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professional think in action. New York: Basic.Google Scholar

  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a lager motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Stoeber, J., Childs, J. H., Hayward, J. A., & Feast, A. R. (2011). Passion and motivation for studying: predicting academic engagement and burnout in university students. Educational Psychology, 31(4), 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. (Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman eds. and trans). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *