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.
- Set the color to "black and white" or "2-bit depth" if possible.
- Set the dpi (dots per inch) level at 150-300, depending on what looks legible.
- 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