@inproceedings{michel_felder_genzer_fuller_2000, title={Student use of instructional technology in the introductory chemical engineering course}, DOI={10.18260/1-2--28492}, abstractNote={An introductory computer engineering course where students learn about combinational and sequential circuits is fundamental to any Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) curriculum. Many of these courses are taught using a hardware description language (HDL) such as Verilog or VHDL. However, younger students traditionally struggle with HDLs due to their abstract nature. The students are used to designing with traditional logic gates and structures, but are often confused by the software-like interface that an HDL provides. This creates a disconnection between the student's experience in the classroom where the students learn with one method (visually with gates and structures) and in labs or projects where they are asked to implement designs using text descriptors. Often times a student's frustration with HDLs leads to them being disinterested in digital systems or even computer engineering as a major. This paper will describe the transition of an introductory Computer Engineering course from primarily using Verilog for its assignments to instead using a combination of schematic capture (which is very similar to what they see in class) and Verilog. With this course's redesign, the author saw the student's self-reported confidence in their design skills improve by 44% (from 41% to 85%) and their interest in taking additional computer engineering courses improve by 10% (from 66% to 76%).}, booktitle={2000 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 2000}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Michel, A. and Felder, R.M. and Genzer, Jan and Fuller, H.}, year={2000} }
 @article{kaufman_felder_fuller_2000, title={Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams}, volume={89}, DOI={10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00507.x}, abstractNote={AbstractAn “autorating” (peer rating) system designed to account for individual performance in team projects was used in two sophomore‐level chemical engineering courses in which the students did their homework in cooperative learning teams. Team members confidentially rated how well they and each of their teammates fulfilled their responsibilities, the ratings were converted to individual weighting factors, and individual project grades were computed as the product of the team project grade and the weighting factor. Correlations were computed between ratings and grades, self‐ratings and ratings from teammates, and ratings received and given by men and women and by ethnic minorities and non‐minorities. Incidences of “hitchhikers” (students whose performance was considered less than satisfactory by their teammates), “tutors” (students who received top ratings from all of their teammates), dysfunctional teams, and teams agreeing on a common rating were also determined. The results suggest that the autorating system works exceptionally well as a rule, and the benefits it provides more than compensate for the relatively infrequent problems that may occur in its use.}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Engineering Education}, author={Kaufman, D. B. and Felder, R. M. and Fuller, H.}, year={2000}, pages={133–140} }
 @inproceedings{kaufman_felder_fuller_1999, title={Peer ratings in cooperative learning teams}, booktitle={1999 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, June 1999}, publisher={Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education}, author={Kaufman, D. B. and Felder, R. M. and Fuller, H.}, year={1999} }