the First Year: A Mixed Methods ApproachAbstractFor any student in the first year of an undergraduate program, there are an overwhelming numberof decisions to make. One of the biggest of these is choosing what to study. This choice isinfluenced by many complex factors and is difficult to predict or fully understand. A betterrecognition of why a student opts into and stays in a major could yield a deeper understandinginto how students choose a major and what they expect from engineering careers. This paperexamines students who chose chemical engineering and completed a set of surveys administeredduring their first year of study. The surveys contained questions that were both quantitative andqualitative in nature. In
isdefined as student beliefs regarding their competencies in regards to the tasks [34]. Task valuehas four components. Attainment value is the personal importance of doing well on the task.Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment, which is a result of performing the activity. Utility valueis the relevance of the task to current and future goals, such as career goals. Cost refers to thenegative aspects of performing a task. This could entail the degree of effort required, anxiety andfear, and the lost opportunities that result from performing that task [34].Utility value is an important factor contributing to student motivation, which is often missing inundergraduate laboratory experiments. Students are usually not given explanations as to whythey
paperwork) and prepare them for future professional careers (e.g. writing aCV or cover letter). After the community workshop, we worked with the professionaldevelopment seminar coordinator to determine when time would be devoted to pedagogicaldevelopment. Originally pedagogical development was not part of the professional developmentseminar series but the developers of the seminar series were open to providing some guidance onteaching and learning practices for all graduate students, regardless if they were a GTA. Wedesigned and facilitated each pedagogical development session and chose topics that addressedthe issues that emerged from the interviewed and observed GTAs, as well as those that addressedthe desired learning goals for the pedagogical
preparefor and acquire their current jobs. Course materials are available upon request from the instructor.Introduction According to a survey conducted by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers(AIChE) in 2015, a significant fraction of chemical engineering (ChE) graduates pursue careers inbiotechnology and/or pharmaceuticals (see Figure 1).[1] Specifically, of the 48.9% of ChEgraduates that go into industry, ~12% are initially placed in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals,9% in food and consumer products, and 3% in environmental engineering. If other non-biologicalfields are excluded (e.g. fuels, chemicals, etc.) to specifically analyze the initial placement ofbiochemical engineering (BioChE) students, it is revealed that
results suggest that more instruction on opportunities forprocess and utility water recycling should be incorporated into the Design II curriculum.SummaryLess than a quarter of our students avail themselves of any industrial internship opportunityduring their undergraduate career at TAMUK; an industrial internship is not a requirement in ourundergraduate degree program. Additionally, roughly one half of the students in our chemicalengineering curriculum come from parts of our state where there are numerous refineries andchemical process plants, while the remainder come from nearby areas of our state where there isno refinery or chemical process industry whatsoever. Based on this information, only a smallfraction of our students may have been
at NC State since 2000, Dr. Bullard has won numerous awards for both teaching and advising, including the ASEE Raymond W. Fahien Award, the John Wi- ley Premier Award for Engineering Education Courseware, NC State Faculty Advising Award, National Effective Teaching Institute Fellow, NC State Alumni Outstanding Teacher Award, George H. Blessis Out- standing Undergraduate Advisor Award, and the ASEE Southeastern Section Mid-Career Teacher Award. She is a member of the editorial board for Chemical Engineering Education and serves a Director of the Chemical Engineering Division of ASEE. She will be a co-author, along with Dr. Richard Felder and Dr. Ronald Rousseau, of the 4th edition of Chemical Process Principles. Dr
since 2000, Dr. Bullard has won numerous awards for both teaching and advising, including the ASEE Raymond W. Fahien Award, the John Wi- ley Premier Award for Engineering Education Courseware, NC State Faculty Advising Award, National Effective Teaching Institute Fellow, NC State Alumni Outstanding Teacher Award, George H. Blessis Out- standing Undergraduate Advisor Award, and the ASEE Southeastern Section Mid-Career Teacher Award. She is a member of the editorial board for Chemical Engineering Education and serves a Director of the Chemical Engineering Division of ASEE. She will be a co-author, along with Dr. Richard Felder and Dr. Ronald Rousseau, of the 4th edition of Chemical Process Principles. Dr. Bullard’s
Paper ID #23695Just the Flippin’ FAQsDr. Julie L. P. Jessop, University of Iowa Dr. Julie L. P. Jessop is an Associate Professor of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering at the University of Iowa. She received her B.S. in 1994 and her Ph.D. in 1999, both in Chemical Engineering from Michi- gan State University. Dr. Jessop’s research interests include spectroscopy, epoxide/acrylate photopoly- merizations, dental resins, electron-beam polymerizations, and polymers from renewable resources. She has received a National Science Foundation CAREER award, the 2017 University of Iowa President & Provost Award for
answer towards the idea of a standalone course.Many programs have integrated process safety and ethics within the senior undergraduate levelcourses. However, this can be far too late in the curriculum to make the most impact. There is aneed to introduce process safety principles in the lower level undergraduate courses to exposestudents early in their careers to the importance of process safety and ethics. Challenging thisidea is the fact that programs are required to meet specific outcomes towards ABETaccreditation. As such, finding time in the lower level courses to discuss these concepts is at apremium. Each of these challenges has led to discussions on implementation techniques that areable to reach across all years within Chemical
deeper and more critical exploration in one or two targetedcourses may provide a combination that yields appropriate student education on ESI.IntroductionChemical engineering students, like all engineers, need to be educated about ethics and societalimpacts (ESI), in order to prepare them for their careers. Accreditation requires this knowledge,with the new ABET criteria 3 outcome (4) acknowledging the interconnected elements of ethicsand societal impacts: “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities inengineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact ofengineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” [1]. Inaddition, the Chemical Engineers Body of Knowledge
sophomores we held a special session in a follow-on ChE class to address theseissues. Two ChE faculty not associated with this project and two of the authors (outside of ChE)facilitated a presentation and discussion among all the ChE sophomores. We addressed topics such asthe relative safety of the chemical industry, and the importance of understanding consequence,conducting a rigorous risk analysis, making informed career decisions, and the need for including humanaspects with their technical work. We did not do a formal evaluation of the session but our sense wasthat it was successful in providing closure and addressing some of concerns we saw in the surveys. Thestudents who spoke up during this session seemed interested in thinking ahead about
]-[11]. Although more and more educatorsrecognize the value of using active learning, how to effectively implement it is lessstraightforward. How is “effectively” defined in this context? What are appropriate ways toassess student learning? What methods work best in which situations and for what kinds ofstudents? As a new professor, how can I get my career going and also put in the time required toteach in the best way possible particularly if that is different than how I have been taught? or Assomeone who has been teaching in a more traditional lecturing style for years, why should I/howcan I change my methods? After 14+ years of university-level teaching, 18 different coursesfrom freshman to graduate-level at my current institution
returned to the University of Dayton to pursue an academic career. His research interests are in fluid flow and heat transfer.Dr. Michael J. Elsass, University of Dayton Michael Elsass is the Director of the Chemical Engineering Department at the University of Dayton. He received his B.Ch.E in chemical engineering from the University of Dayton and his M.S. and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The Ohio State University. He then served two years as a post-doctoral researcher at both The Ohio State University and UCLA. His research interests are process systems engi- neering, process diagnosis, and simulation and modeling. He has instructed the Unit Operations Labora- tory for four years. c
computerengineering elective courses. However, at the very least, exposure to these concepts could helpChE students to better understand and collaborate with other engineers later in their careers. Table 1 – Overview of ModulesExamples of Other 3D Printed Devices Intuitive and disruptive technologies like Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and 3D printing (i.e.,additive manufacturing) have made prototyping and device development easier than ever. Indeed,many scientists have already taken advantage of these technologies to design their own labequipment (see Table 2 for examples), including small centrifuges, syringe pumps, pipettes,thermal cyclers, microscopes that can save images on a smartphone, and many more [1,2].Specialized