Paper ID #25383Work in Progress: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a 1-creditChemical Engineering First-Year SeminarDr. Deborah S. Goldberg, University of Maryland, College Park Deborah S. Goldberg is a full-time lecturer in the Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is passionate about teaching and mentoring students to prepare them for diverse careers in chemical engineering and biotechnology.Mr. Jinwang Zou, University of Maryland, College Park Jinwang Zou is a Ph.D. candidate in the Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation Program at the University
Paper ID #26162Work in Progress: Implementing an Open-Ended Laboratory Experience inthe Unit Operations Laboratory with an Alternative CSTR ReactionDr. Erick S. Vasquez, University of Dayton Erick S. Vasquez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at the University of Dayton. Dr. Vasquez earned his B.Sc. degree in chemical engineering at Universidad Centroamericana Jose Simeon Ca˜nas (UCA) in El Salvador. He received his M.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from Clemson University and his Ph.D. degree in chemical engineering from Mississippi State University. His research focuses on
Industrial Arts Education, Pennsylvania State University OSU faculty member since 1984 Currently in the STEM education program 2013 InterLin Ding, The Ohio State University Lin Ding, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University. Dr. Dingˆa C™s scholarly interests lie in discipline-based STEM education research. His work includes theoretical and empirical investigation ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work-in-Progress: Inclusive Learning and Teaching Strategies or Effective Course Design? Constructing Significant Learning Experiences in Low and High Achieving
technical content outcomes. Figure 8 shows the distribution ofthese assessments. ABET evaluation criteria covered within thermodynamics included a rangeof topics, including evaluation of information, environmental / political / scientific policies,writing and communications, and safety. In addition, 19 institutions focus solely on technicalcontent within their course(s).Figure 8: ABET outcomes assessed through chemical engineering thermodynamics.Process and SettingUnsurprisingly, all thermodynamics courses report using class / lecture time (Figure 9).Laboratories were only reported for two programs, explaining the small number of lab reportsseen in Figure 10.Figure 9: Types of instructional settings used by thermodynamics coursesIn terms of
Activity-based (A) vs. passive (P)3 Stand-alone (S) vs. Instructor-led #8: Hazard eval., risk assessment Relevant to Other Courses (Y/N
completed using challenge activities. For spreadsheets, challengeactivities allow students to enter formulas, functions, and calculated values to test their strengthsusing spreadsheets. With hundreds of numeric combinations on many problems, students canrepeat a new version of any question until they compute correct answer(s). With over 100 differentquestions, the most difficult spreadsheet skills can be identified from students’ success. Thenumber of attempts before correct and total attempts will complement the percent correct to givemultiple metrics. Over 9,000 questions were attempted by the 2018 cohort and will be analyzedhere. Responses from the 2019 cohort will be compared in the conference presentation.Challenge activity scores varied
communications course and those who have not, preliminaryqualitative data about the benefits of dedicated TC courses can be studied. Observations will beused as a basis for future dedicated technical communications studies, with the hope that thepotential benefits can be quantified, thus better understanding technical communication trainingas a whole.References[1] C. J. Atman, S. D. Sheppard, J. Turns, R. S. Adams, L. N. Fleming, R. Stevens, R. A.Streveler, K. A. Smith, R. L. Miller, L. J. Leifer, K. Yasuhara, and D. Lund. Enablingengineering student success: The final report for the center for the advancement of engineeringeducation. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2010.[2] L. Reave, “Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering
Industrial Arts Education, Pennsylvania State University OSU faculty member since 1984 Currently in the STEM education program 2013 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association Conference Co-Chair Currently Executive Director and a Past-President of the Ohio Technology and Engineering Educators AssociationLin Ding, The Ohio State University Lin Ding, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University. Dr. Dingˆa C™s scholarly interests lie in discipline-based STEM education research. His work includes theoretical and empirical investigation ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work-in-Progress: The Effects of
. Rivera keeps collaborating with IPPD as a faculty coach and instructional designer. She is a former professor of Food Science teaching courses such as Food Processing and Food Engineering. After moving to Gainesville in 2012, she became an assistant professor in Natural Science at Santa Fe College teaching general chemistry courses for young adults. She has traveled to teach classes at universities in Puno, Per´u, and S˜ao Paulo, Brasil. She loves running and is an amateur orchid collector.Ms. Deanna Alford, University of FloridaDr. Lilianny Virguez, University of Florida Lilianny Virguez is a Lecturer at the Institute for Excellence in Engineering Education at University of Florida. She holds a Masters’ degree in
Oral Report 2 Lab 3 Stats Exam Due Draft 3 Due Draft Rvw 3 Final Report 3 Due Debrief + Writing Week 3 Do Lab 4 Oral Report 4 Lab 5 Workshop Due Draft 5 Due Draft Rvw 5 s Final Report 5 Due Week 4 Do Lab 6 Oral Report 6 Lab 7 Debrief Due Final Report 7 Due Week 5 Do Lab 8 Oral Report 8 Lab 9 Oral Briefing 9Students are further divided into sub-groups or “houses”, two of which follow theMonday/Wednesday schedule
, M.D.. Journal of Documentation, 2003, 59, 647-672.(4) Mayer, R.E.; Bove, W.; Bryman, A.; Mars, R.; Tapangco, L. Journal of Educational Psychology1996, 88, 64-73.(5) McGrath, M.B.; Brown, J.R. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 2005, 25, 56-63.(6) Arnheim, R. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.(7) González-Espada, W. J. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 2003, 2, 58-66.(8) McCloud, S. Understanding Comics. Northampton: Tundra Publishing, 1993.(9) Hanson, D. J. “Gains In Chemistry Grads Persist”. Chemical and Engineering News, 2009, vol. 87,47, 38-48.(10) Yoder, B.L., “Engineering by the numbers,” College profiles printed by the Amer. Soc. Eng.Educ., Washington, DC, USA, 2011.(11) Willingham
Newtonian mechanics [15],visualizing electric circuits [16] and several activities in chemistry [3].Solving apparently simple problems in mathematics can be very challenging as illustrated in astudy by Clement [17] who administered a number of word problems to engineering students.Just under one third of students were able to construct the correct algebraic equation from thefollowing statement (using C to represent the number of cheesecakes and S the number ofstrudels): “At Mindy’s restaurant, for every four people who ordered cheesecake, there are fivepeople who ordered strudel.” Such high error rates in problem solving can be exacerbated bychanging the problem phrasing. For example, Hegarty, Mayer & Green [18] found thatrephrasing a simple
curriculum mapping: supporting competency-based dental education”, Journal of Canadian Dental Association, 74(10) pp.886-889, 2008[7.] Felder, R.M. and Brent, R. “Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences,” ACS Symposium Series 970, Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 2007[8.] Ansari, W.E., Stock, C., Snelgrove, S., Hu X., Parke, S., Davies, S., John, J., Adetunji H., Stoate, M., Deeny P., Philips, C. and Mabhala, A., “Feeling healthy? A survey of physical and psychological wellbeing of students from seven universities in the UK”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5) pp. 1308- 1323, 2011[9.] Shallcross, D.C., “Career preferences for undergraduate
interventionand similar intervention is being carried out for the second year. Further studies will account fordisparity of participant groups.AcknowledgmentsCaleb Sims helped with cataloging YouTube problems is appreciated. This material is based uponwork supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE 1712186. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This workwas completed within the framework of University of Toledo IRB protocol 202214.Bibliography1. Internet World Stats. Internet Usage Statistics; The Internet Big Picture: World Internet Users and 2018 Population Stats. 2018
Open (flow) systemsbelieve familiarity of voice is 11 15:29 Reversibility, Heat Engines & T.E.R.'s 12 08:37 Entropy & 2nd Law of Thermoimportant to the students’ connecting 13 08:16 Entropy Balance & Rankine Cycleto the material3. The theory videos 14 11:11 Reactions & Reaction Extentsrequired roughly 2-3 hours of work, Total 2:11:11most of which (1-2 hours) wasoccupied by scripting and editing the text. Fixing up the PowerPoints and writing the quiz tookroughly 30 minutes, while recording (and re-recording) audio for a 10-minute clip also tookabout 30 minutes4. While this ratio (12:1
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.EEC #1623105. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundationReferences[1] E. P. Byrne and J. J. Fitzpatrick, “Chemical engineering in an unsustainable world: Obligations and opportunities,” Educ. Chem. Eng., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 51–67, 2009.[2] S. Perdan, A. Azapagic, and R. Clift, “Teaching sustainable development to engineering students,” Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 267–279, 2000.[3] S. H. I. Papert, “Situating Constructionism,” Constructionism, pp. 1–11, 1991.[4] D. H. Jonassen
to keep individualsaccountable.References [1] C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey, and L. J. Leifer, “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 103-120, Jan. 2005. [2] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410-8415, June 2014. [3] J. E. Mills and D. F. Treagust, “Engineering Education – Is Problem-Based or Project- Based Learning the Answer?,” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education vol. 3, no. 2, pp
Cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232-244. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002 (2015).11. J. Harackiewicz, A. Durik, K. Barron, L. Linnenbrink-Garcia & J. Tauer. “The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105-122. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105 (2008).12. C. Hulleman, S. Schrager, S. Bodmann & J. Harackiewicz. “A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?” Psychol Bull. 2010 May;136(3):422-49. doi
. I am willing toshare any or all course files (syllabus, grading rubric spreadsheets, assignments, readings, etc.)electronically with educators upon being contacted by email.References1. Kavianpour A & Kavianpour S (2016) The first course of programming: Python, Matlab, or C? Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference.2. Brophy SP & Lowe TA (2017) A learning trajectory for developing computational thinking and programming. Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference.3. Rhudy M & Nathan R (2016) Integrated development of programming skills using MATLAB within an undergraduate dynamics course. Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference.4. Kassim HO & Cadbury RG (1996) The place
engineering education, 95(2), 123-138. 8. Cooney, E., & Alfrey, K., & Owens, S. (2008, June), Critical Thinking In Engineering And Technology Education: A Review Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://peer.asee.org/3684 9. Adair, D., & Jaeger, M. (2016). Incorporating critical thinking into an engineering undergraduate learning environment. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 23.
Nozzle in Undergraduate Engineering Classes', Am. Soc. for Eng. Ed. Annual Conf. & Exposition 2015, Seattle, Washington, 14-17 June.11. Burgher J. K., D. Finkel, B. J. Van Wie, O. O. Adesope, S. Brown and J. W. Atkinson, 'New Hands-on Fluid Mechanics Cartridges and Pedagogical Assessment', Am. Soc. for Eng. Ed. Annual Conf. & Exposition 2013, Atlanta, Georgia, 23-26 June.12. University of Cambridge, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, “Rules of thumb on magnitude of effect sizes,” (2018),
standard levels. They recommend building these kinds of rubrics from the outside in– that is, for each criterion, describe the highest standard level, then the lowest standard level,and then fill in the middle level(s). They note that this kind of rubric becomes more difficult togenerate with the more levels one desires. Stevens and Levi also present what they call a“scoring guide rubric,” which focuses more on the criteria and presents only the description ofthe highest standard level. Exploration of the use of rubrics in chemical engineering has beenpresented previously. Newell et al. [3] suggest applying four standards levels, rather than three orfive, to avoid there being a middle or “neutral” option.MethodsDevelopment and Implementation of
Engineering Education, 2(1):n1, 2010.[3] Vivek SinghBaghel and S Durga Bhavani. Multiple team formation using an evolutionary approach. In 2018 Eleventh International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2018.[4] Anon Sukstrienwong. Genetic algorithm for forming student groups based on heterogeneous grouping. In 3rd European Conference of Computer Science (ECCS’12), pages 92–97, 2012.[5] Virginia Yannibelli and Anal´ıa Amandi. Collaborative learning team formation considering team roles: An evolutionary approach based on adaptive crossover, mutation and simulated annealing. Research in Computing Science, 147(4):61–74, 2018.