transfer class;concurrent with thermodynamics. In this paper, we present a non-iterative method students canuse to solve multiple effect evaporator problems using a free add-in for Microsoft Excel.In a typical multiple effect evaporator homework problem (Figure 1) the feed conditions andflow rate (F) are given. The overall heat transfer coefficients (Ui) are assumed to be known. Thedesired final concentration (x1) is specified as well as the pressure (or equivalently, thetemperature) of the saturated steam used as the heat source (Ps). Additionally, the pressure inone effect (usually the last) is specified (P3). The task of the students is to find the amount ofsteam that must be fed to the first effect (S), the unknown liquid and vapor flow rates
ammonia production? When needed? Expertise available to operate?) - What is your production target? What is the target scale/size/weight? (Hand- pulled or animal-pulled cart, car trunk, tractor, etc.) - Who is going to be the end-user? What expertise you expect they have? Consider different degrees of complexity! A farmer? An explorer? A trained research technician? - What balance do you envision about uses of ammonia: e.g., as fuel, as fertilizer, as a hydrogen source for H2 fuel cells, etc? - What mode(s) of production should you consider? (batch, continuous, other?) - What might affect the optimum pressure and temperature for the production facility, considering the limitations by the
market for the product(s) and other revenue generating streams was discussed (Outcomes 2 and 6). e) A clear recommendation as to whether the project should be considered in more detail was made. This recommendation was based on the I/O economic assessment, as well as on environmental and social measures. It was also made clear which process alternative(s) were viable, if any (Outcomes 1 and 4). f) The proposal was written in a logical format. There were minimal typos and formatting errors, the figures were clear and readable, and the references were cited correctly (Outcome 1).Students were assigned the prompt on the first day of class and were allowed eight weeks tocomplete the
, teaching/learning approach and assessment procedures.Key questions that we have pondered about are centered on what defines a chemical engineer inthis century, what are the current trends and how best to equip our graduates with competitiveskills both in the context of our country and internationally. Taking and innovator´s approach toour curricular intervention, we have tried to solve four simple questions 21:What orthodoxies can we challenge? Page 26.2.8 How can we best harness the current trends in the field, both in research and education?How can we take advantage of our available resources and strengths?What are the most important needs
Introductory Course.” Journal of EngineeringEducation, Vol. 82, No. 1, 15-21.5. Farrell, S.; Hesketh, R.P.; Slater, C. S. ”A Laboratory Project to Design and Implement a Process for theProduction of Beer.” Proceedings of the 1999 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference andExposition, Session 3226, June 20-23, Charlotte, North Carolina.6. Farrell, S.; Kadlowec, J.; Marchese, A.; Schmalzel, J.; Mandayam, S. “Hands on the Human Body! a.k.a.Introducing Freshmen to Multidisciplinary Engineering Principles through Application to the Human Body.”Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session1526, June 16-19, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.7. Hesketh, R.; Farrell, S.; Slater, C
Figure 6:Figure 6: The name “zf” entered in Name Box 3. Name the other variable cells in Column B. Use the names “q”, “xd”, “xb”, “RR”, and “eta” in rows 3 to 7, and “Azeo” (no period!), “xf”, “yf”, “N”, and “Nf” in rows 11 to 15. The purpose of naming these cells is so that the names can be used in the subsequent equations on the spreadsheet. Any mistakes made while entering the names can be corrected by clicking on Formulas/Name Manager (or Ctrl-F3). 4. Enter these headings in cells Q1 to S2: Q R S 1 Equilibrium Data 2 Point # x y 5. Enter a 1 in cell Q3. 6. Enter the following formula in cell Q4: =IF(R4<>"",Q3+1,"") 7. Copy cell Q4
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10): 906–911.6. Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. S. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19: 460-475.7. Stewart, P. W., Cooper. S. S., and Moulding, L. R. 2007. Metacognitive development in professional educators. The Researcher, 21(1): 32-40.8. Gassner, L. 2009. Developing metacognitive awareness: a modified model of a PBL-tutorial. Thesis for the Bachelor of Odontology in Oral Health. Malmö University. Sweden.9. Jonassen, D. H. 2010. Assembling and Analyzing the Building Blocks of Problem-Based Learning Environments, in Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Volume One: Instructional Design and
for the NewDiscipline of Engineering Education,” J. Eng. Educ., 95 (4), 259 (2006).6. Wankat, P. C., “Pedagogical Training and Research in Engineering Education,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 42 (4), 203(2008).7. Lucena, J., G. Downey, B. Jesiek, and S. Elber, “Competencies Beyond Countries: The Re-Organization ofEngineering Education in the United States, Europe, and Latin America,” J. Eng. Educ., 97 (4), 433 (2008).8. Jesiek, B., L. K. Newswander, and M. Borrego, “Engineering Education Research: Discipline, Community orField? J. Eng. Educ., 98 (1), 1 (2009).9. Wankat, P. C., R. M. Felder, K. A. Smith, and F. S. Oreovicz, “The Engineering Approach to the Scholarshipof Teaching and Learning,” in M. T. Huber and S. Morreale (Eds.) Disciplinary Styles in
transfer [3]. We recommend that instructors frame the activity intheir classroom (e.g., examples, group problems, and homework) in ways that help studentsbetter connect their work to that of professional practice. Such framing can be included both inthe problem statement itself, and in how it is communicated to students.AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the National Science Foundationthrough grant EEC 1519467. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation.References: [1] M. D. Koretsky, D. Montfort, S. Nolen, M. Bothwell, S. Davis, and J. Sweeney. “Towards a stronger
+ + + + + 330 325 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time (s) Figure 6. Temperature vs. Time Experimental Data (+) and Predicted by Equation 4 Multiplied by a Factor of 1.4 (hEXP = 8 W/m2K at TSURFACE = 352 K)Forced Convection Heat Transfer from an Upward Facing Horizontal PlateForced convection heat transfer occurs when the fluid surrounding a surface is set in motion byan external means such as a fan, pump or atmospheric disturbances. This study was concernedwith forced convection heat transfer from a
ofoperating conditions for the heater and temperature control experiments but also allows for aninteresting experimental study of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for a flow system.Table 2 shows example data and results that demonstrate that energy is conserved and the 2nd lawis not violated in this novel device. H and S values were evaluated assuming ideal gas withtemperature dependent heat capacity. Page 23.126.8Figure 6. Example temperature readings with vortex tube in operation.Table 2. Example vortex tube data and results. Inlet Cold stream Warm stream Total Air flow mol/s 0.142
explorethe sims to the point where they thought they understood as much from them as they could,students’ scores increased from pretest averages in the 30’s to 50’s up to averages in the 50’s to70’s. The average increase from PRE to AFP on a given sim for the six topics presented herewas ~12%, or one letter grade (if letter grades below 60% were differentiated!). The scores thenfurther increased to AGP averages in the 70’s to high 80’s, by an average of 21% more, or twomore letter grades, after the students played with the sims again in class with guided questioningby the instructor. Coupling formative assessment using pen-based mobile technology in theclassroom with exploration of interactive computer simulations thus lead to significantlyincreased
Paper ID #29057The Design and Impact of a Combined Makerspace, Wet Lab, andInstructional Design Studio for Chemical Engineering CurriculumProf. Anthony Butterfield, University of Utah Anthony Butterfield is an Associate Professor (Lecturer) in the Chemical Engineering Department of the University of Utah. He received his B. S. and Ph. D. from the University of Utah and a M. S. from the University of California, San Diego. His teaching responsibilities include the senior unit operations laboratory, capstone laboratory, first year design laboratory, and the introduction to chemical engineering. His research interests focus
like to acknowledge the support from Leonhard Center for Enhancement ofEngineering Education at College of Engineering in Penn State.References[1] Ohland, M. W., Giurintano, D., Novoselich, B., Brackin, P., & Sangelkar, S. (2015). Supporting capstone teams: Lessons from research on motivation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 1748-1759.[2] Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.[3] Passow, H. J. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work?. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 95-118.[4] ABET, “Criteria for accrediting engineering programs,” 2018
apair of dilemmas include Dilemma 2 does the pair have a highly significant relationship; anyother compared pairs were found to be not significant. This result shows that there weresignificantly more Can’t Decide responses to Dilemma 2 as opposed to Option A or B responseswhen compared to other dilemmas in the EPSRI. When seeking to explain why this takes place,we can look at a summary of Dilemma 2’s prompt for insight: The second dilemma in the EPSRI places the students into the position of a plant engineer at a chemical company in the suburbs of a major city. There’s a severe hurricane heading towards the plant, and if the plant floods, there is the possibility of extreme hazardous events such as an explosion. It is
. For [this] class, um, I kind of felt like I didn’t want to do that, I didn’t want…them to just be sitting back and listening to me talk”S/he went on to describe the benefit of attending the ASEE Summer School, and specificallyher/his familiarity with and motivation to use the Concept Warehouse, “I was aware of it beforeand kind of played around with it, but uh really tried to use it a little more this semester.” Someparticipants simply described the Concept Warehouse as something that “seemed like a greatidea.” In other cases, participants cited previous experience with pedagogy as a contributingfactor to their implantation of the Concept Warehouse, such as the following statement from oneparticipant, “I was already familiar with the
educational outcomeswithout students having to spend sleepless nights in the campus computer room, or isolated inthe corner with their calculator, spewing numbers out. The contents of this paper weredeveloped over many years of teaching a variety of chemical engineering courses where use of Page 23.468.2process simulation facilitates the incorporation of real world design experiences into theclassroom.Background of Process Simulation at Mississippi State UniversityAt Mississippi State University (MSU), a discussion of the curriculum in the early 90’s focusedon numerical analysis tools and how best to educate students in their use. At that time
– Very good).Analysis of program ratings revealed overall satisfaction with the REU program (M = 4.17; Mo =4). Ratings of “Good” or higher, as evidenced by mean and mode responses, were obtained forthe following REU elements: working relationship with research mentor(s) (M = 3.17; Mo = 4);working relationship with research group members (M = 3.75; Mo = 4); the amount of time spentwith research mentor(s) (M = 2.83; Mo = 4); the advice given about careers and graduate school(M = 3.45; Mo = 3); and the research experience overall (M = 3.25; Mo = 3). The REU elementof the amount of time spent doing meaningful research received a “Fair” rating overall (M =2.83; Mo = 2), suggesting an important area of improvement for the research program.Table 5
students, animportant measure to consider in attempts to boost both the retention of capable students and theperformance, satisfaction, and enthusiasm of those who persist.Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend their thanks to Dr. Nicholas Delgass for his cooperationand support in this study, Jason R. Green for his assistance in computerizing survey materials,and the ChE Division reviewers for their useful suggestions. Page 11.1259.10Bibliography1. Seymour, E. and N. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduate Leave the Sciences, Westview Press,Boulder, CO, 1997.2. Lent, R. W., S. D. Brown, J. Schmidt, B. Brenner, H. Lyons and
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Analysis of experimental data Phase Equilibrium Conservation of mass Atomic species balances Heat of Reaction Recycle/By-pass/Purge Heat of solution Ideal solution vs. nonideal solution Conservation of mass Phase equilibrium Conservation of energy Types of systems Process classification Conservation of mass S-S
. An interesting observation regarding these last result was detectedthrough students’ comments during the self-assessment stage: in these teams with lowerperformances, the commitment level of some team member(s) was not the adequate throughoutproject development, which was reflected on the quality of requested deliverables, including thefinal presentation.The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a powerful tool used by creativity researchersin which panels of expert judges are asked to rate the creativity of creative products such asstories, collages, poems, and other artifacts18, 23. In our case, experts in the domain (chemical,food, and environmental engineering teachers and senior undergraduate students) in question(material balances
oxidation and pyrolysis) makes contact with biomass from the feeding chute. During the process, free moisture and cell- bound water in the biomass are removed by evaporation. The up-flowing gas mixture consists of 29% H2, 34% CO, 17% CO2, 15% CH4 and 5% H2O, all in mol %. If the heat transfer in this process is 108 kJ/s, the up-flowing gas mixture enters the heating zone at a steady rate of 350… Figure 2 Schematic diagram of an updraft gasifier Page 23.69.8 mol/s at 800oC, what is the temperature of the gas mixture leaving the heating zone? Solution: (omitted)【Homework Problems】 Totally 10
as students enter their junior and senior years. A drawback ofwritten assignments is the potential for plagiarism of outside materials by students. Plagiarism isproblematic from an academic perspective for two commonly-cited reasons: (1) the student(s)who plagiarize neither develop associated writing skills nor learn the intended lesson content1,and (2) students within a class where other students are plagiarizing without knowledge of theinstructor may receive comparatively poor grades even though they are learning and developingthe intended skills.Prior to word processing and the Internet, plagiarism required considerable effort: students mustfirst locate a book, article or old report, then write or type the outside text. However, in
] K. L. Gunckel and S. Tolbert, "The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 938- 961, 2018.[6] J. L. Hess, J. Strobel, R. Pan, and C. A. Wachter Morris, "Insights from industry: a quantitative analysis of engineers' perceptions of empathy and care within their practice," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1128-1153, 2017.[7] R. C. Campbell, K. Yasuhara, and D. Wilson, "Care ethics in engineering education: Undergraduate student perceptions of responsibility," in Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2012, 2012, pp. 1-6: IEEE.[8] J. Strobel, J. L. Hess, R. Pan, and C. A
inward Preference to focus on the present, the The preference we use Sensing (S) details, and personal to take in information knowledge Sensing (S) or and determine the Intuition (N) Preference to focus on kind of information we prefer to trust the future, the big
while studying chemical engineering.Multiple methods were used to collect data. Demographic information, the grit-S, andengineering identity instruments were collected for chemical engineering students at aresearch institution via Qualtrics. Two students consented to participate in the semi-structured interviews. This pilot contrasts Kate and Dan’s quantitative measures ofsuccess (GPA, grit, engineering identity) with their qualitative experiences from theinterview. Additionally, Kate and Dan’s engineering identity scores were compared to‘other’ senior engineering students’ scores to describe the different ways of definingsuccess.This work shares two student experiences that expand the common definition of success as gettinggood grades. These
development. Table 2 provides a description ofpedagogical topics covered, the associated learning goals, resources used, and the primaryactivities implemented.Table 2. Timetable of pedagogical development seminar topics, main resources, and activities Term Week Topic(s) Goal(s) Resource(s) Activities Studio pedagogy Koretsky, 2015 [1]; Metacognition Tanner, 2012 [14]; Whole class discussion Pre-Fall 1, 2, 3, 0 Fixed vs. growth Dweck, 2007 [15]; Read articleOrientation 4, 5
7. Communication skills when interacting with students 8. Overall performanceThe second type of evaluation forms used on the presentation day requires students to evaluatetheir team mates and their own performance during the semester and during the projects. Thisquestionnaire, in Table 7, enables students to evaluate self-performance and the performance oftheir team mates. Table 7: Inquiry about the performance of the teammates Rate over 10 (1 - very poor .. 10 - very good) 1. S(he) has completed perfectly every part of laboratory reports that s(he) was responsible 2. S(he) was eager to help other partners on their parts 3. S(he) contributed her/his
., Foertsch, J., & Daffinrud, S. (1998). The spend a summer with a scientist program: An evaluation of program outcomes and the essential elements for success. Madison, WI: Citeseer.Allen, T. E. & Barker, S. D. (2021). BME Labs in the Era of COVID-19: Transitioning a hands- on integrative lab experience to remote instruction using gamified lab simulations. Biomedical Engineering Education. 1(99-104).Atman, C. (2020. Hope, stress, sketch & kvetch: Emphasizing caring through reflection in online teaching in the pandemic. Advances in Engineering Education. 8(4).Batchelor, R. L., Christensen, A. H.., Gold, A. U., & Okochi, C. (2020). A two-week virtual research experience program for community college
AC 2007-2442: CHEM-E-CAR COMPETITION: INCORPORATING SAFETYWITH THE HELP OF INDUSTRY PARTNERS.Sundararajan Madihally, Oklahoma State University He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State University. He received his BE in ChE from Bangalore University and his PhD from Wayne State University in Chemical Engineering. He held a research fellow position at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School/Shriners Hospital for Children. His research interests include tissue regeneration and the development of therapies for traumatic conditions.Randy Lewis, Brigham Young University Randy S. Lewis is Professor of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University