Conference Session

SPECIAL SESSION: What Works to Retain Students in Chemical Engineering Programs

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Adrienne R. Minerick, Michigan Technological University; Donald P. Visco, Tennessee Technological University; Susan M. Montgomery, University of Michigan; Daina Briedis, Michigan State University; Neeraj Buch, Michigan State University; Jon Sticklen, Michigan State University; Colleen A. McDonough, Michigan State University; Patrick Walton, Michigan State University; Amanda M. Portis, Michigan State University; Eldred H. Chimowitz, University of Rochester; Willie (Skip) E. Rochefort, Oregon State University; Keith L. Levien, Oregon State University; Nimir Elbashir, Texas A&M University; Jennifer Condit, University of Rochester ; Stephen Lindeman

Tagged Divisions

Chemical Engineering

Page 22.1315.10have been carefully chosen to reflect the University of Rochester Energy Initiative. Eachtopic is taught by a different faculty member which means that the course is fast-pacedand students have the opportunity to meet many of the department faculty early in theirstay at the university. This often leads to further opportunities for students to pursueinternships with faculty as early as the summer following the freshmen year.The course has been a success. It now draws more than half of its students from outsidethe department, many coming from social science and humanities disciplines and iswidely considered to be one of the most successful courses in the freshmancurriculum. Enrollment and retention of undergraduate students in

Conference Session

Chemical Engineering in the Sophomore Year

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Tracy Q Gardner, Colorado School of Mines

Tagged Divisions

Chemical Engineering

more amenable to theirlearning than in a classroom full of other students at a set time. These advantages addressmultiple levels of diversity amongst learners.The newly found “class time” gained by delivering content outside of class rather than in theclassroom is then often used in F2F courses for activities that help students learn and retaininformation better. Some of these in-class activities could potentially be just as well done by astudent on their own; working on a calculation problem, reading and interpreting a passage,studying and interpreting a figure or graph, reflecting and writing a minute paper, to name a few.Other activities benefit significantly from the interactions between students or students andlearning facilitators

Conference Session

ChE: Experimental Design & Error Analysis

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Milo Koretsky, Oregon State University; Shoichi Kimura, Oregon State University; Connelly Barnes, Oregon State University; Danielle Amatore, Oregon State University; Derek Meyers-Graham, Oregon State University

Tagged Divisions

Chemical Engineering

anincreasingly essential skill for engineers. This requires not only knowledge of statisticalconcepts related to DOE, but also the ability to integrate this methodology with fundamentalengineering principles toward designing and understanding experiments. However, currentengineering curriculums have not fully adapted to this need in the engineering industry. In the1970s and 1980s, the absence of sound statistical methods in the engineering work place led to acrisis in US industry where a large percentage of the market share went overseas. This crisis wasfirst reflected in the manufacture of automobiles and then in the process-oriented manufacture ofintegrated circuits.1,2 Only with the industrial investment towards quality, largely through the

Conference Session

Virtual and Online Learning Tools in Chemical Engineering Education

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alec Steven Bowen, Oregon State University; Daniel Robert Reid, Oregon State University; Milo Koretsky, Oregon State University

Tagged Divisions

Chemical Engineering

the National Science Foundation under thegrant TUES 1245482. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References1. Ma, J., and J. Nickerson. 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24.2. Wieman C. and K. Perkins. 2005. Transforming physics education. Physics Today,58(11), 36-41.3. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. 2006. PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18.4. Finkelstein, N.D., W.K. Adams, C.J