Bioengineering and Director of the Engineering Education Research Center at Washington State University. He has led numerous multidisciplinary research projects to enhance engi- neering education. He currently leads projects creating and testing assessments and curriculum materials for engineering design and professional skills, especially for use in capstone engineering design courses. He has been a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education since 2002.Paul B Golter, Washington State University Paul B. Golter obtained an MS from Washington State University and recently defended his PhD degree and is currently the Laboratory Supervisor in the Voiland School of School of Chemical Engineering and Bio-engineering
, fromreporting a perceived lack of hands-on-experience in recently graduated engineers to providingmentorship and projects for capstone course.4 A recent trend in laboratory instruction includesthe introduction of alternative modes for the laboratory, including virtual and remotelaboratories.5 These alternative modes have been shown to provide an opportunity for a widerarray of learning objectives to be addressed.6 A survey of capstone courses in 360 engineeringdepartments across the country identified teamwork and project managements as the top lecturetopics.7Feisel and Rosa1 state that “while much attention has been paid to curriculum and teachingmethods, relatively little has been written about laboratory instruction.” To make matters worse,they
methodologies that willbenefit them as they encounter open-ended problems that can be conveniently answered using afew equations. A course developed at the University of Michigan exposed upperclassmenundergraduates in a wide range of engineering majors to a vast array of ideas to develop theircreativity, to enhance their problem solving abilities and to make them aware of issues they willmost likely confront in the workplace. The use of real-world examples, guest lectures fromindustry and a course project allowed students to directly apply the problem solving heuristicdiscussed in lecture and recognize that these concepts are not solely academic and can be used intheir daily lives. Initial feedback from the students has indicated that the students have
United States and Canada. The reportconsists of two parts: the statistical and demographic characterization of the course and itscontent; and the remainder seeks to bring out the most innovative and effective approaches toteaching the course in use by instructors. Additionally, a historical comparison is made betweenthe current survey results and surveys on the same course conducted in 1974, 1984, and 1991.IntroductionIn 1957 the AIChE Education Projects committee began a series of surveys of the undergraduatecurriculum as offered by chemical engineering departments in North America. These surveyscontinued under the auspices of the AIChE Special Projects committee until the late 1990’s. In2008, AIChE formed an Education Division which recognized
. Page 22.1341.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Student teams, a simulation or a real team experience?AbstractThe tradition in engineering education places students in teams during their senior year; likely aspart of a capstone laboratory or design course. In most cases teams were done on a “pick yourown partners” basis. Furthermore, no time was spent discussing teamwork, the importance ofteams, how teams should be structured or the skill set one needs to be an effective team member.To some extent, changes made by ABET to their accreditation criteria in 2000 have forced theengineering community to at least assess student teamwork. This, in turn, has motivated many totake a
. Page 22.321.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Characterization of Student Model Development in Physical and Virtual LaboratoriesAbstractThis study characterizes student teams’ use of models as they proceed through three laboratoryprojects in the first quarter of the capstone laboratory sequence in the School of Chemical,Biological, and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. Two of the laboratoriesare physical laboratories, based on the unit processes of heat exchange and ion exchange.Sandwiched between these two laboratories, students undertake a virtual laboratory project. Thevirtual laboratory is used to simulate complex or expensive tools that
evaluation of work product. Numerous authorshave outlined the assessment strategy of constructing rubrics for measuring studentachievement of learning outcomes and applying them to portfolios of student work.Other authors have outlined use of rubrics for evaluation and grading of individualassignments and projects. This paper will describe the use of a consolidated rubric forevaluating final reports in the capstone Chemical Plant Design course. Instead of gradingeach report and then having some or all of the reports evaluated through a separateprocess for programmatic assessment purposes, the instructor evaluates the report onceusing the rubric, and the same raw data is used both for grading and for programmaticassessment.BackgroundSince 2000, ABET1
the Virtual Laboratory Project from itshome university to other institutions. In the Virtual Laboratory Project students do not interactwith real equipment to obtain data, but rather with computer simulations of laboratoryequipment, obscured by noise. This innovation was developed with the intent of complimentingphysical laboratory experiences by allowing future engineers to practice designing experiments,analyzing and interpreting data and making informed choices based on their analysis, skills theywill need in industry. The idea of using virtual laboratories to facilitate project based learning iscompelling since, once the software has been developed, the cost to transport a virtual laboratoryto a new institution is relatively small
different paths.The faculty of ENGR 100 felt that the course would benefit from a “capstone” designexperience that was not specific to any particular discipline. This type of project hasbeen successfully implemented at a number of institutions in the past, to great educationalbenefit [3-6]. While each of the “seminars” was expected to have a systematicengineering design experience, the extent to which these were internalized by thestudents as teaching of design and teamwork as opposed to teaching only the major- Page 22.746.2related technical content, was limited. Therefore, the faculty sought to incorporate aproject where use of both teamwork and design
includes a good introduction toteamwork 11. While the student body in Introduction to Engineering is interdisciplinary, theemphasis is largely on teamwork and does not focus on the interdisciplinary element per se.Each of the COE engineering units requires a senior-level capstone design course. Consistentwith the majority of engineering programs around the country, the capstone courses areadministered by the departments and so are discipline-homogeneous, the interdisciplinaryteamwork element in most cases coming from teamwork incorporating intradisciplinaryspecialization. In addition to this form of contrived “interdisciplinary” teamwork, CHE and MEand CHE, ME and ECE jointly offer two electives that are truly interdisciplinary,“Interdisciplinary
Facilities and Instructor in the Chemical Engineering De- partment at Michigan Technological University. He received a B.S.Engineering degree from Michigan Tech in 1982 and has also worked as a Training Specialist, Project Engineer, and Project Manager. He has over 25 years experience instructing and coordinating Unit Operations and Plant Operations Labora- tory, implementing distributed control and data acquisition systems, and designing pilot-scale processing equipment.Charles Nuttelman, University of Colorado at Boulder Instructor, Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringPablo LaValle, University of Michigan Senior Engineer. Chemical Engineering Dpt. Undergraduate Instruction Laboratories.Naoko Ellis
. This engineering project is designed to match the National Research Council'sNational Science Standards for 5-8 Abilities of Technological Design: i identify appropriate problemsfor technological design, design a solution or product, implement a proposed design, evaluate completedtechnological designs or products, and communicate the process of technological design.The lab described earlier in this paper and developed for undergraduates can be adapted for success for students ingrades four to eight. The age-appropriate adaptations for younger students include: (1) presenting the context forthe problem, (2) choosing appropriate materials, (3) devising a materials distribution and cleanup system, and (4)helping students understand trade-offs by
engineering student misconceptions in thermal and transport science.Dr. John L. Falconer P.E., University of Colorado, BoulderMichael J. Prince, Bucknell UniversityMargot A Vigeant, Bucknell University Margot Vigeant is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering with research interests in Engineering Education and Bioprocess Engineering. She is also Associate Dean of Engineering at Bucknell University.Stephen J Krause, Arizona State University Stephen J. Krause is Professor in the School of Materials in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches in the areas of bridging engineering and education, capstone design, and introductory materials engineering. His research interests are evaluating
AC 2011-1778: UNIT OPERATIONS LAB BAZAAR: INCORPORATIONOF LABORATORY EXPERIENCES IN SIX INTEGRATED PILLAR COURSESMichael Jefferson Baird, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Baird joined the chemical engineering department at the University of Pittsburgh in the spring of 2008 as Instructor of Undergraduate Laboratory Courses. He also teaches a graduate course entitled ”Petroleum and Natural Gas Processing”. Before joining the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Baird was an associate pro- fessor of chemistry at Wheeling Jesuit University for nine years following his retirement from the U.S. Department of Energy. While at DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Pittsburgh, Dr. Baird managed projects involving the
, failure-imbued learning experiences truly offer a glimpse of the real work done inadvanced science and engineering professional environments. Moreover, the greater number ofengineering students going into industry can also benefit from this kind of learning experiencebecause real-world problems and work contexts are not constrained like textbook assignments orlecture halls. Real world problems are messy, require collaboration and often involve moderatefailure from which rebound is necessary, much like a research lab. Interdisciplinary reasoningand problem-solving is so complex and challenging that undergraduates need to can onlydevelop the requisite habits of the mind over four years, not just one time in the capstone designcourse.Design
the Voiland School of School of Chemical Engineering and Bio-engineering at WSU. He is married with three children.509-338-5724.Mr. Derek Allen ClineAshley Ater Kranov, Washington State University Dr. Ater Kranov is Director of Educational Innovation and Assessment for the College of Engineering and Architecture at Washington State University, USA. She is affiliated assistant professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science where she co-teaches the 2-semester senior design capstone sequence. The paper describing her collaborative work with faculty in the WSU College of Engineering and Ar- chitecture, ”A Direct Method for Teaching and Assessing the ABET Professional Skills in Engineering