environment?MethodsThis section will contain an overview of our study design, a description of the interventionContents Under Pressure (CUP), and discuss the data analysis performed.Study DesignThis study consisted of a semester long pre-/post- research design involving the use of CUP as anintervention. A total of 187 senior chemical engineering students, enrolled in either a seniordesign or process safety course from three different institutions, participated in the study. Inorder to understand how senior chemical engineering students prioritize criteria relevant toprocess safety decisions, they were asked to complete a pre-reflection where they sequentiallyranked the criteria (budget, personal relationships, plant productivity, safety, and time
Education, 2021 Work in Progress: Wrappers vs. ExpertsIntroductionEighty-one students enrolled in a required, third-year reaction engineering course were thesubjects for this investigation. The author was the instructor for that course and had taught itmore than twenty-five times before this offering. During that span, four substantial pedagogicalchanges occurred. After those changes the effect of completing homework upon an averagestudent’s course score improved by a factor of 2.5 [1].One of those pedagogical changes incorporated homework wrappers into assigned homeworkproblems. Briefly, the homework wrappers asked the students to reflect upon their approach tosolving the problem and their execution of the solution and then
predominantly focused on White, male students who make up the majority of undergraduate engineering majors in the U.S. In 2018, 78.1% of engineering bachelor degrees were received by males, and 61.5% by White [17]. To fill the gap in the literature, we seek to include minority and underrepresented student experiences to expand the aggregated definitions for student success. These aggregated definitions of student success establish the desired outcome for scholars, administration, and presumably students, yet overlook what success means to students.4. Reflections of Success – Student Perspectives: While the above definitions may be useful as an aggregate measure for a large number of students, they do not capture the views
offeredonline at Hampton University. Student participation in the survey was not required by the in-structor but was optional and completely anonymous for the students.Class Delivery Mode: The teaching of Chemical Engineering Calculations (CME 201- 4 credit), ChemicalEngineering Thermodynamics (CME 307 - 4credit), and Unit Operation Laboratory (CME 411 -2 credits) during COVID-19 was done entirely online, with Blackboard being the deliveryvehicle for instructions. We made use of both synchronous and asynchronous learning methodswhile teaching remotely.Technology Employed: The course involved completing both independent (e.g. reading material, viewing onlinecontent, reflecting on information) asynchronously and dependent (e.g. online interactions
help them with distraction and how to effectively work at home. 7. Emphasize care and empathy in your work with students (Atman, 2020). As novices learning unfamiliar tasks in an environment that currently is stressful, students may feel anxiety. Tell students about your own experiences with working remotely during the pandemic and strategies that worked for you. Consider using reflections with students to help them process their experiences and identify challenges.As we live and work in the COVID-19 and (eventually) post-COVID-19 eras, we will continue tolearn best practices for working remotely, including conducting research with undergraduatestudents. Our hope is that some of the strategies we have
approaches.Results are shown in Table 4. Online assessments are inherently different than in-personassessment and many student responses reflected aspects of these differences while 20% statedthey had no concerns. 31% of the responses commented on aspects of exam scheduling anddelivery. Students reflected more favorably on exams that had wider time windows to begin,even if there was a fixed time to take the exam. However, it is unclear how different exams arefor different students so there may be concerns with academic dishonesty with this approach.Three issues that were often connected were issues with the esubmission process (19%), examsthat were too long (11%), and stress (13%). Surprisingly, only 9% of responses identifiedcheating as an issue. 7
be reflective of their actual ability andunderstanding, particularly on exams given the general time window and nature by which theyare given.Some instructors found different approaches to exams in preparation for their own classes. Thetransitions allowed for instructors to consider opportunities to better assess student learning andconsider student stress in how that may limit performance.10 Some approaches focused onimplementing oral exams, with some potential success dependent on how the exams wereproctored;11 oral exams also have a limitation in the size of the class that such an approach canbe reasonably conducted with. In many alternative approaches, instructors’ efforts involvedreplacing exams with a project. Frequently, the projects
higher levels of career advancement[4] andsurveys indicate that practicing engineers spend a large portion of their work time writing orspeaking; however, feedback from industry indicates a lack of communication skills in manyengineering graduates.[5] Therefore, so-called “soft” skills, recently redefined as “professional”skills, need to be learned within the engineering curricula and be transferable to the engineeringworkforce. As expected, communication is recognized as a core transferable professionalskill,[2] which is reflected in current ABET criteria[6] and publications such as The engineer of2020,[7] prompting pedagogical changes in engineering curricula.[8, 9] At the author’sinstitution, feedback from alumni surveys and the departmental
Austin. His past research has focused on membrane science, adsorption, and ion exchange. He currently serves as the Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Program Director at UC and currently teaches the capstone process design sequence. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio.Dr. Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University Kevin Dahm is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University. He earned his BS from Worces- ter Polytechnic Institute (92) and his PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (98). He has pub- lished two books, ”Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics” and ”Interpreting Diffuse Reflectance and Transmittance.” He has also published papers on effective use of simulation in
or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. This work was completed within the framework of University of ToledoIRB protocols 300853 and 300721.DisclaimerOne of the authors may receive royalties from sales of the zyBook detailed in this paper.Bibliography[1] K. E. Chapman, M. E. Davidson, and M. W. Liberatore, "Student success and attempts on auto-graded homework across multiple cohorts in material and energy balances," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 43-50, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.18260/2-1-370.660-123169.[2] P. S. Steif and A. Dollar, "Study of usage patterns and learning gains in a web
reflections on the guest speakers account for approximately 30% ofthe grade. Reviews of the lectures from the fall 2019 course suggested that students wanted to see moreof the “day in the life of a chemical engineer.” In the fall of 2020, alumni presentations from avariety of industries were added to the lecture schedule. Alumni talked about their job andindustry, the career path, provided advice on life during college and after the degree. This changewas easy to implement because the lectures were operating in a virtual format due to COVID-19restrictions on the number of in-person students allowed. While the students really respondedpositively to the addition of alumni speakers, even in a virtual format, reviews asked for abalance between alumni
details during problem solving[23, 24]. PROCESS was tailored to incorporate relevant steps needed to solve material and energybalance problems [22]. Each of the 6 items in the revised PROCESS consists of four scaling levelsranging from 0 to 3 with zero being the minimum attainable score. PROCESS score is an aggregateof scores earned in all 6 items of PROCESS rescaled from 0 to 100.Prior to scoring with the modified PROCESS, anonymity of students was maintained by replacingparticipants’ names with a project-assigned ID number. In addition, assessment with PROCESSrubric was conducted after the semester does not reflect or have an effect on students’ coursegrades. To eliminate rater bias during assessment, an interrater reliability was conducted
feedbackregarding students’ choice to attend the camp, concerns about the sophomore year, reasons forchoosing the chemical engineering major, as well as specific feedback about the camp fromthose that attended. This information can be used to improve the camp and/or the sophomoreexperience.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2025035. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors would like to thank Dr. Timothy Reeves, Mr. Baker Martin, and Mrs.Catherine Belk for their input and discussions on this work and for reviewing drafts of
transcripts independently andidentified positive and negative teamwork interactions. The researchers then tabulated thesuccessful and unsuccessful interactions according to the following categories and subcategories: 1. Team relationships a. Members show respect for each other b. Members demonstrate commitment to team success c. Members resolve differences to benefit the entire team 2. Joint work products a. Members contribute to developing shared team goals b. Multiple members produce joint outcomes reflecting synergistic inputs from everyone c. Members enable one another to contribute effectively in joint work 3. Individual work products a. Teams allocate some work of
]. Collectively, our findings are in line with caring pedagogy research [39] thatreports increased motivation and learning outcomes on the part of students when they perceivefaculty as caring about them by getting to know students and providing constructive feedback[40]. This line of work suggests that part of why learner-centered instruction is effective is thatstudents increase in their engagement and see more opportunities to learn, such as from feedbackand from peers. Faculty who care and hold high-but-reachable expectations for students may seesimilar expectations and behaviors reflected by students.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1623105. Any opinions, findings, and
exam format.However, more students shifted and disagreed that the exam was structured to reflect theirknowledge of the content. Figure 6: Spring 2020 Pre and Post-Grading Survey FeedbackIn addition to the Likert scale responses to assessment items, students were also given theopportunity to provide qualitative feedback to explain their responses. Overall, the commentswere very positive. The least favorable and most favorable/valuable comments are reportedbelow:Least favorable comments:• I am nervous to see my grade on exam 3 because it is different.• The practice exam made it harder because those types of questions could not be used.Most favorable/valuable comments:• Can’t really mess up a rubric.• Without the rubric, I
teaching methodology, as it helped them transition smoothly from a student to avaluable employee in the U.S. workforce.AcknowledgmentsThis work is partly supported by an internal KEEN (Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network)curricular reimagination grant.Works Cited[1] C. H. T. Ng and S.-M. Cheah, “Chemical product engineering using CDIO enhanced with design thinking,” p. 9, 2012.[2] M. Lynch, U. Kamovich, K. K. Longva, and M. Steinert, “Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students’ reflections on the learning process,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 164, p. 119689, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.015.[3] T. F. Edgar, B. A. Ogunnaike, J. J. Downs, K. R. Muske, and B
]. Additionally, this strong interest inbiomaterials is reflected economically. In 2019, the global market for biomaterials was estimatedto be worth $106.5 billion, and revenues from biomaterials are projected to increase to $348.4billion by 2027 [5]. To ensure these societal and economic demands for novel biomaterials aremet, we must prioritize educating diverse students about designing, engineering, and testingbiomaterials [6], [7].One way to meet this goal is through K-12 outreach. Outreach is an important activity forincreasing the number of students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) at the university level [8], [9]. This is especially important for increasing therepresentation of individuals who are traditionally