interests include effective teaching, conceptual and inductive learning, integrating writing and speaking into the curriculum and professional ethics. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Why Not Ask Students to Explain Themselves? Enhancing Conceptual Testing with Technical Writing1. IntroductionRecently a great deal of exciting work has been performed on concept-based instruction inchemical engineering, in particular the efforts associated with the AIChE Concept Warehouse(AIChE-CW)1,2. The AIChE-CW provides chemical engineering educators with instruments forevaluating students’ conceptual understanding of course material. Conceptual learning is notwell-served by traditional
Paper ID #12430Promoting Metacognition through Writing Exercises in Chemical Engineer-ingDr. Mariajose Castellanos, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyDr. Joshua A Enszer, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Page 26.1276.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Promoting Metacognition through Writing Exercises in Chemical EngineeringAbstractA high-level goal of all disciplines is for students to develop the capacity for lifelong learning. Todevelop the capacity of lifelong
fraction with mole fraction. Application of Identifies all relevant Identifies relevant Models of phase Principles: Phase phase equilibriums and phase equilibriums and equilibrium are Equilibrium writes an equation that approaches modeling missing or applied in a accurately models each each in a logical way way that is haphazard but makes errors in and fundamentally execution. sound. Solution Completes a solution Progresses from model Solution is incomplete that fully answers equations
what they have studied and learned, integrate newknowledge with previous knowledge, as well as to help them become an active and aware learnerso that they can better understand how they learn. Their reflection topics included: the engineeringdesign process, engineering/math/science connections and technical writing. This paper features a description of the design project challenge and solutions. Alsoincluded is the grading rubric, which was provided to the students to use as a guide for thereflection assignment. In addition, a summary of the group design analysis and the individualreflection assignments is provided. Page
Operations 1 course and electives in polymer rheology. She is author of the textbook Understanding Rheology.Julia King, Michigan Technological University Julia King is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan Technological University. She recieved her PhD from the University of Wyoming in 1989. Julie teaches the required Transport / Unit Operations 1 and Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering 1 courses. Page 12.746.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Finite Element Modules for Enhancing Undergraduate Transport Courses: Application to Fuel Cell FundamentalsAbstractThe
, 2016 Prediction and Reflection Activities in a Chemical Engineering course: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass TransferAbstractThis paper presents a quantitative and qualitative study for discovering how written reflectiveexercises following in-class prediction activities enhance learning gains in a heat and masstransfer course for chemical engineering undergraduate students. The primary purpose of thisresearch is to determine if and to what extent written reflection plays a role in adjustingcommonly-held misconceptions students have about heat and mass transfer. To study this, three30-minute prediction activities were planned throughout a ten-week course. The studyparticipants included two sections of a course with
Paper ID #9277Writing Abstracts of Homework Problem Solutions: Implementation and As-sessment in a Material Balances CourseDr. Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University Kevin Dahm is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University. He received his B.S. from WPI in 1992 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1998. He co-authored the book ”Interpreting Diffuse Reflectance and Transmittance,” published in 2007, with his father Donald Dahm. His second book, ”Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” a collaboration with Donald Visco of the University of Akron, is expected to be released by January 10, 2014. Kevin has received the
to clearly illustratewhy chemical engineering is particularly suited to these kinds of problems and what our skill setoffers to biotechnological problem-solving that no other engineering discipline is whollyequipped to do. These skills include defining systems with multiple unit operations and complexinterconnections, writing and solving systems of equations based on chemical reactionstoichiometry and kinetics, and scale-down of a system from human-scale to “lab-on-a-chip”micro-scale using dimensionless numbers. Additionally, we wanted to create a project thatwould encourage teamwork and cooperation in developing problem-solving strategies and in theanalysis and evaluation of the results. Here students would learn about dividing
Paper ID #14472Is Student Performance in CHE Core Courses Affected by Time ElapsedSince Completion of Material and Energy Balance Course Sequence?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 engineer- ing, teaching design and engineering
is:1. Feedback from 2. Having to write 3. Having to run 4. Listening to 5. Having to work 6. Not ApplicableInstructor. multiple reports. multiple presentations in a team. experiments. from other teams.38.2% 32.8% 42.1% 56.7% 3.9% 1.5% 1.3% 0 10.5% 6.0% 3.9% 3.0%3. I am more able to assess technical quality in my work.1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly 6. Not Applicable or Disagree Disagree14.5% 17.9% 72.4% 70.1
benefits of dedicated technical communication training for chemical engineers as abasis for better understanding TC training as a whole.BackgroundAs mentioned, this need to educate engineering students in the written, oral, and interpersonalcommunication skills necessary for career success is manifested differently across manyengineering departments [2]. While some programs provide communication training distributedacross many courses (such as writing or speaking assignments in core technical courses), othershave developed specific Technical Communications (TC) courses targeted for engineers.Dedicated TC courses are at times coupled closely with either a technical course or a capstonedesign course. Other dedicated TC courses in engineering
curriculum summary. The content ofCBEE 414 is essentially identical for all three disciplines. It is a writing-intensive course for ourstudents. The Linus Pauling Engineer serves as the lead instructor and two CBEE facultymembers serve as “subject matter experts”. CHE/BIOE/ENVE 415 has a shared lecturecomponent and discipline-specific laboratories, and CBEE 416 is the senior project course,which is devoted to a single, original project. In both these courses, the Linus Pauling Engineerserves as the lead instructor and several CBEE faculty members provide projects and serve asmentors for project teams. Written communication is emphasized early in the year, then oralcommunication and project management fundamentals. Laboratory activities generally
Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, sewage and interior design. A third outcome was the exposure of small gaps in fundamental preparation and understanding. This refers to fundamental errors that otherwise would not have been apparent. This elucidation, in the opinion of this instructor, was more apparent than when students are solving design problems. Specifically, some students wrote exam problems that violated some theory from another course or Figure 5: Depiction of from within the course. When an instructor is writing problems, Example Problem
ABET EC2000assessment process for program outcomes. Data for 2009-2010 as reported by instructors.Common ConcernsSurvey respondents were asked what they believed were the biggest issues encountered bystudents taking this course. The majority of responses indicated the following commonchallenges: ODE solving skills Mathematical software skills Chemistry preparation Unsteady-state conservation law writing Dependence on “design equations” rather than fundamental conservation lawsThe Role of the InstructorInstructors often take different approaches to teaching. For many responding to the
statistical analysis of their data andconsideration of relevant theory. The course is structured in such a way that students mustdetermine which statistical techniques are appropriate for processing their experimental data. Thecourse is also designed to meet the Writing Intensive requirements of our university, through acombination of individual lab reports, reflections on their ability to write in a technical context,and brief essays on engineering ethics and laboratory safety.Specific course logistics, including the sequence of activities, learning objectives, andconnections to student outcomes in junior- and senior-level courses, are considered here. Directassessment of student performance against specific learning objectives from the past three
traditional and alternative energy sources, with an added emphasis on generation of hydrogen for use in fuel cell applications. Hydrogen policy issues will also be addressed. o Hydrogen Laboratory: This is a laboratory course with hydrogen safety training, hydrogen measurements, fuel cell operation and analysis, and investigation of other hydrogen-related technologies. o Fuel Cells: There are two courses in this topic area [CM 3974 Fuel Cell Fundamentals (1 credit) and MEEM 4990/5990 Fuel Cell Technology (3 credits)] which introduce the basics of fuel cells and calculation of important parameters for fuel cell operation
Fuels Group Enterprise – this introduces students to alternative energy technology through project work. Projects have been sponsored by the United States Army Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) and Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and have focused on integration of commercially available fuel cells into small and large vehicles. More information on this curriculum is available elsewhere3-5. Page 13.271.3 • Fuel Cell Fundamentals Course – this is a 1 credit elective course introducing fuel cell technology to chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineering students. More
by electricity. It is noted that the students also estimated greenhouse gas emissions as well as other environmental impact factors including chlorofluorocarbon, heavy metal, and carcinogenic emissions as well as acidification and eutrophication effects.Additional details of prior projects can be obtained in the literature7,8.Fuel Cell CoursesTo receive the hydrogen minor, students are required to take a course in fuel cells. Thecomponents of these courses will now be described.In CM / ENT 3974: Fuel Cell Fundamentals (1 semester credit hour), mostly undergraduatestudents are introduced to fuel cells and how to use concepts from their core curriculum topredict fuel cell operation. An emphasis is placed on proton
capabilities are required by the expanded list of application areas and their more stringent demands on knowledge and synthesis skills.d) Transfer fundamentals and knowledge to novel challenges. Graduates cannot acquire all of the data, information, ideas, etc. that they will require in careers that will span 40-50 years. Therefore, an increasing priority is attached to the ability of our graduates to learn and transfer their learning to innovative settings. Bruer21 describes learners who had quickly become competent in new areas as ‘intelligent novices.’These four outcomes were additions to the list of outcomes that the departments had formulatedfor their ABET visits. The project team prepared a memo to department faculty with theseoutcomes
referencing, and the consultation of resources.Critical discussion and thinking is encouraged during these courses and students write essays onthese different topics.Math and science courses: These courses provide students with a strong foundation in basicareas and provide the necessary background for the engineering courses to be taken later in thecurriculum. These courses constitute the enabling subjects of any curriculum, in the layout byArmstrong 6 in his proposal for a new Chemical Engineering curriculum for the futureEngineering fundamentals courses: This curricular component provides both a strong foundationof scientific and technical knowledge, as well as tools and methods applicable in actualengineering practice. Currently, this component
variety. That variety is based on the fundamental difference in philosophy as to whetheryear 1 has common content for all branches of engineering or discipline specific programs begin inyear 1. For the former, many imaginative ways have been introduced to allow students to gain an Page 15.658.2understanding of the uniqueness of the disciplines.This summary considers eight options (with the school code in brackets for the school using thisoption): 1. Common year 1 with no engineering exposure through courses; basic math and sciences, 0% of responders 2. Common year 1 with required common engineering course(s) with no explicit
video clips. This is also true in technical writing,where students must interpret figures and tables—and in some cases video or .gif depictions ofsuch as processes or reactions—for the reader. This is a complex and difficult process to learn todo effectively [18]. Helping students learn to compose in this manner can support them tocommunicate clearly.One challenge with much of academic writing is that in lieu of an authentic audience, studentsare accustomed to writing for their instructor. Because they know the instructor already knowsmuch about the subject, the task of writing, instead of fundamentally being aboutcommunication, can become little more than busy work, viewed as an inefficient means toconvey the accuracy of one's ideas [19]. Thus
distribution*, “for no obvious reason atthis time, we call the parameter r the number of degrees of freedom,” and then uses the term“degrees of freedom” subsequently without ever offering a definition. Such, further confusesand confounds the problem of teaching students about “degrees of freedom” In the chemicalengineering context.Particularly in upper division courses that involve a higher level of synthesis, students arefrequently perplexed about where to begin and what equations to write. Rather than use adegrees of freedom formalism, they typically revert to a schema that involves identifying whattype of phenomena is involved, e.g. heat transfer, chemical reaction, mass balance, etc., andproceed with writing of equations by inspection, mostly
Paper ID #29239Aligning the chemical engineering curriculum to a common problem-solvingstrategyProf. Nicolas Hudon, Queen’s University Dr Nicolas Hudon is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Queen’s Uni- versity (Canada) since 2016. His teaching activities are mainly concerned with second-year fundamental courses. He is the recipient of the 2019 Carolyn Small Award for teaching innovation from the Faculty of Applied Sciences and Engineering at Queen’s University.Dr. Louise Meunier P.Eng., Queen’s University Dr. Meunier studied mechanical engineering and worked for twenty years as an
plants we see today. Perhaps these structures and plants werenot as optimized as those we might be able to design today with all our modern computer designaids. However, what is clear is that senior engineers could not be competent in design without asolid grounding in the engineering fundamentals. Today it may be possible for graduates to usemodern computer aided design programs and achieve an adequate design without a goodunderstanding of the engineering fundamentals involved. If their assumptions and operation ofthese modern software design tools are correct all is well. However without a goodunderstanding of fundamentals they may not realize when an incorrect answer is produced. Theold saying of garbage in, garbage out is even more relevant
diagnostics & dielectrophoresis.Keisha Walters, Mississippi State University Dr. Keisha Walters earned her PhD in Chemical Engineering in 2005 from Clemson University. She also holds an MS degree in Chemical Engineering and a BS degree in Biological Sciences from Clemson. Her work involves the surface modification of materials and the development of both stimuli-responsive and biomass-based polymeric materials. Central to her research in polymer and surface engineering is the design and synthesis of molecules with well-defined chemical functionality and molecular architecture. Fundamental research activities of her group include polymer synthesis, surface modification, grafting chemistries, and
. Thus one experiment will require multiple SOPs. Examples of SOP, batch records and Form483 were provided to students. Form 483 was developed after the mock site inspection. Theimportance of understanding the purpose and audience when writing RC documents wasemphasized – SOPs and batch records are internal documents that are subject to federal scrutinywhile Form 483 is a publicly disclosed document. SOPs and batch records serve the purpose ofdemonstrating regulatory compliance, while Form 483 is in many cases a citation fornoncompliance. Thus writing styles and format vary largely between these documents. Studentswere trained to write RC documents with highest attention to purpose and audience. Services ofour university’s writing help desk were
development in chemical engineering at a large publicuniversity. The topical content which has been developed may also be used “À la carte” forincorporating elements into existing engineering courses if there is not room in the curriculumfor an integrated course of this type. The complete course content, including the syllabus,subject matter presentations, assignments, and relevant links, is available on a public web sitefor use by engineering instructors: (www.courses.ncsu.edu/che395). Course evaluationsindicate that students assign high values to this required seminar.IntroductionEngineering departments employ different strategies for introducing soft skills such as writing,oral presentation, teamwork, information literacy, and ethics. A frequently
underlying fundamental competencies. When these students are required to applythe competency to the solution of a somewhat different problem, or to apply these competenciesafter some time has passed, they are frequently at a loss as to how to proceed. They try toremember an equation or correlation and write whatever they are able to retrieve from theirmemory without thinking through the problem in a manner consistent with a well-foundedconceptual understanding.Level-3 competencies provide the foundation for problem solving. It is expected that studentsmaster these competencies sufficiently to solve engineering problems given little or no referencematerial. Therefore, we identified 18 of the 141 competencies as Level-3 competencies forassessment
Explanation is Explanation is Explanation Provides Answer explanation strongly flawed related to relates to clear fundamentals fundamentals explanation strongly OR OR OR OR OR OR No Correct/Incorrect 50-75% critical 25-50% critical 25% critical 1 simple Reasoning w/incorrect logic mistakes/incorrect mistakes/incorrect mistakes/incorrect mistakeShell & Tube Heat Exchanger Pre/Post Questions1