response was mixed, though primarily positive (Figure 2). Comments from the end-of-term course evaluations also reflected this dichotomy: • I don't like that you wanted us to struggle with the homework and waste our time. My time is precious. • I liked everything in the class except the fact [that] we did book homework before we learned it. • Homework, online homework, and lectures all went together nicely. • His set up of the homework/glossary/Sappling [sic] made sure you did the work first and had an understanding of the material before it was covered in lecture. • I think that I've learned more in this class in one semester than any other class I've taken here.The principal complaint about the course
. Thedemonstration will also include pre- and post-demonstration reflection activities to help studentsface their misconceptions, a feature that has been demonstrated to be key for learning fromdemonstrations [1].The activities will be piloted for the first time during the Spring 2018 semester. In addition tothe previously mentioned reflection activities, improvements in student learning of key conceptswill be assessed indirectly by comparing achievement on relevant quiz and exam questions from2017 and 2018. These preliminary results will be presented at the 2018 ASEE AnnualConference, where the author hopes to receive feedback and ideas for improvement.Activity 1: McCabe-Thiele Quiz GameThe McCabe-Thiele method is a traditional graphical method for
scholarship, the Corcoran award for best article in the journal Chemical Engineering Education (twice), and the Martin award for best paper in the ChE Division at the ASEE Annual Meeting.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 economics, and assessment of student learning.Dr. Laura P. Ford
, students participate in a two-week tripwhere students interact with the community and implement the project, participate in culturalexperiences, and identify projects for the following year. Following the trip, additionaldocumentation similar to items noted above is required, as well as an executive summary, shortvideo, reflections paper, and survey.Previous publications related to the course have discussed training internationally responsibleengineers3, sustainability and impact4, integration of sociology and engineering using keyprinciples of human-centered design5, GEO course insights6, social connectivity betweenstudents and communities7, the documentation strategy2, and water filter implementation inSouthern Peru8. Some of these publications
Learning Objectives this course, students will… Students will integrate concepts into their daily life and participate in communication understand the importance of effective building practices/activities. Students will 1 communication in all aspects of their work evaluate communication experiences and life. (through reflection) and predict possible outcomes of communication scenarios (positive and negative). view themselves as qualified to provide Students will evaluate
capstone design and laboratorycourses. The course runs as a one-semester, stand-alone course (not coupled to a complementarytechnical or laboratory course) with assignments ranging from laboratory reports, design reports,resumes, cover letters, interviews, technical presentations, and project proposals tocommunication with lay audiences. This paper takes a case study approach to examine theevolution of the laboratory report assignment over the course of three semesters. We found thatincorporating additional authenticity into laboratory report writing assignment motivated studentengagement and learning. Midterm and final course evaluations are used as data to reflect on theeffectiveness of three iterations of the assignment:· Fall 2011: Common
casestudy on the implementation of CPBL in the Process Control and Dynamics course for third yearchemical engineering students is reported. During the course, students go through six CPBLcycles to solve four problems that cover all the course outcomes in one semester. Selectedconstructs of Pintrich’s Motivated Strategy for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) relevant to aCPBL class, which are intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learningbelief, organization, critical thinking, effort regulation and help seeking, were administered todetermine the effect of CPBL. The results showed a significant increase in students’ engagementand motivation in learning. These findings are further supported by students’ reflections made atthe
Variability in Instruction of Introductory Chemical Engineering Course: Does it Affect Our Students?AbstractEngineers are commonly described as problem solvers. Arguably, the best problem solversconsist of the most versatile information-gatherers and processors. Learning styles describe howindividuals gather and process information. The Felder-Silverman learning styles model consistsof eight learning styles dimensions, with two opposing preferences in each dimension(active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, sequential/global) that categorize individualsbased on how they best process, perceive, receive, and understand information. It is important tonote that these descriptions of learning styles are preferences, and
will be arranged into groups of three to five, and assigned a topic from a prescribed list. Students will be asked to take the Thermodynamics Concept Inventory during the first and last week of the semester. Year 2 – Video Viewing Students will be asked to watch 3-5 minute videos that span the five topics covered in the Thermodynamics Concept Inventory. These videos will be selected from those generated in Year 1 of the study, and will be available after the video’s topic has been presented in class. After watching the video, students will be asked to perform a short reflection assignment on the concept. Additionally, students will be asked to take the
shift of students who would normally pursue careers inchemical engineering degrees to bio-related departments (i.e. biomedical, biological,bioengineering, etc.) has had an significant impact.3 To address this issue, many chemicalengineering programs have changed their names and updated their curriculum to reflect theshared focus on biology and engineering.Worldwide, the fastest growing global biotechnology marketplace includes approximately 4300companies in 25 nations with revenues estimated at over $40 billion.4 The biotechnologyindustry clusters have identified workforce development as the second or third largest hurdle tocommercialization and economic success.5 Hence, the survival, maturation and success of thebiotechnology industry is
videos, which are publiclyavailable, that include examples of both prohibited behavior and encouraged behavior forindividual assignments. All scenarios now reference examples in calculus, chemistry, and physicscourse to make them more widely applicable across a broader range of science and engineeringdisciplines. The authors offer suggestions on how to utilize the videos along with additionalacademic integrity-related resources, such as syllabus language, a reflection assignment, anassignment cover sheet, and a form prohibiting sharing course-related documents.1. IntroductionAcademic integrity issues are among the most stressful that faculty face, and the statistics onstudent cheating rates and attitudes about cheating are troubling [1][2][3
overall problem or task. 3. Design an authentic task. 4. Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning. 5. Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution. 6. Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner’s thinking. 7. Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts. 8. Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learning and the learning process.Critics contend that the constructivist approach stimulates learning only in concepts in which thestudents have an existing interest.4 Taken to the extreme, the
(Eisen; Eisen; Eisen). Figure 1 summarizes the results of the earlier surveys (note 1985 comments on emerging technologies and does not provide data of the type in 1980 and 1989). Figure 1: Historical data (% of responding schools) While comparison of the data in Figure 1 with the data that follow suggests that electives are much more diverse now than in the past, but it may also reflect the greater variety of questions and analysis that can be done with an online multiple choice survey
tasked to summarize a reading assignment, thenexplain how the reading connects to their personal life, explain how the reading connects toanother reading, course element, or curriculum, and finally describe a prompt, problem, or puzzlethat can be addressed with the comprehension of the reading. This technique has been describedas a form of metacognition, or “thinking about thinking,” in other words, an effort to get studentsto reflect on their own learning.1The research question we seek to address here is whether or not the non-traditional components(Personalize, Integrate, Thoughtful Puzzle) of the weekly engineering assignments correlate withstudent achievement on exams in the course.MethodsEach week, students were given a single prompt
an online class. The implementation of the interventions may look different in each of those venues or20 have different levels of effectiveness because every classroom environment differs and faculty21 deployment of instructional practices varies. The strongest recommendation of the authors is to deploy a22 reflective process throughout implementation of some of the different teaching practices. This will allow23 for personal and professional growth in deploying the techniques while improving their use in their local24 teaching context over time.25 Introduction26 Statistics about Why Students Leave College and STEM Fields27 The current state of higher education is tragic. The U.S. Department of Education reported in 2015
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
usage, e.g., video views, onlinehomework responses, course management system’s file downloads, reflective textbookcommenting, etc. [7-15]. Student engagement with new technologies does not seems to be adetractor; one recent study found a growing majority of current engineering students, sometimescalled digital natives, prefer interactive or electronic textbooks [16, 17]. With detailed data nowavailable, new research questions related to textbook usage can be formulated and tested.While portable electronics became relatively inexpensive and multifunctional, the price oftextbooks rose to more than $200 for a traditional hardcover engineering textbook. Some studentsopt to use the Internet for free rather than add hundreds of dollars of books to
and watching videos (Years 1-3). Incontrast, feedback from students in project reflections and post-course conversations indicatedthat many students believed they had learned about thermodynamics from the project.Consequently, we determined that an additional year of testing with a revised assignment waswarranted.Revisions were driven by several observations of student behavior. Specifically, the teams offour students employed during the original design (i.e. Years 1-3) allowed them to specialize,and we often observed one or two team members being responsible for the video filming andediting, while the others specialized in the thermodynamics. Further, each team only consideredone of the five important concepts that were the focus of the
, and thus, suggest that learning styles may be a valuable lens through which to evaluateour methods for developing students as problem solvers. We used the Felder-Silverman modelspecifically because of its historical application in engineering, and its multidimensional natureallowing for two preferences in each of four dimensions (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive,visual/verbal, sequential/global) with subsequent strengths (strong, moderate, balanced) for eachpreference. This multi-dimensional model accounts for different facets of learning, andadditionally emphasizes that these preferences are not fixed characteristics but merely, as theyare called, preferences. Though not a specific aim of this work, we hypothesized that faculty dohave
creatingchange in the education system. In 2011, after reviewing the literature on change in highereducation, Henderson et al. proposed a change model for “Facilitating Change in UndergraduateSTEM”. This model identified four strategies that facilitate change in safety education: 1.“Disseminating curriculum and pedagogy”, 2. “Developing reflective teachers”, 3. “Enactingpolicy”, and 4. “Developing shared vision” [14].Following the 2017 ASEE Chemical Engineering Summer School, the authors of this paperformed a collaboration with the shared vision of investigating safety education in UOlaboratories across their respective institutions. The authors’ universities are diverse in terms ofsize, public vs. private, and research focus, and are also
situation that provoked their prediction. These situations are designed so that the predictions based upon the most common misconceptions fail to explain what is observed. Students are allowed and encouraged to “mess with” the experiment to verify that the surprising result isn’t a trick. Finally a series of follow-‐up and reflection questions encourages students to incorporate the new information into their existing understanding. Each activity is designed to take about 15 minutes and use materials found commonly in chemical engineering laboratories or available at Wal-‐Mart. These activities have been shown to improve students’ concept
does provide may be missing essentialcomponents and the feedback it provides may not be properly timed or targeted [16-28]. Thehomework in the traditional-lecture approach is used for assessment; there are no opportunitiesfor students to practice and receive feedback on their solution prior to being assessed. A relatedproblem is found in the timing of feedback to the students: it occurs after their learning has beenassessed. That is, the correct solution to the homework assignment is made available after theassignment has been submitted. If a student makes a mistake on a homework assignment and,through the feedback, learns from that mistake (so that they will not repeat the mistake), thatlearning is not reflected in the assessment of their
simplistic or uninformed view that they heldearlier. Integrative refers to how understanding a threshold concept allows students to makepreviously unseen connections between aspects of the course.IVL Overview. The IVLs were constructed based on this active learning pedagogy and directedtowards undergraduate thermodynamics students.1 In the IVLs, students are guided through a setof frames where they are asked to respond to questions that ask them to predict, calculate,manipulate, observe, or reflect on phenomena related to the specific concept.Figure 1 presents an example frame of the Work IVL, one of the six available IVLs. This frameincludes the three main parts of a typical IVL frame, (i) a box containing the molecularsimulation that students are
because in oursituation we typically had about four working DLMs so with eight teams, each could use theDLM for half of a 50 minute period. Second, the optimal DLM/person ratio is three to five per-sons because that’s how many that can comfortably sit around a DLM and still visualize the car-tridge, controls and digital read-outs. Third, there’s a pedagogical reason as this number giveseach person a task because if a team is to get operating values quickly it takes one person to ad-just flow rates on a rotameter, a second to read values from a display, and a third to record thosevalues. With four and five member teams, one can supervise while another can reflect on theprocess. Team member placements were based on convenience sampling to
on the EWRAS andURRSA were observed. Data on the post-survey measures were obtained from 11 REUparticipants, reflecting an 85% post-survey completion rate.Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Post-Survey Measures Standard Minimum-Measure Mean Median Range α Deviation MaximumURSSA 180.42 176.50 18.27 60.00 153.00-213.00 .91EWRAS 15.83 16.00 2.44 7.00 13.00-20.00 .86Openness to collaborating 4.67 5.00 0.65 2.00 3.00
balanced between active and reflective learning as well as visualand verbal learning. They have a moderate preference for sensing, and a very strong preferencefor global learning. Prior to this course, they indicated that they agreed with Statement A. Afterthis course, they strongly agreed with this same statement. They agreed with Statement B in bothpre-course and post-course evaluation. Finally, they indicated neutrality on Statement C beforethe course but disagreed with it in post-course evaluation. Student X indicated that they believedpre-course that they would earn a “B” in the course but believed that they would earn a “C”post-course (but before the final exam). They earned a “C+” in the course.Case Study 2: Student Y is also well balanced
. Page 22.77.3The objective of this paper is to describe a new inter-college (Villanova College of Engineeringand Villanova School of Business) course at Villanova University : The Global PharmaceuticalIndustry. In this course, technical and business issues from the industry will be examined in aunique interdisciplinary environment, with students and faculty from both colleges involved. Theintended audience is multidisciplinary, reflecting the fabric and organization of the industry as itoperates today. The opportunity created by this course is unique in that engineering, science andbusiness students work together to understand and attempt to solve some of the complex issuesregarding an industry whose life-saving products create significant
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
, skills, and ability to solve complexproblems and to produce excellent solution(s) within the structure of the team. This concept wasfurther developed to include defining team and task, team climate, communication, and reflection(for a detailed description, please see Table 1)23-26.Design competence focused on finding and evaluating variants and recognizing and solvingcomplex design problems. These were further defined as having the ability to discover and designmultiple solutions to a given problem and to effectively evaluate those solutions to determine thebest solution, and having the ability to see the overall picture of a complex design problem, thenbreaking it into smaller, more manageable parts to solve while keeping the overall problem
American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Collecting Programmatic Assessment Data with No “Extra” Effort: Consolidated Evaluation Rubrics for Chemical Plant DesignAbstractIn order to gain accreditation, engineering programs must define goals and objectives,assess whether their graduates are meeting these objectives, and “close the loop” by usingthe assessment data to inform continuous improvement of the program. In ABET’sjargon, program “objectives” describe capabilities that graduates are expected to possess,e.g., “Graduates of the Chemical Engineering program at Rowan University will be ableto….” Thus, the true success of the program in meeting its objectives is reflected in thefirst few years of graduates’ careers. Practically