BOARD # 40: A Comparison of Three Teaching Methods in Junior Chemical Engineering Required Courses

Laura P Ford; Hema Ramsurn; Javen Scott Weston

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Publication Date: June 22, 2025
Start Date: June 22, 2025
End Date: August 15, 2025
Conference Session: Chemical Engineering Division (ChED) Poster Session
Tagged Division: Chemical Engineering Division (ChED)
Page Count: 21
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/55775

Paper Authors

biography

Laura P Ford The University of Tulsa orcid.org/0009-0002-3585-1879

visit author page

Laura P. Ford is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Tulsa. She teaches engineering science thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, separations/mass transfer, process control, and chemical engineering senior labs. She is an advisor for TU's student chapter of Engineers Without Borders - USA.

visit author page

biography

Hema Ramsurn The University of Tulsa orcid.org/0000-0002-8078-0881

visit author page

Hema Ramsurn is the A. Buthod Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Tulsa. Her teaching repertoire consists of the following courses: health and safety in chemical processes, mass transfer, advanced chemical reactor design, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics and senior lab. Her research revolves around bio-based materials (graphene, activated carbon, biochar), catalytic methane conversion, carbon-carbon composites and their anti-oxidative coatings for high temperature applications.

visit author page

biography

Javen Scott Weston The University of Tulsa orcid.org/0000-0002-1285-1385

visit author page

Javen Weston is an Associate Professor in the Russel School of Chemical Engineering at the University of Tulsa. He teaches Principles of Chemical Engineering (Material and Energy Balances), Chemical Reactor Design, Fluid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer courses. His education research efforts focus on pedagogical assessment and science fair participation by students in grades 6-12.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Juniors in chemical engineering at a small, private, South Plains institution (The University of Tulsa) take three required chemical engineering courses in the spring semester: mass transfer & separations, reactor design, and process control. The faculty structured their courses in different ways: • Mass Transfer was taught traditionally with in-class lectures and in-class problem solving by the professor before students solved a graded activity. • Reactor Design was taught with video lectures before class, and class time was used for instructor-led example problems along with occasional, multiple-choice conceptual questions. • Process Control was taught with video lectures before class, and the professor worked an example in class before the students worked a graded problem in groups during class. All three courses had traditional homework, exams, and design projects. We surveyed the entire Spring 2024 class of 17 students in Fall 2024 to assess two items: 1) the student preferences for the various teaching methods, and 2) the differences between faculty intentions and student perceptions regarding the teaching methods used in each class. Since all three courses included an identical cohort of students, this survey offered a unique opportunity to compare cross-course preferences among a consistent student cohort, eliminating the need to assume that all cohorts have identical preferred teaching methods. To observe cross-cohort preferences, the same survey may be given to the junior cohort taking the same courses in Spring 2025, if possible. The first part of the survey asked the students to describe the three courses, with questions based on the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) Survey. Students perceived that ‘faculty lectures’ and ‘individually-solved problems’ were used as teaching methods more frequently than the faculty intended them to be. The faculty and students also had different perceptions on what counted as an individual grade versus a group grade for group work submitted during class time. Finally, the faculty thought that the students answered questions during class on material not previously covered in class more than the students thought they did. The survey’s second part aimed to discover which methods the students thought helped them learn the best and if they liked non-traditional methods more than traditional lectures. Although at least half of the students said that the video lectures aided their understanding, three-quarters preferred live lectures when compared to video lectures. A majority agreed or strongly agreed that the following methods aided their understanding: 1) on-line quizzes, 2) in-class discussion questions, 3) instructor-led practice exercises, and 4) small-group practice exercises. About two-thirds of respondents also expressed a preference for in-class practice exercises rather than a traditional lecture. A cross-course difference was that 70% of respondents thought the teaching methods used in Mass Transfer and Reactor Design helped them gain a deep understanding of the material, while only 33% felt the same about Process Control. Additionally, responses indicated that the students were more engaged with the material in Mass Transfer than in Reactor Design, which in turn was more engaging than Process Control. The students saw Mass Transfer as the easiest course and Process Control as the most difficult course. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they could ask questions whenever needed in all three courses.

Citation
Format

Ford, L. P., & Ramsurn, H., & Weston, J. S. (2025, June), BOARD # 40: A Comparison of Three Teaching Methods in Junior Chemical Engineering Required Courses Paper presented at 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Montreal, Quebec, Canada . https://peer.asee.org/55775

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Juniors in chemical engineering at a small, private, South Plains institution (The University of Tulsa) take three required chemical engineering courses in the spring semester: mass transfer &amp;amp; separations, reactor design, and process control.  The faculty structured their courses in different ways:  
•	Mass Transfer was taught traditionally with in-class lectures and in-class problem solving by the professor before students solved a graded activity. 
•	Reactor Design was taught with video lectures before class, and class time was used for instructor-led example problems along with occasional, multiple-choice conceptual questions. 
•	Process Control was taught with video lectures before class, and the professor worked an example in class before the students worked a graded problem in groups during class. 
All three courses had traditional homework, exams, and design projects.  We surveyed the entire Spring 2024 class of 17 students in Fall 2024 to assess two items: 1) the student preferences for the various teaching methods, and 2) the differences between faculty intentions and student perceptions regarding the teaching methods used in each class. Since all three courses included an identical cohort of students, this survey offered a unique opportunity to compare cross-course preferences among a consistent student cohort, eliminating the need to assume that all cohorts have identical preferred teaching methods. To observe cross-cohort preferences, the same survey may be given to the junior cohort taking the same courses in Spring 2025, if possible.  
The first part of the survey asked the students to describe the three courses, with questions based on the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) Survey.  Students perceived that ‘faculty lectures’ and ‘individually-solved problems’ were used as teaching methods more frequently than the faculty intended them to be.  The faculty and students also had different perceptions on what counted as an individual grade versus a group grade for group work submitted during class time.  Finally, the faculty thought that the students answered questions during class on material not previously covered in class more than the students thought they did.   
The survey’s second part aimed to discover which methods the students thought helped them learn the best and if they liked non-traditional methods more than traditional lectures.  Although at least half of the students said that the video lectures aided their understanding, three-quarters preferred live lectures when compared to video lectures.  A majority agreed or strongly agreed that the following methods aided their understanding:  1) on-line quizzes, 2) in-class discussion questions, 3) instructor-led practice exercises, and 4) small-group practice exercises.  About two-thirds of respondents also expressed a preference for in-class practice exercises rather than a traditional lecture.  A cross-course difference was that 70% of respondents thought the teaching methods used in Mass Transfer and Reactor Design helped them gain a deep understanding of the material, while only 33% felt the same about Process Control.  Additionally, responses indicated that the students were more engaged with the material in Mass Transfer than in Reactor Design, which in turn was more engaging than Process Control.  The students saw Mass Transfer as the easiest course and Process Control as the most difficult course.  All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they could ask questions whenever needed in all three courses. 
AU  - Laura P Ford
AU  - Hema Ramsurn
AU  - Javen Scott Weston
CY  - Montreal, Quebec, Canada 
DA  - 2025/06/22
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - BOARD # 40: A Comparison of Three Teaching Methods in Junior Chemical Engineering Required Courses
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/55775
ER  -