- Email: [email protected]
Chemical Engineering Curriculum Renewal
1749–7728/06/$30.00+0.00 # 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006 Education for Chemical Engineers, 1: 116– 125
www.icheme.org/ece doi: 10.1205/ece.06020
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL V. G. GOMES1 , G. W. BARTON1, J. G. PETRIE1, J. ROMAGNOLI2, P. HOLT3, A. ABBAS4, B. COHEN5, A. T. HARRIS1, B. S. HAYNES1, T. A. G. LANGRISH1, J. ORELLANA1, H. T. SEE1, M. VALIX1 and D. WHITE1 1
School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA 3 Ecological Engineering, Prahran, VIC, Australia 4 School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
B
ased on results of our own research and stakeholder surveys, the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at The University of Sydney has identified a number of imperatives for curriculum change, and has used this stimulus to embark on the task of curriculum renewal. First, the desired graduate attributes were determined, followed by the design of mechanisms needed to integrate these within the curriculum. The curriculum was designed to incorporate an integrated framework for teaching all core concepts, enabling technologies and engineering practice paradigms. The new curriculum was introduced in stages, commencing in 2004. Each unit of study comprises several modules, most supported by problem-based learning. Integration within, and between semesters is vitally important, and is enhanced by team teaching, which has also helped to provide a sense of peer-support. Assessment against sets of competencies rather than differentiated grading was introduced for core technical courses. Students progress between years of study with a greater understanding of the inter-relationship between the analytical, synthesis and practice components of the curriculum. There are a few issues to resolve, but several positive features have emerged so far. The positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accreditation Panels of both Engineers Australia and the Institution of Chemical Engineers, as well as comments from student representatives, have been significant confirmations of our approach. Keywords: curriculum design; chemical engineering education; graduate attributes; accreditation; problem-based learning.
INTRODUCTION
level of competencies from engineers—versatility in a range of areas, not just the core technical domain. Hence, the urgency to design a curriculum to deliver well-educated engineers capable of contributing to all aspects of sustainable development in an increasingly competitive world (Clift, 1998; Westerberg and Subrahmanian, 2000; Crosthwaite et al., 2001; Cussler and Moggridge, 2001; Gomes et al., 2000; Gomes, 2002).
Until recently, the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering curriculum at the University of Sydney could be described as a traditional, well-taught programme, representative of curriculum styles followed internationally—almost invariably based on unit operations with a petrochemical design capstone project, and all taught in a classical ‘teacher/ student’ mode. Its style and content had remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. However, the engineering profession has been undergoing change at a rapid pace. The 20th century saw our engineering discipline grow at a staggering rate and the fruits of that growth have permeated almost all aspects of people’s lives. The key drivers for change include social, economic, technical and geopolitical needs. A key factor to consider is that employers are demanding a greater
STIMULI FOR CHANGE Chemical Engineering educators and professional bodies have been flagging a changed situation and recommending remedial action for some considerable time (IEAust, 1996; Woods et al., 2000). These realizations have been slow to translate into practice. The recent curriculum renewal process by the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Sydney, marks an overdue initiative to engage with these challenges. A number of tensions have arisen in the educational sector recently due to professional and student imperatives,
Correspondence to: Dr V.G. Gomes, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
116
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
117
each driven by their respective needs. The professional imperatives include: . evolving new subject areas; . a rapidly emerging knowledge-based economy; . an inexorable trend towards globalization (including tertiary education); . interdisciplinarity; . intrusion of market forces in shaping education. It must be noted that over the last 10 years, both tertiary institutions and professional bodies have been formalizing their views on desired graduate attributes, both generic and technical. The urgency to map these attributes within any proposed curriculum has been underlined by their insistence for quantitative feedback on how these attributes are being integrated and monitored. Based on student reviews and course evaluations, the school identified the following specific issues from a student perspective: . perception of a high (often too high) work-load; . lack of ‘integrated’ teaching and learning; . failure to identify relevance of certain courses in the overall programme; . chronic dissatisfaction with the ‘quality’ of the learning experience. From the staff perspective, the key issues were: . . . . . .
a need to promote ‘learning’ over ‘teaching’; shifts in employer expectations; increasingly broader employment options; wider range of attributes desired; diversity of student background and choice; new technological developments and the impacts of information technology; . need for a student-centred rather than a content-driven approach (since students are the immediate beneficiaries of the education process); . funding and resource pressures. Given the multitude of stakeholders and drivers, the school felt it appropriate to consider the fundamentals of the education process and its alignment with current needs. A key instrument here is the curriculum—the blueprint or plan for directing student progress. Such a plan is made up of integrated aims, contents, methodology, and evaluation procedures. To aid in understanding the evolution of our revised curriculum, it is useful to consider the environment in which learning occurs. Figure 1 shows the connections between the learning process and the initial/boundary conditions that must be taken into account for achieving desired outcomes. Notice that the student characteristics and approaches occupy a focal point within the learning nexus. From surveys of the various stakeholders and an assessment of the drivers for change, it was concluded that the curriculum must achieve the following: . provide a road-map for the multiple stakeholders in charting the graduation process; . include adequate mapping of graduate attributes, both technical and generic; . describe the overall philosophy and position the individual units of study within the overall context;
Figure 1. The learning nexus in higher education.
. specify the principles of organization of the content including the knowledge and outcomes of the units with built-in flexibility; . sequence the contents along a path of development, adopting a stepwise progression from less to more complex knowledge and capabilities; . broadly define the problem-solving contexts; . apportion content into manageable units for teaching and learning in the time slots available; . enforce horizontal and vertical integration between units of study.
THE CHANGE PROCESS The school started the curriculum renewal process by establishing a task-force comprising all staff members involved/concerned with teaching and learning. The discussions and committee focus were moderated by a coordinator. This committee started from the fundamental question of ‘what makes a good Chemical Engineer?’ and how the School related to its geo-political position (that is, for a university situated in Sydney in the Asia-Pacific region; see Barton and Petrie (2005) for a discussion of the specific challenges which face such a school). A full-time post-doctoral fellow was employed to aid the process, working on gathering data and reviewing available educational theory and experiences at globally relevant institutions. The task-force met regularly (roughly every fortnight) and encouraged open debate on a wide range of considered issues. Figure 2 gives an overview of the drivers shaping our curriculum design process. Input from diverse sources was sought—including the university, the wider engineering faculty, industry and professional bodies. Liaison with industry and with professional bodies was facilitated by the school’s Chemical Engineering Foundation, a bridge between the school and a consortium of industry representatives. Feedback from relevant stakeholders, including the entire student body as well as their elected representatives, was sought prior to finalising the content, structure and delivery style of the new curriculum.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
118
GOMES et al. . problem-based learning (asking the ‘right’ questions— again facilitation is key); . student-centred learning (creating an enabling environment and providing appropriate direction—the focus here is on mentoring aspects).
Figure 2. Inputs to curriculum design process.
Note that prior to even considering the nature/content of our new curriculum, a number of preliminary issues were addressed in some detail: . Identification of key graduate attributes to be mapped within the programme. . Development of mechanisms for monitoring/quantifying the attainment of these graduate attributes. Formal student surveys (for each existing course) were used with consolidated management feedback at both the school and faculty levels. . Deconstructing the ‘old’ curriculum in terms of content, revising the material, and assigning it as either a core skill, an enabling technology, as suitable for treatment through project work—or, indeed, discarding it completely. . Establishing a process whereby each individual course could be reviewed for its content, teaching/learning approach, and assessment procedures against the broader degree aims. A key question centred around what defines a 21st century chemical engineer and how best to equip such a person. Our approach was to crystallize the graduate attributes desired by relevant stakeholders, particularly those suggested by the University and a key professional body (IEAust, 1996). The selected desirable attributes for our graduates (given in the Appendix) are in stark contrast to those of the past, where technical skills were almost exclusively the prime focus. The key findings of this preliminary review were that:
In terms of a mathematical analogue, the task-force might be thought of as attempting to solve an over-constrained, multi-objective optimization problem for which a number of possible ‘solutions’ were known to be possible. In these terms, the key point to appreciate is that no single ‘correct’ solution exists—our redesigned curriculum was simply one acceptable (in our eyes) option. This curriculum redesign exercise took a period of 18 months, including the time to document the overall structure and provide detailed descriptions of the various courses. Subsequent to dialogues with the key stakeholder groups and fine-tuning the curriculum content, the road to acceptance involved obtaining approvals from the various governing bodies—the school, the engineering faculty, the university and the accreditation panels (Engineers Australia and IChemE). We have opted for a staged implementation of the curriculum, beginning with the early years, to allow as smooth a transition as possible between the old and new curricula. Currently we are at the stage of implementing the redesigned curriculum for fourth year students and are thus in a position to review the overall change process (and its impact) over the first three years of our degree programme.
CURRICULUM STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION An overview of the organization of the curriculum in terms of a hierarchical structure is shown in Figure 3, where the core principles form the foundation and the electives denote aspirations for specialization. The structure is aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy of intellectual activity (Bloom, 1956): knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The connections to higher levels of learning are facilitated by the enabling technologies and the designated courses based on practice and projects.
. active learning techniques should be a prime focus throughout the programme; . constructive alignment of assessment with learning outcomes would be crucial; . team teaching of several modules is desirable to enable integrated learning within each course; . the generic attributes must be mapped across the course curriculum. To meet the aims of our conceptual curriculum, a ‘spiral’ learning model was adopted. Here, the overall curriculum is focused on understanding chemical engineering fundamentals in increasing complexity and in an increasingly complex context. Such a learning model can be viewed as an evolution of several active learning styles (Hadgraft and Prpic, 2002) as follows: . project-based learning (formulating appropriate and interesting problems—facilitation is the key issue here);
Figure 3. Curriculum organization hierarchy (Spl ¼ specializations/ electives).
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL Further details incorporated into the new curriculum structure include: . Scales of engagement: an organised transition from the initial big picture (or macroscopic view) to a more detailed ‘microscopic’ view together with a reconciliation of perspectives between these multiple scales; from core and enabling subjects to specializations; from analysis to synthesis of processes; from continuum to discrete systems; from differential to hybrid difference/differential systems; from simple to complex ‘systems’ topics; from proposing and testing to evaluating and managing. . Stages of engagement: 1st year—macroscopic orientation; 2nd year—molecular and microscopic views; 3rd year—superposition of multiple scales; 4th year— comprehensive capstone design project and research orientation (i.e., thesis). . Each course to engage students in project work that enables the development of design and research concepts with cross-course projects to enable horizontal integration. . Delivery of courses to be guided by ‘aims’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘feedback’ integrated in a closed-loop sense. . Encourage problem-based learning (through case studies, mini-design projects) and life-long learning (through research projects and enabling investigation). In essence, it was agreed that the new curriculum must develop technical competence and generic attributes simultaneously; incorporate contemporary themes that serve both industry and the community; while the delivery must incorporate a decidedly integrative approach. Given our existing (and anticipated) staff profile, the main educational themes identified were: . process/product design (both as a basic course ‘skeleton’ and as a unifying principle for integration); . chemical engineering fundamentals (defined as core organizing principles, molecular transformations, multiscale analysis); . specializations (such as bio-, material and environmental engineering); . systems engineering approach, including sustainability (in terms of a series of related courses that ran through the entire programme as a unifying thread); . research implicit content (in resonance with the university’s guidelines on research-led teaching). In line with these themes, a suite of engineering tools (defined as part of the overall content) must also be developed and integrated. These tools included computing, modelling, statistics and professional engineering skills. A ‘just-intime’ delivery approach was favoured to allow learning of material during its concurrent application. This approach provides the motivation to learn the theory and the enabling technologies as and when needed. This is achieved through conducting project work that makes use of the tools developed in concurrent courses in a semester. For example, instruction in computer programming skills is synchronized with a project conducted in a parallel course. The various courses (four 6 credit point courses in each of two semesters per year) were developed within the following categories: (A) core courses emphasising the necessary fundamental concepts;
119
(B) enabling technology courses providing skills needed to problem solve; (C) engineering practice courses (i.e., group work based but with a strong individual assessment component) to provide a problem-based learning (PBL) context; (D) elective courses for specialization. Table 1 summarizes the basic structure of the new curriculum. Columns (A)– (D) reflect the corresponding categories as defined above. Note that first year is common within the Faculty of Engineering with a ‘flexible entry’ policy that allows incoming students to be exposed to a breadth of engineering before committing to a particular branch by year’s end. The aim here is also to equip students with a suite of skills for computing, generic professional skills and an area of specialization for students ‘committed early’ to a specific discipline. An introductory course on energy and mass balancing is thus available to students who opt for chemical engineering rather than following the fully flexible option during their first year. It is worth noting that the names of our courses no longer reflect the traditional options (such as Thermodynamics I or Reaction Engineering II). The new nomenclature is intended to allow incorporation of multiple modules within any one course, provide a broader perspective in learning material and to avoid compartmentalized courses where concurrent or staged units of study bear negligible relation to each other. Curriculum Structure Progress of a student from the early to advanced stages within the curriculum is shown in Figure 4. In broad view, Year 2 focuses on ‘analysis’ while Year 3 focuses on ‘design’ and ‘synthesis’. However the scope of the latter is much wider than a simple focus on large-scale, continuous petrochemical processes (which are of course still considered, for example, in both CHNG3801 and 3803). Rather the emphasis is on inculcating within students the view that analysis and design are best considered simultaneously (i.e., each impacts on the other), rather than the latter being a bolt-on to the former. Design is seen as an important unifying principle underpinning the new curriculum. The (year long) design programme in the final year reinforces and builds upon the relevant expertise that students have developed in the earlier (particularly third) years. As they move towards graduation, chemical engineering students must become increasingly aware of the (often complex) interactions and trade-offs that occur between technical, economic, social and environmental considerations. These issues are central to the design work carried out in their fourth year. It should be noted that extensive use has always been made in our school of experienced industrial consultants to provide input on these matters. In addition, several of the elective courses have components that explicitly deal with the wider context of engineering today (e.g., CHNG5002 Environmental Decision Making and CHNG5003 Green Engineering). The curriculum is both horizontally and vertically integrated with systematic progression within a year and between years. The practice-based units of study require that the student acquire the requisite theoretical knowledge and enabling technology to proceed to their application.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
120
GOMES et al. Table 1. New chemical engineering curriculum structure.
Year 1 Sem 1
Mathematics & Science
Mathematics & Science
Engineering Computing
Introduction to Engineering Disciplines
Year 1 Sem 2
Mathematics & Science
Mathematics & Science
Professional Engineering
CHNG1103 Mass & Energy Transformations
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Year 2 Sem 1
CHNG 2801 Conservation and Transport Processes
CHNG 2802 Applied Maths for Chemical Engineers
CHNG 2803 Analysis Practice 1—Energy and Fluid Systems
CHEM 2 Physical Chemistry for ChE
Year 2 Sem 2
CHNG 2804 Chemical and Biological Systems Behaviour
CHNG 2805 Industrial Systems and Sustainability
CHNG 2806 Analysis Practice 2—Treatment, Purification and Recovery Systems
CHEM 2 Chemistry of Biological Systems
Year 3 Sem 1
CHNG 3801 Process Design
CHNG 3802 Operation, Analysis and Improvement of Industrial Systems
CHNG 3803 Design Practice 1—Chemical and Biological Processes
CHNG 3804 Elective
Year 3 Sem 2
CHNG 3805 Product Formulation and Design
CHNG 3806 Management of Industrial Systems
CHNG 3807 Design Practice 2—Products and Value Chains
CHNG 3808 Elective
Year 4 Sem 1
CHNG 4801 Thesis A
CHNG 4802 Design A
CHNG 5001 Elective
CHNG 5002 Elective
Year 4 Sem 2
CHNG 4805 Thesis B
CHNG 4806 Design B
CHNG 5003 Elective
CHNG 5004 Elective
Categories
Further, design is revisited within the curriculum from the early stages at various scales and levels of complexity. For example, design in first year is based on macroscopic balances and in the following year is based on transport equations or micro- and mesoscopic balances. One key question that had to be addressed during our curriculum design is: what components in the original curriculum could be discarded to make room for new material. Our approach has been to discard duplication of effort (e.g., by teaching distillation as part of transport processes) and consolidate courses through modules (e.g., consolidating the teaching of heat and mass transfer rather than using separate courses). The aim was to not compromise on core principles and yet provide options for students to gain supplementary knowledge from electives of their choice. Another important element of the new curriculum (and as
an aid to vertical integration), was to expand on the analogy between natural and industrial systems). For example, a course exploring the thermodynamics of chemical and biological systems has its analogue in terms of industrial systems and sustainability. Another course which examines the operation of industrial processes (with a strong analytical flavour) is paralleled with a course which explores the management of industrial systems, with a focus on professional practice. We have endeavoured, as far as possible, to make such comparisons explicit. Problem-Based Learning and Practical Skills Development The problem-based learning (PBL) component within the curriculum (Boud and Feletti, 1997) incorporates the
Figure 4. Progress in attributes and curriculum content.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL agreed graduate attributes in due measure. PBL is a strategy that is widely used in non-engineering disciplines such as medicine and the health sciences. It poses significant, contextualized, real-world situations, while providing the necessary resources, guidance and instruction to learners as they simultaneously develop content knowledge and problem-solving skills. The learning is highly student-focused and carried out in small groups with the staff member being more of a ‘guide’ than a formal teacher. Inherent to project and problembased learning are needed skills for communication (both oral and written) and teamwork (both as team member and leader), and abilities in interpersonal relations, critical thinking and reflective judgement. Examples of problems posed recently involved designing an artificial heart, and designing a bio-refinery among others. Much of the PBL component of our new curriculum lies within the engineering practice courses—column (C) in Table 1. The emphasis is far removed from the student simply getting ‘the right answer’—wherever possible the problem posed has no single correct solution. Rather what is stressed is the entire process of problem formulation and resolution, directed towards reaching an acceptable solution (where ‘acceptable’ may require the consideration of a number of (possibly conflicting) criteria within a climate of uncertainty), and reflecting on how such a solution was obtained and what it means from the standpoint of engineering judgement. A key physical resource which the school designed for imparting practical skills is an integrated ‘web-plant’ consisting of two main structural elements: (1) a ‘hands-on’ facility designed as a flexible process and product engineering toolkit, consisting of reactors, separators, mixers, pumps, valves, piping and instruments; and (2) a web-enabled interactive control system which allows both virtual experiments as well as designing/controlling processes in addition to studying their dynamics and scale-up. Human-machine interfaces have been developed to provide students access to the web-plant both locally (at the laboratory) and externally through a web-browser. These interfaces open the way for delivering practical learning modules over the internet. Practical skills are further strengthened through our Year 3 (semester 2) ‘week-in-industry’ (WII) programme which is followed by the course ‘Practical Experience’ over a 12week period during the summer break. WII provides the students with their first formal industrial engagement, with teams of students solving a variety of significant industrial problems during a one week placement. Practical Experience consolidates this initial exposure through more extensive industrial problem-solving. This industry exposure is extended through a scheme called MIPPS (Major Industrial Project Placement Scheme), allocated to roughly the top third of the final-year class. These ‘industrial research’ projects are conducted with students working on designated sites for an entire semester with both industrial and academic supervisors. Thus the new curriculum more than adequately addresses the issues of a practical skills component as an important graduate attribute. Whilst MIPPS does not engage the whole class, we have witnessed a cross-fertilization between the two cohorts of students—where professional practice skills picked up by MIPPS students are passed on to non-MIPPS students through concurrent engagements in the curriculum.
121
Single and Combined Degrees In addition to our four year BE(Chemical) degree option, students can opt for a five year combined degree which allows them to complete two degrees in combination with other faculties, such as BE/BCom, BE/BSc, BE/BA, BE/LLB, BE/BMed Sci and others. About 30% of our total intake every year (mostly the higher ranking students) takes one of these options. Therefore, the new curriculum had to seamlessly integrate all such students. Table 2 summarizes the overall structure for a single (4 year) degree. Certainly combined degrees introduce additional complexity into the curriculum structure. After an initial transitional period, the following arrangements apply: . All combined degrees (except the BE/BA) comprise 144 credit points (CP) of science/engineering and 96 CP from the associated degree. . The BE/BA comprises 156 CP of science/engineering and 84 CP of ‘Arts’. Table 3 summarizes the science/engineering content for a student doing any combined degree (other than the BE/ BA). This content is spread over 5 (rather than 4) years and includes all the core engineering material taken by a student doing a single degree. The approach here is that combined degree students replace engineering elective material with non-engineering elective material (which is viewed by accreditation bodies as ‘specialist’ material). Constructive Alignment There is a much greater emphasis in the new curriculum on ‘process and product technology’ while the use of ‘systems’ thinking is now central to our approach to teaching/ learning. In terms of learning outcomes, the aim is to ensure that all core chemical engineering material is covered by the end of third year—thus allowing for vertical integration with a research-oriented thesis, design-oriented courses and advanced electives that make up the final year of our programme. The new curriculum boldly addresses the issues of semesterization, compartmentalization and vertical and horizontal integration between courses. Our model for integration, presented in Figure 5, illustrates how an integrated projectbased approach to teaching and learning is realised in stages. The modes of delivery for course content are varied and consist of a mix of lectures, tutorials, assignments, and practical and laboratory work. What has changed significantly is the way the courses are integrated with respect to each other and the design of modules within a course
Table 2. Overall structure for a single (4 year) BE(Chem) degree. Component Basic Sciences and Mathematics Generic Engineering (Core) Chemical Engineering (Elective) Chemical Engineering Thesis and Design Total credit points
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
Year 1
Year 2
24
18
18 6
30
48
48
Year 3
Year 4
36 12
24
48
24 48
122
GOMES et al.
Table 3. Overall structure for the science/engineering content of a combined degree. Component Basic Sciences and Mathematics Generic Engineering (Core) Chemical Engineering (Elective) Chemical Engineering Thesis and Design Total credit points
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
24
6
18 6
30
36
–
–
–
–
48
36
36
24 24
that are held together through common themes (e.g., CHNG2804 includes thermodynamics applied in the physical, chemical and biological domains). Specific problems in the form of case studies, major laboratory and design and research projects are defined within each semester. Note that it is these problems that act as the main integrating factor between the various courses. The ‘teaching team’ within a given course relies on driving forces such as those coming from society, environment, research, industry and state affairs to shape its problems. These ensure that the curriculum remains robust through staying in touch with new and emerging techno-sociological problems. This integrated curriculum allows for knowledge structured around major concepts and principles, shaping of knowledge by the context in which learning occurs, and strengthening knowledge through experience and collaboration. In this context, both peer and self-assessment are important components of the process that permits awareness and self-monitoring of learning. Mapping Graduate Attributes and Learning Outcomes The new curriculum was evaluated for its systematic mapping of the desired graduate attributes onto individual
courses. An example of this mapping (on a scale of 0 – 5, with 0 denoting negligible emphasis and 5 as substantial emphasis) for the attribute ‘research and inquiry’ for Year 4 is shown in Table 4. As might be expected, this quality is greatly emphasised in the core components for this year, especially in the thesis and design-oriented courses. The learning outcomes of an undergraduate course in chemical engineering represent the chief qualities that the course is designed to develop in a student who will go on to practise in industry. An example of a set of objectives and outcomes for an exemplar unit of study is given in Table 5. The ‘enhanced’ outcomes denote depth and the ‘extended’ outcomes denote breadth attained. Whilst the high-level outcome statements themselves define course objectives, somewhat more guidance is required by those designing or accrediting a particular undergraduate course. Since no tertiary programme can ever equip graduates with all the skills they will need to deploy over an entire career, there will always remain a need for continued professional development and thus any tertiary degree programme should lay solid foundations on which further education and training can be built.
Assessment The objective of any assessment is to ensure that students reach an acceptable level of competence. To meet this objective, students are required to submit evidence relating to their achievements. This can take the form of reports, presentations, log books, plans, drawings, computer programmes, examination results and other reported material. Within our new curriculum, the core and enabling technology courses during second and third year are assessed solely for demonstrable ‘competency’ (and are thus Pass/ Fail), while all other courses are graded (0 – 100). In this context, attainment of competency is determined to the satisfaction of both staff and students for a particular course noting that a fixed numerical grade (e.g., above
Figure 5. Integrated chemical engineering curriculum model.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
123
Table 4. Mapping of graduate attribute ‘research and inquiry’ in Year 4.
Units of study
Chemical Engineering Design 1 CHNG4201
Process Plant Risk Management CHNG4402
Project Engineering CHNG4401
Practical Experience CHNG4001
Chemical Engineering Design 2 CHNG4202
Thesis CHNG4002
3
3
3
4
5
5
Rating (0–5)
50%) is unaccepted as a cut-off mark for passing that course. Rather, the bar for each course has been raised substantially depending on past experience and the content’s level of difficulty. This precludes a mind-set of simply aiming for a 50% (or nearby) mark to demonstrate ‘competency’. This concept has been quite challenging for both students and staff alike. However, with multiple forms of assessments for the modules within a course, a wide range of complementary information is available on which to assess a student’s performance. Where team teaching is involved, the staff consult among themselves in some detail on assessment issues. Even for the project-based units (where numerical grades are reported to the university), final examinations are conducted to assess individual abilities and to avoid total reliance on group-work marks. Further, the overall performance during a semester is taken into consideration for determining student progress with the proviso that students may carry a maximum of one failed course (for a repeat) between subsequent years.
As a result of the tight horizontal and vertical integration between courses, the school has implemented a student progression policy that enforces close to ‘plug flow’ through the entire degree programme. This has necessitated the development of new assessment policies and guidelines (including structured post-examination interviews of ‘borderline’ students). It must be noted that enforcing such lock-step progression through a degree programme has proven to be a challenge. In a sense, students must attain a holistic level of competence in a semester prior to progressing further in the degree programme. For obvious reasons, students are not totally satisfied with this arrangement. Experiences to Date Recently, our revised and renewed curriculum design received highly positive reviews from both the Engineers Australia (EA) and the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE, UK) accreditation panels in terms of its innovation and intended service as a teaching support tool
Table 5. Example mapping of learning outcomes in a course (CHNG2805: Industrial Systems and Sustainability) highlighting extended and enhanced components. (A) Aims and objectives (1) To develop awareness of the concepts which underpin Sustainable Development, including technical and economic efficiency, stewardship of the bio-physical environment, and social acceptability. (2) To examine the material economy from the perspective of open and closed thermodynamic systems, and the implications of this for resource consumption and waste generation. (3) To explore governing frameworks for Sustainability, and engagement of chemical engineers with these. (4) To explore tools and approaches for quantifying industry’s environmental performance and to examine within a Sustainability framework. (5) To consider how process/ product design and operation can be informed by Green Engineering principles, and to suggest how this combination of perspectives could lead to a re-defined industry sector.
(B) Learning outcomes (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(6) (7) (8)
Understanding the thermodynamic basis of the material economy in terms of resource consumption and waste generation. Understanding the philosophical, social and political bases for sustainability, in addition to the technical, economic and environmental ones. Understanding the role of technology in promoting sustainability. Understanding corporate responsibilities with respect to sustainability. Quantifying the environmental performance of industry (with specific reference to the resource and processing sectors) using appropriate tools. Interrogating governing frameworks for sustainability to support actions within industry. Understanding trade-offs in decisions which impact on sustainability. Being effective communicators of sustainability arguments to all stakeholders, and interpreters of social and environmental concerns in ways which can help shape industry practice.
Core
Extended
Enhanced
Application
Design
50%
(A):2,4 (B):2,8
(A):3,5 (B):6,7
50%
(A):1,4,5 (B):5,6,7
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
124
GOMES et al.
(IEAust/IChemE, 2005). To provide the academic foundation for corporate membership and registration as a Chartered Chemical Engineer, IChemE accredited our degree programmes at the MEng level—recognizing the degree of the highest international standards that both deepen and broaden the knowledge base of their graduates. Recent surveys of student cohorts have shown that our new programme enhances student motivation, their focus on self-directed learning, while allowing flexible learning. There has also been a significant increase in student engagement with the broader learning process. Despite the ‘raising of the bar’ and the multiple challenges facing the enterprise, the percentage of students progressing from second to third year was about 85% during 2005 which was most encouraging. An important side-effect of adopting the new curriculum has been ‘team teaching’ (each course being taught by several staff members), which has been a departure from our past practice. The extensive employment of this approach with a staff coordinator for each course, for each semester and for each year, clearly encouraged staff to adopt a consistent team-based and student-centred approach. This has opened new doors for collaboration and for experimentation with teaching and learning options. Our experience clearly underlines the importance of having all participants (both staff and students) on-board as a ‘teaching and learning collective’ if success is to be achieved. The School fully expects that this cooperative approach will ease the challenges that no doubt still await us all. CONCLUSIONS The School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering has incorporated an integrated framework for teaching core concepts, enabling technologies and engineering practice paradigms, in the first major redesign of its curriculum in several decades. First, the desired graduate attributes were determined, followed by the design of mechanisms to impart them to the student population. The engineering practice segment was established with a programme supported by a PBL approach. The new curriculum was introduced in 2004 in stages from Year 1 onwards. The specification of the attributes was the first major hurdle to be overcome as significant time and ongoing debate are needed to develop a shared understanding and ownership of the graduate attributes. Motivating staff to get involved in unfamiliar territory as expected is a challenge, but team teaching has helped to provide a sense of peer-support. Assessment against set competencies rather than differentiated grading (e.g., on bell curves) was introduced for core courses. Our instructional strategy moves students towards the acquisition of knowledge and skills through a staged sequence of problems presented in context, together with associated learning materials and staff support. The principal idea behind PBL is that learners receive a problem, a query or a puzzle that they must solve within a framework that is centred upon the key problems in professional practice. Thus, PBL is both a curriculum and a process, requiring carefully selected and designed problems that demand acquisition of critical knowledge, problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies and team participation.
Underlying issues with a traditional curriculum motivated change—we were not alone, nationally or internationally. The result is a highly integrated curriculum. There are a few issues to resolve, but many positive features have emerged so far. Accreditation clearly documented the process of change, motivations, methods and outcomes. The positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accreditation Panels and student representatives have been significant confirmations of our approach. REFERENCES Barton, M. and Petrie, J.G., 2005. Small, agile and dynamic—how to succeed as a small chemical engineering department in a changing global environment, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, July. Bloom, B.S. (ed.), 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals (David McKay, Inc., New York, USA). Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (eds), 1997, The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning (St Martin’s Press, NY, USA). Clift, R., 1998, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer and her role, Trans IChemE, Part B, 76: 151–160. Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I. and Lant, P., 2001, Curriculum design for chemical engineering graduate attributes, Proceedings—World Chemical Engineering Congress, Melbourne, Australia. Cussler, E.L. and Moggridge, G., 2001, Chemical Product Design (Cambridge University Press, NY, USA). Gomes, V.G., Choy, B., Barton, G.W. and Romagnoli, J.A., 2000, Webbased courseware in teaching laboratory-based courses, Global J Engineering Educ, 4(1): 65–71. Gomes, V.G., 2002, Consolidation of engineering education through industrial case studies, Intl J Eng Educ, 18(4): 479–484. Hadgraft and Prpic, 2002, Changing the mind-sets for student centred, flexible learning, 13th Annual Conference, Australasian Association for Engineering, Canberra, Australia. Institution of Engineers, Australia Task Force (IEAUST), 1996, Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future: Review Report (Institution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra, Australia). IEAust/IChemE, 2005, Accreditation Report. Westerberg, A.W. and Subrahmanian, E., 2000, Product design, Comput Chem Eng, 24: 959–966. Woods, D.R., Felder, R.M., Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J.E., 2000, The future of engineering education—developing critical skills, Chem Eng Ed, 34(2): 108–117.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors fully acknowledge with thanks the many inputs received from all participants to our endeavours—especially all school staff members, our industrial partners, and above all our students, who have stoically endured being educational guinea-pigs. A special acknowledgement goes to Professor Bob Armstrong of MIT Chemical Engineering, who has been bold enough to champion this agenda on a global scale, and from whom we have shamelessly borrowed ideas, which emerged from the series of workshops conducted throughout the USA in 2003 and 2004. The manuscript was received 7 February 2006 and accepted for publication after revision 21 August 2006.
APPENDIX: GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES Knowledge Skills . Have a body of relevant technical knowledge; . Be able to apply theory to practice; . Be able to identify, access, organise and communicate information in both written and oral form. Practical Skills . Be able to collect, correlate, display, analyse and report observations;
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL . Be able to apply experimentally obtained results to new situations; . Be able to test hypotheses experimentally; . Be able to apply technical skills. Thinking Skills . . . . . .
Exercise critical judgement; Be capable of rigorous and independent thinking; Account for their own decisions; Be realistic self-evaluators; Adopt a problem solving approach; Be creative and imaginative thinkers. Personal Skills
. Have the capacity for and a commitment to life-long learning;
125
. Have the ability to plan and achieve goals in both the personal and the professional spheres; . Have the ability to work with others. Personal Attributes . Strive for tolerance and integrity; . Acknowledge their personal responsibility for their own judgements, and their ethical behaviour towards others. In addition to knowledge and application skills, the above considerations recognise engineers as reflective practitioners, for whom practice is informed not only by established knowledge, but by critical reflection of the impact of their practice in relation to expectations and values of society.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
www.icheme.org/ece doi: 10.1205/ece.06020
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL V. G. GOMES1 , G. W. BARTON1, J. G. PETRIE1, J. ROMAGNOLI2, P. HOLT3, A. ABBAS4, B. COHEN5, A. T. HARRIS1, B. S. HAYNES1, T. A. G. LANGRISH1, J. ORELLANA1, H. T. SEE1, M. VALIX1 and D. WHITE1 1
School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA 3 Ecological Engineering, Prahran, VIC, Australia 4 School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
B
ased on results of our own research and stakeholder surveys, the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at The University of Sydney has identified a number of imperatives for curriculum change, and has used this stimulus to embark on the task of curriculum renewal. First, the desired graduate attributes were determined, followed by the design of mechanisms needed to integrate these within the curriculum. The curriculum was designed to incorporate an integrated framework for teaching all core concepts, enabling technologies and engineering practice paradigms. The new curriculum was introduced in stages, commencing in 2004. Each unit of study comprises several modules, most supported by problem-based learning. Integration within, and between semesters is vitally important, and is enhanced by team teaching, which has also helped to provide a sense of peer-support. Assessment against sets of competencies rather than differentiated grading was introduced for core technical courses. Students progress between years of study with a greater understanding of the inter-relationship between the analytical, synthesis and practice components of the curriculum. There are a few issues to resolve, but several positive features have emerged so far. The positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accreditation Panels of both Engineers Australia and the Institution of Chemical Engineers, as well as comments from student representatives, have been significant confirmations of our approach. Keywords: curriculum design; chemical engineering education; graduate attributes; accreditation; problem-based learning.
INTRODUCTION
level of competencies from engineers—versatility in a range of areas, not just the core technical domain. Hence, the urgency to design a curriculum to deliver well-educated engineers capable of contributing to all aspects of sustainable development in an increasingly competitive world (Clift, 1998; Westerberg and Subrahmanian, 2000; Crosthwaite et al., 2001; Cussler and Moggridge, 2001; Gomes et al., 2000; Gomes, 2002).
Until recently, the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering curriculum at the University of Sydney could be described as a traditional, well-taught programme, representative of curriculum styles followed internationally—almost invariably based on unit operations with a petrochemical design capstone project, and all taught in a classical ‘teacher/ student’ mode. Its style and content had remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. However, the engineering profession has been undergoing change at a rapid pace. The 20th century saw our engineering discipline grow at a staggering rate and the fruits of that growth have permeated almost all aspects of people’s lives. The key drivers for change include social, economic, technical and geopolitical needs. A key factor to consider is that employers are demanding a greater
STIMULI FOR CHANGE Chemical Engineering educators and professional bodies have been flagging a changed situation and recommending remedial action for some considerable time (IEAust, 1996; Woods et al., 2000). These realizations have been slow to translate into practice. The recent curriculum renewal process by the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Sydney, marks an overdue initiative to engage with these challenges. A number of tensions have arisen in the educational sector recently due to professional and student imperatives,
Correspondence to: Dr V.G. Gomes, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
116
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
117
each driven by their respective needs. The professional imperatives include: . evolving new subject areas; . a rapidly emerging knowledge-based economy; . an inexorable trend towards globalization (including tertiary education); . interdisciplinarity; . intrusion of market forces in shaping education. It must be noted that over the last 10 years, both tertiary institutions and professional bodies have been formalizing their views on desired graduate attributes, both generic and technical. The urgency to map these attributes within any proposed curriculum has been underlined by their insistence for quantitative feedback on how these attributes are being integrated and monitored. Based on student reviews and course evaluations, the school identified the following specific issues from a student perspective: . perception of a high (often too high) work-load; . lack of ‘integrated’ teaching and learning; . failure to identify relevance of certain courses in the overall programme; . chronic dissatisfaction with the ‘quality’ of the learning experience. From the staff perspective, the key issues were: . . . . . .
a need to promote ‘learning’ over ‘teaching’; shifts in employer expectations; increasingly broader employment options; wider range of attributes desired; diversity of student background and choice; new technological developments and the impacts of information technology; . need for a student-centred rather than a content-driven approach (since students are the immediate beneficiaries of the education process); . funding and resource pressures. Given the multitude of stakeholders and drivers, the school felt it appropriate to consider the fundamentals of the education process and its alignment with current needs. A key instrument here is the curriculum—the blueprint or plan for directing student progress. Such a plan is made up of integrated aims, contents, methodology, and evaluation procedures. To aid in understanding the evolution of our revised curriculum, it is useful to consider the environment in which learning occurs. Figure 1 shows the connections between the learning process and the initial/boundary conditions that must be taken into account for achieving desired outcomes. Notice that the student characteristics and approaches occupy a focal point within the learning nexus. From surveys of the various stakeholders and an assessment of the drivers for change, it was concluded that the curriculum must achieve the following: . provide a road-map for the multiple stakeholders in charting the graduation process; . include adequate mapping of graduate attributes, both technical and generic; . describe the overall philosophy and position the individual units of study within the overall context;
Figure 1. The learning nexus in higher education.
. specify the principles of organization of the content including the knowledge and outcomes of the units with built-in flexibility; . sequence the contents along a path of development, adopting a stepwise progression from less to more complex knowledge and capabilities; . broadly define the problem-solving contexts; . apportion content into manageable units for teaching and learning in the time slots available; . enforce horizontal and vertical integration between units of study.
THE CHANGE PROCESS The school started the curriculum renewal process by establishing a task-force comprising all staff members involved/concerned with teaching and learning. The discussions and committee focus were moderated by a coordinator. This committee started from the fundamental question of ‘what makes a good Chemical Engineer?’ and how the School related to its geo-political position (that is, for a university situated in Sydney in the Asia-Pacific region; see Barton and Petrie (2005) for a discussion of the specific challenges which face such a school). A full-time post-doctoral fellow was employed to aid the process, working on gathering data and reviewing available educational theory and experiences at globally relevant institutions. The task-force met regularly (roughly every fortnight) and encouraged open debate on a wide range of considered issues. Figure 2 gives an overview of the drivers shaping our curriculum design process. Input from diverse sources was sought—including the university, the wider engineering faculty, industry and professional bodies. Liaison with industry and with professional bodies was facilitated by the school’s Chemical Engineering Foundation, a bridge between the school and a consortium of industry representatives. Feedback from relevant stakeholders, including the entire student body as well as their elected representatives, was sought prior to finalising the content, structure and delivery style of the new curriculum.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
118
GOMES et al. . problem-based learning (asking the ‘right’ questions— again facilitation is key); . student-centred learning (creating an enabling environment and providing appropriate direction—the focus here is on mentoring aspects).
Figure 2. Inputs to curriculum design process.
Note that prior to even considering the nature/content of our new curriculum, a number of preliminary issues were addressed in some detail: . Identification of key graduate attributes to be mapped within the programme. . Development of mechanisms for monitoring/quantifying the attainment of these graduate attributes. Formal student surveys (for each existing course) were used with consolidated management feedback at both the school and faculty levels. . Deconstructing the ‘old’ curriculum in terms of content, revising the material, and assigning it as either a core skill, an enabling technology, as suitable for treatment through project work—or, indeed, discarding it completely. . Establishing a process whereby each individual course could be reviewed for its content, teaching/learning approach, and assessment procedures against the broader degree aims. A key question centred around what defines a 21st century chemical engineer and how best to equip such a person. Our approach was to crystallize the graduate attributes desired by relevant stakeholders, particularly those suggested by the University and a key professional body (IEAust, 1996). The selected desirable attributes for our graduates (given in the Appendix) are in stark contrast to those of the past, where technical skills were almost exclusively the prime focus. The key findings of this preliminary review were that:
In terms of a mathematical analogue, the task-force might be thought of as attempting to solve an over-constrained, multi-objective optimization problem for which a number of possible ‘solutions’ were known to be possible. In these terms, the key point to appreciate is that no single ‘correct’ solution exists—our redesigned curriculum was simply one acceptable (in our eyes) option. This curriculum redesign exercise took a period of 18 months, including the time to document the overall structure and provide detailed descriptions of the various courses. Subsequent to dialogues with the key stakeholder groups and fine-tuning the curriculum content, the road to acceptance involved obtaining approvals from the various governing bodies—the school, the engineering faculty, the university and the accreditation panels (Engineers Australia and IChemE). We have opted for a staged implementation of the curriculum, beginning with the early years, to allow as smooth a transition as possible between the old and new curricula. Currently we are at the stage of implementing the redesigned curriculum for fourth year students and are thus in a position to review the overall change process (and its impact) over the first three years of our degree programme.
CURRICULUM STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION An overview of the organization of the curriculum in terms of a hierarchical structure is shown in Figure 3, where the core principles form the foundation and the electives denote aspirations for specialization. The structure is aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy of intellectual activity (Bloom, 1956): knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The connections to higher levels of learning are facilitated by the enabling technologies and the designated courses based on practice and projects.
. active learning techniques should be a prime focus throughout the programme; . constructive alignment of assessment with learning outcomes would be crucial; . team teaching of several modules is desirable to enable integrated learning within each course; . the generic attributes must be mapped across the course curriculum. To meet the aims of our conceptual curriculum, a ‘spiral’ learning model was adopted. Here, the overall curriculum is focused on understanding chemical engineering fundamentals in increasing complexity and in an increasingly complex context. Such a learning model can be viewed as an evolution of several active learning styles (Hadgraft and Prpic, 2002) as follows: . project-based learning (formulating appropriate and interesting problems—facilitation is the key issue here);
Figure 3. Curriculum organization hierarchy (Spl ¼ specializations/ electives).
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL Further details incorporated into the new curriculum structure include: . Scales of engagement: an organised transition from the initial big picture (or macroscopic view) to a more detailed ‘microscopic’ view together with a reconciliation of perspectives between these multiple scales; from core and enabling subjects to specializations; from analysis to synthesis of processes; from continuum to discrete systems; from differential to hybrid difference/differential systems; from simple to complex ‘systems’ topics; from proposing and testing to evaluating and managing. . Stages of engagement: 1st year—macroscopic orientation; 2nd year—molecular and microscopic views; 3rd year—superposition of multiple scales; 4th year— comprehensive capstone design project and research orientation (i.e., thesis). . Each course to engage students in project work that enables the development of design and research concepts with cross-course projects to enable horizontal integration. . Delivery of courses to be guided by ‘aims’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘feedback’ integrated in a closed-loop sense. . Encourage problem-based learning (through case studies, mini-design projects) and life-long learning (through research projects and enabling investigation). In essence, it was agreed that the new curriculum must develop technical competence and generic attributes simultaneously; incorporate contemporary themes that serve both industry and the community; while the delivery must incorporate a decidedly integrative approach. Given our existing (and anticipated) staff profile, the main educational themes identified were: . process/product design (both as a basic course ‘skeleton’ and as a unifying principle for integration); . chemical engineering fundamentals (defined as core organizing principles, molecular transformations, multiscale analysis); . specializations (such as bio-, material and environmental engineering); . systems engineering approach, including sustainability (in terms of a series of related courses that ran through the entire programme as a unifying thread); . research implicit content (in resonance with the university’s guidelines on research-led teaching). In line with these themes, a suite of engineering tools (defined as part of the overall content) must also be developed and integrated. These tools included computing, modelling, statistics and professional engineering skills. A ‘just-intime’ delivery approach was favoured to allow learning of material during its concurrent application. This approach provides the motivation to learn the theory and the enabling technologies as and when needed. This is achieved through conducting project work that makes use of the tools developed in concurrent courses in a semester. For example, instruction in computer programming skills is synchronized with a project conducted in a parallel course. The various courses (four 6 credit point courses in each of two semesters per year) were developed within the following categories: (A) core courses emphasising the necessary fundamental concepts;
119
(B) enabling technology courses providing skills needed to problem solve; (C) engineering practice courses (i.e., group work based but with a strong individual assessment component) to provide a problem-based learning (PBL) context; (D) elective courses for specialization. Table 1 summarizes the basic structure of the new curriculum. Columns (A)– (D) reflect the corresponding categories as defined above. Note that first year is common within the Faculty of Engineering with a ‘flexible entry’ policy that allows incoming students to be exposed to a breadth of engineering before committing to a particular branch by year’s end. The aim here is also to equip students with a suite of skills for computing, generic professional skills and an area of specialization for students ‘committed early’ to a specific discipline. An introductory course on energy and mass balancing is thus available to students who opt for chemical engineering rather than following the fully flexible option during their first year. It is worth noting that the names of our courses no longer reflect the traditional options (such as Thermodynamics I or Reaction Engineering II). The new nomenclature is intended to allow incorporation of multiple modules within any one course, provide a broader perspective in learning material and to avoid compartmentalized courses where concurrent or staged units of study bear negligible relation to each other. Curriculum Structure Progress of a student from the early to advanced stages within the curriculum is shown in Figure 4. In broad view, Year 2 focuses on ‘analysis’ while Year 3 focuses on ‘design’ and ‘synthesis’. However the scope of the latter is much wider than a simple focus on large-scale, continuous petrochemical processes (which are of course still considered, for example, in both CHNG3801 and 3803). Rather the emphasis is on inculcating within students the view that analysis and design are best considered simultaneously (i.e., each impacts on the other), rather than the latter being a bolt-on to the former. Design is seen as an important unifying principle underpinning the new curriculum. The (year long) design programme in the final year reinforces and builds upon the relevant expertise that students have developed in the earlier (particularly third) years. As they move towards graduation, chemical engineering students must become increasingly aware of the (often complex) interactions and trade-offs that occur between technical, economic, social and environmental considerations. These issues are central to the design work carried out in their fourth year. It should be noted that extensive use has always been made in our school of experienced industrial consultants to provide input on these matters. In addition, several of the elective courses have components that explicitly deal with the wider context of engineering today (e.g., CHNG5002 Environmental Decision Making and CHNG5003 Green Engineering). The curriculum is both horizontally and vertically integrated with systematic progression within a year and between years. The practice-based units of study require that the student acquire the requisite theoretical knowledge and enabling technology to proceed to their application.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
120
GOMES et al. Table 1. New chemical engineering curriculum structure.
Year 1 Sem 1
Mathematics & Science
Mathematics & Science
Engineering Computing
Introduction to Engineering Disciplines
Year 1 Sem 2
Mathematics & Science
Mathematics & Science
Professional Engineering
CHNG1103 Mass & Energy Transformations
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Year 2 Sem 1
CHNG 2801 Conservation and Transport Processes
CHNG 2802 Applied Maths for Chemical Engineers
CHNG 2803 Analysis Practice 1—Energy and Fluid Systems
CHEM 2 Physical Chemistry for ChE
Year 2 Sem 2
CHNG 2804 Chemical and Biological Systems Behaviour
CHNG 2805 Industrial Systems and Sustainability
CHNG 2806 Analysis Practice 2—Treatment, Purification and Recovery Systems
CHEM 2 Chemistry of Biological Systems
Year 3 Sem 1
CHNG 3801 Process Design
CHNG 3802 Operation, Analysis and Improvement of Industrial Systems
CHNG 3803 Design Practice 1—Chemical and Biological Processes
CHNG 3804 Elective
Year 3 Sem 2
CHNG 3805 Product Formulation and Design
CHNG 3806 Management of Industrial Systems
CHNG 3807 Design Practice 2—Products and Value Chains
CHNG 3808 Elective
Year 4 Sem 1
CHNG 4801 Thesis A
CHNG 4802 Design A
CHNG 5001 Elective
CHNG 5002 Elective
Year 4 Sem 2
CHNG 4805 Thesis B
CHNG 4806 Design B
CHNG 5003 Elective
CHNG 5004 Elective
Categories
Further, design is revisited within the curriculum from the early stages at various scales and levels of complexity. For example, design in first year is based on macroscopic balances and in the following year is based on transport equations or micro- and mesoscopic balances. One key question that had to be addressed during our curriculum design is: what components in the original curriculum could be discarded to make room for new material. Our approach has been to discard duplication of effort (e.g., by teaching distillation as part of transport processes) and consolidate courses through modules (e.g., consolidating the teaching of heat and mass transfer rather than using separate courses). The aim was to not compromise on core principles and yet provide options for students to gain supplementary knowledge from electives of their choice. Another important element of the new curriculum (and as
an aid to vertical integration), was to expand on the analogy between natural and industrial systems). For example, a course exploring the thermodynamics of chemical and biological systems has its analogue in terms of industrial systems and sustainability. Another course which examines the operation of industrial processes (with a strong analytical flavour) is paralleled with a course which explores the management of industrial systems, with a focus on professional practice. We have endeavoured, as far as possible, to make such comparisons explicit. Problem-Based Learning and Practical Skills Development The problem-based learning (PBL) component within the curriculum (Boud and Feletti, 1997) incorporates the
Figure 4. Progress in attributes and curriculum content.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL agreed graduate attributes in due measure. PBL is a strategy that is widely used in non-engineering disciplines such as medicine and the health sciences. It poses significant, contextualized, real-world situations, while providing the necessary resources, guidance and instruction to learners as they simultaneously develop content knowledge and problem-solving skills. The learning is highly student-focused and carried out in small groups with the staff member being more of a ‘guide’ than a formal teacher. Inherent to project and problembased learning are needed skills for communication (both oral and written) and teamwork (both as team member and leader), and abilities in interpersonal relations, critical thinking and reflective judgement. Examples of problems posed recently involved designing an artificial heart, and designing a bio-refinery among others. Much of the PBL component of our new curriculum lies within the engineering practice courses—column (C) in Table 1. The emphasis is far removed from the student simply getting ‘the right answer’—wherever possible the problem posed has no single correct solution. Rather what is stressed is the entire process of problem formulation and resolution, directed towards reaching an acceptable solution (where ‘acceptable’ may require the consideration of a number of (possibly conflicting) criteria within a climate of uncertainty), and reflecting on how such a solution was obtained and what it means from the standpoint of engineering judgement. A key physical resource which the school designed for imparting practical skills is an integrated ‘web-plant’ consisting of two main structural elements: (1) a ‘hands-on’ facility designed as a flexible process and product engineering toolkit, consisting of reactors, separators, mixers, pumps, valves, piping and instruments; and (2) a web-enabled interactive control system which allows both virtual experiments as well as designing/controlling processes in addition to studying their dynamics and scale-up. Human-machine interfaces have been developed to provide students access to the web-plant both locally (at the laboratory) and externally through a web-browser. These interfaces open the way for delivering practical learning modules over the internet. Practical skills are further strengthened through our Year 3 (semester 2) ‘week-in-industry’ (WII) programme which is followed by the course ‘Practical Experience’ over a 12week period during the summer break. WII provides the students with their first formal industrial engagement, with teams of students solving a variety of significant industrial problems during a one week placement. Practical Experience consolidates this initial exposure through more extensive industrial problem-solving. This industry exposure is extended through a scheme called MIPPS (Major Industrial Project Placement Scheme), allocated to roughly the top third of the final-year class. These ‘industrial research’ projects are conducted with students working on designated sites for an entire semester with both industrial and academic supervisors. Thus the new curriculum more than adequately addresses the issues of a practical skills component as an important graduate attribute. Whilst MIPPS does not engage the whole class, we have witnessed a cross-fertilization between the two cohorts of students—where professional practice skills picked up by MIPPS students are passed on to non-MIPPS students through concurrent engagements in the curriculum.
121
Single and Combined Degrees In addition to our four year BE(Chemical) degree option, students can opt for a five year combined degree which allows them to complete two degrees in combination with other faculties, such as BE/BCom, BE/BSc, BE/BA, BE/LLB, BE/BMed Sci and others. About 30% of our total intake every year (mostly the higher ranking students) takes one of these options. Therefore, the new curriculum had to seamlessly integrate all such students. Table 2 summarizes the overall structure for a single (4 year) degree. Certainly combined degrees introduce additional complexity into the curriculum structure. After an initial transitional period, the following arrangements apply: . All combined degrees (except the BE/BA) comprise 144 credit points (CP) of science/engineering and 96 CP from the associated degree. . The BE/BA comprises 156 CP of science/engineering and 84 CP of ‘Arts’. Table 3 summarizes the science/engineering content for a student doing any combined degree (other than the BE/ BA). This content is spread over 5 (rather than 4) years and includes all the core engineering material taken by a student doing a single degree. The approach here is that combined degree students replace engineering elective material with non-engineering elective material (which is viewed by accreditation bodies as ‘specialist’ material). Constructive Alignment There is a much greater emphasis in the new curriculum on ‘process and product technology’ while the use of ‘systems’ thinking is now central to our approach to teaching/ learning. In terms of learning outcomes, the aim is to ensure that all core chemical engineering material is covered by the end of third year—thus allowing for vertical integration with a research-oriented thesis, design-oriented courses and advanced electives that make up the final year of our programme. The new curriculum boldly addresses the issues of semesterization, compartmentalization and vertical and horizontal integration between courses. Our model for integration, presented in Figure 5, illustrates how an integrated projectbased approach to teaching and learning is realised in stages. The modes of delivery for course content are varied and consist of a mix of lectures, tutorials, assignments, and practical and laboratory work. What has changed significantly is the way the courses are integrated with respect to each other and the design of modules within a course
Table 2. Overall structure for a single (4 year) BE(Chem) degree. Component Basic Sciences and Mathematics Generic Engineering (Core) Chemical Engineering (Elective) Chemical Engineering Thesis and Design Total credit points
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
Year 1
Year 2
24
18
18 6
30
48
48
Year 3
Year 4
36 12
24
48
24 48
122
GOMES et al.
Table 3. Overall structure for the science/engineering content of a combined degree. Component Basic Sciences and Mathematics Generic Engineering (Core) Chemical Engineering (Elective) Chemical Engineering Thesis and Design Total credit points
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
24
6
18 6
30
36
–
–
–
–
48
36
36
24 24
that are held together through common themes (e.g., CHNG2804 includes thermodynamics applied in the physical, chemical and biological domains). Specific problems in the form of case studies, major laboratory and design and research projects are defined within each semester. Note that it is these problems that act as the main integrating factor between the various courses. The ‘teaching team’ within a given course relies on driving forces such as those coming from society, environment, research, industry and state affairs to shape its problems. These ensure that the curriculum remains robust through staying in touch with new and emerging techno-sociological problems. This integrated curriculum allows for knowledge structured around major concepts and principles, shaping of knowledge by the context in which learning occurs, and strengthening knowledge through experience and collaboration. In this context, both peer and self-assessment are important components of the process that permits awareness and self-monitoring of learning. Mapping Graduate Attributes and Learning Outcomes The new curriculum was evaluated for its systematic mapping of the desired graduate attributes onto individual
courses. An example of this mapping (on a scale of 0 – 5, with 0 denoting negligible emphasis and 5 as substantial emphasis) for the attribute ‘research and inquiry’ for Year 4 is shown in Table 4. As might be expected, this quality is greatly emphasised in the core components for this year, especially in the thesis and design-oriented courses. The learning outcomes of an undergraduate course in chemical engineering represent the chief qualities that the course is designed to develop in a student who will go on to practise in industry. An example of a set of objectives and outcomes for an exemplar unit of study is given in Table 5. The ‘enhanced’ outcomes denote depth and the ‘extended’ outcomes denote breadth attained. Whilst the high-level outcome statements themselves define course objectives, somewhat more guidance is required by those designing or accrediting a particular undergraduate course. Since no tertiary programme can ever equip graduates with all the skills they will need to deploy over an entire career, there will always remain a need for continued professional development and thus any tertiary degree programme should lay solid foundations on which further education and training can be built.
Assessment The objective of any assessment is to ensure that students reach an acceptable level of competence. To meet this objective, students are required to submit evidence relating to their achievements. This can take the form of reports, presentations, log books, plans, drawings, computer programmes, examination results and other reported material. Within our new curriculum, the core and enabling technology courses during second and third year are assessed solely for demonstrable ‘competency’ (and are thus Pass/ Fail), while all other courses are graded (0 – 100). In this context, attainment of competency is determined to the satisfaction of both staff and students for a particular course noting that a fixed numerical grade (e.g., above
Figure 5. Integrated chemical engineering curriculum model.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
123
Table 4. Mapping of graduate attribute ‘research and inquiry’ in Year 4.
Units of study
Chemical Engineering Design 1 CHNG4201
Process Plant Risk Management CHNG4402
Project Engineering CHNG4401
Practical Experience CHNG4001
Chemical Engineering Design 2 CHNG4202
Thesis CHNG4002
3
3
3
4
5
5
Rating (0–5)
50%) is unaccepted as a cut-off mark for passing that course. Rather, the bar for each course has been raised substantially depending on past experience and the content’s level of difficulty. This precludes a mind-set of simply aiming for a 50% (or nearby) mark to demonstrate ‘competency’. This concept has been quite challenging for both students and staff alike. However, with multiple forms of assessments for the modules within a course, a wide range of complementary information is available on which to assess a student’s performance. Where team teaching is involved, the staff consult among themselves in some detail on assessment issues. Even for the project-based units (where numerical grades are reported to the university), final examinations are conducted to assess individual abilities and to avoid total reliance on group-work marks. Further, the overall performance during a semester is taken into consideration for determining student progress with the proviso that students may carry a maximum of one failed course (for a repeat) between subsequent years.
As a result of the tight horizontal and vertical integration between courses, the school has implemented a student progression policy that enforces close to ‘plug flow’ through the entire degree programme. This has necessitated the development of new assessment policies and guidelines (including structured post-examination interviews of ‘borderline’ students). It must be noted that enforcing such lock-step progression through a degree programme has proven to be a challenge. In a sense, students must attain a holistic level of competence in a semester prior to progressing further in the degree programme. For obvious reasons, students are not totally satisfied with this arrangement. Experiences to Date Recently, our revised and renewed curriculum design received highly positive reviews from both the Engineers Australia (EA) and the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE, UK) accreditation panels in terms of its innovation and intended service as a teaching support tool
Table 5. Example mapping of learning outcomes in a course (CHNG2805: Industrial Systems and Sustainability) highlighting extended and enhanced components. (A) Aims and objectives (1) To develop awareness of the concepts which underpin Sustainable Development, including technical and economic efficiency, stewardship of the bio-physical environment, and social acceptability. (2) To examine the material economy from the perspective of open and closed thermodynamic systems, and the implications of this for resource consumption and waste generation. (3) To explore governing frameworks for Sustainability, and engagement of chemical engineers with these. (4) To explore tools and approaches for quantifying industry’s environmental performance and to examine within a Sustainability framework. (5) To consider how process/ product design and operation can be informed by Green Engineering principles, and to suggest how this combination of perspectives could lead to a re-defined industry sector.
(B) Learning outcomes (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5)
(6) (7) (8)
Understanding the thermodynamic basis of the material economy in terms of resource consumption and waste generation. Understanding the philosophical, social and political bases for sustainability, in addition to the technical, economic and environmental ones. Understanding the role of technology in promoting sustainability. Understanding corporate responsibilities with respect to sustainability. Quantifying the environmental performance of industry (with specific reference to the resource and processing sectors) using appropriate tools. Interrogating governing frameworks for sustainability to support actions within industry. Understanding trade-offs in decisions which impact on sustainability. Being effective communicators of sustainability arguments to all stakeholders, and interpreters of social and environmental concerns in ways which can help shape industry practice.
Core
Extended
Enhanced
Application
Design
50%
(A):2,4 (B):2,8
(A):3,5 (B):6,7
50%
(A):1,4,5 (B):5,6,7
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
124
GOMES et al.
(IEAust/IChemE, 2005). To provide the academic foundation for corporate membership and registration as a Chartered Chemical Engineer, IChemE accredited our degree programmes at the MEng level—recognizing the degree of the highest international standards that both deepen and broaden the knowledge base of their graduates. Recent surveys of student cohorts have shown that our new programme enhances student motivation, their focus on self-directed learning, while allowing flexible learning. There has also been a significant increase in student engagement with the broader learning process. Despite the ‘raising of the bar’ and the multiple challenges facing the enterprise, the percentage of students progressing from second to third year was about 85% during 2005 which was most encouraging. An important side-effect of adopting the new curriculum has been ‘team teaching’ (each course being taught by several staff members), which has been a departure from our past practice. The extensive employment of this approach with a staff coordinator for each course, for each semester and for each year, clearly encouraged staff to adopt a consistent team-based and student-centred approach. This has opened new doors for collaboration and for experimentation with teaching and learning options. Our experience clearly underlines the importance of having all participants (both staff and students) on-board as a ‘teaching and learning collective’ if success is to be achieved. The School fully expects that this cooperative approach will ease the challenges that no doubt still await us all. CONCLUSIONS The School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering has incorporated an integrated framework for teaching core concepts, enabling technologies and engineering practice paradigms, in the first major redesign of its curriculum in several decades. First, the desired graduate attributes were determined, followed by the design of mechanisms to impart them to the student population. The engineering practice segment was established with a programme supported by a PBL approach. The new curriculum was introduced in 2004 in stages from Year 1 onwards. The specification of the attributes was the first major hurdle to be overcome as significant time and ongoing debate are needed to develop a shared understanding and ownership of the graduate attributes. Motivating staff to get involved in unfamiliar territory as expected is a challenge, but team teaching has helped to provide a sense of peer-support. Assessment against set competencies rather than differentiated grading (e.g., on bell curves) was introduced for core courses. Our instructional strategy moves students towards the acquisition of knowledge and skills through a staged sequence of problems presented in context, together with associated learning materials and staff support. The principal idea behind PBL is that learners receive a problem, a query or a puzzle that they must solve within a framework that is centred upon the key problems in professional practice. Thus, PBL is both a curriculum and a process, requiring carefully selected and designed problems that demand acquisition of critical knowledge, problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies and team participation.
Underlying issues with a traditional curriculum motivated change—we were not alone, nationally or internationally. The result is a highly integrated curriculum. There are a few issues to resolve, but many positive features have emerged so far. Accreditation clearly documented the process of change, motivations, methods and outcomes. The positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accreditation Panels and student representatives have been significant confirmations of our approach. REFERENCES Barton, M. and Petrie, J.G., 2005. Small, agile and dynamic—how to succeed as a small chemical engineering department in a changing global environment, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, July. Bloom, B.S. (ed.), 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals (David McKay, Inc., New York, USA). Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (eds), 1997, The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning (St Martin’s Press, NY, USA). Clift, R., 1998, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer and her role, Trans IChemE, Part B, 76: 151–160. Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I. and Lant, P., 2001, Curriculum design for chemical engineering graduate attributes, Proceedings—World Chemical Engineering Congress, Melbourne, Australia. Cussler, E.L. and Moggridge, G., 2001, Chemical Product Design (Cambridge University Press, NY, USA). Gomes, V.G., Choy, B., Barton, G.W. and Romagnoli, J.A., 2000, Webbased courseware in teaching laboratory-based courses, Global J Engineering Educ, 4(1): 65–71. Gomes, V.G., 2002, Consolidation of engineering education through industrial case studies, Intl J Eng Educ, 18(4): 479–484. Hadgraft and Prpic, 2002, Changing the mind-sets for student centred, flexible learning, 13th Annual Conference, Australasian Association for Engineering, Canberra, Australia. Institution of Engineers, Australia Task Force (IEAUST), 1996, Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future: Review Report (Institution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra, Australia). IEAust/IChemE, 2005, Accreditation Report. Westerberg, A.W. and Subrahmanian, E., 2000, Product design, Comput Chem Eng, 24: 959–966. Woods, D.R., Felder, R.M., Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J.E., 2000, The future of engineering education—developing critical skills, Chem Eng Ed, 34(2): 108–117.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors fully acknowledge with thanks the many inputs received from all participants to our endeavours—especially all school staff members, our industrial partners, and above all our students, who have stoically endured being educational guinea-pigs. A special acknowledgement goes to Professor Bob Armstrong of MIT Chemical Engineering, who has been bold enough to champion this agenda on a global scale, and from whom we have shamelessly borrowed ideas, which emerged from the series of workshops conducted throughout the USA in 2003 and 2004. The manuscript was received 7 February 2006 and accepted for publication after revision 21 August 2006.
APPENDIX: GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES Knowledge Skills . Have a body of relevant technical knowledge; . Be able to apply theory to practice; . Be able to identify, access, organise and communicate information in both written and oral form. Practical Skills . Be able to collect, correlate, display, analyse and report observations;
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL . Be able to apply experimentally obtained results to new situations; . Be able to test hypotheses experimentally; . Be able to apply technical skills. Thinking Skills . . . . . .
Exercise critical judgement; Be capable of rigorous and independent thinking; Account for their own decisions; Be realistic self-evaluators; Adopt a problem solving approach; Be creative and imaginative thinkers. Personal Skills
. Have the capacity for and a commitment to life-long learning;
125
. Have the ability to plan and achieve goals in both the personal and the professional spheres; . Have the ability to work with others. Personal Attributes . Strive for tolerance and integrity; . Acknowledge their personal responsibility for their own judgements, and their ethical behaviour towards others. In addition to knowledge and application skills, the above considerations recognise engineers as reflective practitioners, for whom practice is informed not only by established knowledge, but by critical reflection of the impact of their practice in relation to expectations and values of society.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125