TIPICE Lab Philosophy
The Theory Into Practice In Chemical Engineering Group is part of and works closely with the Chemical Engineering Department at Brigham Young University to bring experiential laboratory learning to undergraduate students in a safe laboratory environment. The experiences represent the tip of the iceberg of their future application endeavors.
Mission Statement
Our mission is to provide opportunities to practice chemical engineering fundamentals paired with theoretical models in reverence of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
Coupling laboratory opportunities with classroom projects should result in future engineers being better problem solvers. Great problem solvers require lots of practice. Most field engineering problems are open ended in that there are many solutions with some of those solutions meeting the constraints of time and resources. Those solutions require critical thinking skills. Our recommended approach for development of critical thinking with open-ended problems to become great problem solvers is below.
Scope
Our scope is limited to the undergraduate chemical engineering laboratories at Brigham Young University. Chemical Engineering (ChEn) undergraduate students are required to take 6 ChEn department laboratory classes: Introduction to Chemical Engineering (ChEn 170), Chemical Process and Fluid Lab (ChEn 285), Materials and Reaction Lab (ChEn 345), Thermodynamics and Transport Lab (Ch En 385), Separations and Process Control Lab (ChEn 445) and Unit Operations Laboratory (ChEn 479).
Approach
Developing great problem solvers in chemical engineering requires the cultivation of multiple skills. These skills are recommended to be part of each laboratory problem. The below principles are recommended to be taught to students to help them understand why the problem or assignment is organized the way it is. Great problem solvers have the:
Application recommendation
Give problem statements that are open-ended that could result in subsets of problem definitions where the student or group works with the TA or Instructor to define and redefine the problem and identify applicable constraints as appropriate.
- An example open-ended problem that provides sufficient but not excessive guidance is found here where the students are asked to design, optimize, and build a pumping and piping system within a bounded interactive environment. Students have ample options to create their own unique designs and solutions.
- A closed-ended example would require the students to follow a set of instructions to arrive at the same desired outcome. Critical thinking, creativity, and other skills are not as efficiently practiced in such a scenario.
Application recommendation
Require students to redefine the problem as part of the assignment. Many times in an engineering profession, the actual problem is not likely to be sufficiently addressed with the first inquiry. For example, an erratic temperature control system may not be the problem but the evidence of a problem. Perhaps gaining understanding of side reactions, kinetics of the process, order of chemical addition, or changing where the temperature is measured can be much more valuable to the long-term solution then trouble shooting the evidence of the behavior of a complex system.
Application recommendation
Require students to identify the applicable principles that govern the scenario. In most traditional lecture based classes, a single topic with modules is discussed making it difficult to require students to identify applicable principles outside of that topic: they simple look at that week’s or month’s module and complete the problem (sometimes a “plug and chug” exercise).
With a laboratory class, students can be given open-ended problems without detailing which principles or equations would apply. Students could be required to do that as they will do once graduated. The students would outline those principles in the write-up or presentation.
Application recommendation
Require students to collect and assimilate information from literature, internet, artificial intelligence, and data acquisition systems. Sources can be searched to find what others have done and set a plan to collect the needed data. Data collected in a haphazard way or in a regime where things aren’t significantly changing is not effective. Modeling, simulations, and initial predictions can be invaluable in better defining the problem and identifying parametric values that are in the area of interest. Multiple sources other than themselves would be required to be documented in their write-up or presentation.
Providing all of the needed information to solve the laboratory problem does not require students to collect and assimilate information.
Application recommendation
Require students to complete an analysis of the assimilated information including any data that was collected to make a conclusion. This is regularly done in laboratory activities: an explanation is given or a statistical estimate of the dependent variable is reported with comments. The constraints or bounds of the solution are sometimes required of students on when or under what conditions would the solution vary. A statistical analysis of the collected data with statistical comparisons is also included.
Application recommendation
Require students to critically assess their answer or recommendation when compared to the previously assimilated information. Students should answer questions like
- How does my answer compare with literature values?
- How does my answer compare with a rough, back-of-the-envelope estimate?
- Which are the most important factors?
Application recommendation
Require students to collaborate in teams. This is regularly done with documentation and feedback from students to their teammates using 360review.byu.edu or similar intra-team communication. Such collaboration and feedback foster relationships that are more valuable than the problem or solution.
Application recommendation
Facilitate creativity Facilitate creativity of students in completing the task and grading with a rubric that includes assessments on creativity. Of course, if the task does not require any creativity, perhaps the assignment or problem isn’t ideal. Students may not appreciate “token” requirements of creativity but integrating small things can help students be creative in a natural rather than a forced way.Perhaps the problem statement(s) provided by the instructor could foster more creativity. Of course the rubric or assessment could provide boundaries to that creativity.
| Okay | Better |
|---|---|
| Design a reactor | Design a way to obtain Product A |
| Measure the temperature | Measure the translational, vibrational, and rotational modes of energy held by the chemical |
| Calculate the rate of reaction | Quantify how the reaction proceeds |
Application recommendation
Require students to communicate to others the problem and solution in a succinct way. Lab reports have been a typical way in which students have been asked to communicate their results. There are other ways in which students can informally and formally express and communicate their ideas and solutions.
Sometimes, laboratory and student time limitations are such that a formal and lengthy laboratory report are prohibitive. However, writing should be incorporated at some level as it “evokes a high level of critical thinking, help students wrestle productively with a course’s big questions, and teach disciplinary ways of seeing, knowing, and doing” (Ref. 9).
With ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) tools, writing and summarizing by students can be much faster and arguably much less genuine. Those AI tools can streamline the process to help students learn how to convey their ideas, solutions, and recommendations quickly and succinctly.
Application recommendation
Require students to practice problem solving is what engineering disciples are great at. However, open-ended problems while incorporating creativity and requiring a critical assessment or comparison of their answer is sometimes not included. Great problem solvers have experience solving open-ended problems and thinking critically. The more practice the better.
These factors are ideally part of every laboratory exercise. Practice in the laboratory curriculum to improve problem-solving and critical-thinking skills will result in better engineers able to more readily apply fundamental principles.
Benefits
Using this approach can facilitate the development of engineers with more practice in effectively solving open-ended real-life problems. Many pedagogical studies have shown that guided discovery with open-ended problems improves learning and the development of critical thinking skills (see Ref. 3 and 4). Successful implementation of open-ended and collaborative laboratory activities are documented in multiple STEM disciplines (see Ref. 5-8). Detailed benefits or outcomes from individual students can be further documented.
This approach slightly differs from leading the student through worksheet questions in guiding them to better understand fundamental principles. Most laboratory activities require students to follow a procedure and collect data. However, to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, open-ended activities are much more effective.
Laboratory work is an essential part of the learning process in chemical engineering. It is through laboratory work that students can apply the principles learned in class and develop problem-solving skills. Pedagogical references to problem-solving emphasize the importance of active learning and the role of laboratory work in constructing knowledge.
In the exit interviews with seniors, their comments on the fundamental labs included wanting more practice analyzing and understanding data versus collecting data. They also commented on wanting more opportunities to “build stuff”. The above lab modification fulfills the students’ desire of understanding the data in being required to write about it and how it fits within the discipline and are given the option of building or using their own setup. The above also requires practice of many of the abilities of great problem solvers including dealing with open-ended problems, using fundamental engineering principles, collaborating, and conveying the outcome.
Current Fundamentals Lab Setup
Each half-credit (0.5) laboratory course for the 4 different fundamental labs each cover 8-13 experiments over the 14+ weeks of the semester. Each lab has a guided worksheet where students follow the prompts and interact with the equipment to perform the measurements and collect the data that is a demonstration of the principles taught in the undergraduate chemical engineering discipline including: Separations and process control (445), Reactions and materials (345), Thermodynamics and transport (385), Chemical process and fluids (285).
The intent of these fundamental labs was to “Understand Physical Phenomena” as described in the justification write-up. Labs were meant to highlight how molecular level interactions give rise to macroscopic behavior as well as 1) exploring cause and effect relationships, 2)making order-of-magnitude estimates and 3) assessing the reasonableness of numerical solutions.
The fundamental labs were also to provide hands-on lab work during the students’ sophomore and junior years in chemical engineering. One of the senior unit operations labs where 4 open-ended experiments were completed in two credit hours was changed to four half-credit-hour classes with a total of approximately 40 experiments demonstrating fundamental principles. Students interact with the experimental setups and complete guided questions. An example fundamentals lab is here.
Potential Modification
In the example fundamental lab here there are 26 questions as the students prepare for and determine the terminal velocities and drag coefficients of spheres of different densities and sizes in multiple different fluids. A rubric is provided where points are assigned if 1) the activities were completed, 2) measurements and calculations are accurate, and 3) safety and cleanup is observed. The time required to complete the activity is determined by the students ability to follow directions and work through the questions.
An alternative is to present the students with the following:
Resources:
Although you are not required to use these, they are provided for you:
- Four clear PVC pipes with one filled with glycerin, one with water, one with isobutanol, and one with a mixture of isobutanol and water,
- Tape measure,
- Fishing pole with basket and magnet to retrieve spheres,
- Calculation sheet located here,
- Hints located here,
- Internet including generative AI and library resources, and
- Teaching assistants and instructor.
Rubric:
- Write-up includes the estimated drag coefficients (for the different conditions you measured that includes different sphere sizes and fluid densities)
- Write-up includes a short description of how the drag coefficients were obtained
- Write-up includes images or plots helping the reader understand what you did
- Write-up includes how your measurements or the method you used could be used to estimate sedimentation in a pond or in conveying particulates or in another related chemical engineering application
- Write-up includes a comparison to published values
- Your analysis and setup incorporates some measure of creativity or individuality
- Write-up is no longer than 2 pages
Current Unit Operations Lab Setup
The unit operations lab (479) incorporates many of the elements above with the problem based learning lab here incorporating all of the elements. Students design and build their own piping and pumping system with heaters and other processing equipment. Improvements on the setup and problem statements can be made to facilitate exercise of more of the principles outlined above.
References
- Dori, Y.J., E. Hult, L. Breslow, and J.W. Belcher, “How Much Have They Retained? Making Unseen Concepts Seen in a Freshman Electromagnetism Course at MIT,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16(4), 299 (2007).
- Ragusa, G., C.T. Lee, “The impact of focused degree projects in chemical engineering education on students’ research performance, retention, and efficacy,” Education for Chemical Engineers, 7(3), e69 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2012.03.001.
- Butterfield, A.E., K. Branch, and E. Trujillo, “First-Year Hands-on Design Course: Implementation & Reception,” ChE Curriculum, 49(1), 19 (2015).
- Ku, G., J. Kinzie, J. Schuh, and E. Whitt, Student Success in College, San Francisco: John Whiley & Sons (2005).
- Sheppard, S., and R. Jenison, “Examples of Freshman Design Education,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 13(4), 248 (1997).
- Beichner, R., “Instructional Technology Research and Development in a U.S. Physics Education Group,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 31(4), 383 (2006).
- Carlson, L., and F.F. Sullivan, “Hands-on Engineering: Learning By Doing in the Integrated Teaching and Learning Program,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 15(1), 20 (1999).
- Aglan, H.A., and F. Ali, “Hands-On Experiences: An Integral Part of Engineering Curriculum Reform,” J. Eng. Educ., 85(4), 327 (1996).
- Bean, J.C., and D. Melzer, Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, Third Edition, Jossey Bass (2021).