14th Asia Pacific Confederation of Chemical Engineering Congress
APCChE 2012 21-24 February 2012, Singapore
Active Learning in Chemical Reaction Engineering: Experience from Singapore Polytechnic Katerina Yang* and Sin-Moh Cheah School of Chemical and Life Sciences Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore 139651 *
Corresponding Author’s E-mail:
[email protected]
Keywords: CDIO; Chemical Engineering; Active Learning
Extended Abstract The Diploma in Chemical Engineering (DCHE) of Singapore Polytechnic (SP) had adopted CDIO (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate) as the framework for re-designing its curriculum since 2007 [Cheah, 2009]. In a nutshell, we used the 12 CDIO Standards to guide us in designing active learning activities that mimic real-world working environments to provide a contextualized learning environment for our students. In these activities, various CDIO skills (i.e. soft skills, or general transferable skills such as teamwork and communication, critical thinking, holding multiple perspectives etc) are integrated into the activities. Over the past few years, many core modules had such CDIO skills integrated into the course materials. One such core module is Chemical Reaction Engineering, taught to Year 2 students. A studentcentred approach was adopted, where the activities and the assessment systems are designed to be tightly aligned with the intended learning outcomes of the module [Felder and Brent, 2003]. The activities integrate both technical knowledge (about chemical kinetics, reactor design from the module; and other core chemical engineering disciplines from other modules) as well as selected CDIO skills. The activities are scenario-based, whereby students assume various roles typical in the chemical industries. This allows students to simultaneously apply both “hard” and “soft” skills in realworld situations. Examples of the activities and key features are briefly covered below: Determination of Rate Equation using Batch Reactor In this activity, the students are part of a R&D team in a research institute. They are required to set team goals and team ground rules in achieving the experimental objectives. They are also required to elect a representative to give a 2-minute oral presentation to the institute’s President. Both technical and presentation skill are assessed. The students are given immediate feedback and how they can improve. Students learnt the essentials of teamwork; as well as the importance of planning a communication strategy (i.e. consideration of purpose, audience and context, or PAC) and summarising the relevant technical information for an oral presentation subjected to time constraint. Construction and Evaluation of Plug Flow Tubular Reactor In this simulated scenario, the students play the role of a group of engineers who designs pilot model reactors and test their performances before scaling-up for commercial production. This activity requires the students to complete the process design of a reactor. They assemble the reactor using available materials, proceed to operate the reactor and collect experimental data. The students then compare the reactor conversion against the original design specification, and they need to explain any discrepancies using chemical engineering principles. They also learnt the trade-offs in design decisions, integrating knowledge in heat transfer, plant safety and fluid mechanics.
14th Asia Pacific Confederation of Chemical Engineering Congress
APCChE 2012 21-24 February 2012, Singapore
Comparison of Reactor Performance: Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor vs Plug Flow Tubular Reactor In this activity, students are members of an engineering team in a company specialising in pilot plants. They are tasked to conduct a test run following delivery of a reactor rig to a customer. On completion of the test run, they are required to write a memo reporting on their results. In this case, they students applied the PAC principles in preparing their memo. They are also required to provide suggestions to improve the test run process. Study the Effect of Temperature on Rate of Reaction using Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor Here students are the operations team of a chemical manufacturing company, where they role-play as a Boardman, Supervisor, Senior Technician or Technicians. Through the activity, they learnt of the responsibility of each person’s role, and how a failure of a member can affect the entire team performance. In a follow-up scenario, they role-play as members from various departments in the company, e.g. finance, maintenance, operation, marketing and safety. They are required to identify possible conflicting perspectives and underlying assumptions in each role leading to the conflicting perspectives. In designing the assessment of the activities, we paid due attention to encourage peer support among the students, the process in and of itself an effort to instill teamwork among them. Some parts of the assessment are carried out on an individual basis and the others are based on group performance. Students are given opportunity to discuss as a group before attempting the answers. The grading, as expected, is based on both technical (such as completion of design methodology and application of Arrhenius Law) and non-technical competencies (i.e. the CDIO skills). In the conduct of the activities, facilitation is of utmost importance in promoting effective learning among students. Initially some of the students felt stressed out trying coping with the rigor of the activities, which demand them to be prepared in both technical and non-technical domains. Student expectations must be managed so that they are able to get ready before the commencement of each activity. We need to invest time to elaborate on the design intentions of the activities, emphasizing the relevance and importance of the experience in the real world. Through interactions with the students, we can carry out in-depth discussions in a more meaningful way, which also provide good opportunity for us to rectify any concepts that the students misconceived. The feedback from students on these learning activities has been positive, and consistently so since the CDIO-enabled activities were introduced in 2008. Feedback during the roll-out phase was conducted with the aid of staff from Department of Education (EDU) via a variety of ways, including survey questionnaires, focus group discussions and learning journals. Subsequent feedback leveraged on the usual module feedback conducted online as part of the SP-wide exercise. Students generally felt that they learnt the most from the activities, with many citing the practicals (the module component where the activities are introduced) as the best aspect of the module. On our part, we found this way of engaging students is very meaningful and satisfying. We felt that the extra time and efforts that went into designing the activities and giving feedback was worthwhile and indeed rewarding. We are continuously refining the activities in the module to enhance students’ learning and to incorporate current issues, such as sustainable development. We recently integrated risk assessment into one of the activities, and are in the process of designing a new activity to include the role of chemical reaction engineering in promoting sustainable development. References 1. Cheah, S.M. Using CDIO to Revamp the Chemical Engineering Curriculum, paper presented at the 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore; June 7-11, 2009. 2. Felder, R.F. and Brent R., Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria, J. of Engrg. Education, 92 (1), 7-25, 2003.
