skip to main content

Title: Innovative Use of Technologies to Teach Chemical Engineering Core Classes and Laboratories During the Covid-19 Pandemic at an HBCU
Most chemical engineering core classes are best taught when students are exposed to a face-to-face learning/teaching environment. With the arrival of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the whole education system and the setting were disrupted at Hampton University (HU). Traditional in-person face-to-face classes were forced to move to remote instructions to maintain a healthy and safe campus environment and minimize the spread of COVID-19 on campus and in the community. As an instructor teaching core courses and unit operations laboratory in the Department of Chemical Engineering, it was challenging to move completely virtual and deliver instructions remotely without affecting students' learning outcomes. However, with the appropriate modern technologies and adapting to the students' change and needs, online teaching can be done efficiently and can still have efficient learning outcomes. Various activities were introduced to make the online/virtual class environment engaging in developing technical and professional skills and inducing learning for students. Using the latest educational tools and online resources, formative assessments were conducted throughout the course in an effort to improve student learning and instructor teaching. In addition to that, innovative ways of technology were also used to evaluate student learning and understanding of the material for grading and reporting purposes. more » Many of the modern educational tools, including Blackboard Collaborate Ultra, Ka-hoot, linoit, surveys, polls, and chemical engineering processes’ simulations and videos were in-troduced to make the synchronous sessions interactive. Likert-like surveys conducted were anal-yses to gauge the effectiveness of incorporation of technology during remote learning. This paper describes the innovative use of technologies to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chemical Engineering Classes. It will also explain the strategies to assess the mode of delivery efficacy and how to change the course of teaching to adapt to the students' changing needs. « less
Authors:
Award ID(s):
2000061
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10318673
Journal Name:
2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The Introduction to engineering (EGGN-100) is a project-based course offered every fall semester to first-year students with undecided engineering majors at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF). The primary objective of this course is to provide project-based learning (PBL) and introduce these students to major projects in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, and Computer Engineering projects so that they can make an informed decision about their major. The PBL is an active learning method that aims to engage students in acquiring knowledge and skills through real-world experiences and well-planned project activities in engineering disciplines. The course comprises four team-based unique projects related tomore »Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, and Computer Engineering. The project involves using a variety of engineering tools like AutoCAD, Multisim, and Arduino platforms. For the first time, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hands-on project-based EGGN-100 course was offered virtually. In this research, we document the learning experiences of students who attended EGGN-100 in a traditional face-to-face mode of instruction and students who participated in the same course in a virtual instruction mode. Surveys conducted during seemingly different modes of instruction show varying levels of satisfaction among students. Of the students who attended the course in traditional and instructional instruction mode, 69% and 90% responded that discipline-specific projects enabled them to make an informed decision, and PBL helped them choose their preferred major. Even the percentage of students who believed the PBL helped them make an informed decision about their major, they like to do more hands-on projects and prefer to attend the classes on campus. Students rated higher satisfaction in virtual instructional mode primarily due to the availability of video lectures, self-paced learning, and readily accessible project simulations. Learning by doing would have bought out the challenges and minor nuances of designing and executing an engineering project. Learning by watching is surficial and not necessarily exposes students to minor details that are critical. As such, the significance of this study is that maybe, after all, not all courses can be taught in a virtual environment, and some courses may be strictly taught in a traditional, hands-on instruction mode. We also study the socio-psychological impact of traditional and virtual learning experiences and report the remedies to cope with stress and loneliness in the online learning environment.« less
  2. Student perceptions of the complete online transition of two CS courses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, universities across the globe switched from traditional Face-to-Face (F2F) course delivery to completely online. Our university declared during our Spring break that students would not return to campus, and that all courses must be delivered fully online starting two weeks later. This was challenging to both students and instructors. In this evidence-based practice paper, we present results of end-of-semester student surveys from two Spring 2020 CS courses: a programming intensive CS2 course, and a senior theory course inmore »Formal Languages and Automata (FLA). Students indicated course components they perceived as most beneficial to their learning, before and then after the online transition, and preferences for each regarding online vs. F2F. By comparing student reactions across courses, we gain insights on which components are easily adapted to online delivery, and which require further innovation. COVID was unfortunate, but gave a rare opportunity to compare students’ reflections on F2F instruction with online instructional materials for half a semester vs. entirely online delivery of the same course during the second half. The circumstances are unique, but we were able to acquire insights for future instruction. Some course components were perceived to be more useful either before or after the transition, and preferences were not the same in the two courses, possibly due to differences in the courses. Students in both courses found prerecorded asynchronous lectures significantly less useful than in-person lectures. For CS2, online office hours were significantly less useful than in-person office hours, but we found no significant difference in FLA. CS2 students felt less supported by their instructor after the online transition, but no significant difference was indicated by FLA students. FLA students found unproctored online exams offered through Canvas more stressful than in-person proctored exams, but the opposite was indicated by CS2 students. CS2 students indicated that visual materials from an eTextbook were more useful to them after going online than before, but FLA students indicated no significant difference. Overall, students in FLA significantly preferred the traditional F2F version of the course, while no significant difference was detected for CS2 students. We did not find significant effects from gender on the preference of one mode over the other. A serendipitous outcome was learning that some changes forced by circumstance should be considered for long term adoption. Offering online lab sessions and online exams where the questions are primarily multiple choice are possible candidates. However, we found that students need to feel the presence of their instructor to feel properly supported. To determine what course components need further improvement before transitioning to fully online mode, we computed a logistic regression model. The dependent variable is the student's preference for F2F or fully online. The independent variables are the course components before and after the online transition. For both courses, in-person lectures were a significant factor negatively affecting students' preferences of the fully online mode. Similarly, for CS2, in-person labs and in-person office hours were significant factors pushing students’ preferences toward F2F mode.« less
  3. The development of tools that promote active learning in engineering disciplines is critical. It is widely understood that students engaged in active learning environments outperform those taught using passive methods. Previously, we reported on the development and implementation of hands-on Low-Cost Desktop Learning Modules (LCDLMs) that replicate real-world industrial equipment which serves to create active learning environments. Thus far, miniaturized venturi meter, hydraulic loss, and double-pipe and shell & tube heat exchanger DLMs have been utilized by hundreds of students across the country. It was demonstrated that the use of DLMs in face-to-face classrooms results in statistically significant improvements inmore »student performance as well as increases in student motivation compared to students taught in a traditional lecture-only style classroom. Last year, participants in the project conducted 45 implementations including over 600 DLMs at 24 universities across the country reaching more than 1,000 students. In this project, we report on the significant progress made in broad dissemination of DLMs and accompanying pedagogy. We demonstrate that DLMs serve to increase student learning gains not only in face-to-face environments but also in virtual learning environments. Instructional videos were developed to aid in DLM-based learning during the COVID-19 pandemic when instructors were limited to virtual instruction. Preliminary results from this work show that students working with DLMs even in a virtual setting significantly outperform those taught without DLM-associated materials. Significant progress has also been made on the development of a new DLM cartridge: a see-through 3D-printed miniature fluidized bed. The new 3D printing methodology will allow for rapid prototyping and streamlined development of DLMs. A 3D-printed evaporative cooling tower DLM will also be developed in the coming year. In October 2020, the team held a virtual implementers workshop to train new participating faculty in DLM use and implementation. In total, 13 new faculty participants from 10 universities attended the 6-hour, 2-day workshop and plan to implement DLMs in their classrooms during this academic year. In the last year, this project was disseminated in 8 presentations at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Virtual Conference (June 2020) and American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Conference (November 2019) as well as the AIChE virtual Community of Practice Labs Group and a seminar at a major university, ultimately disseminating DLM pedagogy to approximately 200 individuals including approximately 120 university faculty. Further, the former group postdoc has accepted an instructor faculty position at University of Wisconsin Madison where she will teach unit operations among other subjects; she and the remainder of the team believe the LCDLM project has prepared her well for that position. In the remaining 2.5 years of the project, we will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of DLMs in teaching key heat transfer and fluid dynamics concepts thru implementations in the rapidly expanding pool of participating universities. Further, we continue our ongoing efforts in creating the robust support structure necessary for large-scale adoption of hands-on educational tools for promotion of hands-on interactive student learning.« less
  4. The development of tools that promote active learning in engineering disciplines is critical. It is widely understood that students engaged in active learning environments outperform those taught using passive methods. Previously, we reported on the development and implementation of hands-on Low-Cost Desktop Learning Modules (LCDLMs) that replicate real-world industrial equipment which serves to create active learning environments. Thus far, miniaturized venturi meter, hydraulic loss, and double-pipe and shell & tube heat exchanger DLMs have been utilized by hundreds of students across the country. It was demonstrated that the use of DLMs in face-to-face classrooms results in statistically significant improvements inmore »student performance as well as increases in student motivation compared to students taught in a traditional lecture-only style classroom. Last year, participants in the project conducted 45 implementations including over 600 DLMs at 24 universities across the country reaching more than 1,000 students. In this project, we report on the significant progress made in broad dissemination of DLMs and accompanying pedagogy. We demonstrate that DLMs serve to increase student learning gains not only in face-toface environments but also in virtual learning environments. Instructional videos were developed to aid in DLM-based learning during the COVID-19 pandemic when instructors were limited to virtual instruction. Preliminary results from this work show that students working with DLMs even in a virtual setting significantly outperform those taught without DLM-associated materials. Significant progress has also been made on the development of a new DLM cartridge: a see-through 3Dprinted miniature fluidized bed. The new 3D printing methodology will allow for rapid prototyping and streamlined development of DLMs. A 3D-printed evaporative cooling tower DLM will also be developed in the coming year. In October 2020, the team held a virtual implementers workshop to train new participating faculty in DLM use and implementation. In total, 13 new faculty participants from 10 universities attended the 6-hour, 2- day workshop and plan to implement DLMs in their classrooms during this academic year. In the last year, this project was disseminated in 8 presentations at the ASEE Virtual Conference (June 2020) and American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Conference (November 2019) as well as the AIChE virtual Community of Practice Labs Group and a seminar at a major university, ultimately disseminating DLM pedagogy to approximately 200 individuals including approximately 120 university faculty. Further, the former group postdoc has accepted an instructor faculty position at University of Wisconsin Madison where she will teach unit operations among other subjects; she and the remainder of the team believe the LCDLM project has prepared her well for that position. In the remaining 2.5 years of the project, we will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of DLMs in teaching key heat transfer and fluid dynamics concepts thru implementations in the rapidly expanding pool of participating universities. Further, we continue our ongoing efforts in creating the robust support structure necessary for large-scale adoption of hands-on educational tools for promotion of hands-on interactive student learning.« less
  5. This paper describes an evidence based-practice paper to a formative response to the engineering faculty and students’ needs at Anonymous University. Within two weeks, the pandemic forced the vast majority of the 1.5 million faculty and 20 million students nationwide to transition all courses from face-to-face to entirely online. Never in the history of higher education has there been a concerted effort to adapt so quickly and radically, nor have we had the technology to facilitate such a rapid and massive change. At Anonymous University, over 700 engineering educators were racing to transition their courses. Many of those faculty hadmore »never experienced online course preparation, much less taught one synchronously or asynchronously. Faculty development centers and technology specialists across the university made a great effort to aid educators in this transition. These educators had questions about the best practices for moving online, how their students were affected, and the best ways to engage their students. However, these faculty’s detailed questions were answerable only by faculty peers’ experience, students’ feedback, and advice from experts in relevant engineering education research-based practices. This paper describes rapid, continuous, and formative feedback provided by the Engineering Education Faculty Group (EEFG) to provide an immediate response for peer faculty guidance during the pandemic, creating a community of practice. The faculty membership spans multiple colleges in the university, including engineering, education, and liberal arts. The EEFG transitioned immediately to weekly meetings focused on the rapidly changing needs of their colleagues. Two surveys were generated rapidly by Hammond et al. to characterize student and faculty concerns and needs in March of 2020 and were distributed through various means and media. Survey 1 and 2 had 3381 and 1506 respondents respectively with most being students, with 113 faculty respondents in survey 1, the focus of this piece of work. The first survey was disseminated as aggregated data to the College of Engineering faculty with suggested modifications to course structures based on these findings. The EEFG continued to meet and collaborate during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester and has continued through to this day. This group has acted as a hub for teaching innovation in remote online pedagogy and techniques, while also operating as a support structure for members of the group, aiding those members with training in teaching tools, discussion difficult current events, and various challenges they are facing in their professional teaching lives. While the aggregated data gathered from the surveys developed by Hammond et al. was useful beyond measure in the early weeks of the pandemic, little attention at the time was given to the responses of faculty to that survey. The focus of this work has been to characterize faculty perceptions at the beginning of the pandemic and compare those responses between engineering and non-engineering faculty respondents, while also comparing reported perceptions of pre- and post-transition to remote online teaching. Interviews were conducted between 4 members of the EEFG with the goal of characterizing some of the experiences they have had while being members of the group during the time of the pandemic utilizing Grounded theory qualitative analysis.« less