TY - JOUR
T1 - Prioritizing Learning Outcomes for Chemical Engineering Laboratory Courses
T2 - 2024 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition
AU - Barr, Chris
AU - Wilson, Sarah A.
AU - Brennan, Janie
AU - Maddock, Joanne Beckwith
AU - Carter, Tracy L.
AU - Azarin, Samira Azarin
AU - Karlsson, Amy J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2024.
PY - 2024/6/23
Y1 - 2024/6/23
N2 - Undergraduate laboratories are an integral component of most engineering programs, playing a pivotal role in integrating hands-on application of theory as well as building other skills for future engineers. Previous work by Feisel and Rosa [1] suggested thirteen learning outcomes that can be covered in engineering laboratory courses; however, two potential barriers make using these outcomes in chemical engineering laboratory courses challenging: (a) Feisel and Rosa's learning outcomes are not targeted specifically to chemical engineering or to the needs of stakeholders within the chemical engineering curriculum and (b) expecting laboratory instructors to assess thirteen different learning outcomes for student success is unrealistic. Therefore, a survey was designed to gain an understanding of the outcomes most important to the various lab stakeholders (faculty, non-academic engineers, and students) and the current successes and gaps of chemical engineering laboratory curricula in addressing those outcomes. This paper describes responses received from chemical engineering students. Including the student voice is important in higher education curricular development and can have positive outcomes in terms of student perceptions of courses and their engagement in them [2]. Additionally, students are more intrinsically motivated by course attributes that are tied to their future careers [3]. Thus, incorporating the student perspective into chemical engineering laboratory course design is critical. Thirty-one students responded to the survey. Survey responses included demographic and background information, which can be used to situate the survey responses in the context of the respondents' experiences. Additionally, respondents were asked to rank the five most important learning outcomes for laboratory-intensive chemical engineering courses, identify which outcomes respondents are weakest in, and which outcomes the chemical engineering curriculum should do a better job covering. Finally, open-ended questions were included to identify additional important learning outcomes and provide comments. The results provide insight into the prioritization of laboratory learning outcomes and allow the redesign of laboratory courses to better align with the skills and attributes desired from all three stakeholder groups.
AB - Undergraduate laboratories are an integral component of most engineering programs, playing a pivotal role in integrating hands-on application of theory as well as building other skills for future engineers. Previous work by Feisel and Rosa [1] suggested thirteen learning outcomes that can be covered in engineering laboratory courses; however, two potential barriers make using these outcomes in chemical engineering laboratory courses challenging: (a) Feisel and Rosa's learning outcomes are not targeted specifically to chemical engineering or to the needs of stakeholders within the chemical engineering curriculum and (b) expecting laboratory instructors to assess thirteen different learning outcomes for student success is unrealistic. Therefore, a survey was designed to gain an understanding of the outcomes most important to the various lab stakeholders (faculty, non-academic engineers, and students) and the current successes and gaps of chemical engineering laboratory curricula in addressing those outcomes. This paper describes responses received from chemical engineering students. Including the student voice is important in higher education curricular development and can have positive outcomes in terms of student perceptions of courses and their engagement in them [2]. Additionally, students are more intrinsically motivated by course attributes that are tied to their future careers [3]. Thus, incorporating the student perspective into chemical engineering laboratory course design is critical. Thirty-one students responded to the survey. Survey responses included demographic and background information, which can be used to situate the survey responses in the context of the respondents' experiences. Additionally, respondents were asked to rank the five most important learning outcomes for laboratory-intensive chemical engineering courses, identify which outcomes respondents are weakest in, and which outcomes the chemical engineering curriculum should do a better job covering. Finally, open-ended questions were included to identify additional important learning outcomes and provide comments. The results provide insight into the prioritization of laboratory learning outcomes and allow the redesign of laboratory courses to better align with the skills and attributes desired from all three stakeholder groups.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85202039530&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85202039530&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference article
AN - SCOPUS:85202039530
SN - 2153-5965
JO - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
JF - ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
Y2 - 23 June 2024 through 26 June 2024
ER -