(376b) Radical Redesign of an Introductory Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Course for Student Motivation

Many introductory chemical engineering courses use traditional approaches to teaching core principles in the field (e.g., material balances, process flow diagrams, energy balances, etc.) through abstract problem-solving scenarios, divorced from real-world contexts, and focused on typical industrial applications. As a result, chemical engineering is often introduced in ways that are unconnected to students’ motivations for studying engineering and their lived experiences. These trends were true of an introductory chemical and biomolecular engineering course taken by first-semester, first-year students at a private, Northeastern research-intensive institution. Additionally, student enrollment in the course had declined in the previous four years (consistent with national trends of declining chemical engineering enrollments; Petruzzeli, 2022), and approximately half of the students who completed the course ultimately chose majors outside of chemical engineering.

The course was redesigned in Fall 2023 through an institutional grant to focus on 1) hands-on, active problem-solving, 2) mastery-based grading, and 3) teaching core chemical engineering concepts through food as ways to engage students’ personal motivations to learn chemical engineering and pursue chemical engineering degree pathways. This three-prong approach leveraged the significant body of literature on the impact of active learning techniques on student learning (Freeman et al., 2014) and motivation (Stolk et al., 2018; Zengaro & Zengaro, 2022), the emerging scholarship on the possibilities of ungrading methods for lowering student stress and increasing engagement with course materials (Landherr, 2023), and the use of food as a more compelling and relatable educational context for teaching chemical engineering than traditional methods (Carvalho do Prado, 2024; Vigeant, 2021).

The redesign leveraged Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Goal Orientation Theory as pedagogical and research frameworks, respectively. PBL enables students to actively construct novel knowledge rooted in both current course content and prior experiences (Fierra & Trudel, 2012). PBL fosters independent learning by prompting students to seek need-to-know information pertinent to the problem context (Ertmer & Glazewski, 2019). Goal Orientation was used to understand student motivation for engagement in course content and pursuit of chemical engineering as a major. Goal orientations refer to the reasons or purposes for engaging in learning activities and explain individuals’ different ways of approaching and responding to achievement situations (Ames & Archer, 1988). We focus on two orientations linked to student learning outcomes: 1) performance approach (i.e., goals focused on the demonstration of competence relative to others or prior self-performance) and 2) mastery approach (i.e., goals related to improving knowledge, skills, and learning; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

The traditional course consisted of two 50-minute lecture periods per week with one 110-minute discussion section for teaching assistant-guided problem-solving. The grading scheme included two exams each worth 25% of the final grade; a team project worth 35% of the final grade; and class participation, discussion section attendance, and other designated assignments that accounted for 15% of the final grade. All assessments were summative. Assessment methodologies wield considerable influence over students' motivational states, either positively or negatively. Traditional grading systems often perpetuate notions of fixed intelligence, detrimentally impacting student motivation (Malespina, 2022). Alternatively, adopting grading frameworks centered on mastery, feedback provision, and iterative improvement can significantly bolster student motivation, cultivate a growth mindset regarding learning, enhance overall well-being, and improve academic outcomes (Hsu & Goldsmith, 2021).

In the course redesign, the contact time and meeting structure remained the same. However, the discussion sections were transformed into hands-on labs, connected to the concepts being learned in the course. All of the course content was taught through food examples and included material balances with and without reaction, simple vapor-liquid equilibrium, simple energy balances, biomolecular engineering, the social impact of food, scale-up, safety, separations, and engineering design. Grading was changed to a mastery-based grading scheme. All problems were graded as well-developed (i.e., virtually no errors), developing (i.e., minor conceptual errors that affected the quality of the solution), under-developed (i.e., major conceptual errors that affected the quality of the solution), and no evidence (i.e., no work completed or insufficient work to gauge student understanding of the learning objectives). Students were assigned weekly homework or design milestones (graded formatively), one midterm exam (graded summatively), pre-labs (graded for completion before labs), a final design project presentation and report (graded summatively), and additional reflection assignments. For formatively graded assignments, students could revise the submission within one week of feedback and a reflection on the source of the error(s) and plan to address them in future assignments. Students who earned under-developed or developing scores could receive up to a well-developed score, and students who earned no evidence score could receive up to a developing score.

Students proposed their final grades in the course. Grading guidelines were negotiated on the first day of class to set expectations for “grade bins”; for example, an A grade bin in the course required > 85% well-developed on the exam, > 90% well-developed on the final project deliverables, and > 90% well-developed on the homework/design milestones OR > 75% well-developed on the exam, > 90% well-developed on the final project deliverables, and > 95% well-developed on the homework/design milestones (with 0 no evidence scores) AND 100% well-developed on the pre-labs and completion of all teaming and reflection assignments. Students completed a guided reflection on their mastery in each category, which grade bin their performance matched with, and a proposed grade and rationale. If any disagreement occurred between the proposed score from the student and the instructor’s expectations, a short Zoom meeting was scheduled to discuss.

The redesigned course was implemented in Fall 2023 with 48 students. The teaching team consisted of two co-instructors, a graduate teaching assistant, and three undergraduate teaching assistants. To understand the impacts of the curricular change on student motivation and career intentions, multiple sources of data were collected, including pre/post-surveys of student attitudes, career intentions, and understanding of chemical engineering, which were analyzed with a paired samples Wilcoxon test. Course assignments, including reflections, assignments, and engagement in the revision process, were also tracked. Course evaluations also provided input on the course outcomes. Finally, a graduate student outside of the teaching team conducted one-hour semi-structured interviews with five students about their experiences, which were coded inductively.

Results indicate that the course grade distribution was not statistically significant from prior semesters and that the new structure challenged students while reducing stress. The course supported a mastery goal orientation environment, and 89% of the class redid more than half of the formative assignments. Students reported a deep understanding of chemical engineering concepts and a broad understanding of possible future career pathways. Opportunities for improving this course delivery included a clearer grading schema and stronger training of teaching assistants for implementing the course vision. Overall, this approach improved student motivation and supported students’ decision-making for chemical engineering major pathways.

References

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260

Carvalho do Prado, G. H. (2024). Teaching food processing to chemical engineering students with Native American food. Chemical Engineering Education, 58(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.18260/2-1-370.660-132143

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Ferreira, M. M., & Trudel, A. R. (2012). The impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on student attitudes toward science, problem-solving skills, and sense of community in the classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 23-30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43858871

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2019). Scaffolding in PBL environments: Structuring and problematizing relevant task features. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagah (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Problem‐Based Learning (pp. 321-342). Wiley.

Landherr, L. (2023). Ungrading in chemical engineering: Attempting to eliminate exams, deadlines, and anxiety by refocusing on learning instead of grades. In proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore, MD. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44552

Malespina, A., Schunn, C. D., & Singh, C. (2022). Whose ability and growth matter? Gender, mindset and performance in physics. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00342-2

Hsu, J. L., & Goldsmith, G. R. (2021). Instructor strategies to alleviate stress and anxiety among college and university STEM students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0189

Petruzzeli, E. (2022, March). Editorial: Concerning trends for ChEs. CEP Magazine. https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2022/march/editorial-concerning-trends-ches

Stolk, J. D., & Zastavker, Y. V., & Gross, M. D. (2018). Gender, motivation, and pedagogy in the STEM classroom: A quantitative characterization. In proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--30556

Vigeant, M. (2021). The oldest unit operation. Chemical Engineering Education, 55(1), 9-10. https://doi.org/10.18260/2-1-370.660-125292

Zengaro, S., & Zengaro, F. (2022). Active learning, student engagement, and motivation: The importance of caring behaviors in teaching. In Handbook of Research on Active Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education (pp. 66-83). IGI Global.