2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Juniors in chemical engineering at a small, private, South Plains institution (The University of Tulsa) take three required chemical engineering courses in the spring semester: mass transfer & separations, reactor design, and process control. The faculty structured their courses in different ways:
• Mass Transfer was taught traditionally with in-class lectures and in-class problem solving by the professor before students solved a graded activity.
• Reactor Design was taught with video lectures before class, and class time was used for instructor-led example problems along with occasional, multiple-choice conceptual questions.
• Process Control was taught with video lectures before class, and the professor worked an example in class before the students worked a graded problem in groups during class.
All three courses had traditional homework, exams, and design projects. We surveyed the entire Spring 2024 class of 17 students in Fall 2024 to assess two items: 1) the student preferences for the various teaching methods, and 2) the differences between faculty intentions and student perceptions regarding the teaching methods used in each class. Since all three courses included an identical cohort of students, this survey offered a unique opportunity to compare cross-course preferences among a consistent student cohort, eliminating the need to assume that all cohorts have identical preferred teaching methods. To observe cross-cohort preferences, the same survey may be given to the junior cohort taking the same courses in Spring 2025, if possible.
The first part of the survey asked the students to describe the three courses, with questions based on the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) Survey. Students perceived that ‘faculty lectures’ and ‘individually-solved problems’ were used as teaching methods more frequently than the faculty intended them to be. The faculty and students also had different perceptions on what counted as an individual grade versus a group grade for group work submitted during class time. Finally, the faculty thought that the students answered questions during class on material not previously covered in class more than the students thought they did.
The survey’s second part aimed to discover which methods the students thought helped them learn the best and if they liked non-traditional methods more than traditional lectures. Although at least half of the students said that the video lectures aided their understanding, three-quarters preferred live lectures when compared to video lectures. A majority agreed or strongly agreed that the following methods aided their understanding: 1) on-line quizzes, 2) in-class discussion questions, 3) instructor-led practice exercises, and 4) small-group practice exercises. About two-thirds of respondents also expressed a preference for in-class practice exercises rather than a traditional lecture. A cross-course difference was that 70% of respondents thought the teaching methods used in Mass Transfer and Reactor Design helped them gain a deep understanding of the material, while only 33% felt the same about Process Control. Additionally, responses indicated that the students were more engaged with the material in Mass Transfer than in Reactor Design, which in turn was more engaging than Process Control. The students saw Mass Transfer as the easiest course and Process Control as the most difficult course. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they could ask questions whenever needed in all three courses.