Kinetics and Reactor Design - American Society for Engineering [PDF]

Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 4th Edition. • Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd Editi

0 downloads 3 Views 1MB Size

Recommend Stories


Reactor Design
Life isn't about getting and having, it's about giving and being. Kevin Kruse

84th Annual American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Conference
And you? When will you begin that long journey into yourself? Rumi

St. Lawrence Section - ASEE - American Society for Engineering Education
Make yourself a priority once in a while. It's not selfish. It's necessary. Anonymous

American Society for Testing and Materials
The greatest of richness is the richness of the soul. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

[PDF] Software Engineering Design
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that

Engineering Anthropometry for Design
Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves. J. M. Barrie

Fusion reactor design studies
We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for

Brazing Handbook American Welding Society Pdf
Happiness doesn't result from what we get, but from what we give. Ben Carson

[PDF]Missile Design and System Engineering
Don't fear change. The surprise is the only way to new discoveries. Be playful! Gordana Biernat

Idea Transcript


AC 2011-996: HOW WE TEACH: KINETICS AND REACTOR DESIGN David L. Silverstein, University of Kentucky David L. Silverstein is the PJC Engineering Professor and an Associate Professor of Chemical & Materials Engineering at the University of Kentucky. He is assigned to the College of Engineering’s Extended Campus Programs at Paducah, Kentucky. Silverstein received his B.S.Ch.E. from the University of Alabama in 1992, his M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Vanderbilt University in 1994, and his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Vanderbilt in 1998. He is the 2007 recipient of the Raymond W. Fahien Award for Outstanding Teaching Effectiveness and Educational Scholarship. Margot A Vigeant, Bucknell University Margot Vigeant is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering with research interests in Engineering Education and Bioprocess Engineering.

c

American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

How We Teach: Kinetics and Reactor Design Abstract This paper presents the results of the 2010 AIChE Education Division survey on how chemical engineering courses are taught. This year’s survey focuses on the undergraduate reactor design and kinetics course. The survey was conducted of faculty recently teaching the course at their institution during the 2009-2010 academic year in the United States and Canada. The report consists of two parts: the statistical and demographic characterization of the course and its content; and the remainder seeks to bring out the most innovative and effective approaches to teaching the course in use by instructors. Additionally, a historical comparison is made between the current survey results and surveys on the same course conducted in 1974, 1984, and 1991. Introduction In 1957 the AIChE Education Projects committee began a series of surveys of the undergraduate curriculum as offered by chemical engineering departments in North America. These surveys continued under the auspices of the AIChE Special Projects committee until the late 1990’s. In 2008, AIChE formed an Education Division which recognized the value of the survey for its characterization of how courses are taught at a broad range of institutions as well as for the opportunity to share innovative and effective teaching methods associated with specific courses. This paper presents the results for the second in the series of surveys conducted by the Education Division. Survey Background The Kinetics and Reactor Design course (KRD) it the topic of the 2010 survey. The aforementioned AIChE Education Projects committee previously conducted surveys on the same course in 19741, 19842, and 19913. The current survey was designed in part to update the results published for those surveys. The survey was conducted via internet server hosted by the University of Kentucky running an open source software package, LimeSurvey (limesurvey.org). E-mail invitations to participate were initially sent to all department chairs in the United States and Canada requesting participation from the faculty members teaching the relevant course(s). A second request was sent to the instructors of record for the KRD course during the 2009-2010 academic year when that information was publically available. From that population, 62 usable surveys representing 60 institutions were received. This 38% response rate represents an improvement from the results of the 2009 survey4 (31%), but still falls short of the response rates in 1974 (58%) and 1984 (91%). No response data is available for the 1991 survey.

The complete survey in print form is provided as Appendix A. Course Timing The most common timings for the course within a program’s curriculum were at the end of the junior year or at the start of the senior year, with a slight edge to the junior year start. The distribution of the timing course offerings is given in Figure 1 below. Table 1offers a historical comparison of offerings by term, which indicates there has been a shift toward offering the first course in KRD to the junior year. In 1974, 13% of reporting programs taught the course in the junior year, and in 2010 that percentage appears to be almost 50%.

% of responding departments

50% 40% 30%

Quarter

20%

Semester Overall

10% 0% First term junior

Second Third term First term term junior senior junior

Second Third term term senior senior

Figure 1. 2009-2010 offerings of KRD by term as reported by instructors.

Table 1. Historical record of timing of first course in KRD in curricula. Numbers shown are counts of responding institutions except for 1974 where only percentages by year are available. Junior 1974

Senior 1984

1991

2010

1st Semester

6

11

2nd Semester

22

1984

1991

2010

2

69

50

22

22

25

18

5

1

1

2

1

23

15

5

2nd quarter

5

1

0

23

3

1

3rd quarter

9

3

3

0

0

0

1st quarter

13% for juniors

1974

87% for seniors

Quantity of Instruction Of the sixty institutions reporting, fifty-five indicated they offered a single course in KRD. The remaining 5 offered two courses. Of those institutions, 3 were on the quarter system. Those 60 institutions reported 3.7 h/wk total devoted to the course, broken up into an average 2.9 h/wk on lecture, 0.6 h on problem solving, and 0.2 h/wk on experimental laboratory. When only those programs reporting course specific laboratory activities are counted, an average of 2.2 h/wk is spent in laboratory. In 1971, 3.06 h/wk of lecture and problem laboratory were reported, with 0.40 h/wk in experimental laboratories. At that time, 30% of universities responding indicated experimental labs, with an average reported time of 1.5 h/wk. The 1984 report indicated 6% of courses included a1 hour experimental lab and 4% had a three-hour experimental laboratory. The 1991 survey indicated and average of 3.41 h/wk in lecture, with an average of 1.91 h/wk experimental laboratory amongst the 22% of departments offering a laboratory as part of the KRD course. Class Size The typical size of a class section does not appear to have changed significantly over the past several decades, as shown in Figure 2. Since the bin sizes varied for each survey analysis, it is

not possible to compare directly, but it appears that the mean has shifted slightly to a larger class size without a notable change in spread. 50.0

2010 Data: Average 40.2 Max 120 Min 5

% of responding departments

45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0

1984

20.0

1991 2010

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 10

20

40

60

100

more

Number of Students per Section

Figure 2. Section size for the KRD course. Classes are primarily taught by professional instructors, with only 8 programs (12.5%) reporting teaching assistants (TA’s) delivering lectures. Amongst those programs, a maximum of 10% of lectures were given by TA’s, with the average being 3.7%. The prerequisite courses declared by instructors in 2010 are given in Figure 3. Note that transport- related courses have increased in frequency of requirement.

% of responding departments

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

1991

2010

Figure 3. Prerequisite courses (formal and informal) reported by instructors. A wide range of student deliverables were required, as shown in Figure 4. When likely “openended” problems (independent & team projects, open ended problems) are combined, about 54% of courses require open-ended design work. In the 1991 survey, 93% of departments indicated they would occasionally or often use open-ended design problems if they were available in their textbook. In that 1991 survey, 33% of departments indicated a project assignment.

% of responding departments

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Figure 4. Deliverables required for the course in 2009-2010 as reported by instructors. Software usage by programs was varied, as shown in Figure 5. Perhaps most notable is the lack of industrial process simulation combined with the emergence of finite element modeling. In 1991, the most common language/program reported was FORTRAN (71 programs) followed by Lotus (presumably the 1-2-3 spreadsheet), Basic, Pascal, and Flowtran.

Number of responding departments

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 5. Software used in the KRD course in 2009-2010 as reported by instructors. The use of computer software in routine homework assignments is significant as shown in Figure 6. Other use of computers in the course includes use of CMS or web pages primarily for making available class notes and homework solutions. Some utilize internet-based references for thermodynamic and transport properties, or to collect real world operational data. Other schools provide exams from previous years for students to study, providing a “level-playing field” for those without access to collections of old exams. Video from television programs like Mythbusters is used for safety discussions. Animations collected from FEM/CFD software are used. Online reactor labs like www.SimzLab.com are used. Online texts are also used by some, such as Carl Lund’s KaRE TExT, http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Research/karetext/front_matter/title/info.shtml. The Chemical Safety Board also has videos available online. Some textbooks offer significant supplementary material, including tutorial software, on their associated web sites.

Number of responding departments

30 20

10 0 None

10%

20%

30%

40%

>50%

Figure 6. Percent homework assignments requiring use of computer software in 2009-2010 as reported by instructors. Textbooks reported as currently in use include:       

Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 4th Edition Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd Edition Roberts, Chemical Reactions and Chemical Reactors Rawlings & Ekerdt, Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design Fundamentals Hill, An Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics and Reactor Design Schmidt, The Engineering of Chemical Reactions Froment and Bischoff, Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design

Figure 7 illustrates the rise and fall in popularity of KRD textbooks over the past 36 years.

% of responding departments

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1974 1991 2010

Figure 7. Adoption of textbooks. For a particular author, multiple editions may be represented. The changes in course topics are reflected in changes in textbook coverage and the use of those chapters. Figure 8 shows the usage of particular chapters in Fogler in both 1991 and 2010 amongst those institutions reporting adoption of the text. There is general satisfaction with existing texts on the subject, though some would like to see a more concise textbook containing one semester’s coverage. Some express an interest in additional coverage of safety topics and bioreactors. Some cite weak areas in specific textbooks in coverage of mixing, reaction kinetics, and non-isothermal reactor design.

% of responding departments using Fogler

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1991 2010

Figure 8. Chapter topics taught as organized by Fogler’s text. When editions have different titles, similar chapters have been combined. Data for 2009-2010 as reported by instructors Along with changes in the core coverage, there have been changes in when core topics have been taught. The 1971 survey reported that 13% of programs covered the subject of reaction equilibrium in the KRD course. In 1984, this increased to 65% of responding departments indicating reaction equilibrium was taught in the KRD course, with 12% indicating it was taught

in the thermodynamics course or sequence. Twenty-two percent responded “other” or “both”. In 2010, only 5% of programs indicated the subject was covered in KRD.

% of responding departments

Another topic considered in previous surveys is the theory of absolute reaction rates (a statisticalmechanics approach). In 1974, about 58% of programs covered the theory of absolute reaction rates. The 2010 survey indicated 78% of programs covered the topic. Coverage of other emerging topics in KRD in the 2010 survey is presented as Figure 9.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 9. Coverage of modern topics in KRD courses for 2009-2010 as reported by instructors. Chemical engineering programs are likely to use this course for ABET outcomes assessment. The fraction of reporting programs using this course for ABET a-k outcomes is shown in Figure 10.

% of responding departments

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering, (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data, (c) an ability to design a chemical engineering system, component, or process to meet desired needs, (d) an ability to function on an inter-disciplinary team, (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems, (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, (g) an ability to communicate effectively, (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global societal context, (i) an ability to engage in life-long learning, (j) knowledge of contemporary issues, (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

Figure 10. Percent of programs using the KRD course as part of their ABET EC2000 assessment process for program outcomes. Data for 2009-2010 as reported by instructors. Common Concerns Survey respondents were asked what they believed were the biggest issues encountered by students taking this course. The majority of responses indicated the following common challenges:     

ODE solving skills Mathematical software skills Chemistry preparation Unsteady-state conservation law writing Dependence on “design equations” rather than fundamental conservation laws

The Role of the Instructor Instructors often take different approaches to teaching. For many responding to the survey, instructors viewed themselves as a guide or facilitator, bringing students through the textbook material in a “rational way” and providing alternate explanations to the text. Others attempt to give a “big picture” view, tying various elements of the course (and the curriculum) together into a cohesive whole. For some, the role shifts as needed, from mentor to partner to coach depending

on the student and the situation. Some express the need for them to make the topic interesting and accessible, and to develop new examples and homework problems. The role as an evaluator was also commonly noted. Some indicate their role is to build on the textbook and not repeat what is explained well. Introduction of modern tools for design and simulation was emphasized by others. Another role cited by several instructors is a need to translate the ideality of a textbook to the challenges of the real world, including imperfect data, equipment failures, variability in feed stocks, management issues, etc. Effective Teaching Methods As part of the survey, responding instructors were asked to share some of the teaching methods and resources they believe were most effective. To follow up on those responses, a panel-led discussion was held at the 2010 AIChE Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City to build the description of methods and responses to the aforementioned concerns with teaching the course. The following list of effective teaching elements and suggestions represent a combination of the discussion and the survey. 







Emphasis on fundamentals. Starting from a mass balance rather than working from “design equations” was recommended. Algorithmic approaches are effective. Peer to peer instruction in problem sessions is effective. Critical thinking and conceptual learning. The importance of always asking students “why”, “how” etc. was emphasized. Many would argue the conceptual understanding of KRD is often more valuable than the computational aspects. Concept questions that can be used with (or without) classroom response devices (clickers) are available at www. Learncheme.com courtesy of a project led by John Falconer. Additional conceptual learning resources are to come online soon as part of the AIChE Education Division Concept Warehouse. Group work. Significant time is devoted to group problem solving by many instructors. Some formalize roles within the group: Thinker - is asked to solve problem, but does not get to use book or paper and pencil. Source of Knowledge - has access to book and problem statement - may only share verbally. and Recorder - only one in group with paper/pencil / calculator. They all must work together to solve problem. Thinker will also be group spokesperson to rest of class. Safety. While safety has always been an important element of the course, it is likely to become even more critical in response to changes to ABET Chemical Engineering program criteria. Chemical reactivity hazard analysis will likely become a major topic in the course (or in a dedicated safety course) while runaway reactions will continue to be emphasized. There are opportunities to develop resources to aid teaching these topics. Safety should also be brought into class discussion frequently in the context of “what if” questions.









Software. Fogler pioneered the development of KRD related tutorial software in the 1990’s and recently updated those resources. Finite element simulations and other CFD software can lead to effective introductions to more realistic reactor modeling. Spreadsheet based rate simulators are available, as are simulations for complex reaction pathways with effective kinetics. The emergence of computational software has made complex systems like multiple reactions accessible5, but training on how to use the software effectively remains an issue. Programming, including working from a partially completed program or one with significant errors, can be effective in teaching concepts like examining the role of activation energy in multiple reaction systems or hot spots in a PFR. Others focus on setting up problems for computer solution in class, then executing the solution software. Having TA’s run help sessions for software can be effective. Laboratories. Numerous laboratory systems were named, including: yeast fermentation; horseradish peroxidase marking; crystal violet dye decomposition; temperature controlled flash photalysis (isomerization); RTD using dye injection; electrochemical water decomposition; alcohol decomposition/digestion; air bag detonation; Chem-E Car design or demonstration; saponification of ethyl acetate in a batch reactor, a CSTR, and two CSTRs in series; methanol to gasoline conversion; photocatalytic destruction of aqueous pollutants; catalytic isomerization of butane in a PBR; reaction of diazydiphenylmethane with substituted carboxylic acids; reaction between sodiumthiosulfate and hydrogen peroxide in an adiabatic batch reactor; hydrolysis of crystal violet dye in an isothermal tubular reactor and a CSTR; isomerization of sulfite in a Parr reactor; alkaline fading of phenolphthalein in a batch reactor; hydrogen peroxide/sodium thiosulfate in an adiabatic batch reactor; catalytic methanol oxidation on a Pt wire; kinetic measurements of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-catalyzed dephosphorylation of p-NPP in a CSTR; reaction kinetics governing lactose conversion of dairy products. Note that the 1974 and 1984 survey reports include a list of all experimental systems reported by the respondents. Mathematics. Peer teaching was suggested as an effective way of developing student math skills. Game show approaches for in class problem solving can be effective. A background in probability/statistics is becoming increasingly important in applying risk analysis to reactive systems, to catalytic reactions, and for sensitivity analysis. Propagation of error is another area where preparation could be improved. Some would argue that analytical mastery should be demonstrated before computational methods are used. Economics and other practical considerations. Some assert that discussing economics is impractical before formal coverage in a process design course, while others state it is important to bring practical limitations on reactor design and operation into the discussion during the course. Material handling issues (such as polymers) should be discussed. Some suggest having Co-op students tell stories related to industrial practice. The role of rating existing equipment tends to underemphasized compared to design. Team projects requiring reutilization of equipment, equipment profiling, and detailed









specifications are recommended. Others seek to replace generic reactions (A+BC) with real chemical systems. Emerging topics. While exposure to bio- and nano- topics will continue to be important, energy will likely emerge as an area of emphasis in the short term. Ethics and safety will also likely increase in emphasis. Simulation based engineering is developing as an important area of study and practice. Asynchronous lecture. One instructor uses pre-recorded lectures and uses class time for learning activities building on the assigned preparation. A wide range of active learning exercises are then used, including teaching by analogies, inquiry activities, minute papers, contexts, debate, panel discussion, role playing, etc. Other instructors teach the course as a self-paced course with a computerized examination system. Another common approach is recording and archiving lectures live and posting for later review. Novel homework approaches. For one instructor, homework is an individual/team effort, where the team has the submission graded and individuals submit their own solution to verify effort. The grade is assigned based on a combination of the team and individual contribution. Another instructor requires written reflective assessment of homework submissions. Literature reviews and analysis are common. Project and/or Problem Based learning approaches are cited by several instructors

Analogies were often suggested as means of effective teaching. Particular examples include:   



 

Site balances compared to the number of chairs in a room Batch reactors compared to cooking vessels Rate limiting step: one student starts with a deck of cards and slowly deals them to a second student who passes them to a third who has to walk all the way across the room to pass each one to a fourth, etc. to "explain" a rate-limiting step Residence time distributions: An activity where the students "own" a nightclub and want to know how long people stay at the club (too short and they don't spend, intermediate and they spend, too long and their spending dies off). Use example of Space Mountain at Disney World; characterize tracer experiment as people entering indoor roller coaster and watch exit to see when people come out. Elementary reactions: people at a pool table trying to throw balls to the center and hit at the same time. Two balls colliding is possible, three balls/people, it would never happen. Thiele modulus: the slab approximation for solving the n order Theile modulus problem: think of the catalyst pellet as having a peel like an orange. All the reaction is taking place in the peel. We peel our pellet and press it flat making a slab.

The learning environment, both physical and contextual (what is done in class) can also play a role in helping students learn.

  



Active learning, as seen in many of the responses already detailed, is common and effective. Many instructors are deliberately reducing lecture and increasing discussion and group problem solving. Computer projectors are typically available, and many instructors project their solutions to problems and explore the models developed in class. PowerPoint is extensively used, as are online videos and images of real reactor systems. Some environments allow students to solve problems on computers alongside the instructor. Some classes are taught in a studio environment to facilitate interaction amongst students.

In addition to program determined outcomes, individual instructors tend to have areas of emphasis corresponding to their individual perceptions of importance of class topics. Typical individual goals for this course include                     

Application of conservation laws Bioreactors Capstone integration Cost concerns Distinguish between ideal and non-ideal reactors Distinguish between reaction dependent factors and reactor dependent factors Distinguish between stoichiometry and rate law Estimation methods Experimental analysis of rate laws Fundamentals of catalysis and surface reactions Industrial chemistry Intuition on reactor operation Numerical methods Optimization Overcoming equilibrium limitations Problem-solving skills Reaction system design (reactor + heat exchange + recycle) Reactor sizing Simulation skills Use of fundamental thermodynamics Utility of microscopic and macroscopic descriptions

Conclusions The KRD course appears to be in the midst of a shift. It is moving earlier in the curriculum, as more programs shift the course to the junior year. The coverage is evolving, driven by

technology (computational capability, FEM/CFD), by ABET (safety), and other emerging topics. Despite the changes, the core coverage of the course has remained fairly constant. Class sizes appear unchanged over the past several decades, but in general have smaller populations than sections if courses taught earlier in the curriculum. It is not clear whether this is due to class size attrition or a deliberate effort to keep section size at a smaller size. Commonly accepted and literature proven methods of instruction are commonly applied within the course. Use of “clickers” is common both as formative assessment and as a teaching tool. Resources supporting an emphasis on conceptual learning, such as publication of conceptual questions online, are increasing. Problem based learning approaches are common, as are laboratories. Many programs are utilizing improved simulations of laboratories to obtain learning outcomes similar to laboratory exercises. Active learning approaches are widespread and varied, and those who use them are satisfied that they are effective. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all of the instructors who completed this survey; the department chairs who passed on the request; and the University of Kentucky College of Engineering computing services which hosted the survey. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Don Woods of McMaster University for his review of the survey draft and continuing advice. The full response data set is available from the corresponding author upon request. References 1. Eisen, Edwin O.; “Summary Report: Teaching of Undergraduate Kinetics”; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; December 4, 1974. 2. Eisen, Edwin O.; “Summary Report: teaching of Undergraduate Reactor Design”; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; November 28, 1984. 3. Eisen, Edwin O.; Ragsdale, Michelle C.; “The Teaching of Undergraduate Kinetics/Reactor Design”; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; November 14, 1991. 4. Silverstein, David L.; Vigeant, Margot; Visco, Donald; Woods, Donald; “How We Teach: Freshman Introduction to Chemical Engineering”, Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2010. 5. Fogler, H. Scott; Cutlip, Michael B.; “Chemical Reaction Engineering (CRE) Education: From the Era of Slide Rule to the Digital Age”; Proceedings of the 2008 AIChE Centennial Topical Conference on Education; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; November 2008.

Appendix A. Print version of online survey.

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

This Year's Theme:Kinetics and Reactor Design. Our goal with this survey is to improve our teaching. You add your unique style to how you teach your course. The purpose of this survey is to gather and share innovative ideas about how we teach the course selected for this year's theme. In addition, we collect basic information about course design to compare and contrast both what is presently taught and what was taught at the time of previous surveys on this subject (1974, 1984, 1991). Please share your approaches with us so that we can summarize the "state of the art" and have a "sharing session" at the annual AIChE meeting. Welcome to the 2010 AIChE How We Teach survey. This year we will be seeking to develop a picture of how Kinetics and Reactor Design are taught across North America. There are 39 questions in this survey

Part 0: Your information Before we begin, we ask that you please provide us with your current course syllabus and schedule. Please send these items to [email protected]. We have a few questions about the person completing this survey and other personnel involved in the course.

1 [1-Respondant]What is your name? Please write your answer here:

2 [2-Email]What is your e-mail address? * Please write your answer here:

Your email address will not be shared with anyone or used outside of the context of this survey.

3 [3-University]What is the name of your institution? * Please write your answer here:

1 of 15

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

2 of 15

4 [4-ReportCopy]Should we send the summary findings to you? Please choose only one of the following:

Yes No

5 [5-Colleagues]If this course is team taught, multiple courses on the subject are taught with different instructors, or multiple sections are taught by different instructors, please give the names and email addresses of your colleagues. Alternately, we request that you forward the invitation you received to those instructors. Please write your answer here:

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

3 of 15

Part 1: The Course When more than one course in kinetics and reactor design is offered, please respond based on the first course unless otherwise specified.

6 [6-NumC]How many courses on kinetics and reactor design are required for undergraduates? If you offer multiple tracks, please only consider the "traditional" or most common track. Please choose only one of the following:

1 2 3

7 [7-Titles]What are the course number(s) and title(s)? Please write your answer here:

8 [8-Time]How much time is available, on average, for each week for the following components. Please use a 50-minute "hour" and report times in hours. If reporting multiple courses, please give the total number of hours for the sequence. Please write your answer(s) here:

Lecture Problem laboratory Experimental laboratory

9 [9-Objectives]Please list your course objectives, preferably by copying and pasting from the course syllabus. For multiple courses, please indicate for which objectives correspond to each course. If you have more detailed objectives you apply throughout the course, please include those here as well. Please write your answer here:

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

4 of 15

10 [10-Exams]How many major tests, excluding the final exam, do you give in the course? For multiple courses, please indicate a number for the first course. Please write your answer here:

11 [11-Dimensions]What system of dimensions do you primarily use in teaching the course? Please choose only one of the following:

Over 75% SI Over 75% AES/British System Neither (mixed units)

12 [12-Software]Which of the following software packages do students typically use as part of this course? Please choose all that apply:

Aspen Plus Comsol Multiphysics Maplesoft Maple Mathworks MATLAB Microsoft Excel Polymath PTC Mathcad Wolfram Mathematica Other:

13 [13-SoftUse]What percent of assignments did students typically complete using a computer? Please choose all that apply:

None 10% 20% 30% 40%

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

5 of 15

50%+

14 [14-Textbook]Which textbook is primarily used in the course? Please choose only one of the following:

Butt, Reaction Kinetics and Reactor Deisgn Davis et al., Fundamentals of Chemical Reaction Engineering Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering Hayes, Introduction to Chemical Reactor Analysis Hill, An Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics & Reactor Design Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering Missen et al., Introduction to Chemical Reaction Engineering and Kinetics Roberts, Chemical Reactions and Chemical Reactors Smith, Chemical Engineering Kinetics Other If you are an author and your textbook is not listed, please accept my apologies and send me your textbook information which I will add to the list. The current list is based upon the bookshelf contents of the survey author.

15 [15-Chapters]Which chapters are covered in the course? Please consider only the primary textbook, but include coverage in multiple required courses (if applicable). Please choose all that apply:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

6 of 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

16 [16-StudentYear]What is the typical status of students in the first kinetics & reactor design course? Please choose only one of the following:

First term junior Second term junior Third term junior (quarter system) First term senior Second term senior Third term senior (quarter system)

17 [17-Num Sections]How many lecture sections of the course were taught in 2009-10? If you have multiple courses, please only consider the first course. Please write your answer here:

18 [18-Enrollment]What was the average enrollment in each lecture section? Please write your answer here:

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

7 of 15

19 [19-GTA]Did graduate teaching assistants present any lectures in this course? Please choose only one of the following:

Yes No

20 [20-GTA Lectures]What percent of lectures were given by the graduate teaching assistant? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: ° Answer was 'Yes' at question '19 [19-GTA]' (Did graduate teaching assistants present any lectures in this course?) Please write your answer here:

21 [21-Equilibria]Is the thermodynamics of chemical equilibria first taught in the kinetics/reactor design course or in a thermodynamics course? Please choose only one of the following:

Thermodynamics Kinetics & Reactor Design Other

22 [22-Modern Topics]Do you cover the following topics in the undergraduate kinetics course? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

Yes

Uncertain

No

Absolute reaction rates Bioreactors and biomass growth Enzyme kinetics and enzyme inhibition Membrane reactors Multiple reactions Multiple reactions with heat effects Multiple steady states Reactors with heat exchange Safety and runaway reactions Reactivity hazards

23 [23-AbsRates hours]How many class sessions are spent on the topic of absolute reaction rates? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: ° Answer was 'Yes' at question '22 [22-Modern Topics]' (Do you cover the following topics in the undergraduate kinetics

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

8 of 15

course? (Absolute reaction rates )) Please write your answer here:

24 [24-Catalytic]How many weeks of the course are devoted to catalytic reactions? Please write your answer here:

25 [25-Prereqs]Which of the following courses are explicit or implicit prerequisites for the first kinetics and reactor design course? Please choose all that apply:

Differential Equations Fluid Mechanics Heat Transfer Mass Transfer Numerical Methods Organic Chemistry Physical Chemistry Other:

26 [Grading]Which of the following activities are explicitly counted for a grade in this course (or course sequence)? Please choose all that apply:

Homework Lab reports Participation Independent project Team project Exams (hour or longer, not a final) Quizes (shorter than exams) Final Exam Other:

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

Part 2: Making the Course Even Better Many would argue this is the most important part of the survey, where we ask you to share what you do in the course that can help other instructors improve their teaching. You may not have an answer for each question, but please try to share the information that makes your particular rendition of the course effective, unique, and valuable.

27 [26-Labs]Describe briefly (and send a copy of the procedure if you are willing to [email protected]), any laboratory experiments which your department uses in kinetics & reactor design or in other undergraduate courses to illustrate principles of kinetics & reactor design. Please write your answer here:

28 [27-Textbook]Do you feel there is a need for a better textbook for kinetics & reactor design? In what topic areas can the text you now use be improved? Please write your answer here:

29 [28-Distinctive]Please describe the distinctive features of the course as you teach it. Please write your answer here:

9 of 15

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

30 [29-TLE]What is your learning environment? Do you: use ombusdpeople? restrict "teacher talk" to 20 minutes (use the feedback lecture approach)? include plant visits? Teach what real equipment looks like (how)? Use PBL, clickers, or video? Please write your answer here:

31 [30-Goals]What are your prime goals when teaching this class? Some possibilities would be learning kinetics, problem solving, using simulators, learning to apply thermo, learning to select reactor operating conditions, etc. Please write your answer here:

32 [31-Role]What do you see as your role in the course? Please write your answer here:

10 of 15

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

11 of 15

33 [32-Explanations]What are some explanations of concepts in the course that you have found particularly effective? Please write your answer here:

34 [33-Challenges]What do you see as the particular challenges in teaching kinetics and reactor design? Please write your answer here:

35 [34-ABET Outcomes]Many programs will use this course to demonstrate students are achieving certain accreditation outcomes. With a rating system where 1=not really, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, and 4=extensively, which of the following outcomes are developed in your program extensively (rating 4)? Check any that rate 4 and please elaborate on how each is developed. Please choose all that apply and provide a comment:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

12 of 15

mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to communicate effectively (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

36 [35-Web]How do you use the internet in this course. Do you have materials we can see? Do you use your textbook's site? What elements of those resources do you find most effective? Please write your answer here:

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

13 of 15

37 [36-AIChE]Would you be willing to discuss your answers to the questions on this page with a breakout group at a special session at the 2010 AIChE National Meeting in Salt Lake City? Participation would be subject to your availability and the moderator's discretion. Invitations to lead breakout sessions will be extended early in the fall. Please choose only one of the following:

Yes No

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

Part 3: Wrapping up We'll conclude with an opportunity for you to offer your closing comments on the course and survey. If you haven't already, please send an electronic copy of your course outline and/or course syllabus to David Silverstein to help us finish the survey. Your help is appreciated, and we truly appreciate the time you invest in this survey.

38 [3.1]Any other comments regarding the kinetics and reactor design experience of your chemical engineering students would be welcome. Please write your answer here:

39 [3.2]Any comments regarding this survey would be welcome. Please write your answer here:

14 of 15

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

UK College of Engineering Surveys - AIChE Best Practices in Teaching 2010 http://www.engr.uky.edu/survey/admin/admin.php?action=showprintables...

15 of 15

Thank you for your participation. If you have requested a copy of the results be sent to you, expect to see that in the spring of 2011 12-31-1969 – 19:00 Please fax your completed survey to: 270-534-6317 Submit your survey. Thank you for completing this survey.

1/19/2011 3:07 PM

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.