SINGAPORE POLYTECHNIC EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AND ...

Horizontal Integration in Year 2 Chemical Engineering Curriculum

SINGAPORE POLYTECHNIC EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING CONVENTION (EETC) 2015 JOURNAL OF TEACHING PRACTICE

HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION IN YEAR 2 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM PHUA Siew Teng CHEAH Sin Moh KOH Chuan Aik School of Chemical and Life Sciences

ABSTRACT This paper explains the curriculum integration effort in the Diploma in Chemical Engineering (DCHE). It starts with a brief literature review of curriculum integration, offering different perspectives on the topic, including CDIO Standard 3 that explicitly focused on the integration of personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills (i.e. CDIO skills). The paper then explains details of existing DCHE practices in curriculum integration, before proceeding to describe a new initiative in DCHE which takes effect in Academic Year 2013/2014. This initiative involves the horizontal integration of selected core DCHE modules within the same stage of study, namely, 1A, 2A, 2B and 3A. This paper specifically focus on Stage 2A, where three modules each with its own practical components now share common laboratory practices, i.e. integrated practicals. It describes the changes in module LTP hours and assessment components resulting from the "merger" in practicals, and showed how the various CDIO skills are now integrated in the new integrated practicals. This is followed by discussions of the various issues and challenges faced, including feedback from students; and how they were overcome. Lastly, the paper presents some ideas for improvement as the team work to continually improve the curriculum integration effort. (199 words) Keywords: chemical engineering, CDIO, curriculum integration

Excellence in Education and Training Convention (EETC) 2015 Journal of Teaching Practice


INTRODUCTION The Diploma in Chemical Engineering (DCHE) in Singapore Polytechnic (SP) adopted CDIO (www.cdio.org) as the organizing education framework for a major curriculum redesign initiative in 2007. Various CDIO skills such as teamwork and communication, personal skills and attitudes (e.g. critical and creative thinking, managing learning, holding multiple perspectives, etc) have been integrated into the curriculum (Cheah et al, 2013). This paper is a continuation of that effort, and focus on the attempt by the Course Management Team (CMT) to integrate the practicals from core DCHE modules within the same stage of study. LITERATURE REVIEW ON CURRICULUM INTEGRATION “Curriculum” came from the Latin word "currere" which means “race course, to run, run way”; referring to the course of deeds and experiences through which children grow to become mature adults. In the modern context, Connelly and Clandinin (1988) offered the following broad definition: “Curriculum is often taken to mean a course of study. When we set our imagination free from the narrow notion that a course of study is a series of textbooks or specific outline of topics to be covered and objectives to be attained, broader more meaningful notions emerge. A curriculum can become one’s life course of action. It can mean the paths we have followed and the paths we intend to follow. In this broad sense, curriculum can be viewed as a person’s life experience.” What then is an “integrated curriculum”? There are many definitions for this, as well as other terms that are often used synonymously, one of which is interdisciplinary curriculum. Venville and Dawson (2004) suggest that it is not an easy question to answer due to the diversity of approaches that currently exist. CDIO Standard 3 explains an “Integrated Curriculum” as follows (Crawley et al, 2007): “A curriculum designed with mutually supporting disciplinary subjects, with an explicit plan to integrate personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills” This is supplemented by a description that reads: “A CDIO curriculum includes learning experiences that lead to the acquisition of personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills (Standard 2), integrated with the learning of disciplinary content. Disciplinary subjects are mutually supporting when they make explicit connections among related and supporting content and learning outcomes. An explicit plan identifies ways in which the integration of CDIO skills and multidisciplinary connections are to be made, for example, by mapping CDIO learning outcomes to courses and co-curricular activities that make up the curriculum”. Supporting integrated curriculum is CDIO Standard 7 Integrated Learning Experiences which are “pedagogical approaches that foster the learning of disciplinary knowledge simultaneously with personal, interpersonal, and product and system building skills. They incorporate professional engineering issues in contexts where they coexist with disciplinary issues.”



The CDIO approach resonates well with the view of Malloy (1996), who sees a curriculum as “a potent tool for reform when it integrates and inter-relates subjects and disciplines in a manner that makes learning experiences meaningful”. The CDIO approach is also consistent with another view of curriculum espoused by Shoemaker (1989) as quoted in Lake (1994): “.... education that is organized in such a way that it cuts across subject matter lines, bringing together various aspects of the curriculum into meaningful association to focus upon broad areas of study. It views learning and teaching in a holistic way and reflects the real world, which is interactive”. THE NEED FOR CURRICULUM INTEGRATION The need for curriculum integration is best summed up by Sheppard et al (2008) who noted that: “Although engineering education is strong on imparting some kind of knowledge, it is not very effective in preparing students to integrate their knowledge, skills and identity as developing professionals … The tradition of putting theory before practice and the effort to cover technical knowledge comprehensively allow little opportunity for students to have the kind of deep learning experiences that mirror professional practice and problem solving.” The authors further noted the traditional engineering education model “with its attendant deductive teaching strategies, structured problems, demonstrations, and assessments of student learning does not reflect what the significant and compelling body of research on learning suggests about how students learn and develop and how experts are formed.” The need is especially acute in today’s world, with rapid and exponential growth in knowledge in all fields of engineering and others areas. The major challenge facing all educators is to satisfy the engineers’ growing need to utilise and integrate material from different sources and disciplines (McCowan and Knapper, 2002). This is certainly true for our modular approach to teaching, where chemical engineering principles are slotted into different core modules, and students are often told to learn a module because “the concepts will be useful to you later when you do your final year project.” Humphreys et al (1981) summed up the attitude well, when they noted: “It is taken for granted, apparently, that in time students will see for themselves how things fit together. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that they tend to learn what we teach. If we teach connectedness and integration, they learn that. If we teach separation and discontinuity, that is what they learn. To suppose otherwise would be incongruous. (p.xi)”. Froyd and Ohland (2005) criticised the modular teaching, noting that: “Questions have been repeatedly raised about whether neatly compartmentalized courses can provide learning activities that stimulate, encourage, and enable students to structure their knowledge across course and disciplinary boundaries”. There is therefore strong impetus to integrate the various subjects taught in separate modules. Bordogna et al (1993) in particular, argued that “engineering is an integrative process and thus engineering education, should be designed toward that end.” The authors further noted that “there is a need to focus on creating a holistic education for students, particularly undergraduate students, because engineering’s core as a profession lies in integrating all knowledge to some purpose”. Lipson et al (1993) posits that “an enduring argument for Excellence in Education and Training Convention (EETC) 2015 Journal of Teaching Practice


integration is that it represents a way to avoid the fragmented and irrelevant acquisition of isolated facts, transforming knowledge into personally useful tools for learning new information”. Fogarty (1991) has described ten levels of curricula integration ranging from integration within discipline (“fragmented”, “connected” and “nested”) to across several disciplines (“sequenced”, shared”, “webbed”, “threaded” and “integrated”) to within and across learners (“immersed” and “networked”). Advantages and disadvantages of integrated curriculum had been discussed by various authors, e.g. Al-Holou et al (1999), Everett et al (2000) and Bandaranayahe (2011). Various educators who introduced integrated curriculum attested to its effectiveness in helping students learnt better, with some even claimed that it helped student retention (Froyd and Ohland, 2005; Lipson et al, 1993; Jackson, 2001; McCowan and Knapper, 2002; McCarthy et al, 2011). The verdict is best summed up by Drake & Reid (2010), who stated: “Research has consistently shown that students in integrated programs demonstrate academic performance equal to, or better than, students in discipline-based programs. In addition, students are more engaged in school, and less prone to attendance and behavior problems.” Despite the stated benefits of integrated curriculum, objections abound. McKenna et al (2001) for example, challenged the conventional approach of curriculum integration efforts, which is “based on a common-sense assumption that an integrated curriculum is beneficial to student learning and will lead to a more integrative understanding of the discipline”. Perhaps the most “passionate” criticism against integrated curriculum comes from George (1996) who claimed that all the accolades about integrated curriculum are “unfounded, unsubstantiated, or both.” He concluded that little evidence exists to show that integrated curriculum is more effective than good teaching of a traditional curriculum. His advice was “IC advocates continue to clarify the meaning of the term; conduct and publish credible research on IC results; and realize and appreciate the dedication and commitment of the thousands of educators not yet persuaded about wholesale, immediate IC adoption.” However, as noted by Simanu-Klutz (1997): “Although at first glance, this may appear to be a doom-and-gloom attack on integrated curriculum, his admonishment should be seen as an invitation for teachers and administrators to understand this approach more thoroughly and to study it carefully”. Rennie et al (2005) opined that evidence about the impact of integrated programs on student learning is not easily identified in the literature because of the difficulty researchers have finding a common way of viewing ‘learning’. Their own work has demonstrated that the kind of learning documented can be different depending on the theoretical perspective the researchers adopt. EXISTING CURRICULUM INTEGRATION IN DCHE Prior to the adoption of CDIO, the de facto approach to curriculum integration in DCHE is via our Final Year Project (FYP), in which all graduating (i.e. Year 3) students are required to complete. In addition, our students are also required to complete another project entitled Plant Design Project, also in year 3, which is often referred to as the “capstone” project. There is also limited integration between mathematics and sciences (namely chemistry and biology) with the technical topics in chemical engineering. While these approaches remain important, we have introduced various other means to promote curriculum integration after adoption of CDIO.



More specifically, with CDIO we adopted the practice-oriented approach, by designing learning tasks that simulated real-world working environment. Indeed Sheppard et al (2008) advocated: “If engineering students are to be prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, the center of their education should be professional practice, integrating technical knowledge and skills of practice through a consistent focus on developing the identity and commitment of the professional engineer. Teaching for professional practice should be the touchstone for future choices about both curriculum content and pedagogical strategies in undergraduate engineering education. The ability to make connections, to solve problems by looking at multiple perspectives, and to incorporate information from different fields, will be an essential ingredient for success in the future.” With effect from Academic Year 2013/2014, we had switched to a sequential-type course structure, in which the whole cohort of 120 DCHE students all undertake to study the same set of modules within a given semester. Besides the arguements presented in the earlier section, our own rationale is rather simple: based on our own experience implementing CDIO since 2007, a sequential course structure can better support our “CDIO-type” integrated curriculum compared to the “more traditional” flip-flop structure that used to be the dominant course structure in SP. Our own teaching experience as well as results from longitudinal study of student learning experience delivered under our “CDIO-type” curriculum convinced us that students just learn better and retain better. The existing DCHE approach to integrated curriculum can best be described in two broad categories: (a) Local Integration; and (b) Vertical Integration. By local integration, we refer to efforts whereby basic mathematics and sciences (chemical, biology, and physics) as well as selected CDIO skills (such as communication, teamwork, critical thinking, etc) are integrated into suitable core modules. Many of these core modules have their own laboratory component with dedicated set of pilot plants, whereby related technical knowledge and suitable CDIO skills are infused. As an example, consider the core module Heat Transfer & Equipment, taught in Stage 2A to all 120 students. There are 5 activities for the laboratory component as shown in Table 1. Usually, in local integration, there are also limited content integration with other core chemical engineering modules, usually in the forms of questions before and/or after the practical session. The integration of CDIO skills in DCHE core modules is via an approach known as engineering practice, which is consistent with the requirements of CDIO Standard 7 Integrated Learning Experiences. The use of engineering practice in DCHE curriculum had been well covered elsewhere (Cheah and Yang, 2013). Following on the earlier example of Heat Transfer & Equipment, the coverage of CDIO skills in this module is shown in Table 2. For modules without laboratory components, integrated learning experience is delivered via assignments, case studies, or other form of out-of-classroom learning trips. For an example, the reader is referred to the works of Chua et al (2011) where out-of-classroom learning activity was used to teach statistics in the context of chemical engineering practice. Figure 1 shows the DCHE curriculum with local and vertical integration, as well as horizontal integration, the focus of this paper which will be discussed in greater details later. Modules with local integration as explained above are shown as grey boxes.



Table 1. Integration of Technical Content of One Core Module with Other Core Modules Required Knowledge from Other Core Modules (not including math & sciences) CP5008 Heat Transfer & Equipment Activity Description

CP5067

CP5078

CP5033

CP5006

CP5058

CP5059

CP5077

Intro to Chemical Thermodynamics

Process Instrument -ation & Control

Plant Safety and Loss Prevention

Environmental Engineering

Fluid Mechanics

Rotating Equipment

Separation Processes

Selection of appropriate Plate Heat Exchanger configuration to meet process requirement

√

Testing of hypothesis if fouling has occurred in Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

√

Commissioning of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger Study effect of increasing production capacity on product quality of Climbing Film Evaporator Study energy efficiency programme via Heat Integration within Bubble Cap Distillation Pilot Plant

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Vertical integration refers to integration whereby the knowledge and skills required to produce a chemical product or chemical process were gradually build-up in several modules spread over the 3-year course duration. The vertical integration in DCHE curriculum strives to support the execution of 2 capstone projects in year 3: chemical product design in Final Year Project (FYP) and chemical process design in Plant Design Project (PDP), as mentioned in the earlier section. For the case of chemical product design, the integration of skills in conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating an engineering product, process or system (namely Part 4 of the CDIO Syllabus) is shown by the curved dotted line across all three years as follows: Introduction to Chemical Product Design (ICPD) in Year 1, Chemical Product Design & Development (CPDD) in Year 2; and FYP in Year 3. It is worth noting that we have also integrated design thinking into the ICPD module. For more details on this area, the reader is referred to our works published elsewhere (Ng & Cheah, 2012).



√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Testing of hypothesis if fouling has occurred in Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

√

√

Commissioning and Operation of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger Study effect of increasing production capacity on product quality of Climbing Film Evaporator

√

Study energy efficiency programme via Heat Integration within Bubble Cap Distillation Pilot Plant

√

4.1.2 Sustainable Development

3.2 Communication

2.4.2 Manage Time

3.1 Teamwork

Selection of appropriate Plate Heat Exchanger configuration to meet process requirement

2.2.4 Analyse data and write report

CP5008 Heat Transfer & Equipment Activity Description

2.2.1, 2.2.3 Hypothesis Form & Testing

2.2 Experimentation & Knowledge Discovery

Table 2. Local Integration of CDIO Skills within a Core Module

√

Year 3 Semester 2

FE2

FE3

FE4

FE5

CSFYP

Year 3 Semester 1

ENV

PS&LP

CRE

THM

PDE&SD

Year 2 Semester 2

GE&AT

CPDD

SEPP

PI&C

FE1

ISPP

Year 2 Semester 1

HT&E

FM

RE

BPHE

EM2B

SIP

Year 1 Semester 2

CEP&S

ICTH

FMCB

I&OC

EM2A

CR&P

Year 1 Semester 1

ICHE

ICPD

MIP

A&PC

EM1

CR&A

OM&S

CPFE

CPJE

Note 1: Course Structure for AY14/15 Cohort, exempted from Basic Math and taking Concentration Track. AMM not shown Note 2: The following abbreviations are used ICHE = Introduction to Chemical Engineering, ICPD = Introduction to Chemical Product Design, MIP = Materials in Practice, A&PC = Analytical & Physical Chemistry, EM1 = Engineering Mathematics I, CR&A = Critical Reasoning & Argumentation, CJE = Communicating for Project Effectiveness, CEP&S = Chemical Engineering Principles & Simulation, ICTH = Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics, FMCB = Fundamentals of Molecular & Cell Biology, I&OC = Inorganic & Organic Chemistry, EM2A = Engineering Mathematics II A, CR&P = Critical Reasoning & Persuasion, HT&E = Heat Transfer & Equipment, FM = Fluid Mechanics, RE = Rotating Equipment, BPHE = Biopharmaceutical Engineering, EM2B = Engineering Mathematics II B, SIP = Social Innovation Project, GE&AT = Green Engineering & Alternative Energy, CPDD = Chemical Product Design & Development, SEPP = Separation Processes, P&IC = Process Instrumentation & Control, ISPP = Independent Study Project & Presentation, ENV = Environmental Engineering, PS&LP = Plant Safety & Loss Prevention, CRE = Chemical Reaction Engineering, THM = Thermodynamics, PDE&SD = Plant Design Economics & Sustainable Development, CPFE = Communicating for Professional Effectiveness, CSFYP = Capstone Project (FYP), OM&S = Organization Management & Statistics, FE = Free Elective (total 5)

Figure 1. Integrated Curriculum in DCHE – Local, Horizontal and Vertical



In the case of chemical process design, shown in solid curved line, the emphasis is on technical integration, whereby students make use of simulation software such as Aspen Hysys to simulate and model a chemical processing plant. Simulation and modelling was taught in the following modules: Chemical Engineering Principles & Simulation in Year 1, Heat Transfer & Equipment and Fluid Mechanics in Year 2, and PDP in Year 3. In PDP, the students make use of prior knowledge of chemical engineering principles learnt in various core modules, as well as skills in process and equipment simulations to design a selected chemical process plant. They have to evaluate the viability of the plant design project through rigorous project cost estimation and project evaluation. In addition, the students apply knowledge of sustainable development principles to modify process plant design and engage critical thinking skills in making choices and decisions in areas of uncertainty. NEW INITIATIVE: HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION IN DCHE In the current effort, with effect from Academic Year 2013/2014, we introduced horizontal integration into the DCHE curriculum. Horizontal integration refers to the coupling together of several core modules within the same stage of study. While the core modules still remain as “standalone” modules, in that each still retain its module code, focused on key disciplinary topics, and has its own semestral examination, there is now an integrated laboratory session covering application of topics spanning several core modules. With reference to Figure 1 horizontal integration is represented by straight solid lines joining several shaded boxes. A key difference between local and horizontal integration is that in horizontal integration the technical contents are now much more tightly connected together, permitting deeper learning as well as more in-depth assessment of student learning. In contrast, such connections are much “looser” in local integration, being more “peripheral” in nature. As an example, the module Heat Transfer & Equipment is now integrated with two other module within the same stage 2A: namely Fluid Mechanics and Rotating Equipment. The three modules retain their key chemical engineering principles, as implied by the module name; but the laboratory components from these modules are now merged and park into Practical component of one module, Heat Transfer & Equipment as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Horizontal Integration – Changes in LTP for DCHE Stage 2A Core Modules Module Hours

CP5008 Heat Transfer & Equipment Before

After

CP5058 Fluid Mechanics Before

CP5059 Rotating Equipment

After

Before

After

Lecture

30

30

30

30

30

30

Tutorial

30

30

15

30

30

30

Practical

15

30

15

0

15

0

Total Hours

75

90

60

60

75

60

The assessment schemes for all three modules were also modified to reflect the change. This is shown in Table 4. One important question that arise from this effort is how to equitably allocate the “contributions” from each core module in an integrated activity. This point will be further discussed in later section. For now, it is suffice to note that the LAB component for Heat Transfer & Equipment has been increased from 25% to 30%; to reflect the moreExcellence in Education and Training Convention (EETC) 2015 Journal of Teaching Practice


demanding laboratory activity, and a new assessment component CA2 had been introduced to Fluid Mechanics and Rotating Equipment to reflect the contribution of topics from these two modules in the integrated laboratory session. Table 4. Horizontal Integration – Changes in Assessments for DCHE Stage 2A Core Modules Module Assessment Component

CP5008 Heat Transfer & Equipment Before

After

CP5058 Fluid Mechanics Before


After

Before

After

EXAM

50

50

50

50

50

50

CA1

15

10

15

15

10

15

0

0

0

20

0

20

TST

10

10

15

15

10

15

LAB

25

30

20

0

30

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

CA2 (NEW)

With this horizontal integration, we effectively reduced the number of activities from fifteen (five from each core module) down to eight, all embedded in the Practical component of Heat Transfer & Equipment. This list of activities in the integrated laboratory and the allocation each activity to a core module (whether as LAB or CA2, as explained in Table 4) is shown in Table 5. Table 5. List of Activities in Integrated Laboratory for Stage 2A DCHE Curriculum S/N

Activity Description

Assessment

P1

Selection of Appropriate Plate Heat Exchanger Configuration to meet Process Requirements

CP5008 LAB

P2

Commissioning of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger & Writing Memo to Report Test Run Results

CP5008 LAB

P3

Troubleshooting of Centrifugal Pump using Systems Thinking & Determination of Energy Loss

CP5059 CA2

P4

Determination of Flow Meter Characteristics and Sales Presentation of Flow Equipment

CP5058 CA2

P5

Evaluation of Optimal Mixing Condition for Feed Solution & Studying the Effect of Varying Feed Flow Rate on Product Concentration in Climbing Film Evaporator

CP5059 CA2

P6

Developing Procedures for Operating Different Pumps and Determination of Fluid Characteristics

CP5059 CA2

P7

Testing Hypothesis of Fouling in Double-pipe Heat Exchanger & Studying the Effects of Reynolds Number on Heat Transfer Coefficient

CP5008 LAB

P8

Evaluation of Head Loss across Single and Parallel Pipe Network with Variations in Pipe Diameter and Fluid Flow Rate

CP5058 CA2

The new mapping of technical content and CDIO skills is shown in Table 6. Note that this table also shows content integration of these three modules with other core modules from different stages of study. In a similar manner, horizontal integration had been carried out for Year 1 Stage B modules, and planned for Year 2 Stage B as well as Year 3 Stage A modules as shown in Table 7.



Table 6. Overall Integration of Stage 2A Core Modules within DCHE Curriculum

Technical Content

Stage 2A DCHE Curriculum

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

CP5008, CP5058, CP5059

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Introduction to Chemical Engineering

√

√

Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics

√

√

Chemical Engineering Principles & Simulation

√

√ √

√

√

Environmental Engineering

√ √

√ √

√

Hypothesis Testing

√

Teamwork CDIO Skills

√

√

Process Instrumentation & Control Plant Safety & Loss Prevention

√

√

√

Communication

√

√

√

√

√

√

Systems Thinking

√

Experimental Inquiry

√

Manage Time Analyse data and write report

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Table 7. Horizontal Integration in DHCE Curriculum Modules with Practicals to integrate horizontally Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Remarks

Stage B

CP5066 Chemical Engineering Principles & Simulation

CP5067 Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics

N.A.

Integrated Practical “parked” in CP5067

Stage A

CP5008 Heat Transfer and Equipment

CP5058 Fluid Mechanics



Stage B

CP5060/CP5077 Separation Processes

CP5061/CP5078 Process Instrumentation and Control

N.A.


Stage A

CP5023 Thermodynamics

CP5009 Chemical Reaction Engineering

N.A.


ISSUES AND CHALLENGES; MOVING AHEAD In attempting to integrate the modules horizontally, the team faced a number of challenges. Some of these challenges are rather typical, for example meeting institutional requirements for the number of modules permitted per stage and the total hours per week. These will not be elaborated here. Other challenges are more unique, as least to the DCHE CMT. For example, in equitably allocating the “contributions” from each core module in an integrated activity, we have to study the learning outcomes of each practical and “parked” the practical score to the module which has the largest number of learning outcomes covered in the activity.



Another issue is the consideration of students who fail one or two of the three modules. Before the implementation of integrated practical, a student will repeat a particular module that he failed and have to attend the lecture, tutorial and practical session of that module. With the integrated practical, if a student was to fail CP5058 Fluid Mechanics and/or CP5059 Rotating Equipment, there is no assigned practical session for these two modules in the timetable, hence the CA2 component of the two modules would not be available. The module team deliberated on this issue and finalized the allocation of CA2 scores based on various possible scenarios as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Actions for Integrated Modules in Event of Student Failure For the 8 integrated practicals in CP5008 (P1-P8)  Marks from 3 practicals (P1, P2 & P7) distributed to CP5008 LAB (30%)  Marks from 2 practicals (P4 & P8) distributed to CP5058 CA2 Integrated Learning (20%)  Marks from 3 practicals (P3, P5 & P6) distributed to CP5059 CA2 Integrated Learning (20%) Action

Scenario

CP5008

CP5058

CP5059

1

Pass

Pass

Pass

2

Fail

Fail

Fail

Student repeat all modules when they are offered next

Pass

P4 & P8 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5058 when it is offered next*

3

4

5

6

7

8

*

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Fail

Fail

Fail

Pass

Fail

Pass

Pass

Fail

CP5008 LAB (30%)

CP5058 CA2 (20%)

CP5059 CA2 (20%)

P1, P2 & P7 marks

P4 & P8 marks

P3, P5 & P6 marks

P3, P5 & P6 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5059 when it is offered next*

Fail

P4 & P8 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5058 when it is offered next*

Fail

Pass

Student repeats CP5008 when it is offered next but attends only sessions for P1, P2 & P7

Fail


Pass


P3, P5 & P6 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5059 when it is offered next*

P3, P5 & P6 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5059 when it is offered next* P4 & P8 marks are retained for when student repeat CP5058 when it is offered next*

Lecturer may consider giving an assignment to ensure that essential skills/ concepts in the practicals associated to the module are acquired.



Another challenge pertains to concerns of some colleagues on the reduction in hands-on component that had been traditionally hailed as the hallmark of polytechnic education. Some of us feared that other stakeholders may not view this favorably, perceiving the reduced laboratory sessions as implying our graduates may not be as practical-oriented compared to previous cohorts. While such concerns are valid, we hoped that the old adage “more is not always better” holds true in this situation, and that the outcomes derived from the comprehensive nature of horizontal integration more than offset the reduction in hands-on opportunities. Also, with sequential structure, all 120 of the student cohort will take the same modules within the same semester. This implies that our lecturers will have to be competent in teaching and facilitating more modules compared to the flip-flop course structure. This also means that the teaching team for each module is now larger, with up to 4-5 members as opposed to 2-3 person module team in the previous structure. To overcome this, the module coordinator prepared a more-detailed version of the learning materials – the lecturer’s copy of the laboratory manual – to conduct a training session for the module team members so that everyone is on the same page. Such arrangement also placed considerable strains on the already-congested laboratory. The pilot plants used for these 3 modules were previously housed in 2 workshops, Process Instrumentation & Control Laboratory and Industrial Unit Operations Laboratory. With the integrated approach, the pilot plants from Process Instrumentation & Control Laboratory were shifted to Industrial Unit Operations Laboratory to facilitate the conduct of integrated practical sessions. Several pilot plants in Industrial Unit Operations Laboratory had to be relocated in order to make room for all the pilot plants used in the integrated practical. On a positive side, such integration in a way, helped “solved” part of our manpower issue; a perennial manpower problem also faced by most diplomas. By reducing the number of laboratory sessions, we “freed up” contact hours for staff to be deployed elsewhere, such as the revising our year 3 course structure in preparation of the proposed “5+1” system. The module team also obtained feedback from students. A questionnaire survey was conducted on students’ learning experience of integrated practical. We used a Likert 5-point scale whereby students are required to rate from a score of 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”) on the following three questions: Q1 Q2 Q3

Through the learning of the modules CP5008, CP5058 & CP5059, I'm able to integrate the knowledge and skill learnt from each module and applies in different context. The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to see connections among these modules. The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to apply integrated knowledge and skills in similar scenarios.

A total of 83 students responded to the survey and the result is presented in Figures 2 to 4. The survey result indicated that overall, students’ learning experience through the integrated practical was positive. 91.6% of the students agreed that through the learning of the three modules CP5008, CP5058 & CP5059, they are able to integrate the knowledge and skill learnt from each module and applies in different context. More than 89% of students agreed that the conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances their abilities to see connections Excellence in Education and Training Convention (EETC) 2015 Journal of Teaching Practice


among these modules. 86.8% of the students agreed that the conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances their abilities to apply integrated knowledge and skills in similar scenarios. Currently, integrated practical is conducted every week and students have to submit report on the following week. A common feedback from students is that insufficient time is given to complete the report. Through the learning of the modules CP5008, CP5058 & CP5059, I'm able to integrate the knowledge and skill learnt from each module and applies in different context 69.9 70 % respondent

60 50 40 21.7

30 20 10

7.2 0

1.2

0 Strongly Disagree

Figure 2.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Response on “Through the learning of the modules CP5008, CP5058 & CP5059, I'm able to integrate the knowledge and skill learnt from each module and applies in different context” The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to see connections among these modules 68.7 70

% respondent

60 50 40 30

20.5

20 10

8.4 0

2.4

0

Strongly Disagree

Figure 3.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Response on” The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to see connections among these modules”



The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to apply integrated knowledge and skills in similar scenarios 68.7 70 % respondent

60 50 40 30

18.1 12

20 10

0

1.2

0 Strongly Disagree

Figure 4.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Response on “The conduct of the integrated practical sessions enhances my ability to apply integrated knowledge and skills in similar scenarios”

Moving ahead, after obtaining feedback from students of their learning experience in these integrated laboratory sessions, the teaching team proposes to undertake the following actions to further improve the teaching of the integrated curriculum in general and integrated laboratory sessions in particular: (1) Streamline questions in the report (2) Introduce integrated tutorial questions (3) Introduce integrated assessment for mid-semester test CONCLUSIONS Looking at curriculum integration from students perspective Laughlin et al (2007) identified three factors affecting students' perceived level of integration: (1) the connections made by students among mathematics, physics, and engineering design classes; (2) the students’ perceived level of communication, cooperation, and synergy between faculty teaching the above three classes; and (3) the level of perceived faculty involvement in students’ learning experiences. The authors reported a positive relationship between the extent to which students perceived integration and the extent to which integration contributed to a positive learning experience. In this regard, we can say that our effort in providing integrated learning through integrated practical appears to be successful. The integrated practical approach is effective in seeing connection among various modules. We hope that by making learning more meaningful in the course; we can achieve “teaching for transfer and thoughtful learning” that Perkins (1991) advocated: “A concern with connecting things up, with integrating ideas, within and across subject matters, and with elements of out-of-school life, inherently is a concern with understanding in a broader and a deeper sense. Accordingly there is a natural alliance between those making a special effort to teach for understanding and those making a special effort toward integrative education.” Excellence in Education and Training Convention (EETC) 2015 Journal of Teaching Practice


The module team will continue to improve on the practical design based on the feedback obtained, and also to embark on new initiatives for further strengthen the integration effort by working on integrated tutorial and integrated assessment through mid-semester test. REFERENCES Al-Holou, N., Bilgutay, N.M., Corleto, C., Demel, J.T., Felder, R., Frair, K., Froyd, J.E., Hoit, M., Morgan, J. and Wells, D.L. (1999). First-Year Integrated Curricula: Design Alternatives and Examples, J. of Engrg Edu., pp.435-448 Bordogna, J., Fromm, E., and Ernst, E.W. (1993). Engineering Education: Innovation through Integration, J. of Engrg Edu., Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 3–8 Cheah, S.M. and Yang, K. (2013). Teaching Engineering Practice in Chemical Engineering via Experiential Learning, International Symposium on Advances in Technology Education; Sep 25-27; Nara, Japan Chua, P.H., Cheah, S.M., and Singh, M.N. (2011). CDIO Experience for New Faculty: Integrating CDIO Skills into a Statistics Module, Proc of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Jun 20-23; Copenhagen, Denmark Connelly, F.M. and Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as Curriculum Partners: Narratives of Experience, New York: Teachers College Press Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S. & Brodeur, D.R. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education, New York: Springer. Drake, S.M., and Reid J. (2010). Integrated Curriculum: Increasing Relevance while Maintaining Accountability, What Works? Research into Practice Everett, L.J., Imbrie, P.K. and Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated Curricula: Purpose and Design, Journal of Engineering Education, pp.167-175 Fogarty, R. (1991). The Mindful School: How to Integrate the Curricula, Palatine, IL; Skylight Publishing Inc Froyd, J.E. and Ohland, M.W. (2005). Integrated Engineering Curricula, J. of Engrg Edu.,, pp.147-164 George, P.S. (1996). Arguing Integrated Curriculum, Education Digest, November Humphreys, A. Post, T, and Ellis, A. (1981). Interdisciplinary Methods: A Thematic Approach, Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, p.11 Jackson, B.W. (2001). The Integrated Learning Initiative: An Evolution of a Pedagogical Paradigm, Proc. of the 2001 ASEE An. Conf. and Expo



Lake, K. (1994). School Improvement Research Series Close-Up #16: Integrated Curriculum, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Accessed May 28, 2012; from website http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/825 Laughlin, C.D., Zastavker, Y.V. and Ong, M. (2007). Is Integration Really There? Students’ Perceptions of Integration in Their Project-Based Curriculum, 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Oct 10-13; Milwaukee, WI, USA Lipson, M., Valencia, S., Wixson, K. and Peters, C. (1993). Integration and Thematic Teaching: Integration to Improve Teaching and Learning, Language Arts, 70/4, pp.252-264 Malloy, W. (1996). Essential Schools and Inclusion: Educational Forum, 60(3), pp.228-236

A Responsive Partnership, The

McCarthy, J.J., Parker, R.S., Abatan, A. and Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2011). Building an Evaluation Strategy for an Integrated Curriculum in Chemical Engineering, Adv in Engrg Edu., Vol.2, No.4. McCowan, J.D. and Knapper, C.K. (2002). An Integrated and Comprehensive Approach to Engineering Curricula, Part One: Objectives and General Approach, Int. J. Engng Ed., Vol.18, No.6, pp.633-637 McKenna, A., Mcmartin, F., Terada, Y., Sirivedhin, V. and Agogino, A. (2001). A Framework for Interpreting Students’ Perception of an Integrated Curriculum, Proc. of the 2001 ASEE An. Conf. and Expo Ng, H.T., and Cheah, S.M. (2012). Chemical Product Engineering using CDIO Enhanced with Design Thinking. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference. Brisbane, Australia. Perkins, D.N. (1991). Educating for Insight, Educational Leadership, 49/2, pp.4-8 Rennie, L., Sheffield, R., Venville, G. and Wallace, J. (2005). Ripples and Tsunamis to Curriculum Integration: A Comparative Case Study, Australasian Association for Research in Education (AARE), NSW, Nov27 – Dec 1; NSW, Australia Sheppard, S.D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A. and Sullivan, W.M. (2008). Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Jossey-Bass Simanu-Klutz, L. (1997). Integrated Curriculum: A Reflection of Life Itself, PREL Briefing Paper, November Shoemaker, B. (1989). Integrative Education: A Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century, Oregon School Study Council 33/2, p.5 Venville, G and Dawson, V. (2004). Integration of Science with Other Learning Areas, in The Art of Teaching Science; Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin, pp.146-161
