Abstract
Three successful historical reforms of chemical engineering education were the triumph of chemical engineering over industrial chemistry, the engineering science revolution, and Engineering Criteria 2000. Current attempts to change teaching methods have relied heavily on dissemination of the results of engineering-education research that show superior student learning with active learning methods. Although slow dissemination of education research results is probably a contributing cause to the slowness of reform, two other causes are likely much more significant. First, teaching is the primary interest of only approximately one-half of engineering faculty. Second, the vast majority of engineering faculty have no training in teaching, but trained professors are on average better teachers. Significant progress in reform will occur if organizations with leverage-National Science Foundation, through CAREER grants, and the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET-use that leverage to require faculty to be trained in pedagogy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.