1. Bryan S. Beckingham Dept. of Chemical Engineering Auburn University
Keywords: Introductory Chemical Engineering Course; technical writing, active learning, problem solving
Accelerating the learning curve: Improving problem solving skills and technical communication in sophomore chemical engineers
The transition into the engineering curriculum is challenging for students in many ways but particularly in the types and complexity of the problems to be solved. Additionally, this transition begins the process of introducing students into the particular language and means of communication they will build upon for the remainder of their degree and likely their career. By showing students the way with problem solving roadmaps and improving engineering communication with collaborative and iterative writing, this project focuses on accelerating this transition.
Bryan S. Beckingham
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Auburn University

2. Why? Educational Objectives: What problem are you solving?
Transition into engineering is hard. It takes time to adjust to solving engineering problems leading to low student confidence (and performance) early on that is difficult for students to overcome as the term concludes.
Accurately describing and convey key engineering concepts in writing is an important skill for all engineers to develop and will be an integral part of their careers.
Educational Objectives:
Accelerate the transition to solving more complex engineering problems
Improve student ability to convey engineering concepts in writing

3. When?
Introductory “Principles of Chemical Engineering” course (CHEN 2100) is offered every semester (Fall, Spring, Summer) at Auburn.
Fall term enrollment is dramatically higher (120 in Fall ’15 and 160 in Fall ‘16) than the Spring and Summer terms (25 in Spring ’16).
Student compositions are also very different between the Spring and Fall terms
Proposed activities are in preparation for the Spring term beginning in 2017.

4. Where?
Course is the gateway course for all chemical engineers in the program and meets daily as 1 section for 50 min of lecture MWF and 75 min of TA-led recitation on Tu/Th.
This is the first attempt utilizing these strategies which are intended to support and engage the broad array of students present in the “off-semester” offering of this course.

5. What? What learning activities and materials have you developed?
Hybrid two-minute essays and think-pair-share.
Writing short technical explanations followed by TPS. The TPS would include editing/revision producing an improved essay response for larger group TPS and so on.
Series of fill-in-the-blank problem solving roadmaps for each topical area with increasing difficulty
What is your theory of change?
More writing leads to better writing.
Reflection in TPS and group editing/sharing will aid student growth.
Writing explanation requires solid knowledge of underlying principles; writing will translate into greater understanding
What has worked really well?
Introduced limited fill-in-the-blank problems in Spring ’16. They were very well received by students leading to my desire to expand their use

6. Prognosis? How are you documenting impact?
Pre- and Post- semester knowledge assessment exams of the course material
Technical writing will be assessed against Spring ’16 baseline writing responses
Pre- and Post- semester surveys will be conducted where students assess their own writing ability
What advice would you like from others at FOEE?
How to better track improvements/impact of activities on student writing? Over semester? Between cohorts?
Advice on blending active learning with lecture in 50 min slots