**3. Developing experimental activities within the educational framework for chemical engineering**

Within the framework, previously discussed are many opportunities for the educator to develop and deliver a variety of learning activities. While there are many activities available in an educator's "toolkit" for various situations, only experiential learning will be explored here, which governs the nature of experimental tasks and other experience-based non-experimental learning activities for the class. This learning theory, together with the educational framework discussed, will be demonstrated in the development of experiential activities for chemical engineering undergraduates.

#### **3.1. Experiential learning theory**

Kolb's experiential learning was progressed to its current form from significant earlier works of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget [29]. Its prime motivation is the acquirement of knowledge through experience. The four modes of learning are (a) concrete experience; (b) reflective observation; (c) abstract conceptualization or thinking; and (d) active experimentation, or acting on one's new knowledge [29]. These are often summarized into: experience; reflect; think; and act. This curiosity-driven learning increases engagement and interest of students, helping them to achieve learning independence. Similarities can be observed with the Piagetian and pP thinking stages, where the earlier ones are concerned with experience (touch, visual, smell, etc.); the intermediate stages develop reflection and thinking about observations; and the final stages promote action of a learner to discover new information for her/himself.

As an activity in an educator's toolkit, this theory can be shown as a small in-class thinking task to explain an observation; as a longer-term real-life assignment or design project; or as a formal experimental class. Such activities could form the instruction over DP2–DP4, depending on depth and time constraints. To avoid confusion, an *experimental class* is a subset of *experiential learning*, and not all experiential activities need to include experiments.

## **3.2. Developing an experimental activity in chemical engineering**

tasks. The depth of LOT and HOT will vary depending on the intellectual thinking level of the learner (Piagetian and pP), and hence the ability to "create" new knowledge for any given

Fully independent learners operating in the creative domain of post-formal thinking will have developed their own methods of learning a new topic to expert level, based on a culmination of all previous learning they have experienced to that point. Even at this fully independent thinking stage, a learner to a new topic of interest will still need to progress through LOT and HOT in order to become sufficiently competent in a new field. These learners will have the skills to generate *actual* new knowledge, as opposed to learners operating at lower thinking skill levels, who will create new knowledge *for them* in their overall development. This is a key difference between a researcher or industry expert generating new knowledge and a learner

The five broad DP also to some degree have links with Bloom's LOT and HOT. For example, in DP1 and DP2, the teaching and learning focus is on understanding existing knowledge and learning concepts of a new topic. In DP3 and DP4, the focus shifts to applying this newly gained knowledge to progressively more difficult tasks, which require some degree of the analysis and evaluation of the assigned problem. Finally, in DP5, independence of the learner within their current thinking skill category is reached when they are able to become fully

To recap, Bloom's taxonomy can be used as a tool to (a) demonstrate life-long learning; (b) frame the teaching of a given topic; and (c) frame the learning of a given topic for more inde-

Within the framework, previously discussed are many opportunities for the educator to develop and deliver a variety of learning activities. While there are many activities available in an educator's "toolkit" for various situations, only experiential learning will be explored here, which governs the nature of experimental tasks and other experience-based non-experimental learning activities for the class. This learning theory, together with the educational framework discussed, will be demonstrated in the development of experiential activities for

Kolb's experiential learning was progressed to its current form from significant earlier works of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget [29]. Its prime motivation is the acquirement of knowledge through experience. The four modes of learning are (a) concrete experience; (b) reflective observation; (c) abstract conceptualization or thinking; and (d) active experimentation, or acting on one's new knowledge [29]. These are often summarized into: experience; reflect; think;

competent with the range of tasks required, creating new knowledge *for them*.

**3. Developing experimental activities within the educational** 

topic will be limited by the depth of thinking capability of the learner.

10 Laboratory Unit Operations and Experimental Methods in Chemical Engineering

becoming competent in their field.

**framework for chemical engineering**

chemical engineering undergraduates.

**3.1. Experiential learning theory**

pendent learners.

Following the differentiation framework and interactions with Piagetian and pP theories, as well as Bloom's taxonomy, the educator must start at DP1 by "knowing the student needs." Knowing these needs will determine which Piagetian thinking skills primarily make up the laboratory class. For lower classmen, the students would typically be operating over a range of concrete, formal, and relativistic, while for upper classmen, the latter two would be more common, perhaps with some operating at dialectical thinking stage. However, each class is unique, and this must be determined by the educators running the theory classes, and discussed with the educators running the practical classes (as is most usually the case).

Having decided on two or three thinking skill levels that best represent the class, the educator will then develop the practical class on a particular unit operation with key learning objectives in mind, mostly within the DP2–DP4 range. Within this range, the level of difficulty of the tasks increases, from providing conceptual knowledge of the experiment through to applying this knowledge, and then analyzing and evaluating the resulting data. This is akin to the middle part of a Bloom's taxonomy cycle. DP5, where students practice independence, may be incorporated by a final task that requires the students to come up with a part or all of an extended investigation from their experimental task. This will build on their knowledge gained within the previous DPs, and will equip them with independent skills *within* their thinking skill range. When developing the experimental class, the educator should also keep in mind the experiential learning cycle just described, allowing adequate opportunity for reflection and cognitive thinking after an observation, followed by tasks that allow the students to actively use their newly gained knowledge.

A common method to incorporate different levels of thinking operational ability is to include choice between the required tasks. Those operating at higher thinking levels will typically choose the tasks that satisfy their need and hunger for learning, while those at lower levels will choose tasks more suitable for them. Rarely do students choose "the easy way out," as discovered by Hutton-Prager and O'Haver [30], and the vast majority of students genuinely engage with material by challenging themselves.

A planning template is shown in **Table 1**, demonstrating how the educational framework and pedagogies can be used to develop a meaningful laboratory class. The final format to the


see [31–34]). Frequently, experiments are labeled as "cookbook" experiments, where students follow a detailed set of instructions and describe what they observe [33]. While this does have obvious advantages from a safety and time viewpoint, on its own, it does not provide sufficient opportunity for students to practice HOT questions and reflective activities as per experiential learning principles. However, as a differentiated activity, some students may *require* a more "cookbook" style experiment to assist progression of their learning, but this would still be incorporated with other opportunities to extend thinking. It is important to take into

Utilizing a Differentiation Framework, Piagetian Theories and Bloom's Taxonomy to Foster…

Some more "innovative" experiments presented at the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) annual conference in 2016, have been reviewed as per the template described in **Table 1**, and their results appear in **Table 2**. The reader is encouraged to read the full publications, as only a brief summary is presented here. This summary is based only on the conference presentation materials, and not the actual laboratory information presented to

> **Experiment 2: Unsteady state conduction [34]**

Detailed objectives provided

Fourier's Law of conduction previously developed in classes.

Operating procedure

Difficult to assess does not appear to progress tasks.

Assessment tasks require calculations but they do not appear to provide depth beyond calculation procedures.

provided

**Experiment 3: Air conditioner experiment—thermodynamics** 

Does not appear to have been

Pre-lab worksheet completed with instructor guided demonstration of equipment, discussing equipment, concepts and how to collect

No procedures provided, in lieu of the previous week's demonstration of the

Spreadsheet assignment done individually, asking for specific calculations and tables to be

Target audience given to each group. Team devised experimental plan based on their audience, and collected

for submission; website creation to explain new concepts learned.

**cycle [32]**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75646

13

provided.

data.

equipment.

created in Excel.

relevant data.

None provided. A3 lab report poster required

account the students' thinking levels when developing experimental tasks.

**Mechanical properties** 

Fundamental physical properties of food in unit operations covered in classes preceding experimental activity.

Operating procedure

Experiment was designed in three parts, progressively becoming more difficult.

Good assessment questions which are open-ended and require students to think and reflect.

None provided, but difficult to determine from information provided.

**Table 2.** Summary of three experimental tasks, dissected into the proposed framework.

**of foods [34]**

provided

provided

the students.

2 Differentiation

3–4 Differentiation

learning

learning

5 HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "act" from experiential learning

framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy

framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy.

Progressively challenging tasks; "experience" and "reflect" from experiential

HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "reflect" and "think" from experiential

**DP Theories Experiment 1:** 

1 Differentiation framework Detailed objectives

\* Precise procedure required for safety reasons; use DP5 to allow students freedom in coming up with a new experimental task instead.

**Table 1.** Planning template to assist in coming up with a well-rounded experimental task, meeting all the required learning objectives.

students would be a handout (or part of an experimental booklet) detailing the unit operation name, theory, tasks, and questions. Report write-up differs between colleges, and specific information on how this is to be done needs to be conveyed to the students. It is common to follow the format of a typical research publication.

#### *3.2.1. Dissecting unit operation experimental activities into educational outcomes*

There are some dedicated educational researchers looking into developing meaningful experimental activities that promote long-term retention and learning by the students (for example, see [31–34]). Frequently, experiments are labeled as "cookbook" experiments, where students follow a detailed set of instructions and describe what they observe [33]. While this does have obvious advantages from a safety and time viewpoint, on its own, it does not provide sufficient opportunity for students to practice HOT questions and reflective activities as per experiential learning principles. However, as a differentiated activity, some students may *require* a more "cookbook" style experiment to assist progression of their learning, but this would still be incorporated with other opportunities to extend thinking. It is important to take into account the students' thinking levels when developing experimental tasks.

Some more "innovative" experiments presented at the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) annual conference in 2016, have been reviewed as per the template described in **Table 1**, and their results appear in **Table 2**. The reader is encouraged to read the full publications, as only a brief summary is presented here. This summary is based only on the conference presentation materials, and not the actual laboratory information presented to the students.


**Table 2.** Summary of three experimental tasks, dissected into the proposed framework.

students would be a handout (or part of an experimental booklet) detailing the unit operation name, theory, tasks, and questions. Report write-up differs between colleges, and specific information on how this is to be done needs to be conveyed to the students. It is common to

Precise procedure required for safety reasons; use DP5 to allow students freedom in coming up with a new experimental

**Table 1.** Planning template to assist in coming up with a well-rounded experimental task, meeting all the required

1 Differentiation framework The educator must first determine the key learning objectives for the

the laboratory class.

considered together.

the students.

included.

knowledge to be gained.

time and those who need a brief review.

laboratory class, including the "bare minimum" acceptable levels of

She/he then considers the prior knowledge of the students coming into

What thinking level (Piagetian, pP) are the students operating at? The educator confers with other professors who know the students well.

A short and concise theoretical base of the unit operation intended for the experimental study is provided, including references to more detailed discussions. This will assist students learning this for the first

As most laboratory classes are done in groups, DP3 and DP4 will be

Regardless of thinking operational level within the class, it is good to begin with some concrete tasks to confirm one's knowledge, and become competent in operating the equipment. A precise procedure\*

A variety of tasks are designed for the students to collect data/ observations for subsequent analysis, and the precise instructions are gradually reduced as the students gain competence running the unit operation. These data collection tasks need to align with the key learning objectives, and will allow students to fully explore the

Utilizing the collected data, written response tasks are provided that require students to analyze and evaluate the information, drawing on their knowledge and the theory behind the unit operation. Many of these tasks are open-ended to ensure reflection/in-depth thinking by

investigation is provided, where the students are required to come up with their own procedure to investigate a new phenomenon on the unit operation. An applied response task to this investigation is also

Within the ability levels of the learners, an extension to the

how to routinely operate the equipment is provided.

capabilities or function of the unit operation.

on

There are some dedicated educational researchers looking into developing meaningful experimental activities that promote long-term retention and learning by the students (for example,

*3.2.1. Dissecting unit operation experimental activities into educational outcomes*

follow the format of a typical research publication.

**DP Theories Description**

12 Laboratory Unit Operations and Experimental Methods in Chemical Engineering

2 Differentiation framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy

3–4 Differentiation framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy

> Progressively challenging tasks covering Piagetian and pP thinking levels; "experience" and "reflect" from experiential learning

HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "reflect" and "think" from experiential learning

5 HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "act" from experiential learning

\*

task instead.

learning objectives.

This small sample of experiments demonstrates many of the tasks required as per the planning template (**Table 1**). Two of the three experimental tasks provided detailed objectives. It could not be determined from the information provided whether or not student ability or operational thinking levels were taken into account. Based on the description of tasks performed, Experiment 1 would suit formal operational thinkers; Experiment 2 would be better suited for concrete—formal operational thinkers; and Experiment 3 would be an excellent task for formal—relativistic thinkers. The first two experiments lack the creativity and HOT tasks (even at the suitable thinking levels), while the third experiment lacks some initial tasks at the LOT level to assist students in building their knowledge. The pre-laboratory worksheet and Excel task may be sufficient, but this will depend on the operational thinking levels of the students performing this task. The creative tasks discussed in Experiment 3 were pleasing to see, and fully met the requirements of HOT and experiential learning in a fun and engaging way for the students.

**DP Theories Description**

2 Differentiation framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy

3–4 Differentiation framework; LOT from Bloom's taxonomy

> Progressively challenging tasks covering Piagetian and pP thinking levels; "experience" and "reflect" from experiential learning

HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "reflect" and "think" from experiential

learning

5 HOT from Bloom's taxonomy; "act" from experiential learning

University of Mississippi.

1 Differentiation framework The educator, having spent most of the semester with the students, has

operations stages.

may be employed.

production of candy bars.

candy bar for potential sale.

determined that most students are operating in the concrete and formal

Utilizing a Differentiation Framework, Piagetian Theories and Bloom's Taxonomy to Foster…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75646

15

• Perform calculations of flow rate, pressure, and temperature. • Identify unit operations within the candy-bar process.

• Provide a real-life example from the food industry where chemical engineers

• Understand the process conditions required for control in a full-scale process.

• Gain an appreciation of what is required for scale-up of a "recipe" to bulk

The project statement provided to the students details a real-life scenario of a student on an internship, involved in doing some plant trials to scale-up a new

All the learning leading up to this design project is on developing skill in

A recipe is provided to the students that carefully details the exact steps to be taken to make a small-scale version of the candy bar (likened to a plant trial in the scenario). Discussions before the practical session require students to think about how they will log their temperature vs. time data in the various sections of the candy-bar preparation, and come up with their own observation sheets.

Students are encouraged to come up with their own methods for the chocolate coating of the candy bar. They are advised before the experimental trial to

During the laboratory class, students identify different unit operations and think about how these stages would need to be modified if being prepared on a much larger scale. As an example, they quickly realize that manually stirring the mixture over a hot plate will require substantial modifications on a large scale.

In the subsequent weeks after the experimental session, students work their way through a guided template report, in which they are required to graph their temperature vs. time data; perform statistical calculations on the data; explain their observations; and explain the chemistry behind the candy-bar process. The choice of candy bar *always* involves a caramelization step or a bicarbonate soda reaction step, which requires thinking/reflection by the students to scientifically explain the observations from the experimental trial. This is framed by an executive summary; background on the candy-bar company; conclusions; and recommendations on whether to go to full-scale production. The *actual* answer is irrelevant; it is the analysis/evaluation of the trial in coming to a recommendation that is important.

Students are asked to explore scale-up of their process. They identify the unit operations of the process; decide on an order for continuous candy bar preparation; draw a block-flow diagram representing the full-scale process; choose a unit operation to explore its detailed design; perform example calculations of flow rate, average molecular weight, etc.; and consider some economic impacts on the final sale of the candy bar. They submit their written report with a "supervisor" target audience, and produce a 5-min verbal presentation discussing

their experimental trial, the results, and their recommendations.

**Table 3.** Description of the freshman design project implemented in ChE101: Introduction to Chemical Engineering, at

conducting pressure, temperature, and flow rate calculations.

research into the most suitable methods for chocolate coating.

The key objectives of the freshman design project are:

• Learn how to draw flow charts of the process. • Consider economic aspects of the candy-bar process.

These same experiments could be written for students performing at different thinking skill development levels, and activities within each of the learning skill (DP) categories would hence vary to accommodate the different thinking levels. If Experiment 2 was used at the concrete operational development level, DP3–DP4 would need to be populated with additional experimental tasks and at least one open-ended question. There would also need to be a task included in which students could "act" on their new knowledge and participate in HOT at their operational thinking level. If this same experiment was developed for formal and/or relativistic thinkers, then there would be more challenging activities included within DP3–DP4 exploring different aspects of Fourier's law; many more open-ended questions; and full exploratory tasks with no direction provided by the instructor. However, this would need to be preceded by some concrete activities to prepare the students in competency of equipment operation, both from a safety viewpoint as well as providing groundwork in which they can build knowledge. This was well-demonstrated in Experiment 3.

By stark contrast, the more common "cookbook" experiments [33] would typically provide objectives (DP1); sometimes a background theory (DP2); a step-by-step procedure to be followed *exactly*; a set of basic analysis and closed questions relating to the observations (partial requirement of DP3–DP4); and no extended task from the learning gained (no DP5). This setup lacks student engagement and does not extend the theoretical learning provided in class into practical settings [33].

#### *3.2.2. Example of a freshman design project developed within the educational framework*

Hutton-Prager has previously described a Freshman design project implemented in ChE101: Introduction to Chemical Engineering at the University of Mississippi (UM) [30, 35], as part of the development of differentiated teaching and learning. Each semester, this four-week program requires students to investigate the full-scale processing of a candy bar. It begins with student groups making the candy bar in a food laboratory, and observing the intricacies required to successfully prepare the bar. Data and observations are collected and subsequently analyzed, along with a detailed investigation of the scale-up process. **Table 3** demonstrates how this project meets the requirements of the experimental planning template (**Table 1**), covering all aspects of DP1–DP5, Bloom's taxonomy and experiential learning.


This small sample of experiments demonstrates many of the tasks required as per the planning template (**Table 1**). Two of the three experimental tasks provided detailed objectives. It could not be determined from the information provided whether or not student ability or operational thinking levels were taken into account. Based on the description of tasks performed, Experiment 1 would suit formal operational thinkers; Experiment 2 would be better suited for concrete—formal operational thinkers; and Experiment 3 would be an excellent task for formal—relativistic thinkers. The first two experiments lack the creativity and HOT tasks (even at the suitable thinking levels), while the third experiment lacks some initial tasks at the LOT level to assist students in building their knowledge. The pre-laboratory worksheet and Excel task may be sufficient, but this will depend on the operational thinking levels of the students performing this task. The creative tasks discussed in Experiment 3 were pleasing to see, and fully met the requirements of HOT and experiential learning in a fun and engaging

14 Laboratory Unit Operations and Experimental Methods in Chemical Engineering

These same experiments could be written for students performing at different thinking skill development levels, and activities within each of the learning skill (DP) categories would hence vary to accommodate the different thinking levels. If Experiment 2 was used at the concrete operational development level, DP3–DP4 would need to be populated with additional experimental tasks and at least one open-ended question. There would also need to be a task included in which students could "act" on their new knowledge and participate in HOT at their operational thinking level. If this same experiment was developed for formal and/or relativistic thinkers, then there would be more challenging activities included within DP3–DP4 exploring different aspects of Fourier's law; many more open-ended questions; and full exploratory tasks with no direction provided by the instructor. However, this would need to be preceded by some concrete activities to prepare the students in competency of equipment operation, both from a safety viewpoint as well as providing groundwork in which they can build knowledge. This was well-demonstrated in Experiment 3.

By stark contrast, the more common "cookbook" experiments [33] would typically provide objectives (DP1); sometimes a background theory (DP2); a step-by-step procedure to be followed *exactly*; a set of basic analysis and closed questions relating to the observations (partial requirement of DP3–DP4); and no extended task from the learning gained (no DP5). This setup lacks student engagement and does not extend the theoretical learning provided in

Hutton-Prager has previously described a Freshman design project implemented in ChE101: Introduction to Chemical Engineering at the University of Mississippi (UM) [30, 35], as part of the development of differentiated teaching and learning. Each semester, this four-week program requires students to investigate the full-scale processing of a candy bar. It begins with student groups making the candy bar in a food laboratory, and observing the intricacies required to successfully prepare the bar. Data and observations are collected and subsequently analyzed, along with a detailed investigation of the scale-up process. **Table 3** demonstrates how this project meets the requirements of the experimental planning template (**Table 1**), covering all aspects of DP1–DP5, Bloom's taxonomy and experiential learning.

*3.2.2. Example of a freshman design project developed within the educational framework*

way for the students.

class into practical settings [33].

**Table 3.** Description of the freshman design project implemented in ChE101: Introduction to Chemical Engineering, at University of Mississippi.

This design project covers all four stages of experiential learning (experience, reflect, think, and act); the five differentiation principles; and both LOT and HOT from Bloom's taxonomy. Bare minimums have been built into the written report, where students must demonstrate their skill in the required calculations and explanations of observations. In DP5 where students explore the scale-up process, they have a choice in which unit operation to investigate. Depending on operational thinking level, students may choose an "easier" unit operation that requires less explanation than others, and will not be penalized. There is no upper limit to the depth in which students explore this project. The final requirement of the verbal presentation provides opportunities for students to learn oral communication skills, and importantly promotes independence as they explain their project in a realistic scenario.

This straightforward example of presenting content in a highly engaging way demonstrates how a unit operations "experiment" can still be conducted effectively within a theory class. This type of teaching and learning is particularly suited to smaller colleges where equipment and funding may be minimal. Studies have shown that experiential learning activities such as the one described are only marginally less successful than an actual experimental program [36]. If the experimental programs are not carefully developed as outlined earlier in this chapter, then the net gain of experiential learning *via* experiment is reduced, and active learning

Utilizing a Differentiation Framework, Piagetian Theories and Bloom's Taxonomy to Foster…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75646

17

A differentiation framework for higher education has been introduced and discussed, which extends the framework commonly used in K-12 education systems. This framework has been built on existing ideas of post-Piagetian thinking levels, and has mapped each thinking level to five broad differentiation principles. The framework has also been linked to Bloom's tax-

Using this differentiation framework and experiential learning theories, a model for experimental classes in undergraduate chemical engineering unit operations has been developed. This model has been demonstrated using some pre-existing experimental activities described at ASEE 2016 [32, 34]. Its full capacity has been shown with a freshman chemical engineering design project currently operational at the University of Mississippi, providing examples of how all aspects of a differentiated activity can be developed, meeting the requirements of

This work has been developed at the University of Mississippi, and is not funded externally.

A differentiation framework of learning skills, matched to operational thinking ability level,

activities within a theory class can be equally or more beneficial.

onomy of lower and higher order thinking skills.

both thinking and learning skill development.

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

**A. Appendix**

The author has no conflict of interest.

described by Piagetian and post-Piagetian theories.

**5. Conclusions**
