1749–7728/06/$30.00+0.

00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/ece Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006
doi: 10.1205/ece.06020 Education for Chemical Engineers, 1: 116– 125

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL

V. G. GOMES1 , G. W. BARTON1, J. G. PETRIE1, J. ROMAGNOLI2, P. HOLT3, A. ABBAS4,
B. COHEN5, A. T. HARRIS1, B. S. HAYNES1, T. A. G. LANGRISH1, J. ORELLANA1, H. T. SEE1,
M. VALIX1 and D. WHITE1
1
School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
3
Ecological Engineering, Prahran, VIC, Australia
4
School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
5
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

B
ased on results of our own research and stakeholder surveys, the School of Chemical
and Biomolecular Engineering at The University of Sydney has identified a number
of imperatives for curriculum change, and has used this stimulus to embark on the
task of curriculum renewal. First, the desired graduate attributes were determined, followed
by the design of mechanisms needed to integrate these within the curriculum. The curriculum
was designed to incorporate an integrated framework for teaching all core concepts, enabling
technologies and engineering practice paradigms. The new curriculum was introduced in
stages, commencing in 2004. Each unit of study comprises several modules, most supported
by problem-based learning. Integration within, and between semesters is vitally important,
and is enhanced by team teaching, which has also helped to provide a sense of peer-support.
Assessment against sets of competencies rather than differentiated grading was introduced for
core technical courses. Students progress between years of study with a greater understanding
of the inter-relationship between the analytical, synthesis and practice components of the cur-
riculum. There are a few issues to resolve, but several positive features have emerged so far.
The positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accreditation Panels of both Engineers
Australia and the Institution of Chemical Engineers, as well as comments from student repre-
sentatives, have been significant confirmations of our approach.

Keywords: curriculum design; chemical engineering education; graduate attributes;

accreditation; problem-based learning.

INTRODUCTION level of competencies from engineers—versatility in a

Until recently, the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
curriculum at the University of Sydney could be described
as a traditional, well-taught programme, representative of
curriculum styles followed internationally—almost invari-
ably based on unit operations with a petrochemical design
capstone project, and all taught in a classical ‘teacher/
student’ mode. Its style and content had remained largely
unchanged since the 1970s.
However, the engineering profession has been under-
going change at a rapid pace. The 20th century saw our
engineering discipline grow at a staggering rate and the
fruits of that growth have permeated almost all aspects of
people’s lives. The key drivers for change include social,
economic, technical and geopolitical needs. A key factor
to consider is that employers are demanding a greater

Correspondence to: Dr V.G. Gomes, School of Chemical and Biomolecu-
lar Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
E-mail: vgomes@chem.eng.usyd.edu.au
range of areas, not just the core technical domain. Hence,
the urgency to design a curriculum to deliver well-educated
engineers capable of contributing to all aspects of sustain-
able development in an increasingly competitive world
(Clift, 1998; Westerberg and Subrahmanian, 2000;
Crosthwaite et al., 2001; Cussler and Moggridge, 2001;
Gomes et al., 2000; Gomes, 2002).
STIMULI FOR CHANGE
Chemical Engineering educators and professional bodies
have been flagging a changed situation and recommending
remedial action for some considerable time (IEAust, 1996;
Woods et al., 2000). These realizations have been slow to
translate into practice. The recent curriculum renewal
process by the School of Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering, University of Sydney, marks an overdue
initiative to engage with these challenges.
A number of tensions have arisen in the educational
sector recently due to professional and student imperatives,

116
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
each driven by their respective needs. The professional
imperatives include:
. evolving new subject areas;
. a rapidly emerging knowledge-based economy;
. an inexorable trend towards globalization (including
tertiary education);
. interdisciplinarity;
. intrusion of market forces in shaping education.
It must be noted that over the last 10 years, both tertiary
institutions and professional bodies have been formalizing
their views on desired graduate attributes, both generic
and technical. The urgency to map these attributes within
any proposed curriculum has been underlined by their insis-
tence for quantitative feedback on how these attributes are
being integrated and monitored.
Based on student reviews and course evaluations, the
school identified the following specific issues from a stu-
dent perspective:
. perception of a high (often too high) work-load;
. lack of ‘integrated’ teaching and learning;
. failure to identify relevance of certain courses in the
overall programme;
. chronic dissatisfaction with the ‘quality’ of the learning
experience.
From the staff perspective, the key issues were:
. a need to promote ‘learning’ over ‘teaching’;
. shifts in employer expectations;
. increasingly broader employment options;
. wider range of attributes desired;
. diversity of student background and choice;
. new technological developments and the impacts of
information technology;
. need for a student-centred rather than a content-driven
approach (since students are the immediate beneficiaries
of the education process);
. funding and resource pressures.
Given the multitude of stakeholders and drivers, the school
felt it appropriate to consider the fundamentals of the edu-
cation process and its alignment with current needs. A key
instrument here is the curriculum—the blueprint or plan for
directing student progress. Such a plan is made up of inte-
grated aims, contents, methodology, and evaluation pro-
cedures. To aid in understanding the evolution of our
revised curriculum, it is useful to consider the environment
in which learning occurs. Figure 1 shows the connections
between the learning process and the initial/boundary con-
ditions that must be taken into account for achieving
desired outcomes. Notice that the student characteristics
and approaches occupy a focal point within the learning
nexus.
From surveys of the various stakeholders and an assess-
ment of the drivers for change, it was concluded that the
curriculum must achieve the following:
. provide a road-map for the multiple stakeholders in
charting the graduation process;
. include adequate mapping of graduate attributes, both
technical and generic;
. describe the overall philosophy and position the individ-
ual units of study within the overall context;
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
117
Figure 1. The learning nexus in higher education.
. specify the principles of organization of the content
including the knowledge and outcomes of the units
with built-in flexibility;
. sequence the contents along a path of development,
adopting a stepwise progression from less to more com-
plex knowledge and capabilities;
. broadly define the problem-solving contexts;
. apportion content into manageable units for teaching and
learning in the time slots available;
. enforce horizontal and vertical integration between units
of study.
THE CHANGE PROCESS
The school started the curriculum renewal process by
establishing a task-force comprising all staff members
involved/concerned with teaching and learning. The dis-
cussions and committee focus were moderated by a coordi-
nator. This committee started from the fundamental
question of ‘what makes a good Chemical Engineer?’ and
how the School related to its geo-political position (that
is, for a university situated in Sydney in the Asia-Pacific
region; see Barton and Petrie (2005) for a discussion
of the specific challenges which face such a school).
A full-time post-doctoral fellow was employed to aid the
process, working on gathering data and reviewing available
educational theory and experiences at globally relevant
institutions. The task-force met regularly (roughly every
fortnight) and encouraged open debate on a wide range of
considered issues.
Figure 2 gives an overview of the drivers shaping our
curriculum design process. Input from diverse sources
was sought—including the university, the wider engineer-
ing faculty, industry and professional bodies. Liaison with
industry and with professional bodies was facilitated by
the school’s Chemical Engineering Foundation, a bridge
between the school and a consortium of industry represen-
tatives. Feedback from relevant stakeholders, including the
entire student body as well as their elected representatives,
was sought prior to finalising the content, structure and
delivery style of the new curriculum.
118
Figure 2. Inputs to curriculum design process.
Note that prior to even considering the nature/content of
our new curriculum, a number of preliminary issues were
addressed in some detail:
. Identification of key graduate attributes to be mapped
within the programme.
. Development of mechanisms for monitoring/quantifying
the attainment of these graduate attributes. Formal stu-
dent surveys (for each existing course) were used with
consolidated management feedback at both the school
and faculty levels.
. Deconstructing the ‘old’ curriculum in terms of content,
revising the material, and assigning it as either a core
skill, an enabling technology, as suitable for treatment
through project work—or, indeed, discarding it
completely.
. Establishing a process whereby each individual course
could be reviewed for its content, teaching/learning
approach, and assessment procedures against the broader
degree aims.
A key question centred around what defines a 21st century
chemical engineer and how best to equip such a person.
Our approach was to crystallize the graduate attributes
desired by relevant stakeholders, particularly those
suggested by the University and a key professional body
(IEAust, 1996). The selected desirable attributes for our
graduates (given in the Appendix) are in stark contrast to
those of the past, where technical skills were almost exclu-
sively the prime focus.
The key findings of this preliminary review were that:
. active learning techniques should be a prime focus
throughout the programme;
. constructive alignment of assessment with learning out-
comes would be crucial;
. team teaching of several modules is desirable to enable
integrated learning within each course;
. the generic attributes must be mapped across the course
curriculum.
To meet the aims of our conceptual curriculum, a ‘spiral’
learning model was adopted. Here, the overall curriculum is
focused on understanding chemical engineering fundamen-
tals in increasing complexity and in an increasingly com-
plex context. Such a learning model can be viewed as an
evolution of several active learning styles (Hadgraft and
Prpic, 2002) as follows:
. project-based learning (formulating appropriate and
interesting problems—facilitation is the key issue here);
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
GOMES et al.
. problem-based learning (asking the ‘right’ questions—
again facilitation is key);
. student-centred learning (creating an enabling environ-
ment and providing appropriate direction—the focus
here is on mentoring aspects).
In terms of a mathematical analogue, the task-force might
be thought of as attempting to solve an over-constrained,
multi-objective optimization problem for which a number
of possible ‘solutions’ were known to be possible. In
these terms, the key point to appreciate is that no single
‘correct’ solution exists—our redesigned curriculum was
simply one acceptable (in our eyes) option.
This curriculum redesign exercise took a period of 18
months, including the time to document the overall struc-
ture and provide detailed descriptions of the various
courses. Subsequent to dialogues with the key stakeholder
groups and fine-tuning the curriculum content, the road to
acceptance involved obtaining approvals from the various
governing bodies—the school, the engineering faculty,
the university and the accreditation panels (Engineers Aus-
tralia and IChemE). We have opted for a staged implemen-
tation of the curriculum, beginning with the early years, to
allow as smooth a transition as possible between the old
and new curricula. Currently we are at the stage of imple-
menting the redesigned curriculum for fourth year students
and are thus in a position to review the overall change pro-
cess (and its impact) over the first three years of our degree
programme.
CURRICULUM STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
An overview of the organization of the curriculum in
terms of a hierarchical structure is shown in Figure 3,
where the core principles form the foundation and the elec-
tives denote aspirations for specialization. The structure is
aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy of intellectual activity
(Bloom, 1956): knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis
and evaluation. The connections to higher levels of learning
are facilitated by the enabling technologies and the desig-
nated courses based on practice and projects.
Figure 3. Curriculum organization hierarchy (Spl ¼ specializations/
electives).
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
Further details incorporated into the new curriculum
structure include:
. Scales of engagement: an organised transition from the
initial big picture (or macroscopic view) to a more
detailed ‘microscopic’ view together with a reconcilia-
tion of perspectives between these multiple scales;
from core and enabling subjects to specializations;
from analysis to synthesis of processes; from continuum
to discrete systems; from differential to hybrid differ-
ence/differential systems; from simple to complex ‘sys-
tems’ topics; from proposing and testing to evaluating
and managing.
. Stages of engagement: 1st year—macroscopic orien-
tation; 2nd year—molecular and microscopic views;
3rd year—superposition of multiple scales; 4th year—
comprehensive capstone design project and research
orientation (i.e., thesis).
. Each course to engage students in project work that
enables the development of design and research concepts
with cross-course projects to enable horizontal integration.
. Delivery of courses to be guided by ‘aims’, ‘outcomes’
and ‘feedback’ integrated in a closed-loop sense.
. Encourage problem-based learning (through case studies,
mini-design projects) and life-long learning (through
research projects and enabling investigation).
In essence, it was agreed that the new curriculum must
develop technical competence and generic attributes simul-
taneously; incorporate contemporary themes that serve both
industry and the community; while the delivery must incor-
porate a decidedly integrative approach. Given our existing
(and anticipated) staff profile, the main educational themes
identified were:
. process/product design (both as a basic course ‘skeleton’
and as a unifying principle for integration);
. chemical engineering fundamentals (defined as core
organizing principles, molecular transformations, multi-
scale analysis);
. specializations (such as bio-, material and environmental
engineering);
. systems engineering approach, including sustainability
(in terms of a series of related courses that ran through
the entire programme as a unifying thread);
. research implicit content (in resonance with the univer-
sity’s guidelines on research-led teaching).
In line with these themes, a suite of engineering tools (defined
as part of the overall content) must also be developed and
integrated. These tools included computing, modelling,
statistics and professional engineering skills. A ‘just-in-
time’ delivery approach was favoured to allow learning of
material during its concurrent application. This approach
provides the motivation to learn the theory and the enabling
technologies as and when needed. This is achieved through
conducting project work that makes use of the tools developed
in concurrent courses in a semester. For example, instruction
in computer programming skills is synchronized with a
project conducted in a parallel course. The various courses
(four 6 credit point courses in each of two semesters per
year) were developed within the following categories:
(A) core courses emphasising the necessary fundamental
concepts;
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
119
(B) enabling technology courses providing skills needed
to problem solve;
(C) engineering practice courses (i.e., group work based
but with a strong individual assessment component)
to provide a problem-based learning (PBL) context;
(D) elective courses for specialization.
Table 1 summarizes the basic structure of the new curri-
culum. Columns (A)– (D) reflect the corresponding cat-
egories as defined above. Note that first year is common
within the Faculty of Engineering with a ‘flexible entry’
policy that allows incoming students to be exposed to a
breadth of engineering before committing to a particular
branch by year’s end. The aim here is also to equip students
with a suite of skills for computing, generic professional
skills and an area of specialization for students ‘committed
early’ to a specific discipline. An introductory course on
energy and mass balancing is thus available to students
who opt for chemical engineering rather than following
the fully flexible option during their first year.
It is worth noting that the names of our courses no longer
reflect the traditional options (such as Thermodynamics I or
Reaction Engineering II). The new nomenclature is
intended to allow incorporation of multiple modules
within any one course, provide a broader perspective in
learning material and to avoid compartmentalized courses
where concurrent or staged units of study bear negligible
relation to each other.
Curriculum Structure
Progress of a student from the early to advanced stages
within the curriculum is shown in Figure 4. In broad view,
Year 2 focuses on ‘analysis’ while Year 3 focuses on
‘design’ and ‘synthesis’. However the scope of the latter is
much wider than a simple focus on large-scale, continuous
petrochemical processes (which are of course still con-
sidered, for example, in both CHNG3801 and 3803).
Rather the emphasis is on inculcating within students the
view that analysis and design are best considered simul-
taneously (i.e., each impacts on the other), rather than the
latter being a bolt-on to the former. Design is seen as an
important unifying principle underpinning the new curricu-
lum. The (year long) design programme in the final year
reinforces and builds upon the relevant expertise that stu-
dents have developed in the earlier (particularly third) years.
As they move towards graduation, chemical engineering
students must become increasingly aware of the (often
complex) interactions and trade-offs that occur between
technical, economic, social and environmental consider-
ations. These issues are central to the design work carried
out in their fourth year. It should be noted that extensive
use has always been made in our school of experienced
industrial consultants to provide input on these matters.
In addition, several of the elective courses have com-
ponents that explicitly deal with the wider context of engin-
eering today (e.g., CHNG5002 Environmental Decision
Making and CHNG5003 Green Engineering).
The curriculum is both horizontally and vertically inte-
grated with systematic progression within a year and
between years. The practice-based units of study require
that the student acquire the requisite theoretical knowledge
and enabling technology to proceed to their application.
120 GOMES et al.

Table 1. New chemical engineering curriculum structure.

Year 1 Mathematics & Science Mathematics & Science Engineering Computing Introduction to Engineering
Sem 1 Disciplines
Year 1 Mathematics & Science Mathematics & Science Professional Engineering CHNG1103 Mass & Energy
Sem 2 Transformations
Categories (A) (B) (C) (D)
Year 2 CHNG 2801 CHNG 2802 Applied CHNG 2803 Analysis CHEM 2 Physical Chemistry
Sem 1 Conservation and Maths for Chemical Practice 1—Energy for ChE
Transport Processes Engineers and Fluid Systems
Year 2 CHNG 2804 Chemical CHNG 2805 Industrial CHNG 2806 Analysis CHEM 2 Chemistry of
Sem 2 and Biological Systems and Practice 2—Treatment, Biological Systems
Systems Behaviour Sustainability Purification and
Recovery Systems
Year 3 CHNG 3801 CHNG 3802 Operation, CHNG 3803 Design CHNG 3804
Sem 1 Process Design Analysis and Practice 1—Chemical Elective
Improvement of and Biological
Industrial Systems Processes
Year 3 CHNG 3805 CHNG 3806 CHNG 3807 Design CHNG 3808
Sem 2 Product Formulation Management of Practice 2—Products Elective
and Design Industrial Systems and Value Chains
Year 4 CHNG 4801 CHNG 4802 CHNG 5001 CHNG 5002
Sem 1 Thesis A Design A Elective Elective
Year 4 CHNG 4805 CHNG 4806 CHNG 5003 CHNG 5004
Sem 2 Thesis B Design B Elective Elective

Further, design is revisited within the curriculum from the
early stages at various scales and levels of complexity. For
example, design in first year is based on macroscopic bal-
ances and in the following year is based on transport
equations or micro- and mesoscopic balances.
One key question that had to be addressed during our cur-
riculum design is: what components in the original curricu-
lum could be discarded to make room for new material. Our
approach has been to discard duplication of effort (e.g., by
teaching distillation as part of transport processes) and con-
solidate courses through modules (e.g., consolidating the
teaching of heat and mass transfer rather than using
separate courses). The aim was to not compromise on core
principles and yet provide options for students to gain
supplementary knowledge from electives of their choice.
Another important element of the new curriculum (and as
an aid to vertical integration), was to expand on the analogy
between natural and industrial systems). For example, a
course exploring the thermodynamics of chemical and
biological systems has its analogue in terms of industrial
systems and sustainability. Another course which examines
the operation of industrial processes (with a strong analytical
flavour) is paralleled with a course which explores the man-
agement of industrial systems, with a focus on professional
practice. We have endeavoured, as far as possible, to make
such comparisons explicit.
Problem-Based Learning and Practical Skills
Development
The problem-based learning (PBL) component within
the curriculum (Boud and Feletti, 1997) incorporates the

Figure 4. Progress in attributes and curriculum content.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL
agreed graduate attributes in due measure. PBL is a strategy
that is widely used in non-engineering disciplines such as
medicine and the health sciences. It poses significant, con-
textualized, real-world situations, while providing the
necessary resources, guidance and instruction to learners
as they simultaneously develop content knowledge and pro-
blem-solving skills.
The learning is highly student-focused and carried out in
small groups with the staff member being more of a ‘guide’
than a formal teacher. Inherent to project and problem-
based learning are needed skills for communication (both
oral and written) and teamwork (both as team member
and leader), and abilities in interpersonal relations, critical
thinking and reflective judgement. Examples of problems
posed recently involved designing an artificial heart, and
designing a bio-refinery among others.
Much of the PBL component of our new curriculum lies
within the engineering practice courses—column (C) in
Table 1. The emphasis is far removed from the student
simply getting ‘the right answer’—wherever possible the
problem posed has no single correct solution. Rather
what is stressed is the entire process of problem formu-
lation and resolution, directed towards reaching an accepta-
ble solution (where ‘acceptable’ may require the
consideration of a number of (possibly conflicting) criteria
within a climate of uncertainty), and reflecting on how such
a solution was obtained and what it means from the stand-
point of engineering judgement.
A key physical resource which the school designed for
imparting practical skills is an integrated ‘web-plant’ con-
sisting of two main structural elements: (1) a ‘hands-on’
facility designed as a flexible process and product engineering
toolkit, consisting of reactors, separators, mixers, pumps,
valves, piping and instruments; and (2) a web-enabled inter-
active control system which allows both virtual experiments
as well as designing/controlling processes in addition to
studying their dynamics and scale-up. Human-machine inter-
faces have been developed to provide students access to the
web-plant both locally (at the laboratory) and externally
through a web-browser. These interfaces open the way for
delivering practical learning modules over the internet.
Practical skills are further strengthened through our Year
3 (semester 2) ‘week-in-industry’ (WII) programme which
is followed by the course ‘Practical Experience’ over a 12-
week period during the summer break. WII provides the
students with their first formal industrial engagement,
with teams of students solving a variety of significant
industrial problems during a one week placement. Practical
Experience consolidates this initial exposure through more
extensive industrial problem-solving. This industry
exposure is extended through a scheme called MIPPS
(Major Industrial Project Placement Scheme), allocated to
roughly the top third of the final-year class. These ‘indus-
trial research’ projects are conducted with students working
on designated sites for an entire semester with both indus-
trial and academic supervisors. Thus the new curriculum
more than adequately addresses the issues of a practical
skills component as an important graduate attribute.
Whilst MIPPS does not engage the whole class, we have
witnessed a cross-fertilization between the two cohorts of
students—where professional practice skills picked up by
MIPPS students are passed on to non-MIPPS students
through concurrent engagements in the curriculum.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
121
Single and Combined Degrees
In addition to our four year BE(Chemical) degree option,
students can opt for a five year combined degree which
allows them to complete two degrees in combination with
other faculties, such as BE/BCom, BE/BSc, BE/BA,
BE/LLB, BE/BMed Sci and others. About 30% of our
total intake every year (mostly the higher ranking students)
takes one of these options. Therefore, the new curriculum
had to seamlessly integrate all such students. Table 2 sum-
marizes the overall structure for a single (4 year) degree.
Certainly combined degrees introduce additional complex-
ity into the curriculum structure. After an initial transitional
period, the following arrangements apply:
. All combined degrees (except the BE/BA) comprise 144
credit points (CP) of science/engineering and 96 CP
from the associated degree.
. The BE/BA comprises 156 CP of science/engineering
and 84 CP of ‘Arts’.
Table 3 summarizes the science/engineering content for
a student doing any combined degree (other than the BE/
BA). This content is spread over 5 (rather than 4) years
and includes all the core engineering material taken by a
student doing a single degree. The approach here is that
combined degree students replace engineering elective
material with non-engineering elective material (which is
viewed by accreditation bodies as ‘specialist’ material).
Constructive Alignment
There is a much greater emphasis in the new curriculum
on ‘process and product technology’ while the use of ‘sys-
tems’ thinking is now central to our approach to teaching/
learning. In terms of learning outcomes, the aim is to
ensure that all core chemical engineering material is cov-
ered by the end of third year—thus allowing for vertical
integration with a research-oriented thesis, design-oriented
courses and advanced electives that make up the final year
of our programme.
The new curriculum boldly addresses the issues of semes-
terization, compartmentalization and vertical and horizontal
integration between courses. Our model for integration, pre-
sented in Figure 5, illustrates how an integrated project-
based approach to teaching and learning is realised in stages.
The modes of delivery for course content are varied and
consist of a mix of lectures, tutorials, assignments, and
practical and laboratory work. What has changed signifi-
cantly is the way the courses are integrated with respect
to each other and the design of modules within a course
Table 2. Overall structure for a single (4 year) BE(Chem) degree.
Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Basic Sciences and 24 18
Mathematics
Generic Engineering 18
(Core) Chemical 6 30 36
Engineering
(Elective) Chemical 12 24
Engineering
Thesis and Design 24
Total credit points 48 48 48 48
122 GOMES et al.

Table 3. Overall structure for the science/engineering content of a courses. An example of this mapping (on a scale of 0 – 5,
combined degree.
with 0 denoting negligible emphasis and 5 as substantial
Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 emphasis) for the attribute ‘research and inquiry’ for Year
4 is shown in Table 4. As might be expected, this quality
Basic Sciences and 24 6
Mathematics
is greatly emphasised in the core components for this
Generic Engineering 18 year, especially in the thesis and design-oriented courses.
(Core) Chemical 6 30 36 The learning outcomes of an undergraduate course in
Engineering chemical engineering represent the chief qualities that the
(Elective) Chemical – – – – course is designed to develop in a student who will go on
Engineering
Thesis and Design 24 to practise in industry. An example of a set of objectives
Total credit points 48 36 36 24 and outcomes for an exemplar unit of study is given in
Table 5. The ‘enhanced’ outcomes denote depth and the
‘extended’ outcomes denote breadth attained. Whilst the
high-level outcome statements themselves define course
that are held together through common themes (e.g., objectives, somewhat more guidance is required by those
CHNG2804 includes thermodynamics applied in the phys- designing or accrediting a particular undergraduate
ical, chemical and biological domains). Specific problems course. Since no tertiary programme can ever equip gradu-
in the form of case studies, major laboratory and design ates with all the skills they will need to deploy over an
and research projects are defined within each semester. entire career, there will always remain a need for continued
Note that it is these problems that act as the main integrat- professional development and thus any tertiary degree
ing factor between the various courses. The ‘teaching team’ programme should lay solid foundations on which further
within a given course relies on driving forces such as those education and training can be built.
coming from society, environment, research, industry and
state affairs to shape its problems. These ensure that the
curriculum remains robust through staying in touch with
Assessment
new and emerging techno-sociological problems.
This integrated curriculum allows for knowledge struc- The objective of any assessment is to ensure that students
tured around major concepts and principles, shaping of reach an acceptable level of competence. To meet this
knowledge by the context in which learning occurs, and objective, students are required to submit evidence relating
strengthening knowledge through experience and collabor- to their achievements. This can take the form of reports,
ation. In this context, both peer and self-assessment are presentations, log books, plans, drawings, computer pro-
important components of the process that permits aware- grammes, examination results and other reported material.
ness and self-monitoring of learning. Within our new curriculum, the core and enabling technol-
ogy courses during second and third year are assessed
solely for demonstrable ‘competency’ (and are thus Pass/
Mapping Graduate Attributes and
Fail), while all other courses are graded (0 – 100).
Learning Outcomes
In this context, attainment of competency is determined
The new curriculum was evaluated for its systematic to the satisfaction of both staff and students for a particular
mapping of the desired graduate attributes onto individual course noting that a fixed numerical grade (e.g., above

Figure 5. Integrated chemical engineering curriculum model.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL 123

Table 4. Mapping of graduate attribute ‘research and inquiry’ in Year 4.

Chemical Process Plant Chemical

Engineering Risk Project Practical Engineering
Units of Design 1 Management Engineering Experience Design 2 Thesis
study CHNG4201 CHNG4402 CHNG4401 CHNG4001 CHNG4202 CHNG4002

Rating (0–5) 3 3 3 4 5 5

50%) is unaccepted as a cut-off mark for passing that
course. Rather, the bar for each course has been raised sub-
stantially depending on past experience and the content’s
level of difficulty. This precludes a mind-set of simply
aiming for a 50% (or nearby) mark to demonstrate ‘compe-
tency’. This concept has been quite challenging for both
students and staff alike. However, with multiple forms
of assessments for the modules within a course, a wide
range of complementary information is available on
which to assess a student’s performance. Where team
teaching is involved, the staff consult among themselves
in some detail on assessment issues.
Even for the project-based units (where numerical grades
are reported to the university), final examinations are con-
ducted to assess individual abilities and to avoid total
reliance on group-work marks. Further, the overall per-
formance during a semester is taken into consideration
for determining student progress with the proviso that
students may carry a maximum of one failed course (for
a repeat) between subsequent years.
As a result of the tight horizontal and vertical integration
between courses, the school has implemented a student pro-
gression policy that enforces close to ‘plug flow’ through
the entire degree programme. This has necessitated the
development of new assessment policies and guidelines
(including structured post-examination interviews of ‘bor-
derline’ students). It must be noted that enforcing such
lock-step progression through a degree programme has
proven to be a challenge. In a sense, students must attain
a holistic level of competence in a semester prior to progres-
sing further in the degree programme. For obvious reasons,
students are not totally satisfied with this arrangement.
Experiences to Date
Recently, our revised and renewed curriculum design
received highly positive reviews from both the Engineers
Australia (EA) and the Institution of Chemical Engineers
(IChemE, UK) accreditation panels in terms of its inno-
vation and intended service as a teaching support tool

Table 5. Example mapping of learning outcomes in a course (CHNG2805: Industrial Systems and Sustainability) highlighting extended and enhanced
components.

(A) Aims and objectives (B) Learning outcomes Core Extended Enhanced Application Design

(1) To develop awareness of the
concepts which underpin
Sustainable Development,
including technical and
economic efficiency,
stewardship of the bio-physical
environment, and social
acceptability.
(2) To examine the material
economy from the perspective
of open and closed
thermodynamic systems, and
the implications of this for
resource consumption and
waste generation.
(3) To explore governing
frameworks for Sustainability,
and engagement of chemical
engineers with these.
(4) To explore tools and
approaches for quantifying
industry’s environmental
performance and to examine
within a Sustainability
framework.
(5) To consider how process/
product design and operation
can be informed by Green
Engineering principles, and to
suggest how this combination
of perspectives could lead to a
re-defined industry sector.
(1) Understanding the thermodynamic 50% (A):2,4 (A):3,5 50% (A):1,4,5
basis of the material economy in (B):2,8 (B):6,7 (B):5,6,7
terms of resource consumption and
waste generation.
(2) Understanding the philosophical,
social and political bases for
sustainability, in addition to the
technical, economic and
environmental ones.
(3) Understanding the role of
technology in promoting
sustainability.
(4) Understanding corporate
responsibilities with respect to
sustainability.
(5) Quantifying the environmental
performance of industry (with
specific reference to the resource
and processing sectors) using
appropriate tools.
(6) Interrogating governing
frameworks for sustainability to
support actions within industry.
(7) Understanding trade-offs in
decisions which impact on
sustainability.
(8) Being effective communicators of
sustainability arguments to all
stakeholders, and interpreters of
social and environmental concerns
in ways which can help shape
industry practice.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
124 GOMES et al.
(IEAust/IChemE, 2005). To provide the academic
foundation for corporate membership and registration as a
Chartered Chemical Engineer, IChemE accredited our
degree programmes at the MEng level—recognizing the
degree of the highest international standards that both
deepen and broaden the knowledge base of their graduates.
Recent surveys of student cohorts have shown that our
new programme enhances student motivation, their focus
on self-directed learning, while allowing flexible learning.
There has also been a significant increase in student
engagement with the broader learning process. Despite
the ‘raising of the bar’ and the multiple challenges facing
the enterprise, the percentage of students progressing
from second to third year was about 85% during 2005
which was most encouraging.
An important side-effect of adopting the new curriculum
has been ‘team teaching’ (each course being taught by sev-
eral staff members), which has been a departure from our
past practice. The extensive employment of this approach
with a staff coordinator for each course, for each semester
and for each year, clearly encouraged staff to adopt a con-
sistent team-based and student-centred approach. This has
opened new doors for collaboration and for experimen-
tation with teaching and learning options. Our experience
clearly underlines the importance of having all participants
(both staff and students) on-board as a ‘teaching and learn-
ing collective’ if success is to be achieved. The School fully
expects that this cooperative approach will ease the chal-
lenges that no doubt still await us all.
CONCLUSIONS
The School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
has incorporated an integrated framework for teaching
core concepts, enabling technologies and engineering prac-
tice paradigms, in the first major redesign of its curriculum
in several decades. First, the desired graduate attributes
were determined, followed by the design of mechanisms
to impart them to the student population. The engineering
practice segment was established with a programme sup-
ported by a PBL approach. The new curriculum was intro-
duced in 2004 in stages from Year 1 onwards.
The specification of the attributes was the first major
hurdle to be overcome as significant time and ongoing
debate are needed to develop a shared understanding and
ownership of the graduate attributes. Motivating staff to
get involved in unfamiliar territory as expected is a chal-
lenge, but team teaching has helped to provide a sense of
peer-support. Assessment against set competencies rather
than differentiated grading (e.g., on bell curves) was intro-
duced for core courses.
Our instructional strategy moves students towards the
acquisition of knowledge and skills through a staged
sequence of problems presented in context, together with
associated learning materials and staff support. The princi-
pal idea behind PBL is that learners receive a problem, a
query or a puzzle that they must solve within a framework
that is centred upon the key problems in professional
practice. Thus, PBL is both a curriculum and a process,
requiring carefully selected and designed problems that
demand acquisition of critical knowledge, problem-solving
proficiency, self-directed learning strategies and team
participation.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125
Underlying issues with a traditional curriculum motiv-
ated change—we were not alone, nationally or internation-
ally. The result is a highly integrated curriculum. There are
a few issues to resolve, but many positive features have
emerged so far. Accreditation clearly documented the pro-
cess of change, motivations, methods and outcomes. The
positive reviews of the new curriculum by the Accredita-
tion Panels and student representatives have been significant
confirmations of our approach.
REFERENCES
Barton, M. and Petrie, J.G., 2005. Small, agile and dynamic—how to suc-
ceed as a small chemical engineering department in a changing global
environment, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow,
Scotland, July.
Bloom, B.S. (ed.), 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classi-
fication of Educational Goals (David McKay, Inc., New York, USA).
Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (eds), 1997, The Challenge of Problem-Based
Learning (St Martin’s Press, NY, USA).
Clift, R., 1998, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer
and her role, Trans IChemE, Part B, 76: 151–160.
Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I. and Lant, P., 2001, Curriculum design for
chemical engineering graduate attributes, Proceedings—World Chemi-
cal Engineering Congress, Melbourne, Australia.
Cussler, E.L. and Moggridge, G., 2001, Chemical Product Design (Cam-
bridge University Press, NY, USA).
Gomes, V.G., Choy, B., Barton, G.W. and Romagnoli, J.A., 2000, Web-
based courseware in teaching laboratory-based courses, Global J Engin-
eering Educ, 4(1): 65–71.
Gomes, V.G., 2002, Consolidation of engineering education through
industrial case studies, Intl J Eng Educ, 18(4): 479–484.
Hadgraft and Prpic, 2002, Changing the mind-sets for student centred,
flexible learning, 13th Annual Conference, Australasian Association
for Engineering, Canberra, Australia.
Institution of Engineers, Australia Task Force (IEAUST), 1996, Changing
the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future: Review Report
(Institution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra, Australia).
IEAust/IChemE, 2005, Accreditation Report.
Westerberg, A.W. and Subrahmanian, E., 2000, Product design, Comput
Chem Eng, 24: 959–966.
Woods, D.R., Felder, R.M., Rugarcia, A. and Stice, J.E., 2000, The future
of engineering education—developing critical skills, Chem Eng Ed,
34(2): 108–117.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors fully acknowledge with thanks the many inputs received
from all participants to our endeavours—especially all school staff mem-
bers, our industrial partners, and above all our students, who have stoically
endured being educational guinea-pigs. A special acknowledgement goes
to Professor Bob Armstrong of MIT Chemical Engineering, who has
been bold enough to champion this agenda on a global scale, and from
whom we have shamelessly borrowed ideas, which emerged from the
series of workshops conducted throughout the USA in 2003 and 2004.
The manuscript was received 7 February 2006 and accepted for
publication after revision 21 August 2006.
APPENDIX: GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
Knowledge Skills
. Have a body of relevant technical knowledge;
. Be able to apply theory to practice;
. Be able to identify, access, organise and communicate
information in both written and oral form.
Practical Skills
. Be able to collect, correlate, display, analyse and report
observations;
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM RENEWAL 125

. Be able to apply experimentally obtained results to new
situations;
. Be able to test hypotheses experimentally;
. Be able to apply technical skills.
Thinking Skills
. Exercise critical judgement;
. Be capable of rigorous and independent thinking;
. Account for their own decisions;
. Be realistic self-evaluators;
. Adopt a problem solving approach;
. Be creative and imaginative thinkers.
Personal Skills
. Have the capacity for and a commitment to life-long
learning;
. Have the ability to plan and achieve goals in both the
personal and the professional spheres;
. Have the ability to work with others.
Personal Attributes
. Strive for tolerance and integrity;
. Acknowledge their personal responsibility for their own
judgements, and their ethical behaviour towards others.
In addition to knowledge and application skills, the
above considerations recognise engineers as reflective
practitioners, for whom practice is informed not only by
established knowledge, but by critical reflection of the
impact of their practice in relation to expectations and
values of society.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 116– 125