Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Education for Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece

Practical demonstrations designed and developed by the students for

pedagogical learning in transport phenomena
Paulo A. Augusto a,∗ , Teresa Castelo-Grande b , Angel M. Estevez a
a
Dep. Ingeniería Química y Textil, Fac. Ciencias Químicas, Univ. Salamanca, Plaza de los Caídos, 1-5, 37008 Salamanca, Spain, Spain
b
Univ. Lusófona do Porto, Rua Augusto Rosa, 24, 4000-098 Porto, Portugal, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Core disciplines in chemical engineering master, like the case of Transport Phenomena, and although
Received 17 April 2018 its content is 100% related to the master, are always hard to understand by the students. We have
Received in revised form 24 July 2018 implemented a new methodology where teams of students should perform the concept, design and
Accepted 19 October 2018
development of practical demonstrations of Mass Transfer Phenomena and Theoretical Background, in
Available online 25 October 2018
order for all of them to be able to really get involved in the thematic, and thus easily assimilate con-
cepts and theoretical development as applied to practical phenomena. After the first application of this
Keywords:
methodology and after a deep analysis of previous results we have made important enhancements on
Pedagogical methodology
Transport phenomena
the innovative work. Among several other modifications, students were able to select the field on which
Innovation each practical demonstration would be developed (among the three usual transport phenomena: mass,
Practical demonstrations fluids and heat) and most particularly encouraged to design and develop practical demonstrations on
Learning improvement the thematics and sub-thematics they had higher difficulties. A total of 6 experiments/demonstrations
were developed by the students of the two academic years. To determine the perception, impact and
improvement made by this methodology, surveys were also made to determine the initial and final sta-
tus of the students concerning their knowledge and difficulties, so as to conclude fairly about the success
of application of this methodology. Final Exam marks have also improved. In this paper we present the
results obtained and describe the application steps of this methodology and discus the evaluation of the
successful rate of the methodology.
© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction content is focused on theoretical deductions, involving long stand-

There are usually learning difficulties for students in disciplines
where the main subject differs from the main topic of the gradu-
ation degree, and in the past we have applied a set of pedagogical
procedures to improve learning and eliminate barriers (Augusto
et al., 2014). However, also in core disciplines in chemical engi-
neering, (e.g. Transport Phenomena), performance and difficulties
shown by students are present, although motivated by other factors
(Augusto et al., 2017). Therefore, typical teaching methods in the
case of these subjects should also be modified, adapted or supple-
mented with other alternative teaching methods (Asensio-Cuesta
et al., 2011).
Although the majority of the students are motivated to the core
disciplines of the Master, in chemical engineering area, perfor-
mance is affected by a usually passive behavior, as many of the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pauloaugusto@usal.es (P.A. Augusto).
ing integration, numerical methods, and many variables. Therefore,
the student does not get really involved in the thematic, and has
hard time assimilating concepts and theoretical development as
applied to practical phenomena (Augusto et al., 2017).
Thus, typical teaching methods for these subjects should also be
modified, adapted or supplemented with other alternative teaching
methods (Asensio-Cuesta et al., 2011), namely aiming at involv-
ing the student in the thematic, and aiding in the assimilation of
concepts and theoretical development as applied to practical phe-
nomena.
The complement between theoretical and laboratorial work has
been pointed out as the major step to improve efficiency, important
skills for work in companies and motivation among students.
This complement is crucial in curricula, and linking these in the
students’ minds develops the knowledge base necessary to be a
good professional engineer (Pott et al., 2017).
Laboratory or experimental work in these type of disciplines
has shown its importance and academic laboratories have been
traditionally used for complementing and reinforcing in a practi-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.10.002
1749-7728/© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57
cal way the theoretical instruction received in classroom lectures
(Stammitti, 2013). It is well known that laboratory experiences are
not only used in the academic environment for complementing
and reinforcing in a practical way the theoretical concepts intro-
duced to students in lectures, but also, they are used as a means for
developing skills, such as acquiring and processing experimental
data, comparing such data against theoretical models, developing
critical and analytical thinking, drawing meaningful conclusions,
teamwork and ethics, and the ability to convey experimental find-
ings and conclusions in the forms of written technical reports and
oral presentations (Stubington, 1995; Arce and Schreiber, 2004;
Feisel and Rosa, 2005; Domingues et al., 2010; Vazquez- Arenas
and Pritzker, 2010; Patterson, 2011; Narang et al., 2012; Vernengo
and Dahm, 2012) (Stammitti, 2013). It was actually proved that
students’ perceptions of workload, anxiety and time pressure
decreases with well-structured laboratorial work: substantial evi-
dence of cumulative learning was noted, both during the practical
session, as well as in student responses. It was clear that student’s
both critically engage and are enriched by the practice (Pott et al.,
2017).
In modern times due to increasing engineering demand, spe-
cialization and complexity (UNESCO, 2010), curricula of modern
and future engineers must show the two valences (Barnett, 2006):
towards the theoretical knowledge base and increasingly complex
application contexts. Thus, although the curriculum is already pres-
sured to have a large spectrum of valences and skills, one still sees
more theory and more practice being introduced into it (Pott et al.,
2017).
Abdel-Salam et al. (2006) centering on fluid mechanics, and
Chen et al. (2016), in their research, prove that active participa-
tion is key in learning experiences. Therefore, laboratory practice
remains an integral part of university engineering curricula (Pott
et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, the prevalence of assessment-driven learning
in the practical context often results in the students not
critically engaging with the equipment and demonstrated phe-
nomena, but rather opting for a superficial and targeted learning
approach—taking their measurements and samples, with little deep
understanding being generated (Chin and Brown, 2000; Louw,
2016; Ram, 1999; Young et al., 2006; Pott et al., 2017).
In fact, the current status quo fails to enable deep learning,
and is not able to cause the fundamental connection of theory
to practice and failing to stimulate student interest, engagement
and motivation. Two examples of this failure are reflected in high
failure and dropout rates in some countries (Council for Higher
Education, 2013), and more specially in some industry complaints
about graduate inability to ‘apply knowledge’ (Griesel and Parker,
2009), which clearly suggest that the theory–practice divide needs
attention if we are to improve engineering education. (Pott et al.,
2017).
One of causes that is pointed for this lack efficiency of labo-
ratorial work, is that practice are set up in such a way that the
students are very constrained in how they can engage with the
equipment: they have little opportunity to experiment, disman-
tle, reassemble, examine and generally experience the constituent
equipment. Thus, evidence suggest that students practice ‘surface’
and ‘strategic’ learning (Entwistle, 2000). They do not fully engage
with the practical, but rather focus on taking only those readings,
measurements and observations which will allow them to fulfill
their report writing task—a task they find onerous and frustrating,
partially since they have little deep understanding of the systems
that they are now writing about. (Pott et al., 2017). In fact, data
processing and model evaluation tasks are time consuming and do
not add much value to the student’s learning experience as they
reduce available time for result analysis, critical thinking and report
writing skills development (Stammitti, 2013).
49
To improve this practice − theory link, and specially to reduce
the passivity and stimulate the students in this kind of disci-
plines, several options have been proposed/implemented. The
ability to co-operate (team work) to find appropriate informa-
tion, to solve problems through critical and creative thinking,
to make decisions and to communicate effectively (Delgado and
Fonseca-Mora, 2010) is one of the options and may be developed
through co-operative learning (Delgado and Fonseca-Mora, 2010),
well-defined comprehensive protocols, rubrics and co-operative
work direct students towards successful learning is another option
(Delgado and Fonseca-Mora, 2010); the use of competition has
been suggested to improve learning outcomes, motivation, student
participation and stimulation (Delgado and Fonseca-Mora, 2010;
Lefebvre et al., 2009; Zou and Ko, 2012) (Pott et al., 2017); another
proved option indicates that the teacher’s involvement in creat-
ing a challenging, integrated teaching unit and students’ effort in
co-operating to create their final written and oral reports led to con-
siderable improvement in understanding unit operations as well as
to very high student motivation (Delgado and Fonseca-Mora, 2010).
Several other alternatives have also been tested: showing
videos with physical examples, technology-based learning plat-
forms (Rooch et al., 2016), providing access to YouTube videos,
recorded class or laboratory demonstrations, and even simula-
tion software such as that used by Gynnild et al. (2007). These
approaches are designed to demonstrate the application of theory
to practical contexts, but often essentially represent passive activi-
ties for the student—a learning mode which does not foster deep or
long term learning (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017). Unfortunately, this
robs the student of an important linkage between what is fun-
damentally an applied science and the theory that is rigorously
covered in class. (Pott et al., 2017).
All the pointed difficulties are transversal to all core disciplines
like Transport Phenomena. However, almost no specific novel
methodologies have been reported specifically for Transport Phe-
nomena. In fact, considering the discipline Transport Phenomena,
to the best of our knowledge, only one approach was implemented:
the use of spreadsheets for time consumption reduction − process-
ing experimental data and comparing results against theoretical
models can be time consuming due to iterative and complex cal-
culations, which reduce the student’s available time for analysis
and discussion; in fact, data processing and model evaluation tasks
are time consuming and do not add much value to the student’s
learning experience as they reduce available time for result analy-
sis. (Stubington, 1995; Feisel and Rosa, 2005; Vazquez-Arenas et al.,
2009; Vazquez-Arenas and Pritzker, 2010; Stammitti, 2013). How-
ever, this approach is very limited in effect and application.
In related disciplines (Fluid Mechanics) we have the example of
Pott et al. (2017), that have tried to enable deep learning, improve
the fundamental connection of theory to practice and stimulate stu-
dent interest, engagement and motivation through a group-based
competitive, informal, problem solving, interactive learning event.
In order to succeed the students needed to grapple with, under-
stand, and apply the theory of pump curves, pumping networks and
pressure losses, to achieve a practical solution to the open-ended
(but constrained) problem. In addition to the importance of bridg-
ing the divide between the theoretical and the practical, another
important parameter that was improved and considered important
to the student success is their attitude: their motivation, anxiety,
and perception of ability (Jones et al., 2010; Savage et al., 2011)
(their attitude is linked to success, but also it is often an indicator
of the type of learning they are likely to pursue: deep, strategic or
superficial (Entwistle, 2000)).
Considering analysis methodology of results, more specifically
the elaboration of surveys (as student feedback can facilitate teach-
ing improvements (Wickramasinghe and Timpson, 2006)), and
most particularly time of elaboration, the most common form of
50 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57

Fig. 1. a) Schematic diagram of the followed Enhanced Methodology; b) Implementation in Year 1 and 2.

Fig. 2. a) Experimental setup b) Example of a graph obtained enabling us to determine the influence of the distance in the mass transfer convection coefficient.
 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57
Fig. 3. a) Experimental setup; b) is a graphic example of the evolution of the concentration in the sample point, with time.
student feedback is obtained from end of semester student eval-
uations. Unfortunately this type of feedback does not benefit the
students who provided it, because end of semester student evalua-
tions are usually standardized at a given institution in order to make
comparisons across disciplines and this often results in question-
naires that are general and offer limited guidance for improvement
in teaching; moreover since they are administered at the end of
the semester they are of little value in providing teaching improve-
ments for the class which gave the feedback (McKeachie, 2002);
the value of end of semester course evaluations that often con-
sist of a series of multiple choice questions and optional student
comments is further diminished by the fact that academic staff
members are often defensive about low ratings, rejecting the valid-
ity of the student responses. Hence in our particular case, we have
made also a mid-semester student feedback as this has proven to
overcome this limitation (Wickramasinghe and Timpson, 2006) −
because the feedback obtained may be used by the instructor to
make adjustments to the course in progress and also encourages a
more responsible attitude by the students as they reflect upon the
course.
Instead of making surveys, other forms could be approached, but
those are very limited. Angelo and Cross (1993) describe methods
such as the use of chain notes, e-mail, teacher designed feed-
back forms as opposed to institutionally designed end of semester
surveys, group instructional feedback and classroom assessment
quality circles).
The study that we present lays the foundation for similar the-
ory and application-linking practicals based on a non-assessment
paradigm: it is likely to be broadly applicable to other global insti-
tutions and engineering programmes. Indeed, the challenges facing
many of the world’s engineering educators are similar: need to
teach ever more content, within smaller time-frames, to larger
classes and with linked practice-theory.
In this work we tried to use the majority of the best practice and
improved options for pedagogical learning
We have aimed our study over the Transport Phenomena course,
which is a course of the 1st year of the Master in Chemical Engineer-
ing of the University of Salamanca, Spain. In order to have a clear
vision of the context, more data is given in the following paragraph
concerning this course and their insertion in the overall curricula.
Currently in the plan of Chemical Engineering graduation of the
University of Salamanca the students are lectured with one course
of one semester regarding Fluid Mechanics (Transport Phenomena
− Momentum) and another course of one semester regarding Heat
Transfer (Transport Phenomena − Heat). In the Master Graduation
51
a course of one semester is given denominated as Transport Phe-
nomena, and were the three topics must be covered (momentum,
heat, and mass); nonetheless due to the usual previous background
of the students on two of these sub-areas (as previously described)
− heat and momentum − the course is nowadays more focused on
mass transfer, although the other subareas are also covered.
2. Hypothesis
In this work two consecutive academic years have been ana-
lyzed. In the second year, the method was improved and enlarged.
As hypothesis we have assumed that a new methodology should
be developed and implemented based basically in the concept,
design and development of practical demonstrations, by the stu-
dents, within the frame of Mass Transfer Phenomena, and due to
this work, students would be able to get really involved in the the-
matic, and would assimilate concepts and theoretical development
easier as applied to practical phenomena.
This hypothesis was implemented during the first year of the
application of this innovative plan.
Another hypothesis was that if we would complement the
previous hypothesis by limiting the experiment/demonstration
thematic the students could choose, to the area they felt more diffi-
culties, this would improve even better the effect of this innovative
plan.
This hypothesis was implemented during the second year of the
application of this innovative plan.
3. Methodology
In Fig. 1 a) it is depicted a schematic diagram of the full followed
methodology.
The first step (I) consists on the election by the students of the
thematic under the scope of which they will develop and test the
experiment/demonstration. This step was only applied for the “sec-
ond wave” of students (the second academic year). It is important
to notice that the methodology was only started at the middle of
the semester when the students already had enough information to
evaluate correctly the thematic that was more challenging to them.
In the second step (II) the students (divided by workgroups)
imagined a demonstration/experience that reflected common prac-
tical phenomena.
In the third step (III) they had setup such experience and
obtained practical results.
52 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57

Fig. 4. a) Experimental Setup for VC diffusivity measurement and b) example of curve fitting.

Table 1
Survey made on the students (the most complete − in the second year).

Questionnaire

I − Do you think it is important to have a theoretical-practical/experimental complement for the thematic of the Transport Phenomena discipline?
II − Do you think that developing and performing experiments will help/has helped you to better understand the discipline and its contents?
III − In which Thematic do you have greater difficulties (Mass Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer)?
IV − To which of these thematic (Mass Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer) should we allocate the large majority of the time in the Transport Phenomena discipline?
V − In which part of the contents of the discipline Transport Phenomena do you have greater difficulties?
VI − At this moment how much would you grade your difficulty in the selected sub-thematic (question V)?
VII − What kind of experiments/demonstrations do you think we should do to better understand the thematics, specially the one you have higher difficulties?
VIII − At the present time, how would you grade your knowledge about the contents of the discipline?
IX − At the present time, how would you grade your difficulty understanding the contents of the discipline?
X − Was the experimental/demonstration work and development useful for better understanding of the contents of the discipline?

In a fourth step (IV) they compared the obtained results with
theoretical development and tuned the experience/demonstration
In a fifth step (V) they have made a full demonstra-
tion/experience in class, directed to the professors and remaining
students, with the corresponding explanation and discussion.
In the sixth step (VI) they have elaborated and delivered a report
of the experiment/demonstration.
In the final step (VII) the students have filled a final survey in
order to determine and evaluate the improvement on learning; in
this stage the exam results and final grades were also compared.
Steps II to VI were applied in both academic years.
4. Results
4.1. Practical demonstrations (Augusto et al., 2017; Blanco-Río
et al., 2017; Arribas-Sanz et al., 2017)
Practical demonstrations constitute a result as they may be
applied as a pedagogical method by themselves.
The challenge was to design and assemble cheap and easy
demonstrations. In fact, most of the materials are common and
used by humankind in a daily basis (plastic recipients, hair dryer,
sponge, etc.). Some cheap and available glass material was also used
(syringes, support vessels, etc.) and only two scientific instrumen-
tal techniques were required (weight by analytical balance and use
of the spectrophotometer) (in fact, for example, in a determined
experiment the electrode was designed and programmed by the
students by using only a pen and other simple and day-by-day
materials).
In the 2nd year of implementation of this innovative plan, the
experiments/demonstrations were directed specifically to the the-
matic where the students had more difficulties.
The experiments were chosen and developed by the students,
under the supervision of the professors (in class). In what follows
we detail somehow the experiments, but refer the reader to more
detailed publications about them (Augusto et al., 2017). Consider-
ing previous related work (Augusto et al., 2017) its nature is more
related to the content of some of the pedagogical experiments set-
up by students, allowing them to be used for future pedagogical
 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57
Fig. 5. a) Experimental Setup for VC diffusivity measurement − uncontrolled release and b) example of results.
learning; therefore the educational improvement and the complete
methodology was not present, neither were the measuring tech-
niques to evaluate the success of the implementation of the basic
methodology used at that time.
a) 1st Year
a1) Mass Transfer by Forced Convection
The goals of this experience/demonstration were to show the
difference between natural and forced convection on mass trans-
fer, and also analyze the influence of the air flow that generates
the forced convection of ethanol  contained
 in a recipient. The for-
mula to be applied is: Q = kc A Cai − Ca , being Q the total mass of
ethanol evaporating, kc the mass transfer coefficient (convection),
A the area of mass transfer, Ca i and Ca the concentration of ethanol
in the interface and in the bulk of air, respectively. By changing the
airflow and distance from recipient to the air dryer, their influence
was determined. At the end the overall mass transfer coefficient
of convection was determined by applying the equation, and com-
pared with theoretical values, obtaining graphs such as the one
depicted in Fig. 2.
a2) Diffusivity of Salt by using conductivity measurements
The goal of this experience/demonstration, was to determine the
diffusivity of NaCl in a solution by using conductivity as the measur-
ing parameter. For such, a home-made conductivimeter was made,
and also a Python program implemented (Fig. 3). By applying Fick’s
53
law, Molecular Diffusivity was determined and compared with the-
−C
ory (Q = Dm A (C1 l 2 ) , where Q is the total mass flow of NaCl, Dm its
molecular diffusivity coefficient in water, A the area of mass trans-
fer, l the length of diffusion transfer, C1 and C2 the concentrations
of NaCl in water in the bottom of the glass and in the sample point,
respectively.
a3) Determination of Violet Cristal diffusivity in water
Two experiences/demonstrations were made concerning the
goal of determination of the diffusivity of Violet Cristal in water.
The diffusion equation was applied and it was demonstrated that
uncontrol release leads to uncontrol results, as expected, while in
controlled release we may optimize the system.
a31) Controled release
In this case we have used a controlled release setup (Fig. 4),
where we have also inserted a porous media, in order to evaluate
its influence, according to the equation Def = DCV ε , where Def is the
effective diffusivity of VC in water, DCV is the molecular diffusivity
of VC in water, ε is the porosity of the media and  its tortuosity. The
final calculated values for the previous variables were compared
with their theoretical values.
a32) Uncontroled release
In the second experience Violet Cristal was injected freely in
the water and we followed the concentration evolution in several
54 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57

Fig. 6. a) Simulations of the diffusion of VC in water through the porous media, and after uncontrolled release: b) experimental setup; c) some of the obtained results.
(Arribas-Sanz et al., 2017).

Fig. 7. a) Experimental setup; b) some of the obtained results (Blanco-Río et al., 2017).

points of the vessel (Figs. 5 and 6). The final calculated Diffusivity
was compared with the theoretical value.
b) 2nd Year
b1) Determination of Violet Cristal diffusivity in water through
an oversized porous media
In this experience/demonstration the goal was the determina-
tion of the diffusivity of Violet Cristal in water, passing through an
oversized media, with uncontrolled release. The diffusion equation
was applied and values obtained for porosity and tortuosity; later
students have compared with the theoretical values. Simulations
of the diffusion movement were also made and compared (Fig. 6).
b2) Determination of Partition Coefficient and Interface Coeffi-
cients
One experience/demonstration was made concerning the goal
of determination of the partition coefficient of glycerol in water
and oil. The system was also used for determination of the influ-
ence of some parameters (for example the initial mass of glycerol).
C
The equation used was K = C1 , where K is the partition coefficient,
2
C1 and C2 are the concentration of glycerol in phase 1 and 2, respec-
tively (Fig. 7).
4.2. Surveys
We have conducted several surveys to the students to evaluate
the results being obtained by this pedagogical methodology. Here
we focus on the surveys made in the 2nd year, as they are much
 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57 55

Fig. 8. Survey results. Questions: a)I; b)II; c)III; d)IV; e)V; f)VI; g)VII; h)VIII; i)IX; j)X. − Survey results. Questions: a)I; b)II; c)III; d)IV; e)V; f)VI; g)VII; h)VIII; i)IX; j)X.

more complete and focused. The methodology followed was the of the period the same survey was answered by the same students
following: at mid-period, before choosing and starting to develop and results compared. The surveys were all anonymous and secrecy
the experiments/demonstration a survey is performed; at the end and independence was guaranteed. The size of the sample was 10.
56 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57
Fig. 9. Evolution of the marks obtained by the students through the academic years.
In the survey usually the students had to score between 1 and 5
(without any decimals) according to their opinion (when the ques-
tion demanded scoring) and here we present the final average. 1
corresponds to the most negative opinion (no agreement/poor/very
low) and 5 the most positive (in fully agreement/excellent/very
much).
As said previously the results are more focused in the second
year survey, as it was more complete, although the results obtained
in the 1st year are also present when existent/relevant.
The posed questions are detailed in Table 1.
Questions 5, 6 and 7 were open-questions with no indication of
options for answering.
In Fig. 8 we present the main results of the surveys.
4.2.1. Discussion of results
The students clearly state that the innovation work performed
by the design and development of experiments/demonstration has
been important for a deeper understanding of the contents of the
discipline Transport Phenomena, especially in the thematic cov-
ered by these experiments/demonstration (questions I, II and X).
This importance has been increasingly perceived by the students
throughout the years and, more importantly, during the imple-
mentation of the innovation work (results at the end of the second
year are the highest). The thematic that poses more difficulties to
the students and of which the students are more “afraid” is mass
transfer (question III), and they all have indicated that this the-
matic should be the base of the experiments/demonstrations to be
developed (question V and VII); as sub-thematic they have stated
diffusion and interface mass transfer as the most difficult (ques-
tion VI) and that should be explored through this action (questions
IV, V and VII). Knowledge about the contents of the discipline has
increased (steeply) mainly by the action of this innovation work
(question VIII) and the difficulty understanding the contents of
the discipline − question IX (and the contents of the sub-thematic
involucrate in the performed experiments/demonstrations − ques-
tion VI) has decreased considerably. 100% results like the ones
obtained in questions III and IV may be justified because the pointed
thematic (mass transfer) is the subarea in which students have null
previous knowledge.
4.3. Exam results
Analyzing the evolution of the final grades obtained by the stu-
dents in the academic years covered by this work (1st and 2nd year)
and comparing also with the previous year marks (year 0) (Fig. 9),
we observe an interesting increase that we may relate to the influ-
ence of the innovation work the students have made for the design
and development of experiences/demonstration (in both years). It
is also interesting to notice that when the thematic of this exper-
iments/demonstrations was more focused into the contents that
the students described posing the highest difficulty, the marks have
shown a greater increase (2nd year).
5. Conclusions
A new methodology to improve the interest and understand-
ing of the students on the thematic Transport Phenomena, was
validated.
Through this methodology 6 different experiments/
demonstrations were developed by the students
The development of practical demonstrations clearly helps the
student’s understanding a core discipline like Transport Phenom-
ena.
Surveys were done at the end of the period and at the beginning
and also in different years, and have shown a clear improvement in
the understanding and perception of the discipline by the students.
The final marks obtained by the students also demonstrate
the improvement due to the incorporation of the experimental/
demonstration work.
Choosing as working area the thematic were the students feel
more difficulties (or simply reject it) improves their willingness to
accept the discipline and decreases their difficulty, afterwards.
Acknowledgements
Students involved in the design and development of experi-
ments/demonstrations within this innovation work, are acknowl-
edge for all their work and some of the Figures inserted in this
paper.
We thank Prof. Joaquín Morán from Organic Chemistry Depart-
ment (University of Salamanca) for all the help given.
References
Abdel-Salam, T., Kauffman, P.J., Crossman, G., 2006. Does the lack of hands-on expe-
rience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? Eur. J.
Eng. Educ. 31, 747–756.
Angelo, T.A., Cross, K.P., 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for
College Teachers, 2nd edition. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Arce, P.E., Schreiber, L.B., 2004. High-performance learning environments. Chem.
Eng. Educ. 38 (4), 286–291.
Arribas-Sanz, A., Garcia-Luna, S., Gómez-Garcia, N., Sánchez-Garcia, T., Taimbu-de-
la-Cruz, C.A., 2017. Fenómenos de Transporte: Transferencia de Matéria por
Diffusión. Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Asensio-Cuesta, S., Esteve, C., Vargas, M., 2011. A new learning and teaching method-
ology. In: 5th International Technology, Education and Development Conference
Proceedings, IATED, Valencia, pp. 726–731.
Augusto, P.A., Castelo-Grande, T., Estévez, A.M., 2014. Effective methodologies
applied in mathematics, physics or chemical engineering subjects, integrated
into graduations of the chemical engineering and environmental area. In: II
Congreso de innovación docente de Ingeniería Química, Publicacions de la Uni-
versitat de València, Valencia, pp. 130–139.
Augusto, P.A., Castelo-Grande, T., Estévez, A.M., Barrena, C., Curto, D., Devesa, V.,
Encinas, E., Fernández, A., Fernández, G., de la Fuente, E., Gálan, G., Garcia, C.,
Garcia, B., Garcia, M., Gil, L., Hernández, M., Lacroix, C., Lazaro, P., Martinez, J.,
Martín, E., 2017. Improving the understanding of mass transfer thematics, based
on practical demonstrations designed and developed by the students. In: Pedro
Membiela Iglesia (Ed.), Nuevos desafíos en la enseñanza superior. Educacion
Editora; Vigo, pp. 647–651, ISBN: 978-84-15524-40-3.
Barnett, M., 2006. Vocational knowledge and vocational pedagogy. In: Young, M.,
Gamble, J. (Eds.), Knowledge, Curriculum and Qualifications for South African
Further Education. HSRC Press, Cape Town.
Blanco-Río, I., Criado-González, A., Ginés Garrido, J., Redondo-Martínez, J., Terleira-
Fernández, M., 2017. Fenómenos de Transporte: Estudio del Coeficiente de
Reparto. Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Chen, W., Shah, U., Brechtelsbauer, C., 2016. The discovery laboratory—a student-
centered experimental learning practical: part I—overview. Educ. Chem. Eng. 17,
44–53.
Chin, C., Brown, D.E., 2000. Learning in science: a comparison of deep and surface
approaches. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 109–138.
Council for Higher Education, S.A., 2013. A Proposal for Undergraduate Curriculum
Reform in South Africa: The Casefor a Flexible Curriculum Structure. Council on
Higher Education, Pretoria.
 P.A. Augusto et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 26 (2019) 48–57
Delgado, M.A., Fonseca-Mora, M.C., 2010. The use of co-operative work and rubrics
to develop competences. Educ. Chem. Eng. 5, e33–e39.
Domingues, L., Rocha, I., Dourado, F., Alves, M., Ferreira, E.C., 2010. Virtual laborato-
ries in (bio)chemical engineering education. Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng.
5, e22–e27.
Entwistle, N., 2000. Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment:
conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. In: The TLRP Conference,
Leicester.
Feisel, L.D., Rosa, A.J., 2005. The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering
education. J. Eng. Educ. 94 (1), 121–130.
Griesel, H., Parker, B., 2009. Graduate attributes: a baseline study on south african
graduates from the perspective of employers. In: Higher Education South Africa
& the South African Qualifications Authority, South Africa.
Gynnild, V., Myrhaug, D., Pettersen, B., 2007. Introducing innovative approaches to
learning in fluid mechanics: a case study. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 32, 503–516.
Jones, B.D., Paretti, M.C., Hein, S.F., Knott, T.W., 2010. An analysis of motivation con-
structs with first-year engineering students: relationships among expectancies,
values, achievement, and career plans. J. Eng. Educ. 99, 319–336.
Lefebvre, B.G., Connell, L.E., Dahm, K.D., 2009. Competition between student groups
in the protein production challenge. Educ. Chem. Eng. 4, e1–e8.
Louw, T., 2016. Instant data processing for active reflection in engineering labora-
tory practicals. In: The Ninth Annual Stellenbosch University Conference on the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Stellenbosch.
McKeachie, W.J., 2002. McKeachie’s Teaching Tips, 11th edition. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA, USA.
Najdanovic-Visak, V., 2017. Team-based learning for first year engineering students.
Educ. Chem. Eng. 18, 26–34.
Narang, A., Ben-Zvi, A., Afacan, A., Sharp, D., Shah, S.L., Huang, B., 2012. Undergrad-
uate design of experiment laboratory o analysis and optimization of distillation
column. Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng. 7, e187–e195.
Patterson, D.A., 2011. Impact of a multimedia laboratory manual: investigating the
influence of student learning styles on laboratory preparation and performance
over one semester. Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng. 6, e10–e30.
57
Pott, R.W. McC., Wolff, K.E., Goosen, N.J., 2017. Using an informal competitive prac-
tical to stimulate links between the theoretical and practical in fluid mechanics:
a case study in non-assessment driven learning approaches. Educ. Chem. Eng.
21, 1–10.
Ram, P., 1999. Problem-based learning in undergraduate instruction. A sophomore
chemistry laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 1122.
Rooch, A., Junker, P., Härterich, J., Hackl, K., 2016. Linking mathematics with engi-
neering applications at an early tage—implementation, experimental set-up and
evaluation of a pilot project. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 41, 172–191.
Savage, N., Birch, R., Noussi, E., 2011. Motivation of engineering students in higher
education. Eng. Educ. 6, 39–46.
Stammitti, A., 2013. Spreadsheets for assisting transport phenomena laboratory
experiences. Educ. Chem. Eng. 8, e58–e71.
Stubington, J.F., 1995. Quality in teaching laboratories. Chem. Eng. Educ. 29 (2),
186–190.
UNESCO, 2010. Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development
Paris. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Vazquez-Arenas, J., Pritzker, M., 2010. How to relate experiments and theory for
electrochemistry?: Linear sweep voltammetry for the reduction of Fe(CN)63-.
Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng. 5, e78–e86.
Vazquez-Arenas, J., Ortiz-Rodriguez, E., Ricardez-Sandoval, L.A., 2009. A computa-
tional laboratory on the role of mass transport contributions in electrochemical
systems: copper deposition. Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng. 4, 43–49.
Vernengo, J., Dahm, K.D., 2012. Two challenge-based laboratories for introducing
undergraduate students to biomaterials. Trans. IChemE D: Educ. Chem. Eng. 7,
e14–e21.
Wickramasinghe, S.R., Timpson, W.M., 2006. Mid-semester student feedback
enhances student learning. Educ. Chem. Eng. 1, 126–133.
Young, B.R., Yarranton, H.W., Bellehumeur, C.T., Svrcek, W.Y., 2006. An experimen-
tal design approach to chemical engineering unit operations laboratories. Educ.
Chem. Eng. 1, 16–22.
Zou, T.X.P., Ko, E.I., 2012. Teamwork development across the curriculum for chemical
engineering students in Hong Kong: processes, outcomes and lessons learned.
Educ. Chem. Eng. 7, e105–e117.