T Jaro Rojas 2016

ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
education for chemical engineers x x x ( 2 0 1 6 ) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Education for Chemical Engineers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece
1 A Systematic and Integrative Sequence Approach

2 (SISA) for mastery learning: Anchoring Bloom’s
3 Revised Taxonomy to student learning
4 Q1 Rocío Tíjaro-Rojas a,b , Andrea Arce-Trigatti c , Jann Cupp d , Jennifer Pascal a ,

5 Pedro E. Arce a,∗
6
a Chemical Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA
7
b Environmental Engineering, Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique, Chile
8
c College of Education, Health, and Human Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
9
d Counseling and Psychology, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA
10
11 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
12
13Q3 Article history: In this contribution, a methodical and student-based learning sequence entitled System-
14 Received 8 June 2015 atic and Integrative Sequence Approach (SISA) is introduced. Primarily utilized within STEM
15 Accepted 7 June 2016 disciplines, SISA is inspired by instructivist and constructivist approaches to learning and
16 Available online xxx ultimately seeks to help students reach mastery learning levels regarding complex concepts
within these fields. By organizing and anchoring lesson plans concerning these concepts
to the cognitive objectives outlined by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002), SISA
facilitates students’ preparedness to contribute to the creation of technological develop-
ments and innovation in STEM fields. Offering an example of its application, this paper
outlines how SISA has been integrated into the instruction of hydrodynamic velocity profiles
in viscous flows. In addition, this effort highlights exploratory data collected from students
taught by the SISA approach. Analysis of this study and implications for future work are
also discussed.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.
1. Introduction with regards to innovation (Felder, 2006; Luecke and Katz, 28
Q4 2003; National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2010). Moreover, 29
17 Traditionally, STEM instruction has been dominated by a rigid scholars have found that classrooms which focus solely on 30
18 philosophy aimed at forming students that can master estab- critical thinking and retaining rigorous content often result 31
19 lished methods of analysis (Downey et al., 2008). As scholar in the high attrition of students initially interested in STEM 32
20 Felder (2012) postulates, this ‘trust me’ approach is anchored (Epstein and Miller, 2011; Felder, 2006; Klein, 2003). In effect, 33
21 in the instruction of teaching theories, derivations, models, this teaching-centered approach hinders the ingenuity and 34
22 and algorithms, with the student’s trust that one day these creativity in discovering innovative practical applications of 35
23 concepts will be practically important or useful. Although technological developments within the STEM teaching frame- 36
24 this method of instruction is indeed successful in relating work (Arce, 2009; Gattie and Wicklein, 2007). 37
25 important information to students, it is a poor motivator of Throughout the past decade scholarly work has revealed 38
26 learning, an ineffective approach in the retention of valu- that in order to develop the next generation of innova- 39
27 able and applicable information, and pedagogically barren tive STEM professionals, the adoption of a new curricular
∗
Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Box 5013, 1020 Stadium Drive,
Cookeville, TN 38505, USA.
E-mail address: PArce@tntech.edu (P.E. Arce).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2016.06.001
1749-7728/© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Please cite this article in press as: Tíjaro-Rojas, R., et al., A Systematic and Integrative Sequence Approach (SISA) for mastery learning: Anchoring
ECE 120 1–13
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to student learning. Education for Chemical Engineers (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2016.06.001
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 education for chemical engineers x x x ( 2 0 1 6 ) xxx–xxx
40 framework is required (Felder et al., 2011; Morell and DeBoer, In part two, we focus on the sequence itself, providing a 99
41 2011). As part of this new curricular framework, STEM scho- description of the overall technique and its implementation 100
42 lars have advocated for the integration of more learning-based through the review of a case study within a fluid dynamics 101
43 approaches which foster a higher level of expertise in students course. Finally, in part three, we conclude with the overview 102
44 by promoting the understanding of fundamental concepts of student reactions to SISA (exploratory study), future direc- 103
45 and relationships through: active, collaborative, hands-on, tions, and argue for its potential application to other, similar 104
46 and student-centered practices (Felder, 2012; Felder, 2006; disciplines. 105
47 Loggins et al., 2010; Luecke and Katz, 2003). In accordance,

48 this type of teaching method promotes the skills that are
49 necessary for creating not only literate professionals, but 2. Part I – Background
50 socially-responsible leaders who can adapt their expertise
51 to address the disparate needs (e.g. utilization of regional 2.1. Motivation 106
52 resources or the quality of healthcare) of communities across

53 the world (DeBoer, 2012; Felder et al., 2011). Due to the fact that Arguably, within the traditional pedagogy used for STEM, 107
54 the STEM challenges are continuously requiring more com- particularly as used in engineering disciplines at the under- 108
55 plex and adaptable skill sets that integrate interdisciplinary graduate level, the intrinsic, learning benefits supplied by the 109
56 knowledge into the traditional hard sciences, there is a press- application of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy have been shielded 110
57 ing need to increase approaches that are student-focused, or from students behind what divides the instructor domain 111
58 learning-based, into the classroom (Accreditation Board for from the student domain (Downey et al., 2008; Felder, 2012). 112
59 Engineering and Technology [ABET], 2012). The verity of this statement is supported by illustrations 113
60 Thus, the purpose of this paper is to introduce a learn- within the textbooks utilized in the field. For example, the 114
61 ing sequence entitled the Systematic and Integrative Sequence instructor companion site for the McGraw Hill engineering 115
62 Approach (SISA) as a response to this call for transforma- textbooks such as Statistics for Engineers and Scientists (Navidi, 116
63 tional learning within STEM disciplines. Understanding the 2015) includes activities and assessment tools referencing 117
64 demands of STEM education, SISA is inspired by primarily Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy; however, there is no mention 118
65 instructivist and constructivist approaches to learning and of the taxonomy in the student version of the book. Simi- 119
66 ultimately seeks to help students reach mastery learning lev- larly, textbooks such as Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 120
67 els regarding complex concepts within these fields (Larson (Bergman et al., 2011) and Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (Fox, 121
68 and Lockee, 2014; Schowalter, 1978). As its name indicates, 2011), both from Wiley, present a problem solving sequence 122
69 SISA focuses on the systematization, i.e. sequential-style, of the that can be connected somehow to Bloom’s Revised Taxon- 123
70 different steps involved in obtaining complex, engineering omy. Yet, there is no mention of the connection to this method 124
71 calculations (e.g., a velocity profile), as well as on the inte- and the importance of it to enhance learning that is specifi- 125
72 gration of related math/physics concepts from other courses cally addressed to students (Bergman et al., 2011; Fox, 2011). 126
73 (Arce, 2000).1 By organizing and anchoring lesson plans con- Moreover, even when Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy is utilized 127
74 cerning these concepts to the cognitive objectives outlined as the main pedagogical framework for instructors, it is gen- 128
75 by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002), SISA facil- erally focused on the lower levels of the taxonomy. Seldom 129
76 itates students’ preparedness to contribute to the creation of are the higher cognitive levels, necessary for mastery learning 130
77 technological developments and innovation in STEM fields. and for creating projects like innovative prototypes of tech- 131
78 The key innovation of this sequence, then, is the explicit nology, integrated into the lesson (Felder, 2012; Larson and 132
79 connection of engineering concepts with the cognitive levels Lockee, 2014). A review of the aforementioned textbooks (i.e., 133
80 suggested by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in the implementa- Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer and Introduction to Fluid 134
81 tion of the course materials (Arce and Schreiber, 2004; Bloom Mechanics) used in traditional engineering disciplines, as well 135
82 and Krathwohl, 1956). Subsequently, these elements allow as other textbooks, like Statistics for Engineers and Scientists used 136
83 SISA to transform tradition classroom spaces by promot- in statistics courses (Navidi, 2015), confirms this point. 137
84 ing active and collaborative learning, both learner-centered Effectively, this focus on the lower cognitive levels of 138
85 approaches that foster adaptive expertise (i.e., creatively uti- the taxonomy limits student learning and does not advance 139
86 lizing available resources in various situations) and effective students to the cognitive skills (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, 140
87 self-learning habits (i.e., connecting concepts from previous creating) necessary to become a 2020 engineer (i.e., critical 141
88 courses and other disciplines) in students (Arce et al., 2015; thinker, creativity, innovation) (Krathwohl, 2002; NAE, 2005; 142
89 Larson and Lockee, 2014; Schunk, 2014). Phase, 2005). However, an expanded sequence to help stu- 143
90 In our presentation of SISA as a transformational learning dents understand complex engineering concepts in a way 144
91 tool, we map out the inspiration, creation, and imple- that allows them to progress cognitively with each presented 145
92 mentation of this pedagogical technique. Subsequently we element, as outlined by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, and be 146
93 accomplish this by splitting the paper into three central parts. prepared to reach the higher level of cognitive thinking has 147
94 The first part of this paper is primarily theoretical and outlines yet to be developed pedagogically (Phase, 2005). Effectively, 148
95 the motivation behind the creation of SISA as well as the ped- only some elements appear to exist in the current litera- 149
96 agogical theories that helped develop the learning technique. ture, scattered throughout traditional textbooks (Bird et al., 150
97 Also, we further explicate how SISA expands on the traditional 2007; Geankoplis, 2003; Whitaker, 1992). Furthermore, these 151
98 notions of teaching STEM, in particular, engineering concepts. elements seem to be disconnected to the logical, more rigor- 152
ous, calculus-based sequence which is necessary for achieving 153
the proper level of mastery in essential subjects within engi- 154
1
SISA can be adapted to other calculations such as temperature neering and STEM (Krathwohl, 2002). Ultimately, SISA was 155
and concentrations profiles. These will be subject matters of future created as a response to these pedagogical gaps left by the 156
communications. extant teaching literature in the field (Felder, 2012). For the 157
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
education for chemical engineers x x x ( 2 0 1 6 ) xxx–xxx 3
158 engineering/STEM contexts, SISA is therefore valuable 2008; Vosniadou, 2003). Moreover, as SISA is generally flexible 222
159 because of its adaptability as a pedagogical sequence that can and applicable to different learning environments, its active 223
160 be applied to various, complex concepts by simply combining and collaborative nature will effectively enhance students’ 224
161 disconnected elements already in the curricula into a logical, learning values such as critical thinking, innovation, diver- 225
162 accessible guideline that helps students reach mastery levels sity of proposed solutions, and other similar characteristics of 226
163 of learning. students’ high performance-style (Felder, 2006; Prince, 2004; 227
164 In accordance, in an effort to address the demands of an Prince and Felder, 2006). Stemming from these characteris- 228
165 ever-changing engineering field, SISA also integrates student- tics, SISA promotes higher student engagement that assists in 229
166 based learning approaches into the pedagogy. Specifically, increasing overall student participation in any classroom envi- 230
167 there are two characteristics promoted by the learning-based ronment, which ultimately leads to improved self-learning 231
168 approaches that are highlighted in the SISA model: (1) active skills. Furthermore, SISA as a building block methodology pro- 232
169 and collaborative learning, and (2) the pedagogical concept vides a helpful guideline for the future professional career of 233
170 relating to the integrative-based principle. Active and collabo- the graduating engineer. From the instructor viewpoint, SISA 234
171 rative learning techniques require students to be engaged and represents a solid blueprint for the syllabus design based on 235
172 be responsible for the mastering of course concepts related criterion 3 (a–k) from the Accreditation Board for Engineering 236
173 to a given subject (Schwartz et al., 2005). By adopting the SISA and Technology (ABET) for accrediting engineering programs 237
174 technique, instructors will offer to the student, i.e. the appren- (ABET, 2012).2 Finally, SISA also brings a common language and 238
175 tice, a road map on how to achieve a mastery level of learning framework to both students and instructors in the learning 239
176 complex concepts that will lead to a degree of preparedness for of new material (knowledge acquisition) and the application 240
177 tackling engineering challenges introduced either within the of such material (knowledge transfer) to the solutions of new 241
178 same course or in their overall academic experience. SISA also challenges (Arce and Schreiber, 2004). 242
179 motivates a constant communication and discussion of these

180 concepts with members of the class, discussion with instruc- 2.2. Pedagogical theories: connection of SISA to 243
181 tor/s, and the consultation of notes from previous courses. For Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy 244
182 instance, once a fluid mechanic challenge has been presented
183 to students (Roselli and Diller, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2005), Effectively, two pedagogical frameworks inspired the creation 245
184 e.g. the calculation of a hydrodynamic-based velocity profile, of SISA: the instructivist and constructivist models of learning. 246
185 SISA helps students efficiently implement the following steps: The difference between these methods begins with the way 247
186 (a) the detection of the starting point, (b) the construction of that knowledge is conceptualized and this, in turn, impacts 248
187 a suitable or proper sequence of steps in order to achieve a how that knowledge is taught. For instructivists, knowledge 249
188 solution to the given task, and (c) the correct tools to build is objective and absolute, whereas for constructivists knowl- 250
189 additional knowledge related to the lesson. In consequence, edge is not absolute, but individually and socially constructed 251
190 when SISA is applied, the elements of active and collaborative- (Larson and Lockee, 2014). Thus, when it comes to teaching, 252
191 learning used in the approach enhance students’ level of instructivist methods are more systematic, structured, and 253
192 proficiency in a given subject (Martinez-Mediano and Lord, organized, where, in contrast, lessons based on constructivst 254
193 2012). approaches tend to be more flexible, embedded in experien- 255
194 Moreover, SISA takes into account the integrative-based tial learning, or problem solving contexts (Larson and Lockee, 256
195 principle, as stated by Vosniadou (2003): “new knowledge is 2014). Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, for example, was created 257
196 constructed on the basis of what is already understood and based on the fundamental cognitive and behaviorist notions 258
197 believed” (p. 12). Vosniadou (2003) also explains that, “. . .when guiding instructivist approaches to learning (Anderson and 259
198 something is understood, it is not forgotten easily and it can be Krathwohl, 2000; Larson and Lockee, 2014). 260
199 transferred to other situations,” implying that students have Arguably, both learning methodologies are valuable within 261
200 (possibly) achieved mastery of the concept (p. 20). Cognitively, an engineering context where key concepts can be system- 262
201 SISA utilizes students’ previous knowledge (i.e. geometry, ized, however students are also encouraged to build on that 263
202 physics, calculus, differential equations, inter alia) to assist information and create new knowledge. Effectively, as SISA is 264
203 them in building an effective and efficient path to obtain anchored in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy this pedagogical tool 265
204 the correct calculations concerning intricate engineering con- is inspired primarily by instructivist approaches to learning. 266
205 cepts (e.g., hydrodynamic velocity profile for any viscous flow However, SISA is meant to be applied in a constructivist learn- 267
206 case). Furthermore, SISA (as a “building block” methodol- ing environment where students are ultimately encouraged to 268
207 ogy) provides valuable, learning objectives and guidelines that work with one another to create new knowledge (e.g., a pro- 269
208 students can apply to various contexts within their future prototype of innovative technology). Thus, although SISA itself 270
209 fessional career. does not reach the last level of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy 271
210 In addition to these foundational pedagogical implications, (i.e., creating, see Fig. 1), it expands how previous engineering 272
211 SISA brings various important benefits to both the students pedagogy has integrated the taxonomy by explicitly incor- 273
212 and the instructors that lead to enhancing students’ skills porating two higher level thinking elements (i.e., analyzing 274
213 in several types of classroom and extracurricular settings. and evaluating) into the systematic way of learning funda- 275
214 These outcomes are important for the successful engineer in mental engineering concepts (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2000; 276
215 today’s changeable workforce because they allow students to Larson and Lockee, 2014). This integration provides a path for 277
216 use specific skill sets engendered by the SISA model to become
217 adaptable innovators in various types of environments. For
218 example, since SISA’s pedagogical foundations are sequential 2
ABET suggests guidelines for accrediting engineering and tech-
219 and integrative, it allows students to avoid misconceptions nology programs that include several criteria. Criteria a–k include
220 and false beliefs throughout their learning process and over- characteristics of lifelong learning and proficiency of engineering
221 all academic career in the engineering field (Streveler et al., principles to be mastered by the student.
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
adapts Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to fit the pedagogical objec- 306
tives for mastery learning. This instructive method is further 307
supported by the scholarly observations clearly stated by sev- 308
eral authors including Prince and Felder (2006), Wankat (2002), 309
Mazher (2002), and Silverstein and Osei-Prempeh (2010) that 310
have worked on successful pedagogical approaches based on 311
the inductive method of teaching (Clements, 1979). Thus, by 312
incorporating Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, the creators of SISA 313
were, in addition to satisfying curriculum needs, attempting 314
to link the technical content of each course on effective 315
pedagogical methodologies to improve students’ motivation, 316
retention, and understanding. 317
Tables 1 and 2 outline how SISA connects fundamental 318
engineering concepts with the cognitive levels of Bloom’s 319
Revised Taxonomy. Whereas Table 1 is an integration (a simple 320
process descriptor) of the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy cogni- 321
tive levels with a description of the fundamental SISA steps, 322
Table 2 outlines the learning objectives for each SISA step as 323
it is applied in a lesson plan for finding the hydrodynamic 324
velocity profile within an engineering fluid mechanics course. 325
Both tables are designed to be pedagogically friendly and 326

Q7 Fig. 1 – Adapted Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy.
complementary to one another for the introduction and 327
implementation of SISA to both students and instructors. As 328
278 students to bridge what they have learned at the “Foundations mentioned, the engineering innovation process starts by rec- 329
279 for Learning” (remembering, understanding, and applying; see ognizing essential technical tools and connecting new and 330
280 Fig. 1) levels toward the higher cognitive levels (analyzing, previous knowledge. These two concepts are well represented 331
281 evaluating, and creating; see Fig. 1) as outlined by Bloom’s at the first two levels of the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy where 332
282 Revised Taxonomy. Moreover, by taking students past the students learn the material (e.g., remembering and under- 333
283 lower cognitive levels of the taxonomy into the higher levels, standing) (Krathwohl, 2002). Once they have reached those 334
284 SISA is essentially better preparing students to enter into the rudimentary levels, they are prepared to do practical activi- 335
285 last phase of the taxonomy, creating (Larson and Lockee, 2014; ties or experiments which connect to the next two cognitive 336
286 Schunk, 2014). levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy: applying and analyzing. 337
287 To clarify, in order to achieve mastery learning, stu- The application and analysis levels are developed through 338
288 dents must go through different cognitive levels such as the the student’s realization of how effective or/and efficient the 339
289 ones proposed by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Effectively, the hands-on activities of these levels are at completing certain 340
290 necessary knowledge to perform at the last level of the taxon- challenges. At this point, students have reached the final two 341
291 omy (i.e. creating) must be acquired. The revised taxonomy and more complex learning levels of the taxonomy – evaluat- 342
292 (Fig. 1) is a sequential approach that presents six cogni- ing and creating. It is at this stage that students are able to 343
293 tive domain levels: remembering, understanding, applying, develop technological or theoretical innovations. Thus, SISA 344
294 analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson et al., 2001; is anchored on the first five pedagogical levels of the Bloom’s 345
295 Krathwohl, 2002). In effect, this taxonomy was chosen due to Revised Taxonomy (i.e. remembering – evaluating) in an effort 346
296 its similarity with various engineering processes, where each to prepare students for the final and most cognitively demand- 347
297 previous piece of acquired knowledge constitutes an impor- ing level (i.e. creating). When students have reached this final 348
298 tant ‘block’ for learning and development. Bloom’s Revised level, they are capable of transferring their acquired knowl- 349
299 Taxonomy has, for this reason, been commonly applied to edge to create new innovations (see Section 4.1) (Arce, 2014; 350
300 design and develop curricula, learning objectives and assess- Arce et al., 2015). 351
301 ment tools (Starr et al., 2008). In accordance, SISA integrates Again, this systematic approach of integrating Bloom’s 352
302 Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to the design and execution of core Revised Taxonomy is meant to be applied in a collaborative 353
303 engineering courses, specifically within the chemical engi- learning space that incorporate constructivist approaches to 354
304 neering context. In particular, SISA was developed utilizing learning that encourages the creation of new knowledge (e.g. 355
305 the sequential approach as its foundation, which effectively prototypes of innovative technology). As mentioned above, 356
Table 1 – SISA: steps and process descriptors.

Step SISA process descriptor
(a) Remembering – Remembering different types of geometry in order to describe the control domain
(b) Understanding – Understanding the coordinate system in order to select and anchor the proper reference system to the control domain
(c) Applying – Applying the proper kinematics of the flow by observing the system and suggesting the scalar components of the velocity
field
(d) Analyzing (Kinematics) – Analyzing and characterizing the flow conditions of the system: Incompressible, type of driving forces,
isothermal conditions, etc.
(e) Analyzing (Momentum) – Analyzing the suitable conservation of momentum equation with the appropriate selected boundary
conditions in order to compute the velocity profile
(f) Evaluating – Evaluating and validating the velocity profile for consistency
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2 – SISA learning objectives.

Overall SISA objective:
After completing the six steps in the Systematic and Integrative Sequence Approach (SISA), students enrolled in the undergraduate fluid mechanics
course will be able to integrate and build upon various concepts from other courses to obtain velocity profiles while conceptually linking these
pedagogical steps to the cognitive levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
Outcomes Strategies Assessments

(Written for instructor and (Written for (Written for
students) instructor) students)
(1.0) As part of the first step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy level remembering, students enrolled in the course will. . .
(1.1) Work in small groups to select and Encourages seeking, making sense of, and (1.1) To complete this step, within your
describe the system geometry fitting with sharing information about different geometry of group, you must arrive at a consensus of
the problem to solve. Specifically, student systems. what will be a suitable geometry to
groups are asked to calculate the describe the rectangular domain.
hydrodynamic velocity profile in a Effectively you will need to remember
rectangular domain (see image below). specific details of this geometry
Student groups are given a concrete associated with the problem.
example of the system to compute the Also, using guided discovery processes through
velocity profile and are asked to remember interaction with peers by highlighting
concepts from previous courses about similarities and differences between the various
geometry of the systems. geometries and coordinate systems.
Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of remembering
and helps students to link cognitive level to
lesson plan.
Details: Details: Details:
Instructivist learning; cognitive; SISA step Learner-to-content, learner-to-learner, Non-traditional – discussion and team
(a), Table 1 instructor-to-learner, synchronous based approach
(2.0) As part of the second step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy level understanding, students enrolled in the course will. . .
(2.1) Work within small groups to select Facilitates an understanding of the different (2.1) To complete this step, within your
the proper coordinate system and anchor situations associated with flow systems in groups, you must arrive at a consensus of
it to the geometrical domain identified in different geometries and how these what will be a suitable coordinate system.
learning objective (1.0). Student is still characteristics may impact the calculation of the In order to properly select the coordinate
using a concrete example to calculate the hydrodynamic velocity profile. system, you need to demonstrate an
hydrodynamic velocity profile in a understanding of key assumptions related
rectangular domain (see image below). to the system. These include, for
However, they will need to develop an example, symmetry of the system,
understanding of key characteristics of the direction and flow, etc.
domain including: long channel
approximation, no losses, horizontal flow,
constant density, symmetry, etc.
Guiding discovery processes through
encouraging interactions with peers and
exploring various concepts to develop a deeper
understanding of coordinate system
assumptions.
Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of
understanding and helps students to link
cognitive level to lesson plan.
(b), Table 1 instructor-to-learner, synchronous based approach
(3.0) As part of the third step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy level applying, students enrolled in the course will. . .
(3.1) Work in small groups to propose the Managing cognitive load by presenting students (3.1) To complete this step, within your
kinematics of the flow. Student groups with information in a way that will assist with groups, you must arrive at a consensus
will be asked to specify the scalar understanding and recall. about the suitable scalar components for
components of the velocity field by the hydrodynamic velocity field of the
applying the information obtained in system under analysis. For example, you
learning objectives (1.0) and (2.0) to the Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of applying and must identify which of these components
flow within the rectangular domain. helps students link this cognitive level to lesson will be equal to zero and which will be
plan and previous learning objectives. non-equal to zero. You need to
Encourages student interaction through group demonstrate a commanding application of
work. the assumptions that you gathered in the
Facilitate the use of different resources available previous learning objectives.
to the student by encouraging exploration of
f (vx , vy , vz )
V ideas, resources, and interactions.
vx = / 0
vy = vz = 0
p0 > p1 > p2 > · · · > pn
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
– Table 2 (Continued)
(2.0) As part of the second step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy level understanding, students enrolled in the course will. . .

(c), Table 1 instructor-to-learner, synchronous based approach
(4.0) As part of the fourth step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, analyzing, students enrolled in the course will. . .
(4.1) Within small groups to characterize Encourages seeking, making sense of, and (4.1) To complete this step, within your
the flow conditions within a rectangular analyzing information. groups, you must arrive at a consensus
domain (see image below). Student about the characteristics of the flow
groups will be asked to analyze different conditions within a rectangular domain.
type of flow (i.e., incompressible or In particular, you must identify different
compressible flow), driving forces, types of flow and the conditions under
Kinematics, and specific conditions. The which they prevail. You need to
information obtained in learning demonstrate a commanding level of
objectives (1.0), (2.0) and (3.0) should be analysis of all the parameters and
incorporated in this analysis. conditions that determine the different
Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of applying and type of flow.
helps students link this cognitive level to lesson
plan and previous learning objectives.
Encourages student interaction through group
work.
Facilitate the use of different resources available
ideas, resources, and interactions.
Instructivist learning; cognitive; Learner-to-content, learner-to-learner, Non-traditional – discussion and team
intellectual skills – concepts and instructor-to-learner, synchronous based approach
higher-order rules); SISA step (d), Table 1
(4.2) Within small groups, analyze the Encourages seeking, making sense of, and (4.2) To complete this step, within your
conservation of momentum using the analyzing information. groups, you must arrive at a consensus
equation below by also relating all the about the suitable equation for the
previous assumptions and conditions conservation of momentum in the
acting on the system within a rectangular rectangular domain. In particular, you

domain. must select appropriate boundary
∂v∂t + v · ∇v = conditions for this equation. You need to
T Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of applying and demonstrate a commanding level of
−∇p + ∇ · ( · (∇v + (∇v) )) + ∇(∇ · v) + g
Within these groups, students will also helps students link this cognitive level to lesson analysis of the different driving forces,
select appropriate boundary conditions to plan and previous learning objectives. implication of the kinematics, and type of
achieve the goal of the learning session: Encourages student interaction through group flow.
obtaining and analyzing the velocity work.
profile (see equation below). Facilitate the use of different resources available
1 ∂p 2 to the student by encouraging exploration of
vx = 2 ∂x y + C1 y + C2
higher-order rules); SISA step (d), Table 1
(5.0) As part of the fifth step in SISA, anchored to the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, evaluating, students enrolled in the course will. . .
(5.1) Work within small group to evaluate Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of evaluating (5.1) After calculating the velocity profile
the feasibility of the equation obtained in and helps students link this cognitive level to in learning objective (4.2), you will work
learning objective (4.2) of being the lesson plan and previous learning objectives. within your group to evaluate whether or
appropriate velocity profile, in this case, a not this is the most feasible velocity
parabolic profile, for the rectangular profile. Within your group, you should
domain (see image below). arrive at the conclusion that the parabolic
Encourages student interaction through group profile is indeed the correct profile for this
work and exploration of information. activity.
higher-order rules); SISA step (e), Table 1
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
– Table 2 (Continued)
(6.0) After completing all five SISA steps, the lesson will expand the applicability of the previous learning objectives (1.0–5.0) toward the highest
level of the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, creating, by. . .
(6.1) Working within small groups to Introduces Bloom’s Revised Level of creating and (6.1) To complete this step, you will work
identify practical flow situations that are helps students link this cognitive level to lesson within your group to create an engineering
relevant for workforce application. Ideally, plan and previous learning objectives. challenge that can be addressed based on
this situation will be different than a Introducing the concept of transfer of knowledge the knowledge you have acquired in the
rectangular domain case. Effectively, which is a critical aspect of the creating process previous learning objectives. You are
students are creating engineering in engineering application (Tíjaro-Rojas et al., specifically asked to identify practical
challenges that can be addressed based 2016). flow situations that are relevant for
on the knowledge they have acquired in Encourages student interaction through group workforce application. This will be
the previous learning objectives. work and exploration of information. different than a rectangular domain case.
ideas, resources, and interactions
Constructivist learning; cognitive; Learner-to-content, learner-to-learner, Non-traditional – discussion and team
higher-order rules)
357 within this framework it can be presumed that prior to reach- have not been integrated into a pedagogical learning sequence 396
358 ing this mastery level the necessary knowledge to perform as it developed in SISA. This is precisely the issue and ped- 397
359 effectively at the last level of the taxonomy (i.e. creating) must agogical gap we are trying to address with this pedagogical 398
360 be acquired. This final step concerns the transfer of knowl- technique. Moreover, as this sequence encourages active and 399
361 edge, where students may apply acquired concepts to a wide collaborative learning, students are constantly being exposed 400
362 variety of particular cases according to their own interest to the purpose and reasoning for the step being introduced 401
363 (Fig. 1). Effectively, this step leads to the creation of tech- into the lesson plan. To clarify, students are also being taught 402
364 nological innovations that are focused on solving societal the phases of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and the rationale 403
365 problems. Thus, the preceding levels related to the taxon- behind building that knowledge to reach the higher cognitive 404
366 omy (i.e. remembering – evaluating) are associated with the levels of learning (see Tables 1 and 2). Effectively, the applica- 405
367 acquisition of knowledge whereas the last step (i.e. creating) tion process contains a series of steps that, when applied from 406
368 is connected with the transfer of knowledge (Arce, 2014; Arce the beginning of the series to the end, brings an efficient path 407
369 et al., 2015). to solve the viscous flow problem toward the computation of 408
370 To summarize, as it is generally observed in an inductive the associated velocity profile. Such a series helps students to 409
371 approach, each SISA step matches a cognitive level of the organize the use of concepts (e.g. geometry, coordinate sys- 410
372 Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in increasing complexity (Ambrose tems, domains, etc.) and optimize the resources available (e.g. 411
373 et al., 2010; Brent and Felder, 2012; Felder and Brent, 2004). calculus, physics, etc.) without losing focus on the desired 412
374 Furthermore, each one of these steps requires the student to results. 413
375 connect with a variety of concepts and tools that they have
376 used during previous learning experiences; this characteristic
377 leads to an effective, integrative approach among conceptual 3.2. SISA and the computation of velocity profiles 414
378 knowledge acquired in courses of a given curriculum. Finally, (suggested protocol) 415
379 creative qualities (e.g., effective resource allocation, knowl-

380 edge building, and critical thinking) are fostered by SISA and As mentioned, SISA is principally focused on closing the gap 416
381 become useful skills that students will exhibit after they have between traditional engineering pedagogy, which would end 417
382 been exposed to the use of this particular learning tool. In the lesson at the lower levels of the taxonomy, by integrat- 418
383 effect, these are also skills that are welcomed by the engi- ing two of the higher levels of the taxonomy directly into 419
384 neering profession and other societal sectors (e.g., health, the lesson plan (Bird et al., 2007; Geankoplis, 2003; Whitaker, 420
385 education, and technology), which face financial, material, or 1992). Thus, SISA is primarily focused on building the nec- 421
Q5 other resource challenges (Felder, 2012; NAE, 2006).

386 essary acquisition of knowledge to better prepare students 422
for effectively transferring this knowledge in level six of this 423
taxonomy. 424
3. Part II – SISA: a sequential, pedagogical, In this section, the subtitles of each paragraph represent, in 425
and integrative tool for courses ascending order, the first five levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxon- 426
omy followed by the corresponding SISA step (a–f) presented 427
387 3.1. Description of SISA as a sequence of steps in Table 1. The last step of the revised taxonomy (i.e. creat- 428
ing) constitutes what is considered the transfer of knowledge 429
388 SISA is a very general procedure to acquire and transfer beyond the SISA sequence. This is where the instructor would 430
389 knowledge in a number of transport phenomena problems leave this primarily instructivist approach and integrate ele- 431
390 (e.g. computation of temperature profile, concentration pro- ments of a constructivist learning environment into the lesson 432
391 file, etc.); however, this contribution specifically focuses on plan (Larson and Lockee, 2014). This is illustrated in Table 2, 433
392 hydrodynamic flow problems, in particular we use SISA to learning objective 6.1 (see Section 3.3). To clarify, based on 434
393 describe the computation of the hydrodynamic velocity pro- the SISA steps described in Table 1, Table 2 was constructed 435
394 file for a viscous flow problem. Similar steps are listed in to explicitly identify the Learning Objectives and pedagogical 436
395 fluid mechanics textbooks (e.g. Schowalter, 1978) however they strategies related to each step. Therefore, because such detail 437
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
438 is provided in Table 2, only key observations associated with acquired in other courses and now enables the successful 492
439 these steps are provided in the following sections. transfer to the analysis of viscous flow. 493
The next SISA step, (e) in Table 1 (also see Learning 494
440 3.2.1. Remembering – Level 1, step (a) Objective 4.2 in Table 2), involves the identification of the 495
441 After a challenge for the calculation of the velocity profile different driving forces and, therefore, concepts related to lin- 496
442 has been identified, students following the SISA methodology ear momentum conservation are brought into the analysis. In 497
443 remember different types of geometry in order to describe the addition, the use of the kinematics information in the linear 498
444 control domain. This step, indicated by (a) in Table 1 (also see momentum conservation equation becomes both integrated 499
445 Learning Objective 1.0 in Table 2), involves the identification into the SISA and useful in a systematic simplification of this 500
446 and recollection of the proper/suitable geometry of the sys- equation.4 501
447 tem or domain. In the case that the system geometry is not
448 well defined, the student should carefully make assumptions 3.2.5. Analyzing (momentum) – Level 4, step (e) 502
449 leading to a selection that closely describes the system. For The next step that the students must make is the identifica- 503
450 courses in the undergraduate curriculum the most commonly tion of the type of fluid (Newtonian, non-Newtonian), where, 504
451 used geometries include rectangular, cylindrical, and spher- for example, Bird et al. (2007) will lead to the selection of the 505
452 ical; however, in real life applications many others may be proper linear momentum conservation equation.5 The use of 506
453 necessary for an accurate computation of the velocity profile. the information at hand (obtained in the previous SISA steps) 507
will lead to a simplified Navier–Stokes equation (also known 508
as the engineering equation) for the case of Newtonian flu- 509

454 3.2.2. Understanding – Level 2, step (b)
ids (Cerro et al., 2005). Students are coached to start with the 510
455 Following the completion of the first step, the student focuses
component of the Navier–Stokes equation that corresponds to 511
456 on step (b) in Table 1 (also see Learning Objective 2.0 in Table 2),
the direction of the flow; the other components will be useful 512
457 which entails the comprehension of the coordinate system in
as secondary sources of information when the integration of 513
458 order to select the proper reference system that captures the
the engineering equation takes place.6 In order to complete 514
459 domain’s symmetry. Next, such a system’s origin is anchored
this step, the students must provide the appropriate bound- 515
460 to the control domain. If the objective is to obtain a velocity
ary conditions suitable for the flow system under analysis; 516
461 profile, rather than a streamline function, then an Eulerian
this is necessary in order to solve the engineering equation 517
462 coordinate system must be chosen (Batchelor, 1954; Whitaker,
to obtain the hydrodynamic velocity profile. Typically, for all 518
463 1992). With the aim of completing this step, the student also
the cases in the (Chemical) Engineering Momentum Transfer 519
464 must characterize the control domain (i.e. whether or not it is
courses observed, the no-slip boundary conditions are suitable 520
465 isothermal, adiabatic, isotropic, etc.).3
for the engineering equation (Whitaker, 1992). 521
466 3.2.3. Applying – Level 3, step (c)

3.2.6. Evaluating – Level 5, step (f) 522
467 The next step in the SISA sequence, (c) in Table 1 (also see
The last SISA step (step (f) in Table 1 and Learning Objec- 523
468 Learning Objective 3.0 in Table 2), is to apply the kinemat-
tive 5.0 in Table 2) deals with the evaluation and validation 524
469 ics of the flow within the control domain. Usually this can be
of the velocity profile obtained in the previous step. This 525
470 achieved by observing the system and identifying the direc-
might include the verification of the engineering equation 526
471 tion(s) where the flow takes place. This observation will lead
and its boundary conditions by this profile and, in addition, 527
472 to the identification of which are the scalar components of
the proper qualitative mathematical shape (i.e. parabolic, lin- 528
473 the velocity field equal to zero for the case under analysis and
ear function, etc.). Once the hydrodynamic velocity profile is 529
474 which ones are not.
determined and validated, numerous pieces of information 530
can be extracted; among them, the value of the shear stress of 531
475 3.2.4. Analyzing (kinematics) – Level 4, step (d) the fluid as a function of the position, the value of the maxi- 532
476 The analysis related to the kinematics of flow is complete with mum velocity, and the flow rate are typical examples. 533
477 the characterization of the type of flow present in the system,
478 such as whether or not the flow is incompressible (see (d) in 3.2.7. Creating – Level 6 534
479 Table 1 and also Learning Objective 4.0 in Table 2). For this At this level of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (see Learning Objec- 535
480 particular situation the velocity profile must satisfy the con- tive 6.0 in Table 2), students are assumed to have reached 536
481 dition ∇ · v̄ = 0 (Bird et al., 2007; Golbayani et al., 2011). Using
a mastery level related to the computation of the velocity 537
482 the kinematics of the flow in the incompressible flow condi- profile (for the case under analysis). Therefore, if they are 538
483 tion leads to constraints that the hydrodynamics must satisfy. faced with a new challenge related to the utilization of the 539
484 Students are usually surprised to find a restriction on the velocity velocity profile, they should be able to transfer the knowledge 540
485 profile resulting from the conservation of total mass.
486 Steps (a–d) identified in Table 1 (also see Learning Objective
487 4.1 in Table 2) involve no concepts related to linear momen- 4
The most general conservation equation for viscous flows is
488 tum conservation. Only geometrical, vector-based calculus given by the Cauchy equation of linear momentum conservation
489 and conservation of total mass have been used. This is a great where the stress tensor for the viscous effect is given in general
490 revelation for student trainees and also helps to clarify many terms and without the constitutive rheological equation.
5
491 confusing concepts related to the role of previous knowledge For the cases of the viscous flow examples useful for the
chemical engineering courses where SISA has been applied, all of
them fall into the category of Newtonian fluids; this leads to the
Navier–Stokes equations.
3 6
Most of the problems related to the chemical engineering For example, these components could be an excellent help in
courses where SISA was applied were under isothermal order to determine whether or not the pressure gradient is a
conditions. function of spatial variables.
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
541 hitherto acquired to address this challenge and potentially population in order to help to statistically support the veracity 589
542 create a new technology.7 of these previous claims as well as highlight details previously 590
overlooked by the aforementioned data. 591
543 3.3. Example of application: more on SISA’s learning For this study, two cross-sectional samples were collected: 592
544 objectives one from Spring 2012, consisting of 33 students, and another 593
from Spring 2014, consisting of 59 students. A purposeful 594
545 As indicated above, Table 2 helps to connect the SISA steps sampling method was utilized focusing on two fundamen- 595
546 with their respective learning objectives. Moreover, Table 2 tal characteristics of the population (Babbie, 2008). The first 596
547 was designed to provide guidelines and illustrate how SISA can characteristic was that students, at the junior level, were the 597
548 be effectively converted into a lesson plan for a given course. primary units of analysis because this is to whom SISA is 598
549 Furthermore, to facilitate pedagogical planning, it was envi- directed at assisting. The second was that these students were 599
550 sioned that Tables 1 and 2 could be used simultaneously to actively registered for the fluid mechanics courses that had a 600
551 provide instructor flexibility in the design of the lesson plan team problem-based project (prototype) required during their 601
552 for the course. semesters under study (i.e., the constructivist learning envi- 602
553 For this paper, Table 2 illustrates the application of SISA to ronment for which SISA prepares students). This population 603
554 design a lesson plan that guides students in the calculation was selected because of the class content (fluid mechanics) 604
555 of the hydrodynamic velocity profile for viscous flows within and because their experience with the team problem-based 605
556 a fluid mechanics course. In this lesson plan, students are project would allow us to explore and therefore have a better 606
557 exposed to the different cases of elementary viscous flows, i.e., understanding of the students’ perceptions and their perfor- 607
558 Couette, Poiseuille and Stokes. Table 2 sketches the Poiseuille mance in the application of the methodology to a specific case. 608
559 case in a rectangular geometry with fixed walls and pressure A survey approach, or standardized questionnaire, was the 609
560 gradient in the horizontal direction (x), representing the driv- selected primary method of data collection for this study. 610
561 ing force present in the fluid. Although this example only A survey allowed us the flexibility to design and construct 611
562 shows one application, by changing Learning Objectives 5.0 the questions tailoring them to our exploratory inquiries 612
563 and 6.0 in Table 2 (steps (e) and (f) in Table 1) within the while providing a strong reliability factor due to its unifor- 613
564 methodology, it can be applied to any case. For instance, in mity in what was being asked and how it was asked (Babbie, 614
565 Learning Objective 5.0 (Table 2; step (e) in Table 1) instead 2008). This was a researcher-administered survey totaling 615
566 of using the linear momentum conservation principle, the nine questions which was given to students enrolled in the 616
567 energy conservation principle can be applied. Then, the flow fluid mechanics course at the end of the aforementioned 617
568 to be calculated is the energy flow, and the profile mentioned terms (Table 3). Questions 1–4 were structured as simple, 618
569 in Learning Objective 6.0 (Table 2; step (f) in Table 1) will be close-ended, yes/no response inquiries targeted at collecting 619
570 based on temperature changes instead of velocity. background information from the population. Questions 5–9 620
were modified Likert scale questions organized in a matrix 621
4. Part III – Exploratory study question format. Four answer options were available from 622
strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4). For the purpose 623
571 4.1. SISA in CHE transfer science I of this analysis, these responses were combined into two 624
categories (positive response and negative response) and mea- 625
572 Preliminary versions of SISA have been applied in different sured in overall percentage. 626
573 courses in chemical engineering departments at two large, With regards to the reliability and validity of this survey 627
574 four-year, U.S., Southeastern universities; however, the cur- instrument, prior to the survey being administered, the con- 628
575 rent version was used and assessed for the first time during tent, or face, validity of this survey was informally evaluated 629
576 the Spring 2012 semester in a junior level fluid mechanics (Babbie, 2008). A draft was submitted by e-mail to three experts 630
577 course at only one of these institutions.8 Throughout the on fluid mechanics, engineering education, and statistics; the 631
578 implementation of these preliminary versions of SISA, obser- expert panel concurred that the survey appeared to measure 632
579 vational and rudimentary data were collected in the form of what it was designed to measure. Moreover, specific questions 633
580 basic assessments, interviews with students, and feedback within the survey offered some assurance of construct valid- 634
581 received from engineers in the work force, inter alia. Over- ity (i.e. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9) because they were uniform and ensured 635
582 all, these prior data indicated a favorable acceptance of SISA that logically, if one is an affirmative response, the others 636
583 as a useful tool for learning by students. Subsequently, the should also be affirmative (Babbie, 2008). It must be mentioned 637
584 purpose of this current exploratory study was thus to further that this study is limited in the rigor traditionally associated 638
585 expand what previous observational and preliminary data col- with experimental designs, and thus the conclusions cannot 639
586 lection regarding SISA suggested. Further, by conducting an explain any causal inferences (Babbie, 2008); however, at the 640
587 exploratory study designed to target the opinions of students, same time, it must be clarified that finding causal inferences is 641
588 preliminary descriptive data were collected from SISA’s target not our aim. Rather, through this purposeful design, the main 642
objective of this study was to descriptively measure the effi- 643
cacy of SISA in students’ understanding of calculating velocity 644

7
The co-authors in the courses where SISA has been profiles. As such, using two, cross-sectional samples to gather 645
implemented have required students to build a prototype and data on student opinions provide a feasible platform for con- 646
demonstrate their capability to transfer knowledge associated ducting such a study (Babbie, 2008). 647
with hydrodynamic velocity profile. This, in effect, completes the
utilization of the six levels associated with Bloom’s Revised
4.2. Results of the exploratory study 648
Taxonomy.
8
These versions did not include two elements: the pedagogical
mapping that integrated Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and the Tables 3 and 4, as well as Figs. 2–5 present the results of the 649
integrative aspect with different courses was not emphasized. surveys given to Chemical Engineering students in the fluid 650
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3 – Exploratory study survey.

Instructions: Questions 1–4 only answer YES or NO.
Statements 5–9 answers are positive and related to a scale where:
1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree
1. Have you received classes in the past explaining about Systematic YESNO
and Integrative Sequence Approach (SISA) to calculate velocity
profiles?
2. Did you know how to calculate velocity profiles in any case before? YESNO
3. Have any of the concepts presented by the instructor to calculate YESNO
velocity profiles become clearer to you after this course?
4. Has the instructor asked you to develop one or more scenarios in YESNO
which you construct problems to solve for homework/project?
5. I invested enough studying time in order to get positive results on

my homework/project.
6. I solved the homework/project by myself.
7. After this class was taught, I feel as though I understand the initial
goal of the design (calculate velocity profiles).
8. I have a better perception of my knowledge on this topic after this

course (either on homework or studying by myself).
9. I feel prepared for the work environment if part of my job was

calculating and evaluating velocity profiles in different operations.
Table 4 – Results of survey given to chemical engineering students, spring 2012 and 2014.
# Survey questions 2012 2014
Yes No Yes No
1 Have you received classes in the past explaining 24% (8) 76%(25) 8% (5) 92%(54)
about Systematic and Integrative Sequence
Approach (SISA) to calculate velocity profiles?
2 Before this SISA class, did you know how to 21% (7) 79%(26) 49%(29) 51%(30)
calculate velocity profiles in a systematic way?
3 Have any of the concepts presented by the 55%(18) 45%(15) 88%(52) 12% (7)
instructor become clearer to you after SISA was
presented?
4 Has the instructor asked you to develop one or 61%(20) 39%(13) 47%(28) 53%(31)
more scenarios in which you construct problems
to solve for homework?
5 I did invest enough studying time with this type 48%(16) 52%(17) 64%(38) 36%(21)
of procedure in order to get positive results on
my homework.
6 I did solve the homework by myself. 52%(17) 48%(16) 58%(34) 42%(25)
7 After SISA was taught, I did feel as though I 58%(19) 42%(14) 76%(45) 24%(14)
understand the initial goal of the design
(calculate velocity profile).
8 I do have a better perception of my knowledge 52%(17) 48%(16) 73%(43) 27%(16)
on this topic after I applied SISA (either on
homework or studying by myself).
9 I do you feel prepared for the work environment 45%(15) 55%(18) 69%(41) 31%(18)
if part of my job was calculating and evaluating
velocity profiles in different operations.
Fig. 3 – Responses to question three and statement seven.

Fig. 2 – Responses to question two – student knowledge.
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
grade for this effort was 84% in 2012 and, therefore, they at 686
least should recognize the type of problem developed (vali- 687
dating statement 7 responses). Also, 100% of students worked 688
on the homework and prototype project and 84% obtained a 689
good grade on the assignment. Overall, the feedback is quite 690
encouraging and suggests the use of SISA assisted students 691
in their efforts to obtain velocity profiles in viscous flow prob- 692
lems and strengthened the use of effective practices in student 693
learning (Table 4). 694
5. Discussion and implications

Fig. 4 – Responses to statements five and six.
Thus far we have presented an inclusive pedagogical tool 695
that integrates Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to student learning. 696
Specifically, the steps associated with the Systematic and Inte- 697
grative Sequence Approach (SISA) introduced in this paper are 698
anchored to the first five levels of the Bloom’s Revised Taxon- 699
omy (i.e. remembering – evaluating) in an attempt to establish 700
the foundation necessary to effectively perform at the high- 701
est cognitive level of this taxonomy (i.e. creating). In other 702
words this sequence purposefully builds students’ acquisi- 703
tion of knowledge to the level needed in order to transfer this 704
knowledge to create innovative prototypes of technology (Arce 705
et al., 2015). Effectively, this tool opens a once closed curtain 706
that had permanently divided the student from the instruc- 707
Fig. 5 – Comparison of student responses to statements
tor domain concerning Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and allows 708
seven, eight, and nine.
students the opportunity to understand and implement activi- 709
ties that develop the higher cognitive levels that this taxonomy 710
651 mechanics course offered by a large U.S. Southeastern uni- identifies. 711
652 versity during Spring 2012 and Spring 2014. Both the table Moreover, the exploratory study highlighted in this work 712
653 and figures displaying the results of the study are included provides preliminary data that support the efficaciousness 713
654 in an effort to provide multiple avenues of interpretation (i.e. of SISA. Specifically, there are two important points to take 714
655 numerically and visually). Whereas Table 3 allows for an over- away from this study. First, the majority of the students 715
656 all numerical comparison of the survey responses, Figs. 2–5 did not have knowledge concerning this type of integrative 716
657 permit a more focalized interpretation of the questions. sequence. This reinforces the point that this metaphorical cur- 717
658 From responses to question 1, it is evident that for most of tain between the student and instructor domain effectively 718
659 the students (76% in 2012 and 92% in 2014) the methodology is exists and was barring students from a concrete connection 719
660 completely novel (Table 4). The responses to question 2 show to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Second, this tool enhances stu- 720
661 that 79% of students in 2012 and 51% in 2014 did not know how dent perception regarding their confidence in their self-guided 721
662 to obtain a velocity profile before SISA was applied (Table 4 and application of SISA. The fact that students that have been 722
663 Fig. 2). When the students were asked whether the concepts exposed to SISA successfully develop a prototype in innova- 723
664 and goals of the learning session became clearer after students tive technology, which requires students to perform well in the 724
665 were incorporated into the SISA pedagogical session (question highest level of the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (i.e., creating), 725
666 3 and statement 7), students’ responses were affirmative: 55% demonstrates that when students understand the full poten- 726
667 and 58% in 2012, and 88% and 76% in 2014, respectively (Table 4 tial of this taxonomy they are also more motivated to obtain 727
668 and Fig. 3). its benefits at the higher levels (Tíjaro-Rojas et al., 2016). More- 728
669 Referring to students’ efforts, the responses to statements over, using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy as a core foundation, 729
670 5 and 6 show half of the class declared they had not invested the principles of learning and the pedagogical techniques of 730
671 enough time studying (48%) and doing related activities by this approach can be adapted to diverse disciplines. 731
672 themselves (52%) during 2012, while the 2014 class displayed The implications of this paper are guided by the inquiry 732
673 an increase in positive responses (64% and 58% respectively) into what is needed in order to address the gap between the 733
674 concerning these statements (Table 4 and Fig. 4). Statements current engineering practice of incorporating Bloom’s Revised 734
675 7–9 inquired about students’ knowledge improvement and Taxonomy just short of reaching the higher levels of cogni- 735
676 confidence about their performance as professionals in the tion, as well as incorporating active student learning in the 736
677 specific topic. The survey provides positive feedback regarding integration of these approaches. A first step to answer this 737
678 the confidence that students have in their abilities to apply the question will be to propose a wider and systematic application 738
679 knowledge acquired using SISA in the future: 58%, 52%, and of this integrative sequence in STEM curricula that effectively 739
680 45% of affirmative answers in 2012 versus 76%, 73%, and 79% connects students to the higher levels of cognitive skills asso- 740
681 in 2014 (Table 4 and Fig. 5). ciated with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. A second step will 741
682 By comparing these results with students’ performance be to propose studies that further assess the hypothesis that 742
683 (based on the team prototype projects and homework results) applying methods such as SISA will potentially contribute to 743
684 some key conclusions can be postulated. For example, every developing students that will be more prepared to create, for 744
685 student submitted their homework on time and the average instance, innovative prototypes of technology. A third step 745
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
746 includes, as part of future efforts, the quantitative study of DeBoer, J., 2012. The Role of Engineering Skills in Development. 810
747 the pedagogical effects on student learning by comparing tra- ETD Vanderbilt University, Retrieved from http://etd.library. 811
748 ditional approaches to the one described in this contribution. vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-03262012-133313/unrestricted/ 812
DeBoer.pdf. 813
749 Finally, but no less important, continued reliability and valid-
Downey, D.B., Von Hippel, P.T., Hughes, M., 2008. Are “failing” 814
750 ity studies of the survey must be implemented. schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate 815
school effectiveness. Sociol. Educ. 81 (3), 242–270. 816
Acknowledgements Epstein, D., Miller, R.T., 2011. Slow Off the Mark: Elementary 817
School Teachers and the Crisis in Science, Technology, 818
Engineering, and Math Education. Center for American 819
Q6
751 Tijaro’s doctoral studies were supported by CONICYT Chile,
Progress, Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/ 820
752 and the Environmental Engineering Department at Universi- issues/education/report/2011/05/04/9680/slow-off-the- 821
753 dad Arturo Prat (Chile). The authors want to thank Mariano mark/. 822
754 Amicarelli, civil engineer and independent consultant, for his Felder, R.M., Brent, R., 2004. The ABC’s of engineering education: 823
755 help during the first thoughts of this paper. ABET, Bloom’s taxonomy, cooperative learning, and so on. In: 824
Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering 825
Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, 826
References Utah. 827
Felder, R., 2006. Teaching engineering in the 21st century with a 828
756 Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology [ABET], 12th century teaching. How bright is that? Chem. Eng. Educ. 829
757 2012. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective 40 (2), 110–113. 830
758 for Reviews During the 2013–2014 Accreditation Cycle. ABET, Felder, R.M., Brent, R., Prince, M.J., 2011. Engineering instructional 831
759 Baltimore, MD. development: programs, best practices, and 832
760 Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, recommendations. J. Eng. Educ. 100 (1), 89. 833
761 M.K., 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Felder, R., 2012. Engineering education: a tale of two paradigms. 834
762 Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. In: McCabe, B., Pantazidou, M., Phillips, D. (Eds.), Shaking the 835
763 Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., 2000. Taxonomy of teaching and Foundations of Geo-engineering Education. CRC Press, 836
764 learning: a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational London, UK, pp. 9–14. 837
765 objectives. In: Woolfolk, A. (Ed.), Educational Psychology. Allyn Fox, R.W., 2011. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & 838
766 & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 479–480. Sons, New York, NY. 839
767 Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Gattie, D.K., Wicklein, R.C., 2007. Curricular value and 840
768 Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Wittrock, M.C., 2001. A Taxonomy instructional needs for infusing engineering design into K-12 841
769 for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s technology education. J. Technol. Educ. 19 (1), 6–18. 842
770 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Pearson, New York, NY. Geankoplis, C., 2003. Transport Processes and Separation Process 843
771 Arce, P.E., 2000. Principal objects of knowledge (POK’s) in Principles. Prentice Hall Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 844
772 colloquial approach environments. In: Proceedings of 2000 Golbayani, P., Pascal, K., Arce, P., 2011. Mass conservation 845
773 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Session, vol. 3413, principles: macro versus micro. A powerful learning roadmap 846
774 St. Louis, MO. in the scaling of transport phenomena. In: Paper presentation 847
775 Arce, P., 2009. New Paradigm of Engineering Education: The at the 2011 AIChE Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. 848
776 Composer vs. the Conductor Engineer. The National Science Klein, D., 2003. A brief history of American k-12 mathematics 849
777 Foundation Engineering Research Center (ERC) Annual education in the 20th century. In: Royer, J. (Ed.), Mathematical 850
778 Meeting Keynote Presentation, Washington, DC. Cognition. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC. 851
779 Arce, P.E., 2014. The renaissance foundry: an effective strategy to Krathwohl, D., 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an 852
780 drive innovation in academic organizations. Leadership 20 (2), overview. Theory Pract. 41 (4), 212–218. 853
781 16–19. Larson, M.B., Lockee, B.B., 2014. Streamlined ID: A Practical Guide 854
782 Arce, P.E., Schreiber, L.B., 2004. High-performance learning to Instructional Design. Routledge, New York, NY. 855
783 environments. Chem. Eng. Educ. 38 (4), 286–291. Loggins, L., Sanders, J.R., Arce, P., 2010. Developing the NAE-2020 856
784 Arce, P.E., Sanders, J.R., Arce-Trigatti, A., Loggins, L., Biernacki, J., Engineer: The Composer vs. the Conductor Style Engineer. 857
785 Geist, M., Pascal, J., Wiant, K., 2015. The renaissance foundry: Tennessee Technological University, Department of 858
786 a powerful learning and thinking system to develop the 21st Curriculum and Instruction & Chemical Engineering 859
787 century engineer. Crit. Conversat. High. Educ. 1 (2), 176–202. Department, Retrieved March 28, 2013. 860
788 Babbie, E., 2008. The Basics of Social Research, 4th ed. Thomas Luecke, R., Katz, R., 2003. Harvard Business Essentials: Managing 861
789 Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Creativity and Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, 862
790 Batchelor, G.K., 1954. Heat transfer by free convection across a Cambridge, MA. 863
791 closed cavity between vertical boundaries at different Martinez-Mediano, C., Lord, S.M., 2012. Lifelong learning program 864
792 temperatures. Q. Appl. Math. 12 (3), 209–233. for engineering students. In: Proceedings from the IEEE In 865
793 Bergman, T.L., Lavine, A.S., Incorpera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., 2011. Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 866
794 Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. John Wiley & Sons, Marrakesh, Morocco. 867
795 New York, NY. Mazher, A.K., 2002. The social dimension of engineering 868
796 Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N., 2007. Transport education in the globalization age. In: Proceedings from the 869
797 Phenomena: Revised Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New International Conference on Engineering Education, ICEE, 870
798 York, NY. Manchester, England. 871
799 Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Morell, L., DeBoer, J., 2011. The ideal engineering professor. In: 872
800 Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives of Higher and Engineering 873
801 I: Cognitive Domain. Longman Group United Kingdom, Education. Macmillan, India. 874
802 London, England. National Academy of Engineers [NAE], 2005. The Engineer of 875
803 Brent, R., Felder, R., 2012. Random thoughts: learning by solving 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. National 876
804 solved problems. J. Chem. Eng. Educ. 46 (1), 29. Academy of Engineering, Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/ 877
805 Cerro, R.L., Higgins, B.G., Whitaker, S., 2005. Material Balances for catalog.php?record id=10999. 878
806 Chemical Engineers, Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/ National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2010. The Grand 879
807 site/materialbalancesforche/background. Challenges in Engineering. National Academy of Engineering, 880
808 Clements, R.D., 1979. The inductive method of teaching visual art Retrieved from http://www.engineeringchallengesorg/ 881
809 criticism. J. Aesthet. Educ. 13 (3), 67–78. cms/challenges. 882
ECE 120 1–13
ECE 120 1–13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
883 Navidi, W.C., 2015. Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Silverstein, D.L., Osei-Prempeh, G., 2010. Making a chemical 905
884 McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, NY. process control course an inductive and deductive learning 906
885 Phase, I.I., 2005. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting experience. J. Chem. Eng. Educ. 44 (2), 119–126. 907
886 Engineering Education to the New Century. National Starr, C.W., Manaris, B., Stalvey, R.H., 2008. Bloom’s taxonomy 908
887 Academies Press, Washington, DC. revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in 909
888 Prince, M., 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40 (1), 261–265. 910
889 research. J. Eng. Educ. 93 (3), 223–231. Streveler, R.A., Litzinger, T.A., Miller, R.L., Steif, P.S., 2008. Learning 911
890 Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M., 2006. Inductive teaching and learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: overview 912
891 methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J. Eng. and future research directions. J. Eng. Educ. 97 (3), 279–294. 913
892 Educ. 95 (2), 123–138. Tíjaro-Rojas, R., Arce-Trigatti, A., Cupp, J., Pascal, J., Arce, P., 2016. 914
893 Roselli, R.J., Diller, K.R., 2011. Biotransport: Principles and Enfoque Sistemático e Integral para Afianzar el Conocimiento 915
894 Applications. Springer, Berlin, Germany. y Desarrollar Innovación desde el Aula: Una Herramienta de 916
895 Schowalter, W.R., 1978. Mechanics of Non-Newtonian Fluids. los Recursos del Taller del Renacimiento. CIMTED, 2016. In: El 917
896 Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. Enfoque Basado en Competencias en América Latina 918
897 Schunk, D.H., 2014. Learning Theories: An Educational “Competencias y Gestión de la Innovación Educativa”. 919
898 Perspective. Pearson International, Essex, UK. CIMTED, Medellín, Colombia, pp. 704–719. 920
899 Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Sears, D., 2005. Efficiency and Vosniadou, S., 2003. How children learn? In: Rao, D.B. (Ed.), 921
900 innovation in transfer. Transfer of learning from a modern Successful Schooling. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi, 922
901 multidisciplinary perspective. In: Mestre, J. (Ed.), Transfer of India, p. 218. 923
902 Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective: Wankat, P.C., 2002. The Effective, Efficient Professor: Teaching, 924
903 Current Perspectives on Cognition, Learning, and Scholarship, and Service. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. 925
904 Instruction. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, Whitaker, S., 1992. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. Krieger 926
pp. 1–51. Publishing Company, Malabar, FL. 927
ECE 120 1–13

T Jaro Rojas 2016

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

T Jaro Rojas 2016

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ECE 120 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Education for Chemical Engineers

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

1 A Systematic and Integrative Sequence Approach

4 Q1 Rocío Tíjaro-Rojas a,b , Andrea Arce-Trigatti c , Jann Cupp d , Jennifer Pascal a ,

1. Introduction with regards to innovation (Felder, 2006; Luecke and Katz, 28

Q4 2003; National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2010). Moreover, 29

46 and student-centered practices (Felder, 2012; Felder, 2006; disciplines. 105

47 Loggins et al., 2010; Luecke and Katz, 2003). In accordance,

52 resources or the quality of healthcare) of communities across

ous, calculus-based sequence which is necessary for achieving 153

the proper level of mastery in essential subjects within engi- 154

179 motivates a constant communication and discussion of these

adapts Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to ﬁt the pedagogical objec- 306

tives for mastery learning. This instructive method is further 307

supported by the scholarly observations clearly stated by sev- 308

Mazher (2002), and Silverstein and Osei-Prempeh (2010) that 310

have worked on successful pedagogical approaches based on 311

the inductive method of teaching (Clements, 1979). Thus, by 312

incorporating Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, the creators of SISA 313

were, in addition to satisfying curriculum needs, attempting 314

to link the technical content of each course on effective 315

pedagogical methodologies to improve students’ motivation, 316

retention, and understanding. 317

Tables 1 and 2 outline how SISA connects fundamental 318

engineering concepts with the cognitive levels of Bloom’s 319

Revised Taxonomy. Whereas Table 1 is an integration (a simple 320

process descriptor) of the Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy cogni- 321

tive levels with a description of the fundamental SISA steps, 322

it is applied in a lesson plan for ﬁnding the hydrodynamic 324

velocity proﬁle within an engineering ﬂuid mechanics course. 325

Both tables are designed to be pedagogically friendly and 326

implementation of SISA to both students and instructors. As 328

Table 1 – SISA: steps and process descriptors.

Table 2 – SISA learning objectives.

Outcomes Strategies Assessments

Details: Details: Details:

379 creative qualities (e.g., effective resource allocation, knowl-

Q5 other resource challenges (Felder, 2012; NAE, 2006).

for effectively transferring this knowledge in level six of this 423

omy followed by the corresponding SISA step (a–f) presented 427

ing) constitutes what is considered the transfer of knowledge 429

will lead to a simpliﬁed Navier–Stokes equation (also known 508

as the engineering equation) for the case of Newtonian ﬂu- 509

466 3.2.3. Applying – Level 3, step (c)

overlooked by the aforementioned data. 591

from Spring 2014, consisting of 59 students. A purposeful 594

were modiﬁed Likert scale questions organized in a matrix 621

categories (positive response and negative response) and mea- 625

objective of this study was to descriptively measure the efﬁ- 643

cacy of SISA in students’ understanding of calculating velocity 644

Table 3 – Exploratory study survey.

5. I invested enough studying time in order to get positive results on

6. I solved the homework/project by myself.

8. I have a better perception of my knowledge on this topic after this

9. I feel prepared for the work environment if part of my job was

Fig. 3 – Responses to question three and statement seven.

least should recognize the type of problem developed (vali- 687

dating statement 7 responses). Also, 100% of students worked 688

on the homework and prototype project and 84% obtained a 689

good grade on the assignment. Overall, the feedback is quite 690

encouraging and suggests the use of SISA assisted students 691