بررسی و مقایسه برنامه‌ درسی و شیوه آموزشِ رشته‌ مهندسی شیمی در دانشگاه‌های آمریکا و ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد مرکز تحقیقات پدیده‌های انتقال، دانشکده مهندسی شیمی، دانشگاه صنعتی سهند، تبریز

2 ددانشجوی دکتری مهندسی شیمی، دانشگاه صنعتی سهند، تبریز

3 استاد گروه مهندسی شیمی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

4 دانشجوی دکتری مهندسی شیمی، دانشگاه صنعتی سهند

10.22047/ijee.2019.167735.1617

چکیده

فناوری امروزه بشر را می‌توان مدیون تلاش، نوآوری و خلاقیت مهندسان دانست. مهندسان برآنند تا هر روزه با کشف راه‌ها و ابزارهای جدید و پیشرفته، زندگی را بر انسان آسان‌تر کنند. تأثیر بسزای برنامه درسی دانشگاه‌ها بر توانایی‌های دانش­آموختگان مهندسی و سرعت فناوری عصر حاضر ایجاب می‌کند که برنامه درسی دانشگاه­ها به­صورت مداوم ارزیابی و در صورت لزوم، کمبودها و نقاط ضعف آن رفع و تصحیح شود. بدین منظور، می‌توان از مقایسه برای تشخیص نقاط قوت و ضعف برنامه‌های درسی بهره برد. علاوه بر این، با پیشرفت هر روزه‌ علوم،  نیاز به جایگزینی روش‌های سنتی تدریس با روش‌های نوین‌تر به­منظور یادگیری مؤثرتر دانشجویان احساس می‌شود. بدین منظور، با مقایسه‌ برنامه درسی و روش تدریس رشته مهندسی شیمی در دانشگاه­های ایران و تعدادی از دانشگاه‌های برگزیده‌ آمریکا، پژوهش حاضر برای بهبود آموزش رشته مهندسی شیمی در کشور انجام شد. ابتدا درباره شیوه‌های جدید تدریس رشته‌های مهندسی در این دانشگاه­­ها بحث و بررسی صورت گرفت و سپس، دروس اصلی ارائه شده در دانشگاه­های مورد مطالعه و دروس مختص گرایش‌های رایج موجود در این رشته بررسی شد. در نهایت، نتایج به­دست آمده از این مطالعه برای بهبود کیفیت شیوه و برنامه آموزشی در کشور    به­ویژه در رشته مهندسی شیمی ارائه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Study and comparison of curriculum and methodology of chemical engineering in American and Iranian universities

نویسندگان [English]

  • Jafarsadegh Moghaddas 1
  • Naeimeh Yasrebi 2
  • Abbas Shojaossadati 3
  • Mahsa Taghavi 4
1 Transport Phenomena Research Center, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
2 Chemical engineering faculty, Sahand university of technology
3 Chemical engineering faculty, Tarbiat Modares University
4 Chemical engineering faculty, Sahand university of technology
چکیده [English]

Human technology today can be attributed to the efforts, innovation and creativity of engineers. Engineers will make life easier for humans by discovering new ways and advanced tools. The impact of university curriculum on the skills of engineering graduates and the speed of modern technology requires that the curriculum of universities be continuously evaluated and, if necessary, remedied and corrected for deficiencies and weaknesses. To do this, one can use the comparison to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum. In addition, with the advancement of science every day, the need to replace traditional teaching methods with more modern methods is essential in order to learn more effectively the students. For this purpose, by comparing curriculum and teaching methodology of chemical engineering in Iran and a number of selected American universities, this paper has been presented to improve the education of chemical engineering in the country. Firstly, discussions about the new methods of teaching engineering courses in these universities have been discussed; then, the main courses provided in these universities and the lessons of current trends in this field have been studied. Finally, the results of this study are presented to improve the quality of the educational method and curriculum in the country, especially in the field of chemical engineering.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Curriculum
  • Chemical engineering
  • update
  • top universities
  • United state

 

Bordogna, J. (1997). Making connections: The role of engineers and engineering education. Retrieved from: https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringCulture/MakingConnectionsTheRoleofEngineersandEngineeringEducation.aspx.

Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Tech, V., Froyd, J., Prince, M.,  & Henderson, C. (2011). Faculty use of research based instructional strategies. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia, 448-453.

Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185-207.

Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-146.

Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: The higher education curriculum in the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 37-55.

Chang, V., & del Alamo, J. (2002). Collaborative webLab: Enabling collaboration in an online laboratory. Paper presented at the World Congress on Networked Learning in a Global Environment.

Chizari, M. (Translator) (1996). Planning for effective training: A guide to curriculum development. Wentling TL (Author). Tarbiat Modares University (in Persian).

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking engineering education. The CDIO Approach, 302, 60-62.

Fathi Vajargah, K., & Shafiee, N. (2007). Assessment of the university curriculum’s quality (case study for adults’ teaching curriculum). Periodical of Curriculum Studies, 1(5), 1-26 (in Persian).

Favre, E., Falk, V., Roizard, C., & Schaer, E. (2008). Trends in chemical engineering education: Process, product and sustainable chemical engineering challenges. Education for Chemical Engineers, 3(1), 22-27.

Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121-130.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1999). FAQs. II (a) Active learning vs. covering the syllabus; (b) Dealing with large classes. Chemical Engineering Education, 33(4), 276–277.

Flansburg, L. (1972). Teaching objectives for a liberal arts physics laboratory. American Journal of Physics, 40(11), 1607-1615.

Ganjizade, A., Vahidi, O., & Ashrafizadeh, S. (2017). Biology; A new main element in chemical engineering transition from “Chemical” to “Chemical and Biological” engineering Part 1: Necessity, curriculum's and research areas. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 19(74), 1-22 (in Persian).

Ghorbani F., Rahkar Farshi, M., & Valizadeh, L. (2015). Comparison of Master’s curriculum of pediatric nursing in Iran and United States. Journal of Nursing Education, 4 (3), 41-47 (in Persian).

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102.

Henshaw, R. (1991). Desirable attributes for professional engineers. Paper presented at the Broadening Horizons of Engineering Education, 3rd Annual Conference of Australasian Association for Engineering Education.

Iles, P. (2001). Leadership and leadership development: Time for a new direction? The British Journal of Administrative Management, 27(12), 22 - 23.

Kheradmandinia, S., & Sotudeh Gharebagh, R. (2018). Complementary skill educations for chemical engineers from engineering consultant company's view perspective. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(77), 1-17 (in Persian). 

Kirschner, P., & Meester, M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. Higher Education, 17(1), 81-98.

Kyllonen, P. C. (2012). The importance of higher education and the role of noncognitive attributes in college success. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 49(2), 84-100.

Memarian, H. (2011). Deficiencies of Iran’s engineering education programs. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 13(51), 53-74 (in Persian).

Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education- Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2-16.

Momeni Mahmuee, H. (2011), Pathology of curriculum evaluation in higher education. Iranian Quarterly of Education Strategies, 4(2), 95-100 (in Persian).

Taheri, M., & Rahimi, A. (2004). Basic change in chemical engineering education in Iran. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 6(21), 7-15 (in Persian).

Tejareh, S., & Mottaghipour, M. (2016). Developing green design course for engineering students. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 18(70), 37-54 (in Persian).

Prince, M., Borrego, M., Henderson, C., Cutler, S., & Froyd, J. (2013). Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 47(1), 27-37.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.

Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. Journal of Language and Communication, 146-153.

Selmer, A.;, Kraft, M., Moros, R., & Colton, C. (2007). Weblabs in chemical engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 2(1), 38-45.

Shakir, R. (2009). Soft skills at the Malaysian institutes of higher learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 309-315.

Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Woods, D. R., Felder, R. M., Rugarcia, A., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The future of engineering education III. Developing critical skills. Journal of Chemical Engineering Education, 34(2), 108–117.

Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., Marshall, R. R., Wood, P. E., Crowe, C. M., Hoffman, T. W., & Bouchard, C. K. (1997). Developing problem solving skills: The McMaster problem solving program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75-91.

Wright, M. (2005). Always at odds?: Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 331-353.

Yarmohammadiyan M. H. (2015) Principles of Curriculum planning. Tehran: Yadvarh Ketab (in Persian).

Zohoor, H., & Khalaj, M. (2010). Pillars of engineering ethics. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 12(46), 83-97 (in Persian).