Engineering Faculty Attitudes to General Chemistry Courses in

Research: Science and Education

Engineering Faculty Attitudes to General Chemistry Courses in Engineering Curricula Mehmet Garip* Department of Chemistry, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey; *[email protected] Erzat Erdil Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey Ayhan Bilsel Department of Physics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey

Although general chemistry courses are commonly found in engineering programs, their presence and various assumptions about their value and content within engineering curricula frequently come into question under the scrutiny of engineering faculty. Many professional and accrediting bodies prescribe or require a sound grounding in mathematics and the physical sciences in the education of engineers (1–4), because they consider engineering as “… a profession directed towards the skilled application of a distinctive body of knowledge based on mathematics, science, and technology” (5). Set against this is the heavy emphasis engineers place on engineering sciences, design and skill in their curricula, coupled with time and curriculum constraints that compel faculty to question the value and scope of physical sciences (6, 7). Some even question the practicality of retaining science in the programs and suggest a possible separation between science and engineering (6). However, as long as professional and accrediting bodies value and require science training in engineering education, science courses are set to remain in engineering curricula for the foreseeable future. In any case, much of engineering in the 21st century will continue to be dependent on advances in chemistry and physics, as well as the life sciences. Developments in such fields as mechatronics, nanotechnology, superconductors, genetics, and biotechnology all attest to this. Yet the question of what aspects and how much of the sciences should be included in engineering curricula continues to be debated; it is therefore important to find out engineering faculty’s opinions and expectations of mathematics and physical science courses. To this end, we undertook a survey on the attitudes of engineering faculty to chemistry, physics, and mathematics, with the aim of clarifying the attitudes of engineering faculty to chemistry courses in relation to engineering education or curricula and assessing their expectations. The chemistry part of the survey sought specifically to find answers to the following questions: 1. Should there be a general chemistry core course in all engineering programs? 2. If so, which skills and topics are rated as most relevant? 3. Are there any measurable differences in the attitudes of respondents from different engineering departments? 4. Are there any measurable differences in the attitudes of respondents from different geographical regions?

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

It is our hope that the results presented here will assist chemistry departments in improving their service to engineering programs, as their faculty and administrators work towards providing a relevant and outcome-oriented education for students, to prepare them for an increasingly specialized world. In view of the general recognition and acceptance by professional and accrediting bodies of the importance of knowledge and aptitude in mathematics and physical sciences, as well as of the competencies expected of would-be engineers (e.g., analytical or critical skills, data manipulation, presentation and communication skills, laboratory and instrumentation competency, use of scientific evidence-based methods for problem solving, team work, etc.), our survey focused on these areas. Because students encounter mathematics, physics, and chemistry before progressing to specific engineering courses, a thorough and careful definition of what is required and expected in these subjects for engineering students should be reconsidered in depth. This must, of necessity, be through a partnership of the engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. The teaching and learning of many transferable skills, attitudes, and basic methodology can be initiated in the first year; careful design of curricula in mathematics and physical sciences, incorporating clear learning objectives and outcomes, should better prepare students for their engineering courses in later years. It is therefore important to assess the attitudes of engineering faculty towards mathematics and physical sciences in general and towards the traditionally covered topics in these courses. The Survey To collect the necessary data for this study a comprehensive, electronically administered survey was prepared (8). The chemistry section of the survey (Table 1) consisted of two parts: one relating to general skills and knowledge and the other to specific subject topics. In the first part there were five items, three of which were on general skills and two on general knowledge about matter. The second part contained 21 topical items, usually covered in separate chapters in most general chemistry textbooks. An additional section was provided for participants wishing to make comments. The general skills and knowledge items were formulated as goals, and the participants were to rate the importance of each goal in relation to their specific engineering program. The rest of the survey focused on the relevance of each of

Vol. 83 No. 12 December 2006

•

Journal of Chemical Education

1873


the topics (typical textbook chapters, i.e., refs 9 and 10), to the particular engineering discipline. These reflect the contents of chemistry courses as they are typically found in engineering curricula. Participants in the survey were asked to respond to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = essential, 4 = relevant, 3 = optional, 2 = not relevant, 1 = unnecessary). The survey questionnaire was sent by email to 6985 addresses taken from the Web sites of 101 universities from 27 countries. Over a period of three months 319 replies were received. These replies were processed into a database, containing email address, name, department, institution, country, and item responses for each of the participants. The participants were classified by their department affiliation and country of employment. Because some categories had few participants, these small groups were combined (or added to larger ones) to create larger, statistically meaningful new categories. The final groupings are based on general department affiliation (labeled as DEPT) and on the geographical location (REGION) of the participating faculty members. The groupings for the department category are • CE, comprising civil engineering, civil and environmental engineering, and other related departments • EC, comprising electrical and computer engineering and computer engineering departments Table 1. Survey Chemistry Items Part I: General Skills and Knowledge 1. Problem solving

• EE, comprising electrical and electronics engineering and other related departments • ME, comprising mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, materials science, and other related departments

The groupings for the geographical location category are • AMER, comprising Canada and United States of America • EURO, comprising Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden • NCTR, comprising North Cyprus and Turkey; • UK (United Kingdom) • OTHER, comprising Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, and United Arab Emirates

The United Kingdom has been grouped by itself because the number of respondents is sufficiently large for statistical treatment, and its educational system is fairly distinct from systems in the rest of Europe. In the group NCTR, North Cyprus and Turkey have been put together for three main reasons: first, the universities that responded are all based on the North American model; second, the strong political and cultural ties between the two countries and the resulting similarity of their educational systems justify a combined treatment; and third, the total number of respondents in this category is more than adequate for statistical analysis.

2. Exposure to laboratory and instrumentation 3. Team work in experiments and problem solving 4. Introduction to nature of matter 5. Interactions among different types of materials Part II: Topics 6. Atoms, molecules, and ions 7. Mass relationships in chemical reactions 8. Reactions in aqueous solution; 9. Gases 10. Thermochemistry 11. Quantum theory and the electronic structure of atoms 12. Periodic relationships among the elements

Results and Discussion The distribution of respondents by DEPT and REGION is presented in Table 2. The response percentages by departments to the five general items (1 to 5) and the twenty-one topic items (6 to 26) are plotted in Figure 1. The response distribution by all respondents (All) is also given in Figure 1. Similarly the response percentages by geographical regions are plotted in Figure 2. The meanings of the labels Rel, Opt, and Non are as follows: • Rel corresponds to the combined essential and relevant responses (points 5 and 4 on the Likert scale);

13. Chemical bonding

• Opt corresponds to the optional response (point 3);

14. Intermolecular forces and liquids and solids

• Non corresponds to the combined not relevant and unnecessary responses (points 2 and 1).

15. Physical properties of solutions 16. Chemical kinetics and equilibrium 17. Acid–base equilibria and solubility equilibria

Table 2. Respondent Distribution

18. Chemistry in the atmosphere 19. Entropy, free energy, and equilibrium

Re gion

20. Electrochemistry

De part me nt CE

EC

EE

ME

A ll

A M ER

37

35

18

042

132

21. Metallurgy and the chemistry of metals

EURO

07

13

12

009

041

22. Nonmetallic elements and their compounds

N CTR

22

13

22

026

083 025

23. Transition metals and coordination compounds

UK

05

03

04

013

24. Nuclear chemistry

O T H ER

14

05

06

013

038

25. Organic chemistry

A ll

85

69

62

103

319

26. Synthetic and natural organic polymers

N ot e : T he t e rms are de f ine d in t he t e x t .

1874


•


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Figure 1. Distribution of departmental responses (%) (A) to Part I items (1 to 5) and (B) to Part II items (6 to 26).

Figure 2. Distribution of regional responses (%) (A) to Part I Items (1 to 5) and (B) to Part II Items (6 to 26).

The following observations can be made from the data depicted in Figures 1 and 2: • Although 61.7% of all the respondents consider general skills and knowledge (items 1 to 5) as being relevant, this percentage drops to 50.1% for topics (items 6 to 26). • This difference in the responses to part I and part II items is also observed when respondents are grouped either by department or by geographical region. • Respondents from CE, ME, and EE rated the relevance of general skills and knowledge as 71%, 67%, 56%, and topics as 55%, 57%, 50%, respectively. On the other hand, the response of EC respondents is less than 50% to both parts of the survey. • On a regional basis, the situation is somewhat different. AMER is the only class that has rated both part I and II of the survey as being relevant (72.9% and 63.6%, respectively). NCTR and OTHER rated only part I as relevant at 64% and 54%, respectively, and all remaining relevant responses are below 50%.

In Figure 3, the individual response percentages to each item by all the respondents are plotted as horizontal bars. The part I items are rated as relevant by over 60% of the respondents, except for item 3, which only 46.3% of respondents rated as relevant. This is the item that queries “team work in experiment and problem solving”. The responses to part II items show large variation between topics. For all the www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Figure 3. Distribution of ratings for all survey items.

respondents, only 12 of the topics received a 50% or greater relevant rating, with item 6 receiving the highest rating at 76.5%. For the remaining 9 items, item 24 with a 19.5% rating was considered the least relevant.


•


1875


The departmental and regional percentage of responses rated as relevant are given in Table 3. The cells with a response rate of 50% or more have been shaded. The data in Table 3 show that, on the whole, respondents from CE, ME, and EE departments consider chemistry as being relevant. Nine of the topics rated as relevant are common to these three departments. Of the remaining topics, each department, as expected, rated those topics close to their own field (discipline) as relevant. These topics are as follows: item 11 (quantum theory and electronic structure) rated as relevant by only EE respondents; item 10 (thermochemistry) rated as relevant by only ME respondents; and items 17 (acid–base and solubility equilibria) and 25 (organic chemistry) rated as relevant by only CE respondents. Respondents from EC departments rated only four of the 26 items as relevant, two from part I and two from part II. In fact, the overall response percentage for rating chemistry as relevant is only 37.1% for EC respondents, although it is above 50% for the other three departments. Finally, only items 24 (nuclear chemistry) and 26 (synthetic and natural organic polymers) were rated well below 50% by all groups, with item 24 being considered the least relevant.

Table 3. Departmental and Regional Percentage of Responses Rated as Relevant UK

All

01

Item

75.3 51.5 62.9 72.0

CE

EC

EE

ME

AMER EURO NCTR OTHER 84.7

36.6

69.1

51.3

36.0

66.7

02

75.3 47.1 51.6 73.0

79.4

36.6

61.8

64.8

32.0

63.8

03

52.9 35.3 40.3 52.0

52.6

21.9

55.5

40.5

32.0

46.3

04

76.2 55.9 62.9 71.0

74.6

56.1

72.8

59.4

44.0

67.5

05

74.1 47.1 61.3 69.0

73.3

63.4

59.3

51.3

52.0

64.1

06

80.7 65.2 83.3 76.2

91.4

68.3

70.9

60.5

56.0

76.5

07

61.4 45.5 68.3 78.2

83.5

46.3

53.2

57.9

48.0

64.8

08

62.7 34.8 53.3 60.4

69.3

41.5

46.8

50.0

28.0

54.2

09

58.5 37.9 58.3 70.3

77.2

43.9

47.4

42.1

40.0

57.9

10

48.8 34.8 45.0 64.4

64.6

39.1

39.7

47.4

32.0

50.2

11

39.0 50.0 63.3 45.5

64.6

41.5

35.8

39.5

28.0

48.2

12

63.4 48.5 56.7 51.5

71.6

46.3

50.0

39.5

24.0

55.0

13

70.7 47.0 61.7 63.4

77.1

46.4

55.1

52.7

40.0

61.5

14

65.9 34.8 61.7 63.0

71.7

34.2

55.2

47.4

45.8

57.5

15

67.1 33.3 56.7 63.0

70.1

31.7

58.9

44.7

37.5

56.5

16

53.7 30.3 46.7 64.0

66.2

36.6

35.9

52.6

37.5

50.6

17

62.2 24.2 36.7 47.0

54.3

29.2

46.1

36.9

20.9

44.2

18

47.6 24.2 31.7 40.0

50.4

17.1

28.2

44.7

16.7

37.0

19

56.1 45.5 58.3 75.0

75.6

43.9

55.1

50.0

41.7

60.4 47.1

20

42.7 40.9 60.0 47.0

59.8

41.4

46.1

31.6

16.7

21

56.1 27.3 48.3 69.0

60.6

48.8

43.5

55.3

41.7

52.6

22

63.4 24.2 43.3 58.0

59.8

41.4

48.7

42.1

20.9

49.4

23

50.0 21.2 33.3 51.0

48.8

26.8

44.9

36.8

16.7

40.9

24

20.7 15.2 20.0 21.0

28.4

14.7

16.6

07.9

08.3

19.5

25

52.4 22.7 26.7 36.0

48.0

29.3

28.2

26.3

20.8

35.7

26

33.8 18.5 23.7 41.4

43.2

20.5

22.1

23.7

25.0

31.0

All

58.2 37.1 50.7 58.6

65.5

38.6

48.1

44.4

32.4

52.3

1876


•

The data in Table 3 show that respondents from North America are the only group that decidedly considers chemistry as relevant with responses well over 50% in 22 out of the 26 items and an overall relevant rating at 65.5%. All other regions’ ratings are below 50%, with the UK having the lowest overall percentage at 32.4%. The respondents from the regions NCTR and OTHER did, however, respond favorably to 12 and 11 of the items, respectively. On a regional basis, the topics 23, 24, 25, and 26 were considered the least relevant, all receiving a rating of below 50%. All other topics had one or more region rating them as relevant. The only two items that all regions rated as relevant are 1 and 5. A noteworthy observation is the large difference in the responses of EURO and UK respondents to the general skills items 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent 3. A similar difference is also present in responses to some of the part II items. The respondents’ comments can be broadly classified into the following five nonexclusive categories. For each category one or two representative comment(s) has been provided. 1. Expresses a clear and definite preference or support or acceptance for the inclusion of chemistry or basic science in engineering education. “Today what is important in engineering education is the fundamental science topics to be learned by students, in order to learn new technologies. Any reduction in fundamental sciences is a fatal mistake.” 2. Accepts their necessity but for reasons of time constraint, is willing to do without them. “It is very difficult to cover all the courses we believe form the basis for a fundamental education for engineers. Therefore, one has to be selective depending on the focus of the department and provide opportunities to students to be exposed to other material.” “Due to the trend towards early specialization, ... this broad spectrum of fundamental knowledge is being reduced so that students immediately start on subject specific material.” “The great challenge is to give chemistry for engineers in such a way that it connects to relevant engineering problems considering the limited time frame available.” 3. Believes that these topics are best taught by the practitioners within the engineering discipline on an as-needed basis. “We do not take physics or chemistry lectures from these departments. All such material is taught by engineering staff...”. “We have found it unrealistic to cover even all the items ranked as 4 or 5... and we have embedded some topics within their application areas... ”. 4. Calls for a greater emphasis on the conceptual and application aspect of the basic sciences and their relevance to real life problems as opposed to a purely theoretical and quantitative approach. “The math, physics, and chemistry courses must address the fundamental concepts and not the mechanical bruteforce computation of problems without the full comprehension.”


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education “[Science teaching in engineering] should be closely related to everyday applications.” 5. Believes or expects or assumes that some of these topics have been learned at high school. “A number of the above topics, especially basic mathematics and physics topics, are expected to have been covered by the students prior to university entry.” “In assessing applicants to our program we look for a background in mathematics and physics up to ‘A’ Level standard. We would accept electronics, technology, or similar subject in place of physics. We do not specify chemistry at ‘A’ Level.”

Typically U.K. and European respondents’ comments fall into the 2nd and 3rd categories. Additionally, U.K. respondents (and those from countries having an educational system similar to the United Kingdom) fall into the 5th category. The first category is populated primarily by the North Americans and by respondents’ whose universities are modeled on U.S. universities. Finally, a common and frequent demand made by respondents is the 4th category; a clear call to make science teaching relevant to everyday applications and problems. Conclusions Our survey data confirm that, on the whole, chemistry is perceived as having a legitimate place as a core course in engineering curricula. But, a common theme that frequently appeared in the comments of faculty is “make chemistry relevant to real-life problems and everyday applications”. Besides this, however, there is dramatic variation in the attitudes expressed by respondents on a departmental and regional basis. On a departmental level, although the majority of CE, ME, and EE respondents consider almost all of the general knowledge and skills items, as well as the majority of the topics relevant, respondents from EC do not. Even items referring to general skills that otherwise received high ratings from other departments were considered much less favorably by EC respondents. This attitude by EC respondents was further amplified by some who referred in their comments to the “irrelevance of chemistry in their curriculum”, and “the non-design or non-manufacture aspect of computer engineering curricula”. Regionally, whereas for North American faculty, the relevance of chemistry is clear and unambiguous, for the U.K. and, to a lesser extent, European faculty, chemistry is hardly relevant. Given the prevalence, in the United States, of ABET accreditation criteria (1) and the long tradition of attaching importance to first-year basic science courses, the results for North American faculty are as expected. On the other hand the results for U.K. faculty are somewhat surprising and contrast with attempts by the U.K. Quality Assurance Agency, as well as the Engineering Council and the Engineering Professors’ Council in Great Britain, to set ABET-like criteria for engineering curricula that include physical sciences. One possible explanation may be that traditionally, entry routes to engineering programs in U.K. universities have required possession of GCE advanced and ordinary (now GCSE) level

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

qualifications in mathematics and physical sciences. Typical requirements for advanced levels were physics and mathematics (pure and applied), and chemistry at least at ordinary level. It is possible, and this is reflected in the comments of U.K. faculty, that most U.K. faculty assume or expect their students have already studied science or chemistry in secondary school at a sufficient level (11). The fact that the length of a bachelor’s degree program in most U.K. universities is only three years lends support to this argument. It is however more difficult to find a common explanation for the response of European faculty because of the large differences that currently exist in the educational systems of the individual countries. However comments to the effect that “there is no time or space in the curriculum for chemistry, and that the necessary material is taught by engineering faculty if and when needed”, indicate to a “state of mind” and “a historical tradition” by European faculty. Why this is so, and whether this will change, is worth investigating further. In the case of Turkey and North Cyprus where higher education is either based on or has been moving towards the North American model, attitudes towards the relevance of chemistry appear to be akin to North American and more positive than in Europe. Response data in Tables 3 show that preferences towards topics vary considerably by department and region, whereas this variation is much less for general skills and knowledge items. The variation in departmental responses to individual topics can mostly be explained on the basis of the relevance of the topic to the specific engineering discipline concerned. This is also reflected in the comments of the respondents. It is striking that only one topic, atoms, molecules, and ions, was rated as relevant by all departments and regions; whereas none of the departments or regions rated nuclear chemistry, and synthetic and natural organic polymers as relevant. With regard to general skills and knowledge items, as expected, the overall response is positive, with the exceptions of the response to “team work in experiments and problem solving” by all categories and to “problem solving” and “exposure to laboratory and instrumentation” by European and U.K. respondents. In fact, only one-in-five of the European, onein-three of the U.K., and barely half of the remaining respondents rated the “team-work” item as relevant. Considering the strong emphasis that engineers place on team work, this poor rating can only be interpreted to mean either that the engineering faculty do not think that team-work skills can be developed in a chemistry course, or that the team-work skills in chemistry are somehow different in kind from those valued by engineers. That engineers consider team-work skills as relevant is attested to by their positive response to the same question under the physics section of the survey (12). These results indicate that chemistry faculty need to rethink the design and the objectives of general chemistry courses offered to engineers. They must make chemistry more conceptual and relevant to real-life problems. General chemistry textbooks as well as the courses frequently emphasize the quantitative aspects of the topics and only superficially discuss the conceptual aspects of subject. Secondly, in chemistry labs, students are discouraged from collaborative work. Each student is expected to do the experiment, obtain data, and report observations, results, and conclusions individually. The onus is on the student to learn, judge, evaluate, and


•


1877


deliver individually. Collaboration is considered a disadvantage, diminishing, or harming the learning experience of the student. Even when students are made to conduct experiments in groups of two or three owing to large student numbers or lack of available bench space or equipment, each student is still required by the faculty to obtain his own data and write his own report. Students are even warned that should two students reports appear to be similar, they may be penalized for copying from each other. What is called collaboration by engineers is considered copying or cheating by chemists! It is probably this experience that engineers had in their student days that prevents them from expecting teamwork skills to be gained in a chemistry class. Also, general chemistry courses concentrate on topics in such a way that their relevance and application are not immediately clear to engineers. An engineer does not usually require a deep theoretical and quantitative understanding of a chemical problem, nor need to undertake a detailed and quantitative analysis of a chemical problem within an engineering problem. In any case, the training the engineer will receive in a general chemistry course can never be sufficient to enable him or her to undertake such an analysis. What the engineer needs, however, is the ability to recognize and appreciate the problem as belonging to the realm of chemistry and to call in the relevant specialist to help solve the problem. The engineer needs a sufficient conceptual and qualitative understanding so as to be able to communicate with the chemist, who will help solve the problem. For example, teaching engineers the intricacies of acid– base theories (Arrhenius, Brønsted–Lowry, and Lewis theory) and training them to undertake calculations of acid dissociation constants; prepare pH plots; calculate the pH dependent equilibrium concentrations of the different species for a polyprotic acid; or work out the pH and buffering capacity of a buffer solution would not in itself be either useful or appear relevant to the poor unfortunate recipient immediately. The engineer may or may not need to undertake any of these during an entire professional lifetime. However should it be necessary, all the engineer needs is the ability to recognize the fact that he or she must call upon a chemist! Finally, the quantum mechanical atom is currently the best model of the atom. Engineers are rapidly moving down to the microscopic level to create superstructures and superprocesses. Nanotechnology, genetic engineering, bioengineering, advanced materials, superfast electronics, immense electronic data storage capacities are all dependent on the properties of about 100 simple and ubiquitous atoms. We would do well to help engineers realize this, if they have not done so yet. But we must help them see this not in the way we want, but in the way that is necessary and appropriate for them. We need demonstrate to engineering faculty that valid and desirable skills can be developed and useful knowledge gained by engineering students in a general chemistry course designed with their collaboration. Such examples of collaboratively designed courses are already coming into

1878


•

existence (13). Otherwise, the danger of chemistry being squeezed out of engineering curricula may become a reality. Literature Cited 1. Engineering Accreditation Commission of U.S. Accreditation Board for Engineers and Technologists (ABET). ABET 2004– 2005 Criteria For Accrediting Engineering Programs http:// www.abet.org/Linked Documents-UPDATE/Criteria and PP/ E001 05-06 EAC Criteria 9-15-05.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 2. United Kingdom Engineering Council. The Educational Base for Chartered Engineers. SARTOR 3rd Edition, Part 2. Document Ref: 4.1.1, Date of Issue: 11 September 1997 Issue No: 1. http://www.uk-spec.org.uk/sartor/Sartorpdfs/Section411.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 3. Engineering Professors Council, United Kingdom. The EPC Graduate Output Standards. EPC Occasional Paper No. 10, December 2000. http://www.epc.ac.uk/uploads/ occasional_papers/op10.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 4. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Subject Benchmark Statements: Engineering 2006. ISBN 1 84482 526 4. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/Engineering06.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 5. United Kingdom Engineering Council. The Educational Base for Chartered Engineers. SARTOR, 3rd ed.; Part 2, Document Ref: 2.1.1, Date of Issue 23 June 1998, Issue No. 2. http://www.ukspec.org.uk/sartor/Sartorpdfs/Section211.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 6. Salustri, F. A. Is it Time to Separate Applied Science and Engineering? http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/cden04.pdf (accessed Sep 2006). 7. Prisedsky, V. Will Chemistry Survive in Engineering Education? http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE1999/Proceedings/papers/172/ 172.htm (accessed Sep 2006). 8. Questionnaire. http://ltac.emu.edu.tr/B_questionaireCMP1ext.doc (accessed Sep 2006). 9. Masterton, W. L.; Hurley, C. N. Chemistry: Principles and Reactions, 3rd ed.; Saunders College Publishing: Philadelphia, PA, 1989. 10. Brown, T. L.; LeMay, H. E., Jr.; Bursten, B. E. Chemistry: The Central Science, 8th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000. 11. Engineering Professors Council. Response by the Engineering Professors’ Council to the Key Issues Consultation Paper: Review of the Supply of Scientists and Engineers. http:// www.epc.ac.uk/uploads/consultation/Review of Supply of Scientists and Engineers - Report.doc (accessed Sep 2006). 12. Erdil, E.; Garip, M.; Bilsel, A.; Bulancak, A. Int. J. Eng. Ed. in press. 13. VanAntwerp, J. J.; VanAntwerp, J. G.; Vander, Griend D. A.; Wentzheimer, W. W. Chemistry and Materials Science for All Engineering Disciplines: A Novel Interdisciplinary Team-Teaching Approach. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, UT, 2004.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Engineering Faculty Attitudes to General Chemistry Courses in

Recommend Documents