CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH

INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY IN THE

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEGREE
PROGRAMME

A. Abbas1,
and J. A. Romagnoli2

1
Division of Engineering Science and Technology, University of New South Wales Asia, Singapore.
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University, USA.

Abstract: Chemical engineering education is made more relevant and up-to-date through inte-
gration of the units of study. Curriculum integration has received considerable attention in recent
years and many educators promote the idea because of its many advantages. This study looks
at the integration of the units of study in the chemical engineering curriculum. The concept of
integration is defined and different integration models are discussed. Vertical and horizontal inte-
gration are revisited and examples of these types of integration are presented in the context of
chemical engineering units of study. A framework for implementing the integration is presented.
The current integration and related issues are examined through a questionnaire targeted at final
year chemical engineering students. An integrated chemical engineering curriculum will give
positive results including elimination of poorly coordinated units of study, promotion of deeper
learning and enhancement of generic attributes.
Keywords: chemical engineering; curriculum; integration; deep learning; generic attributes.

INTRODUCTION streams of elective study and specializations

Chemical engineering (CE) is associated with
the design, construction, operation and man-
agement of commercial products and industrial
processes. These products and processes


Correspondence to: have chemical, physical, biological or environ-
Professor A. Abbas, mental attributes. The profession of CE is
Division of Engineering broad and chemical engineers may be found
Science and Technology,
UNSW Asia, Singapore.
across a large sector of the professional com-
E-mail: aabbas@ munity. Chemical engineers may work in a
unswasia.edu.sg variety of industries including chemical,
petroleum, minerals, paper, cement, plastics,
DOI: 10.1205/ece06030
pharmaceuticals, food, semiconductor just to
1749 –7728/07/ name a few as well as other sectors such as
$30.00 þ 0.00 research, financial and consulting. The
degree program typically is focused on a
Education for Chemical number of main tracks of CE education.
Engineers
These include chemical, bioprocess, environ-
Trans IChemE, Part D, mental and energy, process systems and
Volume 2, 2007 chemical (management) engineering. Stu-
dents opt to undertake their learning in one
# 2007 Institution
of these streams. The degree is focused on
of Chemical Engineers
developing students who are industry oriented
as well as competent in many aspects of
personal development.
Like many other degree programs, the
curriculum structure of the CE degree con-
sists of fundamental and core units of study
in the preliminary years followed by diverging
in the final years. This represents a degree
programme that aims at producing graduates
with the right engineering know-how and who
are also competent to work in a problem-
based team environment. Being a broad pro-
fession, it is necessary for the CE degree to
adapt to changes in the profession and thus
produce graduate students who are continu-
ally in touch with the real world. Recent
changes in the landscape of the CE
profession have further underpinned the
necessity for change in the engineering edu-
cational landscape, thus requiring radical
changes in the curriculum. Advances in bio-
technology, biomolecular and nanotechnology
fields need to be incorporated in the CE
degree syllabus since the contribution of
chemical engineers to these disciplines and
other advancing areas are quite evident.
The curriculum must keep course material
up-to-date at all times reflecting current prac-
tice. This raises the question of continuous
adaptability of the curriculum. One can
soundly conclude that the curriculum is a
dynamic entity and change, it must, to
retain its credibility in professional instruction
and training. To develop CE graduates
who would be ready to face real life multi-
and inter-disciplinary technical as well as

46 Vol 2 46 –55
 CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY
professional problems, academia is pressured to address the
instruction issue at a number of levels and curriculum is
certainly one of them.
Once the individual units/modules of the degree pro-
gramme list are identified (which is another facet of curricu-
lum development and is not the focus of this paper) then
the implementation of the curriculum becomes the key
hurdle. The curriculum from the student’s point of view may
be described as being a programme that engages students
in the productive application of knowledge and skills learned
in academic subjects (De Leeuw, 1992). At the point the
student enters the degree, he/she receives a programme
of subjects that he/she, we may fairly say, views as individual
units on a list which he/she must pass and thus tick off the
entire list to achieve the short term goal of graduating.
Moving the student to perceive the learning differently and
to appreciate and adopt a deep learning approach is the
daunting challenge for the academic. When examining the
curriculum from the teacher’s point of view, it is also fair to
assume that he/she is, mainly because of the busy nature
of his/her work, forced to compromise certain facets of the
curriculum. The teacher’s facilitation and teaching efforts
may depart from achieving sound learning outcomes,
because perhaps like the student, many an academic
perceive the curriculum as a set of notes, slides and tutorials
that they need to deliver in a particular course during a
particular semester. This compartmental perception needs
to be further scrutinized firstly for its existence and predomi-
nance amongst academics. Then if the latter case is valid, we
need to carefully investigate and learn about its influence on
teaching and learning outcomes.
Nevertheless, we press on, and suggest simply that the
curriculum consists of the course content and the mode(s)
of delivery of this content. The National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM) define curriculum as (Woodbury,
1998)
‘. . . an operational plan for instruction that details what
students need to know, how students are to achieve the
identified curricular goals, what teachers are to do to
help students develop their knowledge, and the context
in which learning and teaching occur.’
The curriculum content is vital to producing competent gradu-
ates who carry with them a set of skills derived from experien-
cing the content. The delivery of the content is also crucial, as it
may impact positively or negatively on the learning experience
of the student. Examining the contents part of the curriculum is
a large area of research and is a curriculum design issue that is
beyond the scope of this paper. On the other hand it is the deliv-
ery of the contents that is the focus of this paper (i.e., ‘what tea-
chers are to do to help students develop their knowledge’) and
particularly how the integration of the units of study influences
the way CE students perceive their degree and consequently
how their performance shapes up.
DEFINING CURRICULUM INTEGRATION
The notion of curriculum integration is not a new one and it
has been a central idea in the delivery of educational instruc-
tion and has also presented itself as a hotly debated issue.
This debate argues whether or not an integrated curriculum
is any better than a separate-subject curriculum (Vars,
1991; Beane, 1995; Venville et al., 1998; Lederman and
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
47
Niess, 1998; Czerniak et al., 1999). The idea of curriculum
integration has been traced back as far as the 1800s in the
writing of Herbert Spencer (Vars, 1991). There is currently
increasing interest in integration in academia as evidenced
by educational literature. A special issue was dedicated to
curriculum integration in 1991 in the Journal of Educational
Leadership and also a special issue on the same topic was
produced in 1998 in the Journal of School Science and
Mathematics (JSSM). Different researchers use different
words to describe integration. Interdisciplinary, multidisciplin-
ary, thematic and fused are some of these terms. Many
researchers use these terms to mean integration and they
use them synonymously. Beane (1995) suggests that
‘Curriculum integration is not simply an organizational
device requiring cosmetic changes or realignments in
lesson plans across various subject areas. Rather, it is a
way about thinking what schools are for, about the sources
of curriculum, and about the uses of knowledge. Curricu-
lum integration begins with the idea that the sources of
curriculum ought to be problems, issues, and concerns
posed by life itself.’
Beane is a self-proclaimed advocate of curriculum integration
and in his article titled ‘Curriculum integration and the disci-
plines of knowledge’, he puts forward arguments defending
curriculum integration as being the way for achieving high-
status knowledge and argues that integration is important
because it rearranges subject-area sequences that define
the flow of knowledge and thus it is student centred. Beane
does not favour separate-subject teaching and suggests
that this offers little more than a disconnected and incoherent
assortment of facts and skills. Beane suggests in his last
statement in the above quote that real life problems should
be sources for curricula. This point is echoed by another
researcher (Huckaba, 1983), who stresses the need to
align the engineering education with real problems. Other
educational researchers have discussed the issue. In the
editorial of JSSM, the editors Lederman and Niess (1998)
attempt to resolve a definition to the term ‘curriculum inte-
gration’ by stating that
‘. . . future attempts to elaborate and clarify the meaning
of an ‘integrated’ curriculum should abandon attempts to
dissolve disciplines and create incongruous hybrids.’
Here the editors are explaining that it is not a requirement of
integration that units of study become blended in a manner
that units of study should lose identity. The integrated curricu-
lum from this perspective is one that has discrete units of
study that are linked with each other via common topics.
Other workers have warned about the drawbacks of mis-
understanding the meaning of integration. Pang and Good
(2000) state
‘. . . real integration requires full understanding of inte-
gration ideals. In order to help teachers reconceptualize
the vision of integration, the argument for integration
should include effects of integration on students’ concep-
tual development.’
For the purposes of this paper, integration is defined as the
process that requires units of study to work together in a
fashion that enables the student to see the application of the
theory and/or practice in one unit of study to the theory or
practice in another unit of study allowing for construction of
knowledge and skills which are applicable in real life situations.
48 ABBAS and ROMAGNOLI
INTEGRATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The integration (based on authors’ anecdotal experiences)
in the current curriculum between units of study is typically
based on ad hoc arrangements. The curriculum exists as
independent subjects mapped out to lecturers who deliver
the material independently. There exists little effort in addres-
sing the curriculum at the level of subjects’ topics. Each
lecturer is typically allocated independently his/her semester
workload. The material delivered by the lecturer in a unit of
study is developed to a large degree with minimal consul-
tation with other lecturers. To pinpoint this problem we
share the case where students learn the numerical
techniques in a mathematics course (which was taught by
another department) and then this is repeated in the
Chemical Engineering Computations course. Such lack of
integration is hypothesised by us to be prevalent in the
current programme.
Having earlier discussed some educationalists’ ideas on
curriculum integration and recently our view of the current
state of integration in the programme, it would be of value
to learn about students’ perceptions on this to perhaps
reveal whether or not students share the same concerns
mentioned by educationalist theorists and by us. We also
wish to probe the current level of integration in the pro-
gramme from the students’ perspective. Following this and
due to the lack of information and feedback relating to the
status of integration in the CE curriculum, a short question-
naire (questions listed in Appendix A) was prepared and
administered to final year students from the 2001 class.
Twenty students responded and the following results
(Figure 1) are based on these responses.
The survey was prepared in accordance with guidelines pre-
sented in literature (Oppenheim, 1992; Rea and Parker, 1997;
Figure 1. Fourth year students’ questionnaire results.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
Frary, 1996; Bell, 1999) on the design, use and administration
of questionnaires. Many facets of the questionnaire were con-
sidered including its clarity, validity and reliability, the type of
questions to be included and their order of appearance in
the questionnaire. The questionnaire has some questions
that require students to circle a preferred answer while at the
same time provides the student the opportunity to inform
about their opinion in other questions of an open-ended
nature. The order of the questions was carefully planned
with a sequence acting as a filter of the information to be gath-
ered. Finally, any bias in the survey was tracked and removed
within the questions’ context. This small questionnaire may be
regarded as a sample survey that provides some insight into
the current integration as perceived by the students through
their four years of undergraduate experience.
The questionnaire showed some consistency in its results. In
answering the first question, most students found themselves
‘often’ learning something in a subject that can be applied in
another subject. This reaffirms that there are common grounds
existing between subjects and that students are readily seeing
these overlaps. When asked to give examples of these com-
monalities, many students indicated that the later years
exhibited more commonalities between their units of study. A
number of students wrote down units of study they believed
had links to other subjects. From the students’ perspective
this data about the areas of commonality is vital and shows
how the student envisages links between the various units of
study. Important units to be mentioned are process modelling,
thermodynamics and final year design 1 and 2.
When questioned about the existence of links between
units of study, 14 students indicated they saw ‘some’ links
while six indicated they saw ‘many’ links. This is a positive
indicator about the current state of the Department’s linking
between the various units of study. Question 2(b) queried
 CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY 49

students about whether they came across subjects that had no Summary of Questionnaire Results
links to other subjects. The majority (11 students) indicated
This survey asks students about the perceived presence or
they ‘sometimes’ did come across units of study that they
absence of links—however it does not probe the quality or
saw were not linked to other subjects. From the responses,
nature of these links. This is not the focus of this work and
the units of study that fell in this category according to the
is quite a different thing. However it might be a very interest-
students were particle mechanics, electrical technology, intro-
ing area to investigate further as it would help in any con-
ductory mechanics, mechanics of solids, chemical process
sideration of the current integration in the degree—for
case studies, fundamentals of environmental engineering
example in relation to the three curriculum models identified
and materials and corrosion. There was a large consensus
in Figure 2. However, the survey data provide a very helpful
on the lack of links between the mathematics subjects and
preliminary indication of students’ perceptions of integration.
the rest of the CE units of study.
The questionnaire results indicate that there is already
The response to question 3 and question 4 indicated that
some level of integration between the units of study of the
students value the linking between the units of study and
CE curriculum. Students generally found that the links
see the timing of topics as important in the delivery of the cur-
between units is more prevailing in the final years, particularly
riculum. The responses to the open-ended questions varied
in the final year course of design, which integrates a large
and provided some insight about the current status of the
number of concepts learnt in earlier years. Deficiencies
links between specific units of study and also what links
were identified with a number of units of study, which may
can be made in the future. The later years were praised for
be viewed as discretely taught units where the students indi-
having links present among their units of study. A number
cated they saw no relevance in or no integration with other
of students indicated that the links between the computing
units. What was strikingly apparent in this questionnaire is
subjects exist. Emphasis was laid on the final year subject
the lack of integration between the mathematical courses
of design as it brought together many concepts learnt in the
and the CE ones. In the questionnaire, students showed frus-
earlier years of study.
tration with this lack of integration as a number of them indi-
The future recommendations made by the students pro-
cated they could not see the relevance of learning such
vided a healthy feedback with one student suggesting the
courses. They felt they were a waste of time and should at
timing of topics be examined. A number of students called
least be made more engineering relevant.
for links to be made between science subjects, mathematics,
The questionnaire demonstrates empirically that the same
chemistry and the main CE subjects. Other responses recog-
concerns mentioned by educationalists are revealed by CE
nised the importance of process control in design and
students. It also corroborates, to an extent, our hypothesis
suggested that these two units become integrated. Another
that the current integration in the department lacks systema-
response stated that linking is very important and perhaps
tic organisation. Furthermore it identified that linking of
at the end of each year there ought to be an assignment
subjects is regarded by students as an important element
relating all subjects together. The following quotes were
in the curriculum and this suggests that a more articulate
selected from the responses to the final question:
integration is needed.
‘Greater linking would be beneficial as it would show how
knowledge from one course is applied in another and MODELS OF CURRICULUM INTEGRATION
thus the real world . . . Linking would also allow continued
use of knowledge, instead of storing and not using again.’ The theoretical framework of many integrated models has
been established and there are various models of integration
Other responses to the final question suggested the removal presented in the literature. There are models that describe
of a number of units of study, as students could not see their integration within single disciplines such as the fragmented,
relevance, particularly some mathematics subjects. Others connected and nested models. Terms such as sequenced,
called for more applicable (i.e., integrated) mathematics shared, webbed, integrated and threaded are used to
courses. Another quote relating the integration to the describe models that integrate across disciplines. Other
approach to learning a student may take stated that ‘if sub- models such as the immersed and the networked models
jects are continually linked throughout the course, students are models that operate within learners and across networks
would perhaps remember what they have learnt’. While of learners, respectively. For a detailed description of each of
another response suggested that the linking of subjects will these models, the reader is referred to Fogarty (1991). The
reduce the workload of students. nested, webbed and integrated models (Figure 2) are

Figure 2. Different models of curriculum integration.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55

50 ABBAS and ROMAGNOLI
described here to give some insight about the variations
between the different models.
First, the nested model takes advantage of natural combi-
nations existing between topics within a single unit of study.
An example might be a lesson teaching a certain software
package that targets the learning of the package itself in
the first dimension, then in another dimension and once stu-
dents learn the workings of the software, the teacher may
target the subject matter by presenting the concepts of the
scientific/engineering problem to be solved by the software,
while a further learning dimension in this model targets the
thinking skills of the student by presenting exploratory and
practical problems to be solved using the software. This
model is useful and integrates knowledge, concepts and
skills within a single unit of study.
Second, the webbed model uses a fertile theme to integrate
a number of concepts in various units of study. Academics
select a theme and use it as an overlay to their different units
of study. The environment, for example, leads to the ability in
drawing upon relevant literature resources, creating math-
ematical models that describe environmental phenomena,
use various environmental software, design chemical plants
that are environmentally efficient, appreciate social and politi-
cal impacts, understand economics of environmental
considerations. So it can be seen that the theme ‘The Environ-
ment’ integrates the learning in various units of study.
Third, the integrated model is where various topics across
units of study are rearranged around overlapping concepts
and emergent patterns and designs. Academics sift through
related ideas out of subject matter content and make
matches among them as commonalities emerge. For
example, a complete design of a chemical reactor leads to
students learning about reaction kinetics, numerical solution
methods for solving kinetic equations, design of reaction
vessels, materials science, process control synthesis and
design, optimisation theory, familiarisation with relevant soft-
ware, report writing and presentation skills, all in different
but integrated units of study. Fogarty (1991) states that the
various integrating models do not represent set prescriptions
for various curricula but in fact a department can easily work
with a number of models over time to develop an integrated
curriculum within and across units of study.
CONSTRUCTIVE INTEGRATION AND
MECHANISMS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Irrespective of the integration model a curriculum adopts,
the implementation must be based on a coherent and collec-
tive approach. The integration goals need to be defined early
on and should strongly relate to the overall learning outcomes
as well as to learning outcomes at the semester level. Inte-
gration goals need to be incorporated within the teaching
and learning model.
To begin this discussion the following quote from the book
‘Teaching for quality learning at university’ by Biggs (1999) is
presented:
‘Learning is thus a way of interacting with the world. As we
learn, our conceptions of phenomena change, and we see
the world differently. The acquisition of information in itself
does not bring about such change, but the way we struc-
ture that information and think with it does. Thus, education
is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of
information.’
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
In his book, Biggs attempts to answer the question of how we
learn. This is seen as an important preliminary question in
education research because once our learning approaches
are understood, we may move on to design solutions that
address the problems in teaching and learning. The 3P
model of teaching and learning (Figure 3) developed by
Biggs highlights the key factors and their interrelations in
the process of learning. These include Student Factors
such as prior knowledge and motivation, teaching context
such as what to be taught and how it will be assessed, teach-
ing and learning activities (TLAs) such as tutorials and finally
learning outcomes such as skills gained.
The 3P model suggests that learning is a product of var-
ious factors that are related to each other in a complete
system. It is essential that the lecturer/course coordinator/
tutor/facilitator is aware of these factors. This need to be
acquainted with these factors arises from the progression
towards the alignment of TLAs with assessment and learning
outcomes in such a manner that facilitates the construction of
knowledge and thus moves towards deep approaches in
learning. This systemic approach that brings together the
constructivism theory of learning and the teaching design
has been coined as ‘constructive alignment’. In this way,
alignment revolves around the subject’s learning outcomes.
It can be argued that assessments and teaching techniques
often encourage surface learning. According to Biggs
(1999) the main reason behind this is the lack of alignment
between the methods of teaching and assessment and the
subject’s aims. Ramsden (1992) states that the assessment
of students is, above all, about understanding the processes
and outcomes of student learning and understanding the stu-
dents who have done the learning. From this it is seen that if
we place more emphasis on the planning of the assessment
methods, or if we better align the assessment methods with
the learning aims and outcomes, then we will certainly
move towards deeper engagement and competent knowl-
edge construction, because it is then that we are assessing
the learning within a highly consistent curriculum. Units of
study need to attempt to develop bonds between TLAs,
assessment tasks and curriculum objectives. Higher levels
of engagement with the subject’s content are aimed at. The
students are prompted with verbs such as ‘appreciate’ and
‘develop’ illustrating the kind of expectations from the course.
So how does curriculum integration fit in constructive align-
ment and thus in the teaching and learning? In the teaching
context component of the 3P model, would perhaps suffice
as a quick answer to this question. This is because this
component deals with what is to be taught and how it will
be taught. Alignment discussed here refers to the alignment
Figure 3. The 3P model of teaching and learning (Biggs, 1999).
 CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY
of TLAs and assessment to learning outcomes. We can
readily argue that design of aligned teaching material is
itself an integration development process, and so we need
to make considerations for coherent and consistent inte-
gration across the degree program. Students should observe
this integration easily as they are put into situations and con-
texts that show them the links between the contents of differ-
ent units of study. The alignment, clearly, will reinforce the
integration and vice versa.
The next question posed is what mechanism can be used
to implement such integration? Let’s take the example of the
CE Department at Pennsylvania State University, USA, which
has dealt with the integration of units of study by utilising a
key unit, namely Thermodynamics, as the integrating factor.
This integration recognizes the commonality between the
first law of thermodynamics and material balance in the first
level. The Department then taught the second law and its
application concurrently with study of fluid mechanics and
heat transfer. This allowed the application of the laws to be
seen immediately. Other integrations were recognised and
implemented between other units of study. Feedback has
found that such integrations have improved the student
acceptance of concepts (Daubert, 1983).
Another mechanism is proposed by Huckaba (1983) who
called for an urgent curriculum reform intended at composing
a genuinely interdisciplinary approach to engineering
education with the aim at creating professionalism in the
students through the use of real social engineering problems.
This reform would integrate humanities courses with engin-
eering courses in a ‘horizontal’ manner. For instance, the
design courses are integrated with humanities/social science
courses to convey to the student that when a ‘professional’
chemical engineer is considering the design of a chemical
plant, he or she needs to understand and address the
design from the technical, social, environmental and econ-
omic perspectives. This technico-socio-enviro-economic
integration in real life problems is what Huckaba (1983) and
Beane (1995) are suggesting should be reflected upon
in the undergraduate experience in the form of integrated
curriculum.
By examining the implementation issue carefully, we can
see that integration of the CE units of study can be made
in two directions, horizontal and vertical. In horizontal inte-
gration, the units of study in a semester are integrated with
each other such that the timing of topics during a semester
and their delivery are coordinated and the content is also inte-
grated. While in the case of vertical integration which occurs
across semesters timing of topics is not essential. The follow-
ing two examples illustrate the way horizontal and vertical
integration may be devised.
Example 1: Horizontal Integration
Thermodynamics, Reaction Engineering, Process Model-
ling are three courses currently taught in third year and
may be delivered in Semester 1 of that year. They have a
number of commonalities and exhibit areas where the inte-
gration between these units of study is appropriate. For
instance, a project that requires students to design a reaction
system can be used to integrate the three units coherently.
The student is required to understand the concepts of reac-
tions and reaction kinetics, catalysis and chemical reactor
design, as well as the thermodynamic aspects of reactivity
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
51
such as equilibrium and Gibb’s free energy. The analysis of
the reaction system is achievable with a mathematical pro-
cess model that describes mass and energy conservation
as well as conversion. After completing such a project that
is integrated across the units of study, the student has contin-
ual enthusiasm as he or she begins to see the application of
knowledge and skills of one unit in another. Furthermore, the
student’s workload is lessened.
Example 2: Vertical Integration
In developing this semester integration model, the seme-
ster teaching team keeps in mind the continuation of knowl-
edge and the advancement of skill and attributes from one
semester or year to the next. A number of examples of verti-
cal integration may be presented and to illustrate this kind of
integration the following stream of units is used. In first year,
students are taught Computers for Chemical Engineers, with
emphasis on data manipulation, numerical calculations and
data visualization. This basic computations course is inte-
grated with a second year computers course, CE compu-
tations, the latter being a progression of the former. CE
computations focuses on solving equations, principles of
optimisation, curve-fitting and interpolation. A third year unit
of study, namely Flowsheeting and Optimisation is integrated
vertically with the previous two. This unit is also a computer-
based course with knowledge of concepts and software skills
required. Finally this continuum of knowledge becomes a
big asset to the student in fourth year where it is integrated
with the final year Design course. This is a simple example
and many Departments already have this stream of courses
allocated vertically across semesters with varying levels of
integration. Other streams of courses can in the same
manner be defined.
Mechanisms for Implementation
There have been quite a large number of theoretical propo-
sals on curriculum integration but very few (Grigg et al., 1996)
deal with the methods to be adopted in the implementation of
the integrated curriculum. This is because the implemen-
tation represents quite a challenge. It is also difficult to
persuade academics to change the way they have been
teaching their courses adding the personal dimension to
the problem. On one hand, academics realise that curriculum
integration may involve more work than just rearranging
lesson plans, and on the other hand, there is always a fear
that the academic’s unit may lose identity and thus dissolve
and be phased out. Despite these human factors, the inte-
gration of units of study in the CE curriculum is vital and
the following represents a skeleton of an execution plan for
the implementation. The time frame is longer than one year
and a refined integrated applied model may not come to
place before 5 years. To develop an integrated curriculum,
a number of mechanisms need to be defined. This includes
the use of real life multi-disciplinary process engineering situ-
ations to deliver the objectives of the CE degree program. In
light of our discussion on constructive integration we see it fit
to create a systematic framework to act as basis for the CE
curriculum and its execution. This framework in its abstract
format is presented in Figure 4. Here we use the integrated
model presented in the section on models of curriculum
integration to organise topics within a semester. This is
52 ABBAS and ROMAGNOLI
Figure 4. A framework for the integrated CE curriculum.
ideal because it relates to the multi-disciplinary nature of the CE
curriculum. Topics within units of study stem from chemistry,
physics, mathematics, computation etc. and thus the CE
curriculum tends to exhibit overlapping across subjects
making the Integrated model suitable for linking these. Further-
more, the framework uses an integrated project-based approach
to realise the teaching and learning goals and objectives.
Within a semester, the modes of delivery of course content
are varied and may consist of lectures, tutorials, assignments
and practical and computer laboratory work. Specific pro-
blems in the form of case studies, major laboratory work and
design and research projects are defined within each seme-
ster. These problems will be designed to act as the main inte-
grating factor between units of study. As such they will be set
up by course coordinators who collaborate to define these pro-
blems to be as realistic as possible. The teaching team would
rely on driving forces such as those coming from society, the
environment, research, industry and politics to shape the pro-
blems. Where possible, current real cases of process engin-
eering coming directly from real life industrial projects would
be an advantage. This would ensure the curriculum remains
robust in staying in touch with new and emerging techno-
sociological problems. The problems are presented (a) to
the students in such a way that the students are placed in a
realistic situation and they must make decisions as to which
CE principles must be applied (b). Before we move on to
discuss the projects, we should keep in mind that 100%
integration should not be a target, since this may not represent
a perfect model for curriculum design. Students see the
need for a holistic curriculum that gives them freedom and
opportunities to take non-linked or weakly linked subjects for
the purpose of all-round development.
Projects
The designed projects may be varied across semesters or
they may be extended for continuation across semesters (c).
The advantage of the former mode is that the students feel for
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
the variety of problems available in real life but the disadvan-
tage is that vertically integrating course material will be diffi-
cult to implement. The opposite is true in the latter case,
that is vertical integration is easier to define but the project
is restricted to specific problems that extend across seme-
sters. The main objective of this project is to enhance the
undergraduate CE learning experience by developing lin-
kages between the project and individual courses in the cur-
riculum. To show how integration using projects is executed,
example projects are presented in Appendices B and C as
case studies for each of the third year CE semesters. Similar
projects can be formulated for other semesters.
The use of projects to integrate concepts in the different
units of study is an attractive approach to integration.
Deeper learning is anticipated in these learning situations.
This is because of the connection through the project material
to real-life situations so that students learn and appreciate the
application of different units’ concepts in the solution of a real
problem. The project may act as the curriculum moderniz-
ation factor where, in the context of Figure 4, the system
chosen in project of semester i can vary to cater for advances
in new technologies. The reaction used may be a chemical or
a biological one. Project of semester i þ k can offer a contem-
porary separation technology to examine and study.
To be successful in integrating and linking topics across
units of study, academics need to collaborate together and
must focus on making logical, natural and appropriate links.
Academics should address the goals of each unit of study
in the first instant before addressing other skills and attributes
that are to be gained from the integration. Generic attributes
are an important consideration when designing integrated
units of study. These attributes like research skills, working
in a team, problem solving and other attributes may be
gained in a separate-subject curriculum, but it is argued
that the integrated curriculum not only aids in the attainment
of generic attributes but also is an environment where
the enhancements of these attributes are made. Weekly
meetings are held between academics and student
 CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY
representatives to discuss the weekly progress and to identify
shortfalls. There would also be departmental meetings
focused on the curriculum on a monthly basis. Feedback is
collected on a continuous basis. This is in the form of care-
fully planned student questionnaires along with irregular
externally audited evaluations. Finally, there would be a con-
tinual reminder to the students of the links between the
integrated units of study in an explicit manner. Once the inte-
grated curriculum is in action it becomes time for students
and teachers to work on review and refinement and where
possible work together to create new curriculum content
that caters for the student’s individuality and learning pace.
This is termed by Vars (1991) as ‘unstructured core’ and
he suggests it is the ultimate in student-centred integrative
curriculum. Here students may be required to develop their
own learning contracts.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS OF
CURRICULUM INTEGRATION
Educational theorists have expressed concerns about
curriculum integration and have identified various rationales
for it. Wolf and Brandt (1998) explain that the brain develops
in an integrated fashion over time while Crosthwaite et al.
(2001) suggest that integration eliminates poorly coordinated
units of study and manages the semester’s workload.
Because integration provides an opportunity for students to
understand concepts in a larger context, it ought to improve
their acceptance of concepts and thus facilitate understand-
ing and improve their approach to learning. Beyond this
rationale, key outcomes and benefits expected from this
framework of project-based curriculum integration include
the development of student and staff interest and motivation,
elimination of poorly coordinated units of study and manage-
ment the semesters’ workloads. Furthermore, it is envisaged
that through project-based integration, students will develop
generic attributes like teamwork skills.
A number of outstanding issues need to be addressed in
the development of this integration model. They include the
timing of topics, facilitators’ workload distribution, concurrent
degree students and accommodation of failing students.
CONCLUSIONS
The need to improve the delivery of the CE curriculum has
been recognised. It is also recognised by many educators
that an integrated curriculum is best suited to learning
concepts and skills. In CE, horizontal and vertical integration
are identified as ways of developing integrations in and
across semesters. There is lack of documents evaluating
the level of and the effectiveness of current integration. Stu-
dents’ opinion is vital and the questionnaire presented here
represents a starting point in developing a more comprehen-
sive evaluation. It might be interesting to extend this empirical
aspect to balance/validate the more theoretical and litera-
ture-based discussion. A framework for integration was
presented which is based on the use of semester projects
to integrate concepts. The benefits of such integration are
numerous and advantageous to the student learning and
attribute development and thus this calls to action for refor-
mist members of the CE academic community. Furthermore,
this framework may be applied to curricula of other engineer-
ing disciplines.
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
53
REFERENCES
Beane, J.A., 1995, Curriculum integration and the disciplines of
knowledge, Phi Delta Kappan, 616– 622.
Bell, J., 1999, Designing and administering questionnaires, in Doing
Your Research Project. A Guide for First-Time Researchers in
Education and Social Science, 3rd edition, 118–134 (Open Univer-
sity Press, Buckingham).
Biggs, J., 1999, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Open
University Press Buckingham).
Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I. and Lant, P., 2001, Curriculum design
for chemical engineering graduate attributes, 6th World Congress
on Chemical Engineering, CD-Rom, Melbourne, Australia.
Czerniak, C.M., Weber, W.B. and Ahern, A.S.J., 1999, A literature
review of science and mathematics integration, School Science
and Mathematics, 99(8): 241.
Daubert, T.E., 1983, An integrated approach, Chemical Engineering
Education, 108– 110.
De Leeuw, D., 1992, Examples of integrated academic and
vocational curriculum from high school academies in the oakland
unified school district, ERIC Document 353472.
Fogarty, R., 1991, Ten ways to integrate curriculum, Educational
Leadership, 49(2): 61–65.
Frary, R.B., 1996, Hints for designing effective questionnaires, ERIC
Document 410233.
Grigg, N.S., Criswell, M.E. and Siller, T.J., 1996, Integrated civil
engineering curriculum: implementation and management, Journal
of Professional Issues In Engineering Education and Practice,
122(4): 151– 155.
Huckaba, C.E., 1983, The infusion of socio-humanistic Concepts into
Engineering courses, via horizontal integration of subject matter,
Chemical Engineering Education, 74–76.
Lederman, N.G. and Niess, M.L., 1998, 5 apples þ 4 oranges ¼ ?,
School Science and Mathematics, 98(6): 281– 284.
Oppenheim, A.N., 1992, Questionnaire planning, in Questionnaire
Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 100– 118 (Pinter
Publishers, London).
Pang, J. and Good, R., 2000, A review of the integration of science
and mathematics: implications for further research, School Science
and Mathematics, 100(2): 73–82.
Ramsden, P., 1992, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routle-
dge Publishers, London).
Rea, L.M. and Parker, R.A., 1997, Designing effective question-
naires, in Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Compre-
hensive Guide, (2nd edition), 27–64 (Jossey-Bass Publishers,
California).
TaPS, 2000, Attributes required by chemical engineering graduates,
Curriculum Committee Report, Department of Chemical Engineer-
ing, The University of Sydney.
Vars, G.F., 1991, Integrated curriculum in historical perspective,
Educational Leadership, 49(2): 14–15.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L.J. and Malone, J., 1998, The
integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a disci-
pline-based culture, School Science and Mathematics, 98(6):
294– 304.
Wolf, P. and Brandt, R., 1998, What do we know from brain
research?, Educational Leadership, 56(3): 8–13.
Woodbury, S., 1998, Rhetoric, reality, and possibilities: interdisciplin-
ary teaching and secondary mathematics, School Science and
Mathematics, 98(6): 303 –311.
The manuscript was received 31 October 2006 and accepted for
publication after revision 25 February 2007.
APPENDIX A: FOURTH YEAR STUDENTS·
INTEGRATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1: Did you find yourself learning something in a
subject that can be applied in another subject?
A. Always. B. Often. C. Sometimes. D. Rarely. E. Never.
Question 2(a): In your opinion, were there many links
between subjects throughout the four years of the degree?
54 ABBAS and ROMAGNOLI
A. Yes, many links. B. Some Links were present. C. No links
were present at all. D. I did not pay attention to the links
between the subjects.
Question 2(b): Did you come across subjects that had no
links to other subjects?
A. Yes, I always came across subjects that I saw were not
linked to other subjects.
B. I often came across subjects that I saw were not linked to
other subjects.
C. I sometimes came across subjects that I saw were not
linked to other subjects.
D. I rarely came across subjects that I saw were not linked to
other subjects.
E. No, I never came across subjects that I could not see the
links between them.
Question 3: Do you think linking subjects is important for
your learning?
A. Extremely important. B. Very Important. C. Important.
D. Not Important. E. Not important at all.
Question 4: Do you think the timing of topics is important for
your learning?
A. Yes, Definitely. B. Yes, sometimes it would. C. No, it would not.
Question 5: Please write a short paragraph stating what
linkages you saw during your four years of CE education?
Question 6: Please write a short paragraph stating what
linkages could be made?
Question 7: Please add any other comments or your opinion
related to the linking of subjects in the CE degree:
APPENDIX B: THIRD YEAR SEMESTER 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Modelling, Validation and Analysis of an
Ethanol Reaction System
Project Background: Ethanol has attracted international
attention as a clean renewable fuel that can be distilled
from crops including grains and sugar cane. Ethanol is also
used to make other chemicals, and scientists and engineers
are working on ways to make it an economically feasible
alternative to fossil fuels. The ability to produce ethanol
from low-cost biomass will be key to making ethanol competi-
tive with gasoline. Ethanol can be produced by bacterial or
yeast fermentation.
During fermentation, bacteria such as Zymomonas mobilis
consume glucose and excrete ethanol. This reaction
(Equation 1) is usually carried out in a biological reactor.
Glucose ! Ethanol þ CarbonDioxide (1)
The bacterium Z. mobilis uses glucose to form ethanol and
carbon dioxide under anaerobic conditions. Small amounts
of acetate and glycerine are produced. Oxygen has large
influence over the reaction. High levels of oxygen favour
the production of acetate and glycerine, thus decreasing
the purity of the desired ethanol product. It is therefore
necessary to minimise oxygen levels. There are other factors
influencing the reaction and these include feed levels and
reaction temperature.
Traditionally, the micro-organism used for the production of
ethanol has been yeast. The reason is that yeast can feed
on inexpensive products such as molasses and corn syrup.
Bacteria like Zymomonas which feed on the more expensive
Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55
glucose have the potential to produce ethanol faster and in
greater yields at similar concentrations.
Learning outcomes: Students should be able to:
. Develop research skills and to cope with ambiguity
. Develop teamwork skills and inter-team collaboration
. Develop skill and knowledge in biological process
technology
. Appreciate the wider implications of the uses of alternative
fuels
. Ability to communicate technical analyses effectively in
both written and oral forms
Student’s task: You are a chemical engineer and a member
of a leading biotechnology research team working for the
company BIOSYD. Management has requested your team
to research into biofuel manufacture. Specifically, your team
has been asked to research the production of ethanol by
the process of fermentation.
In tackling the problem, you are to work in a team to
develop a mathematical model to describe the biochemical
reaction, develop a set of experiments to be undertaken at
the laboratory scale, validate the model developed and sub-
sequently use the model to understand the underlying mech-
anisms taking place. Your team will be working with either
the bacteria or the yeast and you will need to collaborate
with other teams to develop analysis comparing the two
micro-organisms efficiencies in ethanol production.
You have also been asked to make recommendations as to
how many fermentors would be needed to reach a production
goal of 2 million kg/year (Australia’s bio-ethanol market) and
how many batches would each of these fermentors need to
make?
APPENDIX C: THIRD YEAR SEMESTER 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Simulation, Optimization, Control and
Economics of an Ethanol Separation System
Project background: Distillation is a well established
separation technology and can be applied for the separation
of petroleum fractions from crude oil in an oil refinery or biofuel
ethanol from fermentation products. A number of fundamental
physico-chemical phenomena and Chemical Engineering con-
cepts are considered in a distillation operation such as vapour-
liquid equilibrium, thermodynamics, heat transfer etc . . .
The separation of ethanol from fermentation media can be
achieved by distillation. High separation efficiency is usually
sought maximizing economics of operation. Important factors
for consideration are column design and method of separation.
Several steps are taken to quantify optimal points of operation.
These include process modelling, optimization and control.
Learning outcomes: Students should be able to:
. Develop research skills and to cope with ambiguity
. Develop teamwork skills and inter-team collaboration
. Develop skill and knowledge in distillation separation
technology
. Develop skill and knowledge in simulation, optimization
and process control
. understand the competitive nature of real work business
environment
. Ability to communicate technical analyses effectively in
both written and oral forms
 CURRICULUM INTENSIFICATION THROUGH INTEGRATION OF UNITS OF STUDY 55

Student’s task: Your company has been invited to place a
tender for the separation of ethanol from a fermentation
plant. Your specific project is to design a plant to achieve
the necessary ethanol separation.
In tackling the problem, you are to work in a team to use a
previously developed and validated process model to simulate
and optimise the distillation operation. You will examine
dynamic operation using simulation software. You will define
optimization criteria and objectives as well as also use the
simulation to solve the optimisation and quantify optimal oper-
ation. You will also design and implement a control scheme.
Once simulated, optimized and controlled you will submit
your tender for evaluation remembering that your tender
response must be financially and technically competitive.
This means you must consider capital and operating cost
objectives besides control and operation ones.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2007, 2: 46–55