See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356727118

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN PROCESS DYNAMICS & CONTROL COURSE FOR

UNDERGRADUATE CHEMICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Conference Paper · December 2003

CITATIONS READS

6 28

2 authors:

Khairiyah Mohd-Yusof Mimi H. Hassim

Purdue University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
160 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS 172 PUBLICATIONS 2,680 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khairiyah Mohd-Yusof on 02 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN
PROCESS DYNAMICS & CONTROL COURSE
FOR UNDERGRADUATE CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING STUDENTS
Khairiyah Mohd. Yusof and Mimi Haryani Hassim
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
ABSTRACT
Process Dynamics and Control is notorious among
undergraduates in the Faculty of Chemical and Natural
Resources Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, as
a “killer” subject. Every semester, there are several
sections of the class being offered, each conducted by a
different lecturer. With up to 60 students in each class,
there are usually 30% failures, no matter who teaches the
subject. Process control is considered by many to be
difficult because it requires students to combine their
knowledge in chemical engineering and mathematics. In
addition, students need to understand and visualize a
process in operation, and relate mathematical theories to
the physical reality. In an effort to guide the students to
learn and understand the subject better, cooperative
learning is implemented. This paper describes the
implementation of cooperative learning in the Process
Dynamics and Control class. The mode of execution,
advantages, problems and setbacks, as well as steps for
improvement, will be described in detail.
Keywords: Cooperative learning, process control
1 INTRODUCTION
Process Dynamics and Control is a required course
for fourth year undergraduate chemical engineering
students in the Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. It is a three
credit-hour course, which means that there are three hours
of classes per week. Three to five sections of the class are
offered each semester, with a maximum number of 60
students per section. The course is notorious for the high
number of failures (usually around 30%, but can go as high
as 45%), low passing grades (mostly around the 40-50%
range) and the difficult material. Those who fail indicate
that they do not understand the material, and those who
passed with low passing grades indicate that they barely
115
understood the material and did not have good
understanding of the subject.
Process Dynamics and Control is considered by
many to be difficult. The course covers mathematical
modelling of process dynamics, and control systems design
and analysis of chemical processes. The systems that are
delved in the class range from simple equipment, such as
storage tanks, heated tanks, heat exchangers, and furnaces,
to more complex ones such as distillation columns, reactors,
dryers and evaporators. Students need to understand and
visualize a process in operation, and relate mathematical
theories to the physical reality. This is the first time where
they have to deal with processes in dynamics instead of
steady-state. Thus, students need strong background in
previously taken mathematics and chemical engineering
courses to fully appreciate the class material.
In a typical lecture-based Process Control class,
students would seem to understand the material, but most
would miserably fail to perform in quizzes and tests.
Queries for questions are normally met with a deafening
silence. Asking questions only made students uneasy and
avoid eye-contact. It is also normal to see students nodding
off to sleep, especially when the lectures are packed with
mathematical derivations and analysis. It is not surprising,
therefore, to see studies revealing that students can only
recall 70% of the material presented during the first ten
minutes and 20% of the material of the last ten minutes [3,
4].
In an effort to assist the students in learning and
understanding the subject, cooperative learning is
implemented. Cooperative learning is active learning that
involves the collaboration and interaction of students in
groups under the following conditions [3]:
• Positive interdependence between team members
to accomplish a task
• Individual accountability in completing their share
of the work and mastering all material
• Face-to face interaction in at least part of the task
7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.
• Appropriate use of interpersonal skills, like
communication, leadership and conflict
management.
• Regular self-assessment of group functioning to
identify any improvements that need to be made
and maintain those that functioning well.
Three regular sections of the Process Control and
Dynamics course were offered in this past semester
(2003/04 – 01), each taught by a different lecturer. Section
1, which had 31 students, was taught by a lecturer using the
traditional lecture style. Section 2, which had 49 students,
was taught by a young lecturer teaching for the first time.
The young lecturer assigned the students into groups, but
only partially implemented cooperative learning. Section 3,
which had 42 students, was taught using cooperative
learning. All three sections had the same tests and final
exam. All tests and exam were taken individually.
Questions in the tests and final exam were graded by the
lecturer who set the respective questions to ensure
consistency in marking the exams. The breakdown of the
marks for the whole course is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Grading breakdown for the course.
Percentage
Assignments, Quizzes & Peer Review 20
Test 1 15
Test 2 15
Final Exam 50
This paper describes efforts in implementing
cooperative learning in the section three class of Process
Dynamics and Control. Cooperative learning activities
were applied both in and out of the classroom. This is the
second semester that these efforts were made. Although the
implementation is still far from perfect, students have
shown their appreciation over the traditional lectures. This
paper will not attempt to discuss the theoretical aspects, and
the strength and weaknesses of cooperative learning.
Instead, in this paper, practical aspects and experience in
implementing cooperative learning, such as the mode of
execution, advantages, problems and setbacks, as well as
steps to overcome them, will be described in detail.
2 IMPLEMENTATION
In the first week of the semester (there are a total
of 14 weeks each semester), students were asked to fill in a
personal information form that consists of their cumulative
grade point average (CGPA), the grades obtained for the
courses that are the prerequisite of this course, and what
they aim to get out of the class. For most of the students,
this is the first time that they have encountered cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning was therefore described,
and the advantages were explained. Rules and policies of
the class, especially those designed to ensure that each
student contribute to the group were discussed in class. The
students were also given motivation on team work. By the
end of the first week, the students were divided into groups.
116
The university’s academic regulation allows students to
change sections within the first few weeks of the semester.
Therefore, those who were unhappy with cooperative
learning, especially those who do not want to work in
groups, were able to change to section one. However,
students from other sections were only allowed to join this
section in the first week of class.
To assign groups, students with different ethnic
background and genders were mixed together. Each group
consists of three to five students. Students with high
CGPAs were also mixed with students with low CGPAs. As
far as possible, there are at least two good students with
CGPA above 3.0 (out of 4.00 maximum), and at least two
female students in a group. The rule for grouping students
was made based on recommendations published in the
literature [1, 3, 7]. To develop a sense of belonging, the
students were encouraged to choose a name for their
groups.
From the second week onwards, students were
asked to sit in their respective groups. There were all
together 12 groups in the class. Quizzes and assignments
were performed in groups. There were in-class
assignments, as well as out-of-class assignments. Students
were reminded to contribute and at least try to work out a
rough approach to the problem for the out-of-class
assignments before discussing them in their groups to do
well in the tests and final exam. There were three
recommended text books for the course, each with its own
approach in the topics covered in class. Each group was
advised to have at least a copy of all three texts. The
students were also encouraged to find other resources for
the subject. This was purposely done to encourage students
to be resourceful and share the knowledge gained among
their group members.
In almost every class period, after about 10 to 15
minutes of lecture, a variety of activities were given to the
groups, such as short reinforcement questions that they
need to discuss, working out examples or finishing up
derivations or example calculations, designing a simple
system, analysing the outcome of a certain situation, etc.
These activities can take less than a minute, or as long as 15
minutes. Questions may range from:
• list example applications of a concept (“List
household items that have a control system”),
• discuss a phenomenon (“Why does inverse
response occur to the level in a boiler?”),
• derive a mathematical model (“Derive the
mathematical model and transfer function of a
CSTR with a serial reaction”).
• analyse a system (“Determine if this control
system is stable”).
During each class period, there can be up to five activities
given, depending on the duration of each one.
The groups had to be facilitated and moderated
during long in-class activities. The floating facilitator
concept [2] was used, since there was only one
lecturer/facilitator in the classroom. Students were
encouraged to talk the problem out. Each group was visited
and prompted with questions while performing long in-
7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.
class activities. Groups that were having problems were
asked to raise their hands. Groups that had interaction
problems might also need moderation. Prompts to help the
students with the in-class activities were also posed to the
whole class.
Although part of the evaluation of the class was
based on the group, most of the overall grade was from
individual work to ensure that the each student was
accountable for mastery of the material. 80% of the overall
grade came from individual tests and the final examination
(see Table 1). In addition, there was peer evaluation on a
member’s performance in the group. For peer evaluation,
each student would evaluate the members of his/her group,
and even evaluate himself/herself. Therefore, even though
the learning process depended on the group, it was the
individual’s performance that was gauged. This was
pointed out to students to ensure that each of them would
actively participate instead of leaving others to do the work.
3 STUDENTS’ RESPONSE
In general, most students were happy to be part of
the given group. There were some conflicts of
personalities, but most were able to work it out. At the end
of the semester, most students found cooperative learning to
be beneficial. The following are some typical positive
comments from students:
• Improved and learnt a lot from group discussions.
• Working in groups is good – helps in
understanding the subject because we’re able to
discuss with each other.
• Working in groups forces me to study for the class
instead of waiting until the tests.
• The group discussion is a good start for students to
mix around and get to know one another better.
• Group work should be continued because it spices
up the class and makes it interesting.
• Group work encourages students to speak-up and
makes the class active.
• Your teaching style is very effective – keep it up!
Nevertheless, there were a few students who were
unhappy with their groups, and complained that the weaker
ones were slowing them down, and some were not pulling
their weights in the group. There were also problems of
racial conflict and stereotyping, though this was not
rampant. These groups had to be moderated more than
others. Periodic pep talks were also given about
advantages of team work and the role of individuals
throughout the semester. Some negative comments from
students are:
• Group assignments and discussions are very useful
but might be more beneficial if students are free to
form their own groups.
• Group work is good, but sometimes it is a burden
for students because of conflicting personalities.
• Group quizzes and assignments create pressure on
students – most probably because we’re not used
117
to working in groups. Anyway, I think it’s for our
own good.
These were written comments (without the student’s name)
obtained at the end of the semester. From the comments, it
is clear that even though they may not like it, students
realize that there are advantages of working in groups.
4 STUDENTS’ OVERALL MARKS
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of marks (out of a total
of 100%) for section 3 for the whole course. The passing
mark for UTM is 40%. Out of a total of 42 students, there
were approximately 17 percent failures. This is down from
the usual 30% failures. There was also an improvement in
the passing marks. Previously, most of the students who
passed scored between 40-49%. This time, only 19% of
students scored between 40 to 59% (7% in the 40-49%
range and 12% in the 50-59% range). Slightly more than
40% of students in the class obtained overall marks in the
60 to 79% (21.4%in the 60-69% range and 19% in the 70-
79% range), which is a marked increase from traditional
lectures conducted in previous semesters. Approximately
24% of students obtained overall marks of greater than
80%.
45
40
Percentage of Students
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-100
Overall Percentage Distribution
“Fig. 1” Distribution of overall marks for section 3.
Figures 2 and 3 show the results distribution of
students in sections 2 and 1 respectively. There were 49
students in section 2 and 31 students in section 1.
The young lecturer implemented partial
cooperative learning in section 2. Students were divided
into groups and were given group assignments and quizzes.
In-class group sessions were held only during quizzes and
for several in-class assignments, and the week before a test
when revisions were held. Cooperative learning was
explained to the students in the first week of the semester;
no motivation for group work was further given during the
semester. Most of the material was, however, taught using
traditional lectures.
7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.

range in section 3, instead of the usual 40-49% range. This

45
outcome is definitely encouraging.
40
Percentage of Students

35
5 ADVANTAGES
30
25
There are many advantages of cooperative learning
20
15
that had been published in the literature [3, 4, 5]. The more
10
obvious ones observed in the authors’ experience in trying
5
to implement cooperative learning in the Process Control
0
and Dynamics class are as follows:
0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-100 • Students were able to actively participate in the
Overall Percentage Distribution learning process, making the class interesting and
lively. 50 minutes of class time seemed to fly very
“Fig. 2” Distribution of overall marks for section 2. fast. It was also possible to hold the attention of
the students for a double period class, without
taking any breaks in the middle, by having
interspersed in-class group activities. It was also
45 the norm for students to leave the classroom later
40 than the lecturer, which would usually be the
Percentage of Students

35 opposite for lecture-based classes.

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-19 20-39 40-59
Overall Percentage Distribution
“Fig. 3” Distribution of overall marks for section 1.
From Figure 2, 2% and 14% of students in section
2 scored in the range of 0-19% and 20-39% respectively,
making a total of 16% failures. 38% of students, the
highest percentage of students in the marks distribution,
obtained overall marks in the 40-59% range (28% in the 40-
49% range and 10% in the 50-59% range). 30% and 16%
of students in section 2 scored in the 60-79% range and
above 80% respectively.
An experienced lecturer taught section 1 using
traditional lectures. There was no group work in this
section. Figure 3 shows that although the percentage of
students scoring above 80% was high at about 25% of the
class, the failure rate is also high at almost 30%, which is
typical of lecture-based classes in previous semesters. Both
the 40-59% and 60-79% ranges were obtained by 22% of
students in the class.
In analysing the results of the students in the three
sections, grouping the students helped reduce the number of
failures, as evident in the results of sections 2 and 3. As for
the good students, they were able to perform well, whatever
the teaching method used, as the percentage of those
scoring above 80% was about the same for sections 1 and 3.
Nevertheless, the percentage of students scoring above 85%
(which is an A) was slightly higher at about 14% for section
3 compared to 12% for section 1 (also note that there were
more students in section 3). Cooperative learning
obviously helped the moderate students as the highest range
in the passing marks distribution shifted to the 60-79%
• Students were able to share what they know and
learn the art of communication. Many of the
students developed good leadership and social
interaction skills in working with their respective
groups. Weaker students were able to observe and
participate in the problem solving process with the
60-79 80-100
good students.
• Active learning promotes better understanding of
the subject, yielding better results for the students.
This is evident in the low failure percentage and
higher percentage of students obtaining higher
than 60% in the overall marks.
• Mixing students of different genders and races
promote racial integration and better
understanding between the students. It was
common to see students of the same race flocking
together during lecture-based classes; there were
minimal interaction between different genders
(female students normally do not like to work with
male students) and races. Students were advised
to observe the moral code outlined by the
university, be professional and respect each other.
Having the students sit and work together in
groups managed to dispel some biases and
stereotypes among the different races and genders.
• There was less quizzes and assignment grading to
do since they were handed in groups instead of
individually. This made it easier to promptly
return graded quizzes and assignments to the
students.
6 PROBLEMS AND SET-BACKS
As with any techniques, there are problems and
set-backs in trying to implement cooperative learning.
Problems concerning group dynamics and group work had
also been discussed in the literature [3, 5, 6, 7]. Among
those encountered in the authors’ effort to implement
cooperative learning were as follows:

118
7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.
• There was student resistance, especially among the
smarter ones, in being grouped with weaker ones.
These students were reminded that by sharing their
knowledge with others, they were the ones
benefiting most. In addition, it is good practice to
interact with those who were not as smart as they
will be required to interact with co-workers of
varying intelligence, such as operators and
technicians, and not just engineers. Those who
were still unsatisfied were advised to change to
section 1.
• Lack of experience of the lecturer can also be a
hindering factor, especially when trying to
complete the syllabus in a specified amount of
time. Inexperienced lecturers would find it
difficult to estimate and adjust the time that can be
given for in-class group activities. These activities
must be properly facilitated to ensure that they do
not consume more time than allotted. In addition,
identifying the type of activities suitable for
different topics would also be more difficult for
those who are inexperienced in teaching a subject.
Consequently, there can be a lack of confidence in
implementing cooperative learning, especially
among inexperienced lecturers.
• Having only one lecturer facilitate 12 groups was a
challenge. It was sometimes difficult to monitor
the group dynamics to ensure that the groups were
functioning well. There were students who find it
difficult to contribute because there was one
dominating person. There were also those who
would happily let someone else do the job. There
were undoubtedly a few dysfunctional groups.
Nevertheless, by the time the first test approach,
most groups were functioning well.
• Different class schedules among the students made
it difficult for them to meet for the group
assignments. The groups were also made-up of
those staying on and off campus. This could
sometimes become a hurdle for the students to
work together in a group outside the class hours.
The problems and set backs faced were by no means
impossible to overcome. They have to be addressed so that
there can be improvements made in the implementation of
cooperative learning in the coming semester.
7 IMPROVEMENTS
Although the outcome of the trials in implementing
cooperative learning is very encouraging, there are
definitely improvements that can be made in the coming
semester. Some of them are:
• There will be enforcement on different roles for
students in a group and rotating them for every
assignment. The roles to be rotated are the leader,
recorder, reporter and checker. This would give a
chance to every member to experience different
119
roles, and prevent one person from becoming too
dominant.
• All assignments to be handed in must have the role
of each student stated. Anyone who does not
participate should not have his/her name on the
assignment. This mainly to weed-out free-riders.
• All groups shall have a log book to describe their
meetings, collection of references, and attendance.
Each student will also be required to keep a
learning journal.
• Ask each group to set ground rules for working as
a team in the first week of class. This would
minimise conflicts as standards of behaviour that
is acceptable will be set before any negative ones
set in.
There will undoubtedly be many improvements
and fine-tuning to be done in implementing cooperative
learning. There are many guidelines given in the literature
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. However, it is impossible to implement
all of them in the same semester. In fact, depending on the
class setting and the local culture, the tips given may not be
applicable, or may need modification. Therefore, a step by
step approach with continuous improvement would be
preferable. This is, in fact, a gradual effort moving towards
partial implementation of problem-based learning.
7 CONCLUSION
On the whole, cooperative learning was well
received by students in section 3 of the Process Dynamics
and Control class. The students’ performance also showed
an improvement compared to those in traditional lectures.
The failure rate was lower and the passing marks were also
higher.
Interaction and cooperation among students
yielded many advantages. The class became interesting
because students were actively participating in the learning
process. Students also gained generic skills such as
communication and social skills, as well as critical thinking
skills.
Although there are many improvements to be
made, the positive outcome and experience in efforts to
implement cooperative learning is definitely worth while.
The authors, therefore, recommend that cooperative
learning be considered as an alternative in aiding and
enhancing the learning process of students in engineering.
8 REFERENCES
[1] Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., and Groh, S. E., “Strategies
for using groups”, The Power of Problem-based Learning,
Stylus Publishing, Virginia, USA, pp. 59-68, 2001.
[2] Duch, B. J., “Models for problem-based instruction in
undergraduate courses”, The Power of Problem-based
Learning, Stylus Publishing, Virginia, USA, pp. 39-45,
2001.
7th Triennial AEESEAP Conference Proceedings, 8-9 Dec 2003, UM, pp 115-121.

[3] Felder, R. M., and Brent, R., “Cooperative Learning in

Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs”,
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038, 1994.

[4] Fraser, D. M., Engineering Education Seminar

Handout, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2002.

[5] Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., and

Felder, R. M., “Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative
Learning Workgroups”, Journal of Engineering Education,
89(3), pp. 285-293, 2000.

[6] Shipman, H. L., and Duch, B. J., “Problem-based

learning in large and very large classes”, The Power of
Problem-based Learning, Stylus Publishing, Virginia,
USA, pp. 149-164, 2001.

[7] Woods, D. R., Problem-based Learning: Helping Your

Students Gain Most from PBL, 3rd Edition, 1996.

120
View publication stats