The History of Chemical Engineering and Pedagogy: The Paradox of Tradition and
Innovation
Phillip C. Wankat
Purdue University

Abstract

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology started the first US chemical engineering
program six score years ago. Since that time, the chemical engineering curriculum has
evolved. The latest versions of the curriculum are attempts to broaden chemical
engineering to add product engineering, biology and nanotechnology to the traditional
process engineering, chemistry and energy. Although there have been attempts to add
flexibility, the chemical engineering curriculum remains monolithic (all students take
almost identical sequences of courses) and hierarchical. Chemical engineering textbooks
have tremendous staying power because authors have time to adapt to slow changes in the
curriculum. Chemical engineering has been somewhat schizophrenic – chemical
engineering research has covered all areas in which chemical engineers believe they can
make a contribution, but departments have been notably unwilling (until recently) to
expand the borders of the undergraduate curriculum.

Despite the conservatism of ChE departments, chemical engineering has been at the
forefront of helping new professors learn how to teach and individual chemical engineering
professors have been leaders in the push for engineering education reform. Yet, most ChE
professors insist on lecturing. Examples of chemical engineering leadership in pedagogy
include the Chemical Engineering Division of ASEE Summer School every five years, the
Division’s publication of the journal Chemical Engineering Education, and leadership in
teaching professors how‐to‐teach. Individual efforts include the development of the guided
design method, introducing Problem Based Learning into engineering, laboratory
improvements and hands‐on learning, the textbook Teaching Engineering, and the
championing of cooperative group learning.

This paper will provide a brief history of chemical engineering programs, curricula and
pedagogies.

Introduction and Early Programs

In 1888 MIT started Course X (Course refers to curriculum), which began as a mechanical
engineering curriculum with time devoted to the study of chemistry, and eventually became
chemical engineering [1, 2]. MIT did not claim invention of chemical engineering but noted
that similar engineers were active in Europe [3]. Davies [4] starts his history of chemical
engineering with the ancient Greeks and continues to the 1887 series of lectures presented
by George E. Davis at the Manchester Technical School in England. These lectures, which
were published over the next few years in the Chemical Trade Journal, are often considered
the start of formal education in chemical engineering. Since this is the 100th anniversary of
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, we will generally limit our comments to the
American experience and refer readers interested in the history of chemical engineering in
other countries to the many fine chapters in Furter [5].

The historical role of MIT in starting chemical engineering education in the USA has been
well documented [1‐3, 6]. The initial Course X, founded by Lewis Mill Norton, was
contained in the department of chemistry. Chemical engineering became a separate
department in 1920 with Warren K. Lewis as the head. Perhaps the first American text in
chemical engineering, Elements of Fractional Distillation, was published by MIT professor
Clark Shove Robinson in 1922 as part of McGraw‐Hill’s International Chemical Series [7].
This was followed in 1923 by the seminal Principles of Chemical Engineering by William H.
Walker, Warren K. Lewis and William H. McAdams [8], which laid the quantitative
foundations of the discipline and utilized the concept of unit operations first recognized by
George E. Davis (although not by that name) [4] and first delineated by Arthur D. Little in
1915 [1]. MIT also developed the idea of intensive practical education through a graduate
level practice school, but this innovation has not spread beyond MIT [1, 9].

Although there were programs in practical industrial chemistry before 1888, MIT was the
first school to use the title chemical engineering [2]. After MIT, the University of
Pennsylvania introduced a four‐year chemical engineering program within chemistry in
1892 although a separate department was not established until 1951 [2]. In 1894 Tulane
started the third curriculum in chemical engineering followed by University of Michigan and
Tufts in 1898 and the University of Illinois‐Urbana Champaign in 1901 [2]. The first
independent chemical engineering departments in the US apparently were the University of
Wisconsin in 1905 [2] and Purdue University in 1911 [10].

Curriculum Developments

Early curricula were often cobbled together from existing industrial chemistry and
mechanical engineering courses, and it was common, as was the case at MIT, to have no
courses labeled as chemical engineering [2]. As programs grew professors of chemical
engineering were assigned and specific courses in chemical engineering were developed.
AIChE became involved in studying the education of chemical engineers in 1919 through its
committee on Chemical Engineering Education [11]. Between 1921 and 1922 the
committee, chaired by Arthur D. Little, studied the programs at 78 schools that claimed to
teach chemical engineering, and decided that chemical engineering was based on the unit
operations and involved industrial scale chemical processes [11]. Although controversial,
the report of Little’s committee was approved in 1922 and a new committee chaired by H. C.
Parmelee was given three years to determine which programs were satisfactory. This
report, with the names of 14 acceptable programs, was given in June, 1925, and constitutes
the beginning of engineering accreditation in the US [11]. The Engineers’ Council for
Professional Development (now ABET) was formed in 1932. Since AIChE was the only
engineering society involved in accreditation at that time, the Institute requested and
received special status. One of these perks, that a copy of each ChE program’s self‐study
report was to be provided to the AIChE committee, was not removed until the March 2008
meeting of the ABET Board of Directors [12].

In 1925 AIChE recommended that 10.3% of the curriculum be devoted to chemical
engineering courses. The recommended amount of engineering has increased over the
years. In 1938 15 to 20 % of the curricula was expected to consist of chemical engineering
courses [13] (Table 1). Currently, ABET does not spell out the percentages of chemical
engineering courses but focuses on the skills required by graduates [14, 15]. However, the
total engineering percentage has increased [14] (Table 1).

It is interesting to consider the historical development of curricula. The curricula for Purdue
University, which has always had a fairly typical curriculum, are shown in Table 2 [10].
While chemical engineering was still part of chemistry (1907‐08), there were no courses
identified as chemical engineering and German was required since much of the chemistry
literature was published in German (Table 2). In addition, a thesis was required for
graduation. This plan of study was truly a combination of industrial chemistry and
mechanical engineering. An increase in military training occurred during the First World
War. After chemical engineering became a separate department, separate ChE courses
appeared and the industrial chemistry courses disappeared (1923‐24 in Tables 2 and 3).
Although still required, the amount of German decreased. Both the 1907‐08 and 1923‐24
plans of study required a modest amount of biology. The other engineering courses
included electrical and mechanical engineering, plus surveying. Descriptive geometry,
required in 1907 was dropped by 1923. The 1923‐24 plan of study had insufficient
chemical engineering courses to meet the recommendations of the AIChE Parmelee
committee, and Purdue plus many other schools were not on the AIChE list of approved
schools.

Purdue (and most other rejected schools) worked hard to satisfy AIChE requirements [10].
Purdue’s 1936‐37 plan of study (Tables 2 and 3) satisfied the AIChE recommendations
(Table 1) and Purdue was first accredited in 1933. The 28 to 31 credits of chemical
engineering shown for 1936‐37 in Table 3 include 6 credits of metallurgy, which was part of
chemical engineering. Biology was no longer required (the other science is mineralogy).
The German requirement had been reduced to 6 credits and by 1950 disappeared entirely.
By 1965, shop, mechanical drawing, additional science and German had all been eliminated.
The military requirement was made semi‐optional and the humanities requirement
(elective with a few constraints) was increased significantly. Chemical engineering
requirements were increased to 25% of the course load. The 1965‐66 curriculum is fairly
close to the “four‐year compromise curriculum light in chemistry” discussed in 1969 by
Morgen [13]. The proposed 2010‐11 curriculum shows the inclusion of biology, an increase
in chemical engineering courses including more design, and a significant increase in the
amount of hands‐on laboratory (1 credit each of Fluids, Heat & Mass Transfer, and Reactor
Engineering are for laboratory). The molecular basis of ChE is taught in ChE, which only
partially compensates for the reduction in chemistry. This proposed curriculum has two
ChE electives, an additional engineering elective, and a technical elective. Several options
such as pharmaceutical engineering allow students to use their electives in an organized
fashion. The military requirement disappeared during the Vietnam War.

Although total credits have dropped through the years (Table 2), the student work load
appears to have stayed constant or increased. The amount of chemistry in the curriculum
(Table 2) has decreased significantly. Shop, German, mechanical drawing, mechanics, and
military have slowly been phased out of the curriculum. Although still available, few
students select these courses. Biology has done a boomerang and returned to the
curriculum. Chemical engineering science courses replaced practical, but less scientifically
oriented courses after World War II [16]. The percentage of chemical engineering courses
has steadily increased and there has been a trend to move these courses earlier in the
curriculum (Table 3). Although not obvious from Table 3 because of the years selected, the
amount of design has oscillated back and forth and is currently waxing. Hougen’s [17]
analysis of the curriculum trends at the University of Wisconsin are similar to those shown
here, except that Wisconsin was often several years ahead of Purdue in making changes.
The current ChE curriculum at Purdue and most schools is extremely hierarchical. Starting
with the first calculus course, Purdue has a seven semester sequence of required courses to
graduation consisting of the calculus courses and differential equations which is a corequisite
for fluids which is followed by heat & mass transfer, which is a co‐requisite for the
first of two ChE labs. There are also several four semester sequences of ChE courses
starting with mass and energy balances. Few of the other engineering programs have
prerequisite requirements as strict.

A long term change not readily evident from looking at curricula is who teaches chemical
engineering. Initially, there were no chemical engineers and the courses were usually
taught by chemists and mechanical engineers. Once chemical engineers had graduated and
were available to become professors, most of the chemical engineering professors had
significant industrial experience and rarely had a Ph.D. [6]. Over the years an earned Ph.D.
became a requirement and the expectation that engineering professors would have
practical experience was lost. The current lack of practical understanding of industry and
the practice of chemical engineering is obviously a problem in the education of
undergraduate chemical engineers [18, 19]. The current interest in rewarding research
makes it unlikely that this lack will be solved in the near future.

Current Curriculum Developments

There have been a number of recent efforts at national curriculum reform. The University
of Texas‐Austin Septenary committee did a major analysis of the curriculum in the early
1980’s [20, 21]. The committee recommended the following: an overhaul of all the ChE
courses to strengthen fundamentals and include computer calculations in all courses;
inclusion of modern biology, economics and business courses in the curriculum; sufficient
electives to allow specialization; and an overhaul of teaching methods and tools including
major revisions of all the textbooks. The recommendations of the Committee to provide
incentives for rewritting textbooks have been ignored, but many of the other
recommendations made by the Septenary committee were adopted at Texas. The report
also had some impact elsewhere. In particular, the need to integrate biology and chemistry
into the curriculum has been widely understood [22, 23]. The need for options or tracks,
which had been recommended previously [24], does not appear to have been widely
adopted. The current University of Texas‐Austin curriculum [25] differs from Purdue’s
(Tables 2 and 3) by specifying humanities electives in American History and American
Government, and requiring a literature course. In addition, an electrical engineering course
is required and there are a total of six electives in science, technical and engineering areas
compared to the four electives in these areas at Purdue. Both programs now require
biology. Thus, the differences in these two curricula are rather small.

There has also been a push to focus chemical engineering education more on product
engineering because the structure of the chemical industry has changed markedly. Many
chemical engineers at both the bachelors and the Ph.D. levels now work for companies that
are not considered to be chemical companies [19, 26‐29], and the world of chemical
engineering continues to expand [30]. Many more chemical engineers will work in specialty
chemicals instead of commodity chemicals. These shifts will require more chemistry, in
particular structure‐property relationships including the use of quantum mechanical
software. Graduates will need to be comfortable with producing products that function
based on their micro‐ or nano‐structure. In addition, there will be more interest and need
to teach batch processing. Our examples and textbooks need to be revised to include
examples from a much wider variety of industries. Some detailed examples of product
design are available [28, 29]. At least from course titles, product design does not appear to
have become a required course at MIT [31], Purdue (Table 3), University of Minnesota [32]
or University of Texas‐Austin [25]. Perhaps professors are including product design as
examples in their courses.

Another current curriculum revision initiative is called the Frontiers in Chemical
Engineering Education Initiative [33‐36] that started with meetings in 2002. The initiative
looks to: 1. Integrate biology into the curriculum, 2. Balance the diversity of research areas
with a strong undergraduate core, 3. Balance applications and fundamentals, 4. Include both
process and product design, and 5. Attract the best students to ChE. The initiative proposes
that the organizing principles of chemical engineering are molecular transformations,
systems and multiscale analysis. The new curriculum is supposed to be integrative and
include the organizing principles plus laboratory experiences, examples, teaming and
communication skills throughout the course sequence. Unfortunately, most popular
chemical engineering textbooks are not arranged around the proposed organizing
principles and little material for teaching within this curriculum is available. Although the
initiative has been led from MIT, the current MIT curriculum [31] does not reflect this
initiative. To be successful this initiative will have to convince professors that the changes
are necessary, train professors in new pedagogy, and sponsor the development of an
enormous amount of teaching material. In a related effort that was started independently,
the chemical engineering professors at the University of Pittsburgh appear to have been
convinced that these changes are necessary since Pitt has instituted a “Pillars of Chemical
Engineering” curriculum [36‐39]. The six “Pillar” courses on Foundations, Thermodynamics,
Transport, Reactive Processes, Systems & Dynamics, and Design are block scheduled to
provide additional time. The courses include molecular insight and modeling, product
design, multiscale analysis, and a significant amount of simulations. Preliminary
assessment data with concept maps and concept inventories shows that students are
learning concepts better with the new curriculum [38, 39].

Textbooks and Other Teaching Materials

“The very boundaries of what we mean by chemical engineering are determined to a
significant extent by the textbooks. The publication of “Principles of Chemical Engineering”
by Walker, Lewis, and McAdams …shaped the field of chemical engineering for many
decades afterwards.” [40, p. 185] In addition to Walker, Lewis and McAdams [8] Professor
Bird [40] cited the books by Hougen and Watson [41], and Hougen, Watson and Ragatz [42,
43] as particularly influential. We can certainly add Badger and McCabe [44] and many
other books to this list. The McGraw‐Hill series of chemical engineering books started in
1925 was also very important for a number of years. Although not a textbook, Perry’s
Handbook [45], first published in 1934 with significant contributions from DuPont chemical
engineers, has also been quite influential in chemical engineering education.

Textbooks can both constrain and open a discipline [21]. For example, BSL [46] clearly
helped open chemical engineering to a more scientific approach, but later helped constrain
the discipline to a continuum approach. Extremely popular textbooks such as Felder and
Rousseau [47] and Fogler [48] serve to standardize parts of the ChE curriculum across the
country since the vast majority of students have used these books. Because they are so
widely used, the popular books can enhance or impede curriculum changes depending on
the interests of the authors.

One of the current problems in chemical engineering education is, with very few exceptions,
there are no young textbook authors. The first edition of most of the current ChE textbooks
were written when the author(s) were in their 40s or 50s, and many of these texts are in the
2nd, 3rd, or higher editions. Younger professors are more likely to be trained in new content
that should be worked into the curriculum. Unfortunately, standard advice for untenured
professors is to not write a textbook [21, 40, 49, 50]. Professor Bird also advises, “Bookwriting
should not be undertaken to gain fame and fortune.” [40] Although a successful
textbook can pay for the college education of the author’s children, the other rewards are
seldom commensurate with the effort required to write a good book [40, 50]. Most
chemical engineering professors are not trained in pedagogy and a really good textbook has
to be based on sound learning principles in addition to being technically correct. The
soundness of the pedagogical approaches is one reason for the successes of Felder and
Rousseau [47] and Fogler [48]. Training all professors how‐to‐teach [49] would reduce the
amount of on‐the‐job‐training in writing textbooks. There have been calls for more rewards
for writers of textbooks [21, 35, 40], but so far action has been sparse.

There have been attempts to use other materials besides textbooks for presenting teaching
material. In the 1980’s AIChE developed a series of six volumes of Modular Instruction
(AIChEMI) under the overall direction of Prof. E. J. Henley. The six volumes covered Kinetics,
Mass and Energy Balances, Process Control, Stagewise and Mass Transfer Operations,
Thermodynamics and Transport. Modules had the advantage that the effort to write a
module was orders of magnitude less than writing a textbook. Unfortunately, the quality
was erratic and the modules were not widely adopted. The effort has apparently
disappeared since none of the modules appears in the current AIChE catalog.

Computer aided instruction and educational games have enormous potential for improving
technical education [50‐53] particularly for students in the gamer generation [52]. Some of
the leading ChE textbooks [e.g., 47, 48] provide supplemental instructional software as
either a CD bundled with the textbook or as a course web page. Unfortunately, students
often do not use the supplemental material even when required to do so [54]. Instructional
games have considerable promise [53], but with current technology developing a
professional quality educational game takes an order of magnitude or more effort than
producing a textbook. The chemical engineering market is not large enough to support
these efforts without subsidies. A major reduction in the time and cost required to develop
instructional games is necessary before educational games can become economically viable
to teach chemical engineering material. However, chemical engineering students may use
these methods to learn calculus, chemistry [53], physics, biology, economics, and other large
enrollment subjects.

Pedagogical Developments in Chemical Engineering

Since the other presentations in this symposium will discuss teaching methods in detail, I
will only briefly highlight teaching methods and the contributions of ChE professors to
improve teaching. Similar to all fields [50], ChE professors lecture much of the time in class.
Their teaching would improve if they heeded the oft‐given advice, “Lecture less.” Instead of
lecturing they could use various active and inductive learning methods such as cooperative
group learning, “clickers,” guided design, problem based learning, quizzes, laboratory
improvements and hands‐on learning, and computer simulations for part or all of the class
periods [50, 55‐66]. Chemical engineering professors have also been at the forefront of
activities to make ABET requirements for assessment more meaningful [67, 68]. A paradox
is that chemical engineering professors such as John Falconer, Rich Felder, Ron Miller, Mike
Prince, Joe Shaeiwitz, Jim Stice, Charlie Wales, Phil Wankat, Don Woods, Karl Smith (an
honorary ChE since his BS and MS degrees were in process metallurgy), and the entire ChE
faculty at Rowan University have been at the forefront of developing and popularizing these
techniques, but most ChE professors do not use them.

Chemical engineers have also been at the forefront of helping professors learn how‐to‐teach
[49, 69‐70]. The once every five years Chemical Engineering Summer School has included a
how‐to‐teach workshop since 1987, and the popular and successful ASEE National Effective
Teaching Institutes are led by chemical engineers. In addition, the Chemical Engineering
Division of ASEE publishes the highly respected journal Chemical Engineering Education
which covers new chemical engineering content and how to improve teaching and learning
in chemical engineering. Teaching interested attendees to be better teachers is effective [69,
70] and it is relatively easy. Yet, it is doubtful that the majority of ChE professors have
attended a formal teaching workshop or teaching course. In the past teaching workshops
and courses for engineering professors were not readily available, and the reward structure
at most universities did not strongly encourage faculty to improve their teaching. In my
opinion the single most effective action that can be taken to improve engineering education is
to require all new engineering professors and encourage current engineering professors to
take a course in howtoteach.

Research in improving engineering education has very recently become much more popular.
This is signaled by the increased attention paid to this research by ASEE and the National
Academy of Engineering, the tightening of publication requirements by the Journal of
Engineering Education [71], the emergence of engineering education as a separate research
field [72], and the development of new engineering education Ph.D. programs [73].
Chemical engineers have been at the forefront of many of these efforts. Because most
engineering professors are not trained to do rigorous educational research, NSF has
sponsored workshops to help interested professors start learning how to do rigorous
educational research [74].

Closure

Chemical engineers active in improving engineering education are often asked why
chemical engineering, which is not one of the larger engineering disciplines, has had a large
impact on engineering education. I will close by speculating on the answer. Chemical
engineers are interested in processes while most engineering disciplines have focused on
products. Teaching and learning are processes. Thus, it is natural that chemical engineers
would contribute to improving these processes. The other major engineering field
interested in processes, albeit of a different type, is industrial engineering. Industrial
engineering has been at the forefront of graduating Ph.D.s who did their research on
engineering education. I believe that their interest in processes is a major reason that
chemical engineers have been and will continue to be leaders in engineering education.

References
1. Weber, H. C., “The Improbable Achievement: Chemical Engineering at MIT,” in Furter, W.
F. (Ed.), History of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society,
Advances in Chemistry Series, 190, 77‐96 (1980)
2. Westwater, J. W., “The Beginnings of Chemical Engineering Education in the United
States,” in Furter, W. F. (Ed.), History of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American
Chemical Society, Advances in Chemistry Series, 190, 140‐152 (1980)
3. Van Antwerpen, F. J., “The Origins of Chemical Engineering,” in Furter, W. F. (Ed.), History
of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, Advances in
Chemistry Series, 190, 1‐14 (1980)
4. Davies, J. T., “Chemical Engineering: How Did it Begin and Develop?” in Furter, W. F. (Ed.),
History of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, Advances in
Chemistry Series, 190, 15‐43 (1980)
5. Furter, W. F. (Ed.), History of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American Chemical
Society, Advances in Chemistry Series, 190, (1980)
6. Williams, G. C. and J. E. Vivian, “Pioneers in Chemical Engineering at MIT,” in Furter, W. F.
(Ed.), History of Chemical Engineering, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society,
Advances in Chemistry Series, 190, 113‐128 (1980)
7. Robinson, C. S., Elements of Fractional Distillation, McGraw‐Hill, New York, 1922.
8. Walker, W. H., W. K. Lewis and W. H. McAdams, Principles of Chemical Engineering,
McGraw‐Hill, New York, 1923.
9. Johnston, B. S., T. A. Meadowcroft, A. J. Franz, and T. A. Hatton, “The MIT Practice School,”
Chem. Engr. Educ., 28 (1), 38 (Winter 1994).
10. Peppas, N. A., History of the School of Chemical Engineering of Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, 1986.
11. Reynolds, T. S., 75 Years of Progress – a History of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 19081983,
New York, AIChE, 1983.
12. ABET Report of the Board, http://www.abet.org/board_report.shtml Accessed June 20,
2008.
13. Morgen, R. A., “The Chemistry‐Chemical Engineering Merry‐Go‐Round,” Chem. Engr.
Educ., 3 (4), 228 (Fall 1969).
14. http://abet.org/, ABET (2007), “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.
Effective for Evaluations During the 2008‐2009 Accreditation Cycle,” accessed 28 April,
2008.
15. Rugarcia, A., R. M. Felder, D. R. Woods, and J. E. Stice, “The Future of Engineering
Education. Part 1. A Vision for a New Century,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 34 (1), 16 (Winter 2000).
16. Seely, B. A., “The Other Re‐engineering of Engineering Education, 1900‐1965,” J. Engr.
Educ., 88 (3), 285 (July 1999).
17. Hougen, O. A., “Seven Decades of Chemical Engineering,” Chem. Engr. Prog., 73 (1), 89
(January 1977).
18. Landau, R., “The Chemical Engineer – Today and Tomorrow,” Chem. Engr. Prog., 68 (6), 9
(June 1972).
19. Shinnar, R., “The Future of Chemical Engineering,” Chem. Engr. Prog., 87 (9), 80 (Sept.
1991).
20. Groppe, H. (Chair), A Report by The Septenary Committee on Chemical Engineering
Education for the Future, “Chemical Engineering Education for the Future,” Sponsored by
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas‐Austin, Edited by J. R. Brock and H.
F. Rase (1985).
21. Sciance, C. T., “Chemical Engineering in the Future,” Chem. Engr. Educ., (4), 12 (Winter
1987).
22. Westmoreland, P. R., “Chemistry and Life Sciences in a New Vision of Chemical
Engineering,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 35 (4), 248 (Fall 2001).
23. Mosto, P., M. Savelski, S. H. Farrell, and G. B. Hecht, “Future of Chemical Engineering:
Integrating Biology into the Undergraduate ChE Curriculum,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 41 (1), 43
(Winter 2007).
24. Felder, R. M., “The Future ChE Curriculum. Must One Size Fit All?” Chem. Engr. Educ., 21
(2), 74 (Spring 1987).
25. Chemical Engineering 2006‐2008 Catalog, University Texas‐Austin,
http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/ug06‐08/ch06/courses/ch0602chece.
html Accessed May 27,2008.
26. Cussler, E. L., D. W. Savage, A. P. J. Middelberg, and M. Kind, “Refocusing Chemical
Engineering, Chem. Engr. Prog., 98 (1), 26S (January 2002).
27. Cussler, E. L. and J. Wei, "Chemical Product Engineering," AIChE J., 49, 1072‐1075 (2003).
28. Cussler, E. L. and G. D. Moggridge, Chemical Product Design, Cambridge University Press,
2001.
29. Ng, K. M., R. Gani, and K. Dam‐Johansen (Eds.), Chemical Product Design. Towards a
Perspective through Case Studies, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
30. Furusaki, S., J. Garside, and L. S. Fan (Eds.), The Expanding World of Chemical Engineering,
2nd Edition, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2002.
31. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chemical Engineering curriculum,
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/c/catalogue/degre.engin.ch10.shtml, Accessed
June 18, 2008.
32.University of Minnesota, Chemical Engineering curriculum,
http://www.cems.umn.edu/academics/chen/index.php Click on “Typical Plan for 2011 or
later grads (pdf)” Accessed June 18, 2008.
33. Cobb, J. T. Jr., G. K. Patterson, and S. R. Wickramasinghe, “The Future of Chemical
Engineering – An Educational Perspective,” Chem. Eng. Prog., 103 (1), 30S (January 2007).
34. Armstrong, R. C., “A Vision of the Curriculum of the Future,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 40 (2),
104 (Spring 2006).
35. Frontiers in Chemical Engineering Education Initiative, http://mit.edu/che‐curriculum/
Accessed May 27, 2008.
36. “Pillars of Chemical Engineering: A Block‐Scheduled Engineering Curriculum,”
University of Pittsburgh, http://granular.che.pitt.edu/curriculum/, Accessed July 2, 2008.
37. McCarthy, J. J. and R. S. Parker, “Pillars of Chemical Engineering: A Block‐Scheduled
Curriculum,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 38 (4) 292 (Fall 2004).
38. McCarthy, J. J., A. A. Abatan, R. S. Parker and M. Besterfield‐Sacre, “Work In Progress:
Pillars of Chemical Engineering,” Proceedings ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
Indianapolis, IN, Session F3H (Oct. 2005).
39. McCarthy, J. J., R. S. Parker and M. Besterfield‐Sacre, “Results and Dissemination Plans of
the Pillars Curriculum at Pittsburgh,” ASEE Meeting, Philadelphia (June 2008).
40. Bird, R. B., “Book Writing and Chemical Engineering Education. Rites, Rewards, and
Responsibilities,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 17 (4), 184 (Fall 1983).
41. Hougen, O. A. and K. M. Watson, Kinetics and Catalysis, Wiley, New York, (1947).
42. Hougen, O. A., K. M. Watson, and R. A. Ragatz, Material and Energy Balances, Wiley, New
York, (1954).
43. Hougen, O. A., K. M. Watson, and R. A. Ragatz, Thermodynamics, Wiley, New York, (1959).
44. Badger, W. L. and W. L. McCabe, Elements of Chemical Engineering, McGraw‐Hill, New
York (1931).
45. Perry, J. H. (Editor‐in‐Chief), Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, McGraw‐Hill, New York
(1934).
46. Bird, R. B., W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York
(1960).
47. Felder, R. M. and R. W. Rousseau, Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd update
edition, Wiley, New York (2004)
48. Fogler, H. S., Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 4th Edition, Prentice‐Hall (2005).
49. Wankat, P.C. and Oreovicz, F.S., Teaching Engineering, McGraw‐Hill, NY (1993). Available
free https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/AboutUs/Publications/TeachingEng/index.html
50. Wankat, P. C., The Effective, Efficient Professor. Teaching, Scholarship and Service, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston (2002).
51. Kadiyala, M. and B. L. Crynes, “A Review of Literature on Effectiveness of Use of
Information Technology in Education,” J. Engr. Educ., 89, 177 (2000).
52. Beck, J. C. and M. Wade, Got Game. How the Gamer Generation is Reshaping Business
Forever, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2004.
53. Rovner, L. L., “Video Game Aims to Engage Students,” Chem. & Engr. News, 84, p. 76,
(April 10, 2006).
54. Roskowski, A. M., R. M. Felder, and L. G. Bullard, “Student Use (and Non‐Use) of
Instructional Software,” J. SMET Education, 2 (3&4), 41 (Sept‐Dec, 2001).
55. Felder, R. M., D. R. Woods, J. E. Stice, and A. Rugarcia, “The Future of Engineering
Education. Part 2. Teaching Methods that Work,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 34 (1), 26 (Winter
2000).
56. Prince, M. J., “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research,” J Engr. Educ., 93
(3), 223 (2004).
57. Prince, M. J. and R. M. Felder, “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions,
Comparisons, and Research Bases,” J Engr. Educ., 9 (2), 123 (2006).
58. Newell, J. A., “Survivor: Classroom – A Method of Active Learning that Addresses Four
Types of Student Motivation,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 39 (3), 228 (Summer 2005).
59. Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, “Cooperative Learning Returns to College:
What Evidence is There That It Works?” Change, 30 (4), 27 (1998).
60. Woods, D. R., ProblemBased
Learning: How to Gain the Most from PBL, Donald R. Woods,
Waterdown, Ontario (1994).
61. Wales, C. E., R. A. Stager, and T. R. Long, Guided Engineering Design, West Publishing
Company, St. Paul, MN (1974).
62. Dahm, K. D., “Process Simulation and McCabe‐Thiele Modeling: Specific Roles in the
Learning Process,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 37 (2) 132 (Spring 2003).
63. Wankat, P. C., “Using a Commercial Simulator to Teach Sorption Separations,” Chem.
Engr Educ., 40, 165‐172 (2006).
64. Falconer, J. L., “Conceptests for a Thermodynamics Course,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 41 (2),
107 (Spring 2007).
65. Dahm, K. D., R. P. Hesketh, and M. J. Savelski, “Micromixing Experiments in the
Introductory Chemical Reaction Engineering Course,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 39 (2), 94 (Spring
2005).
66. Farrell, S., M. J. Savelski and R. Hesketh, “Energy Balances on the Human Body: A Handson
Exploration of Heat, Work, and Power,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 39 (1), 30 (Winter 2005).
67. Olds, B. M., B. M. Moskal, and R. M. Miller, “Assessment in Engineering Education:
Evolution, Approaches and Future Collaborations,” J. Engr. Educ., 94 (1), 13 (Jan. 2005).
68. Shaeiwitz, J. A., “Teaching Design by Integration throughout the Curriculum and
Assessing the Curriculum using Design Projects,” International Journal of Engineering
Education, 17, 479 (2001).
69. Stice, J. E., R. M. Felder, D. R. Woods, and A. Rugarcia, “The Future of Engineering
Education: Part 4, Learning How to Teach,” Chem. Engr. Educ., 34 (2), 118 (Spring 2000).
70. Wankat, P. C., and F. S. Oreovicz, “Teaching Prospective Engineering Faculty How To
Teach,” Intl. J. Engr. Educ., 21 (5) 925‐930 (2005).
71. Lohmann, J. R., “Editor’s Page: Refining our Focus,” J. Eng. Educ., 97 (1), 1 (2008).
72. Haghighi, K., K. A. Smith, B. M. Olds, N. Fortenberry, and S. Bond, “Guest Editorial: The
Time is Now: Are We Ready for Our Role?” J. Engr. Educ., 97 (2), 119 (April 2008).
73. Wankat, P. C., Pedagogical Training and Research in Engineering Education,” Chem. Engr
Educ., 42 (4), (Fall 2008).
74. Streveler, R. A. and K. A. Smith, “Guest Editorial: Conducting Rigorous Research in
Engineering Education,” J. Eng. Educ., 95 (2) 103 (2006).

Table 1. Accreditation Recommended % in ChE Curricula [13, 14]

Topic AIChE 1938 [13] Topic ABET 2008‐2009 [14]

Chemistry 25‐30% Math &
Basic
Science
25% minimum
Sufficient material to be
consistent with objectives
Math 12%
Physics 8%
Other Sciences 2%
Mechanics 6%
Chemical
Engineering
20‐15% Engineering 37.5%
Must include design & sufficient
material to be consistent with
objectives
Other Engineering 12%
Cultural Subjects 15% General
Education
Complement other components
& consistent with objectives
Total ~148 credits ~124 or more credits

Table 2. ChE Plans of Study at Purdue University [10].
Topic 1907‐08 1923‐242 1936‐373 1965‐66 Proposed
2009‐10
Chemistry 15.1% 23.7‐29.9% 24.2‐26.9% 16.7% 14.5%
Math 16.8% 12.3% 11.8% 12.5% 14.5%
Physics 6.6% 4.9% 5.3% 8.3% 5.3%
Other Science 1.0% 1.2‐3.1% 2.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ 2.3%
Mech. Draw 3.0% 2.5% 2.6% ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
Mechanics 4.4% 4.9% 7.9% 2.1% ‐‐‐‐‐‐
Ind. chem/tech 11.0% ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
Chem Engr. ‐‐‐‐ 6.7‐10.4% 18.3‐20.3% 25.‐25.7% 36.6%
Other Engr. 12.6% 12.3‐19.0% 5.2% 8.3% 5.3%
Shop 7.0% 2.5% 2.6% ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
Tech electives ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 4.9‐5.6% 2.3%
Military 3.0% 3.9‐13.1% 4.4% 0‐5.6% ‐‐‐‐‐
English/speech 5.6% 3.7% 5.9% 3.5% 5.3%
German 10.0% 7.4‐9.2% 3.9% ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐
Other humanities 3.8% 5.5% 2.0% 12.5% 13.7%
Other ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.0% 5.6‐0% ‐‐‐‐‐
Total Credits 398.5 pts1 1633‐169 cr 152.74‐154.7 144 cr 131 cr
1 1 point for each hour per week in courses with no outside work and 2.5 points for each
hour per week in courses with outside work. 2 Depends on options chosen. The 163
minimum was used to determine %. 3 Depends on options. The 152.7 minimum was used to
determine %.

Table 3. Chemical Engineering Courses at Purdue University [10]
Semester 1907‐08 1923‐24 1936‐371 1965‐66 Proposed
2010‐11

1 None None None None None
2 None None ChE/Met, 3.
(Optional)
None None
3 None None None ChE Calc, 3 ChE Calc, 3
4 None None None Intro Chem
Proc Ind., 3
Thermo, 4
Stat Model, 3
5 None None None Thermo, 3.
Fluids & Heat
Trans,4
Separation, 3
Fluids, 4
6 None Thermo,
3cr
Thermo, 3.
Elem. Unit Ops, 2
Mass
Transfer, 4
ChE Lab, 2
Heat/Mass
Transfer, 4
Rx Eng, 4
Molec Eng, 3
7 Indus.
Chem &
Tech Anal,
22 points
Elements
ChE I, 3.
Metallurgy,
3
(Optional)
Elem. Unit Ops, 2
Unit Ops, 3
Non‐Ferrous
Metallurgy, 3
Pyrometry, 2
Plant Des, 2
ChE Prob, 1
Rx Kinet, 3
ChE Lab, 2
Prof. Guid. &
Inspection
Trips, 1
ChE Elec 3‐4
ChE Lab I, 3
Proc. Dynam.
& Control, 3
Des & Cost
Anal., 3
ChE Elec., 3
8 Indus.
Chem &
Tech Anal,
22 points
Elements
ChE II, 3.
Metallurgy,
3
(Optional)
Inorg & Org Techn
& Stoich, 3
Unit Ops, 3
Ferrous Metall., 3
ChE Prob., 1
Proc. Dynam
& Control, 3
Proc. Des &
Economics, 3
ChE Elec., 3
ChE Lab II, 3
Proc. Des, 2
ChE Elec., 3
Total 44 points 9‐15 cr. 28‐31 cr. 36‐37 cr. 48 cr.
1 Shown for the General Chemical Engineering program (Other options were Gas
Technology, Metallurgy, Military, and Organic Technology).