{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017351598173515982, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036529680365296802, 'mean_word_length': 5.8930817610062896, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Progress in reforming chemical engineering education.

Three successful historical reforms of chemical engineering education were the triumph of chemical engineering over industrial chemistry, the engineering science revolution, and Engineering Criteria 2000. Current attempts to change teaching methods have relied heavily on dissemination of the results of engineering-education research that show superior student learning with active learning methods. Although slow dissemination of education research results is probably a contributing cause to the slowness of reform, two other causes are likely much more significant. First, teaching is the primary interest of only approximately one-half of engineering faculty. Second, the vast majority of engineering faculty have no training in teaching, but trained professors are on average better teachers. Significant progress in reform will occur if organizations with leverage-National Science Foundation, through CAREER grants, and the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET-use that leverage to require faculty to be trained in pedagogy.