Content uploaded by Andrew Minigan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Minigan on Jun 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper ID #30723
Implementation of the Question Formulation Technique as a Teaching
Strategy in Renewable Energy Engineering Education
Dr. Claudia Torres Garibay, Oregon Institute of Technology
Dr. Claudia Torres Garibay is an associate professor in the Electrical Engineering and Renewable Energy
department at Oregon Institute of Technology. Her educational background includes a Ph.D. in Materials
Science and Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin (2007), a M.S. in Materials Science at the
Advanced Materials Research Center (Mexico, 2000), and a B.S. in Electrical and Industrial Engineering
at Chihuahua Institute of Technology (Mexico, 1996). Dr. Torres Garibay has taught several courses and
laboratories at both Klamath Falls and Portland-Metro campuses, and served in various administrative
positions, including department chair and program director.
Jessica Kerby, Oregon Institute of Technology
First year graduate student in the Renewable Energy Engineering program at the Oregon Institute of
Technology. Previous Master of Science in Physics from the University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mr. Andrew Powers Minigan, The Right Question Institute
Andrew P. Minigan is the Right Question Institute’s (RQI) Director of Strategy. He facilitates active learn-
ing experiences for educators, faculty, researchers, and students in both K-12 and higher education, and he
has worked with tens of thousands of learners from around the world. Andrew conducts research and con-
sults on other researchers’ empirical work, and he also designs new learning experiences and curricula to
support educators, researchers, and learners. He is a Co-P.I. on two National Science Foundation funded
grants. One grant provides support to develop a strategy so researchers can learn how to formulate better,
more transformative research questions, and the other grant will make possible a national convening on
innovations in teaching the skill of question formulation to researchers and in higher education. He is also
a P.I., with Sarah Westbrook, on a Library of Congress grant that will provide learning opportunities for
educators around the country, especially those working with traditionally underrepresented students, so
they may learn a strategy to facilitate more effective student-driven inquiry on primary sources.
Andrew conferred an Ed.M. in Human Development & Psychology from the Harvard Graduate School
of Education and graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in Psychology from the University of New
Hampshire. He is currently a doctoral student at the Northeastern University Graduate School of Educa-
tion.
c
American Society for Engineering Education, 2020
Implementation of the Question Formulation Technique as a
Teaching Strategy in Renewable Energy Engineering Education
Abstract
The Question Formulation Technique (QFT), a powerful yet simple teaching strategy recently
featured in an ASEE online webinar, teaches students how to formulate, work with, improve, and
use their own questions. As a result, students become more confident researchers and better
value the role of question formulation in the learning process [1]. While the QFT has been
widely used in other educational settings, its adoption in higher education has recently been
accelerated in-part because of a National Science Foundation research study. In this work we
demonstrate two unique, innovative ways to integrate the QFT as a teaching strategy for
renewable energy engineering students. First, we will make visible how the QFT was utilized in
a junior level class in Materials for Renewable Energy Applications to develop the outline of a
term research paper. Secondly, we will share how the QFT was used in a cross-listed
senior/graduate course in Bioenergy to develop a research topic. The QFT’s impact on student
learning will be described and eminently practical details for integrating the QFT into
engineering coursework will be outlined.
1. Introduction
The Question Formulation Technique (QFT) is a teaching strategy first made widely available to
the field of education in the book Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own
Questions [2]. Since the publication of the book, the strategy has been used across all grade
levels [3]—from pre-k through higher education—and across subject areas. The strategy has
been used by over 250,000 educators [4] in over 150 countries, and recent National Science
Foundation funded research suggests that after a one hour experience in the QFT, doctoral
student researchers report that they feel more confident in their ability to ask questions, feel as
though asking questions is easier, and name differently the role and value of asking questions
throughout the research process [1]. More specifically, the strategy has been applied in
undergraduate engineering courses to stimulate curiosity and student engagement [5], and
similarly has been found to also encourage divergent thinking for high school students [6].
Indeed, it seems as though question formulation is a critical skill for learners in the 21st century
to develop [7], [8] so they may become more curious, self-directed problem-solvers and thinkers.
In an effort to democratize access to this fundamental skill, most resources on the QFT are made
available for free to download online.
1.1. Elements of the Question Formulation Technique
The QFT is comprised of a few essential elements. As a part of the first element, learners are first
presented a Question Focus (QFocus), which serves as a prompt to elicit questions. Then,
learners formulate their own questions on the prompt while following four rules for formulating
questions:
• Ask as many questions as you can.
• Do not stop to judge, discuss, or answer any questions.
• Write down every question exactly as stated or exactly as it comes to mind.
• Change any statements into questions.
As they think about these rules, learners should reflect on what might be challenging about
following them as well as how it may differ from the way they typically formulate questions.
Learners will hold themselves and others accountable for following these rules as they respond to
the QFocus for a set amount of time (usually about 4-7 minutes).
As a part of the second element, learners begin to work with and improve their questions. They
learn about two different types of questions—closed-ended questions which can be answered
with “yes”, “no”, or with one word; and open-ended questions which cannot be answered in such
manner, as they require more of an explanation. Learners then review their list of questions and
label their questions as “C” if they are closed-ended, or “O” if they are open-ended. Next,
learners name the advantages and disadvantages of both types of questions, reflect on how the
wording of a question influences the type of information it may elicit, and then proceed to
change one of their questions from closed-ended to open-ended and one of their questions from
open-ended to closed-ended.
In the third element of the QFT, learners begin to strategize on their use of questions. Depending
on how questions will be used, the prioritization instructions may be tailored by the facilitator.
For example, if the facilitator is hoping students will use their questions to guide research, the
instructions may be “choose the three questions you are most interested in using to guide a
research project.” After prioritizing, learners think on their rationale for why they prioritized
certain questions keeping in mind the QFocus, how many questions they asked in total, and
where their priority questions landed in the sequence of all their questions. Learners are now
ready to use these questions flexibly depending on the next steps of the learning process—
whether it be for research purposes or otherwise.
In the final element of the QFT, learners reflect on what they learned, how they learned it, and
what they are thinking about differently after having gone through the process.
The previous elements are the core components of the QFT. With this said, the strategy is
flexible and creates the space and opportunity for educators to tailor the strategy to better support
the teaching and learning objectives. In this vein, an adaptation of the QFT, the QFT for
research, was developed with funding from the National Science Foundation to design a strategy
to help researchers ask better, more transformative research questions. This adaptation has been
used by undergraduate researchers, graduate researchers, and faculty alike, and many
stakeholders find that it creates a discrete, eminently practical process through which researchers
can arrive at new, better questions.
The QFT for research adaptation inserts a few key elements. First, researchers work to identify
possible areas of interest, then name potential research topics, and finally prioritize the one
research topic on which they would like to ask questions (this serves as the QFocus). Rather than
experience the QFT as a group process, the research process is typically facilitated as an
individualized experience which learners are simultaneously guided through. In the second
element, after changing questions from closed-ended to open-ended and from open-ended to
closed-ended, researchers have the opportunity to review their list of questions and think on
whether they would like to adapt, revise, or edit any questions they have created thus far. They
then add these new questions to the bottom of their list. Later, in the third element, after
prioritizing three questions, researchers select one priority question on which they would like to
ask more questions. They then go through a brief period of question formulation on the priority
question they identified, further refining it into a salient question. Researchers then have more
opportunities to work with and refine their questions, after which they identify three questions
they are glad they asked as well as three questions that may help to advance their research.
Researchers conclude the process having produced a research agenda, ample guiding questions
to support their inquiry, and an experience in honing a quintessential skill for research.
2. Motivation
Oregon Institute of Technology’s motto is “Hands-on education for real-world achievement.”
Courses with a laboratory component provide an opportunity for hands-on education. The real-
life application of the content covered in courses with no laboratory component is provided by
different learning experiences. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the
QFT as a strategy to promote application, analysis, and evaluation in upper-division engineering
courses.
3. Methodology
Two class sections (Group 1 and Group 2) of Renewable Energy Engineering students were
assigned a term paper at the beginning of the quarter. The topic of the paper was selected using
the QFT in two different ways. Students were given minimal instructions on how to develop the
paper to both give students the opportunity to drive their own research and to understand the
effect of the QFT on student learning throughout the term. A series of checkpoints were
facilitated throughout the term to monitor student progress and create inflection points for
feedback, from both students and faculty. The specific methodologies utilized in each group are
as follows:
Group 1 was a class of 11 junior students taking the course “Materials for Renewable Energy
Applications.” These students were introduced to the QFT through a class exercise (Appendix
A), utilizing the title of the class as the Question Focus. Students were divided into three
subgroups, A, B, and C, of three to four students to generate questions. Each subgroup selected
their priority questions; then the whole class classified the priority questions according to
common themes. As a follow-up, students were assigned homework giving them an opportunity
to utilize the QFT on their own to generate questions that would be answered in a paper on the
use of materials in a specific renewable energy application.
Group 2 was a cross-listed course titled “Production of Biomass and Biofuels.” There were seven
undergraduate students and four graduate students in this class. One of the undergraduate
students was also enrolled in Group 1. The adapted version of the QFT, the QFT for research
(Appendix B), was introduced to the class to develop a topic of research throughout the term on
the subject of biomass conversion technologies. Due to time restrictions, only steps 1-5a were
covered in class. Students were asked to complete steps 5b-7 as a homework assignment.
Students from both groups periodically reported on their progress (see Figure 1). One of the first
checkpoints was the submission of a table of contents and a timeline for their final papers.
Students were then asked to report on their progress according to their timeline at some point
during the term; at a later point students submitted their progress for peer review. Although the
calendar for each group was different, the experiences in one of the groups allowed for
improvements to the checkpoint assignments in the other, and vice versa. The final papers for
both groups were submitted during the week of final exams. The final paper and all checkpoint
assignments were submitted via Canvas; the Turnitin tool was utilized to monitor plagiarism.
The one student enrolled in both Group 1 and 2 developed their papers on the same topic,
focusing on application of materials for the first paper and biomass conversion technology for
the latter.
4. Results
4.1. Course-level results
The questions generated during the in-class exercise for Group 1 are reported in Appendix C.
These questions allowed the instructor to establish a baseline of student knowledge, starting with
the question: “What is ‘Materials for Renewable Energy Applications’ all about?” and
concluding with: “What constraints should be considered when selecting materials?” At the
beginning of the exercise some students generated questions unrelated to the question focus, e.g.
“To be or not to be?” or “What kind of material properties are needed for a space elevator?,”
however these questions were not selected by students during the prioritization process. The
categorized list of priority questions was revised during the last class of the term; students were
able to either answer the questions related to the properties of materials in renewable energy
applications, or to identify which ones were beyond the scope of the course, e.g. “How pollutant
is the extraction/production of RE materials compared to fossil fuels?”
The timeline prepared by the students at the beginning of the term was more aspirational than
organizational. It was observed that students with more detailed timelines were the most likely to
stick to their plan of progress, at least partially.
The papers from Group 1 were, as expected, focused on applications of materials in several
energy or renewable energy technologies, e.g. batteries, fuel cells, geothermal energy, solar
panels, heat exchangers, transmission lines, bioethanol production, energy conservation
materials, and wind turbines. Students in Group 2 developed their papers on the topic of biomass
conversion technologies, including regional assessments, lignocellulosic biomass fermentation,
pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, landfill gas capture and use, biodiesel, hybrid power systems, and
biofuels as energy storage, Several of these topics were covered in class, however student papers
developed some of these topics with much more depth, or considered applications not covered in
class. Figure 2 shows the topic development for the one student who was enrolled in both Group
1 and Group 2. Although the general topic is the same, the approach to each paper was different.
The Turnitin software did not detect plagiarism in student submissions.
The submitted term papers demonstrated the outcomes of a customized learning experience.
Each paper was originally developed using the questions generated by each student, although in
some cases the final table of contents deviated from their original projection. Students were
asked to self-report if the final papers answered their original questions, or to what extent they
felt their papers deviated from them (Table 1). Only two students reported no deviation from the
original question. The rest of the students equally reported that their paper either answered the
original question and had evolved into new questions, or that it had completely deviated from the
original questions (Figure 3). It is worth noting that students from Group 1, who experienced the
QFT as a group exercise, reported overall more divergence of the original questions. Students
from Group 2, who worked with the modified version of the QFT, the QFT for research, reported
greater consistency with their original questions and scope of inquiry.
The students were asked to rate their experiences using the QFT in summative questions as part
of the course evaluations. The course evaluation scores out of a possible 5.0 total points were 4.7
and 5.0 for Group 1 and 2 respectively. It is worth noting that the Production of Biomass and
Biofuels course taught to Group 2 is a new offering in the BS and MS Renewable Energy
Engineering curricula. The relevant learning objectives for both classes list the following as
either essential or important, as selected by the instructor: “Gaining a basic understanding of the
subject (e.g., factual knowledge, methods, principles, generalizations, theories)”, “Learning to
apply course material (to improve thinking, problem solving, and decisions)”, and “Developing
specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed by professionals in the field most
closely related to this course.” The rest of the learning objectives were considered minor. The
course evaluation revealed that students highly rated two comparatively minor learning
objectives: “Learning how to find, evaluate, and use resources to explore a topic in depth” and
“Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view” in addition to
the three essential or important objectives identified by the instructor (Table 2 and Table 3). As
reference, student rating for the Materials course last taught by the same instructor are presented
as point of reference. At that time, the course evaluation rating was 3.8/5.0. The student ratings
are considerably higher in comparison to this previously taught Materials course.
The course evaluation included an additional question “Has the term paper contributed to your
learning the course material? Why or why not?” to evaluate the effectiveness of the term paper
towards student learning. Anonymous student responses are listed in Table 4. From the total 22
students enrolled in both groups, 20 (90.1%) answered this question. Among those who
responded, 90% (18 students) reported that the term paper had positively contributed to their
learning of the course material, and almost half of them (9 students) mention terms related to
“deeper learning” or “independent learning.” The two students from Group 2 who did not answer
this question reported that their paper was not completed by the time they submitted their course
evaluations. Course evaluations were due six calendar days before the paper for Group 2.
4.2. Student-level results
4.2.1. Students Name the Value of the QFT
Overall, students were overwhelmingly positive in their views on the strategy. One student said
that they were, “excited to have some of these questions answered during the course!” and
another shared that “this was fun and hard for me. It required some deeper thinking, so
answers weren't to [sic] basic or very difficult.” Others “found it to be a useful tool overall,”
“found it really useful, more so than I would have thought!” and another believed that ‘It’s
definitely an interesting approach. I did enjoy this method because it helped me ask more
questions regarding the class.” For one student, this was an eminently practical strategy and that
they “would definitely use this technique again. The technique almost forces you to look at the
subject from many different angles.” For students, this strategy helped stimulate engagement,
foster deeper thinking, and was a specific strategy they could envision using in the future to
support their own work. Students spoke to how the QFT created a collaborative space to learn
from one another, reflect on how their question formulation skills and thinking on the role of
questions changed over the course of the experience, and they connected the outcomes of their
research paper to their original questions.
4.2.2. Students Identify the Role of Collaborative Learning
Through the collaborative group QFT, learners had the opportunity to learn from one another
while experiencing a variety of perspectives. For example, one student found that, “It’s definitely
an interesting approach…[it] also helped me learn from other students and see their point of view
of things.” Another shared that, “I enjoy being able to share ideas and help generate with a
group.” Indeed, the thinking of students is made visible through this collaborative work, and one
student believed that, “seeing everyone's ideas posted on the white board was a nice way to see
how we all thought.” Yet another student wrote that, “from a personal perspective, it helped me
start thinking deeper about materials from a micro/macro perspective and gain perspectives from
my peers that would of [sic] never crossed my mind.” Not only was this student thinking
differently about the content and area of focus, they also recognized that their thinking was
informed by the unique insight of their peers. One other student found that, “talking within
groups is also a good way to discover thoughts and ideas that you may not have otherwise
thought of.” Through collaborating and learning with one another, the class established an
inclusive, collaborative spirit from the onset of the research process. They recognized that not
only can they learn from the professor, but they are also resources to one another, and their
diverse perspectives may help to inform the direction of their thinking and researching.
4.2.3. Students Develop their Ability to Formulate Questions through a Discrete Strategy
The QFT created the space for students to hone and develop their question formulation skills.
One student reflected that, “it was a good experience to have a group together that was able to
ask questions that would then lead down a path of similar questions with key differences.
Looking back at the questions and selecting some to rephrase from open to close or close to open
was also good because it allowed us to rethink what the heart of the question was. With an
approach that has a wide beginning then narrowing them down later it [sic] gave us better
results.” Not only does this student identify the discrete outcomes of the strategy, they also name
how they better appreciate that the phrasing of a question may influence the information it elicits.
Another student similarly found this exercise to be helpful, sharing that, “Reversing the open and
close ended questions was an interesting way to see how information can be interpreted. You can
almost manufacture an answer by carefully wording a question, if that makes any sense.” This
student names that the answer (or relevant information) to a research question is directly related
to the question which is posed. This same student also found that, “after reading over the
questions it was apparent that some of our questions were repetitive but it made us think about a
broader spectrum of topics overall. It was like a new way of starting a paper. Instead of writing
down everything that comes to mind in a jumbled mess, ask yourself questions that seem
relevant to what you are trying to write about.” For this student, the strategy created the space
and the framework to be more deliberate and structured in their question formulation as to better
support their launching into the research process.
Another student agreed that the QFT provided them the space to do this type of thinking via
question formulation while piquing their interest. “Writing down my stream-of-conscience
thoughts really helped me to brainstorm effectively and quickly. It's an impressive exercise for
the brain to be able to pick apart its own scattershot ideas and categorize them. I really like the
process. It also helped me to confirm that I truly have a big interest in the subject because [sic]
all of these questions came a real desire for answers.” This student recognizes the space which
was created to do rigorous, efficient thinking, and they also name how from these questions an
eagerness for diving into the research process has been affirmed. Questions do not just inform
the answers which are investigated, but they can also shed light on the need to ask other
questions. One student suggested that, “just the act of brainstorming questions led to more
questions. It really helped me understand not only what I didn't know about the subject, but also
what I wanted to know.” This capacity to know what they do not know—what Stuart Firestein
[9] refers to as ignorance, is at the heart of research and inquiry. In order for researchers,
scientists, and learners to forge ahead, they must first recognize what they know just as well as
what they do not yet know. One step beyond this, they must recognize what others know, and
what has yet to be discovered or better understood by researchers and society writ large.
4.4.4. Students Connect Initial QFT to their Research Outcomes
Some students learned that even upon completing their research paper there were more questions
and ideas to be explored. One believed that despite “feel[ing] like I got very detailed and
accurate answers to all of my questions… I learned that there is so much more information about
[solid oxide fuel cells] than I could discuss in my paper. While I focused on one composition for
each component there are so many more options.” One student saw alignment between their
initial questions and final paper, as well as how they were able to drill down further than the
original framing. “The paper didn't deviate much from the questions but writing the paper made
me ask myself even more questions which made me write more in depth.” Another was nimble
in their approach, “all questions were answered, just not how I first envisioned them.”
Not all students’ final questions aligned with their initial experience. One student said that, “my
paper did not match my original questions at all. My overall topic changed completely as I was
researching my questions.” For this student, initial research informed the need to shift their
focus, and they named this when they said, “questions you have before you know anything about
a subject change as you learn about it.” Others were flexible and identified that they needed to
narrow the scope of their work as they began the research process: “I also learned the importance
of having a narrow focus on a subject. My questions were broad and led me to try multiple ideas
for my paper before finally choosing one. I will definitely try to be more specific in the future.”
5. Discussion
5.1. Introduction of QFT as in-class exercise (Group 1) compared to as homework assignment
(Group 2)
The depth of the initial reflections after experiencing the QFT was stronger for Group 1 than
Group 2. Some students from Group 1 who were dissatisfied with their topic were able to
reproduce the QFT exercise as late as in week 7 of the 10-week term to select a new topic. The
quality of these late-developed papers was comparable to the ones of students who worked on
the same topic since the beginning of the quarter. It appears that Group 2 students had more
issues finalizing the QFT on their own since they did not have the opportunity to go through the
whole experience at least once as a group. In Group 2 the quality of submissions on the
completion of the QFT was varied. Perhaps an ideal scenario would be to use the QFT in class,
as a group, followed by a facilitation of the QFT for individual work on a different day. This
approach would give students both the opportunity to learn from one another while experiencing
the strategy in-full, and the exposure to the discrete QFT for research to use on their own later.
5.2. Use of simple or modified QFT (Question Formulation Technique vs Question Formulation
Technique for research)
The QFT was a very effective way to establish a baseline theme when students had to develop an
individual study on the topic. In the case of Group 1 the topic was on how properties affect the
use of materials in a specific renewable energy application of their choice.
The modified version of the QFT, the QFT for research, is useful when learning is more
individualized and the topics chosen by the students do not have to follow a general development
line, as it was the case of Group 2.
In all cases, both applications of the QFT are effective strategies to personalize the learning
experience. Students were empowered to choose how they wanted to apply their learning and
newfound knowledge, and which direction they wanted to expand and deepen their learning.
Students developed ownership of their own education. Even for students who switched topics, it
was a source of relief to know that they could always choose a topic of their interest within the
general theme of the course.
A secondary effect of the use of the QFT was the increase in student participation in class. This
was particularly noticeable in Group 1 where the papers had closely related themes to the subject
matter of the class. In some cases, students were studying in advance some of the class topics. By
the time we touched on those topics as a group, they were able to speak from the experience of
their own research about the relevance of those topics and their implications and applications.
Lectures became a dialogue with multiple participants, further shifting the onus of learning from
faculty as keeper of knowledge to a more learner-centered classroom environment with diffuse
experience and knowledge.
5.3. Student accountability
Multiple checkpoints allowed the instructor to follow the progress of the students and motivated
students to remain on target with their project timeline. These checkpoints are detailed in Figure
1, with the week number of when that checkpoint occurred for each group enumerated in the
corresponding row. Despite these checkpoints, some students demonstrated a proclivity for
procrastination and did not take full advantage of the benefits of the QFT. This fact can be
observed in one or two of the checkpoints, where a small subset of students reported no progress
or did not respond.
According to both student feedback and the few absent responses, it is apparent that many of the
students are still developing the time management skills necessary to stay on task for a term-
long, student driven project. More frequent or weekly checkpoints have the potential to provide
more insight into the detailed process of the QFT. Further, more checkpoints could also create
more accountability measures to better ensure a workflow that will result in more refined, timely
final projects developed by students in both groups. Implementing this into the next application
of the QFT with a new group would likely take the form of weekly reports and discussion boards
that would be taken into consideration for participation credit.
5.4. Effect on plagiarism
The QFT demonstrated to be an effective way to discourage plagiarism, since each student
worked on a very personalized assignment from the beginning. Even papers on the same topic
had a different approach according to student academic background and interest. For example,
three students from Group 1 submitted papers related to photovoltaic (PV) energy with the
following titles:
• Materials component analysis: Photovoltaic panels
• Fundamentals of crystalline silicon solar cells
• Properties of materials used for solar PV cells
Four students from Group 2 submitted papers on biodiesel with the following titles:
• Algae as a source of biomass and biofuel
• Comparing saturated and un-saturated fatty acid impacts in triglyceride oils on
transesterification process that characterize a biodiesel product
• The future of biodiesel production using palm oil in Indonesia
• Biodiesel production process alterations
In all cases, the level, depth, approach, and examples found in all these papers were vastly
different from each other. In each paper, there was an element of originality. It was observed that
students with weaker backgrounds utilized the paper as a tool to reinforce fundamental concepts
that allowed them to reach higher level analysis. Students with strong backgrounds produced
papers covering many additional aspects beyond the content covered in class.
5.5. Peer review in the QFT
The QFT can be utilized as a strategy for formative evaluations. The QFT throughout the term
can be used as a continuous improvement process in student learning. Multiple checkpoints
leading to student accountability do not necessarily have to represent an additional workload for
the instructor. Constant and varied peer review activities with detailed instructions provide
students with multiple sources of feedback that they can choose whether they want to
incorporate. Students are most likely to accept the feedback if it is coming from a peer. Feedback
from faculty is often seen as an imposition rather than as a suggestion for improvement, and it
can be received with resistance or fear of not having submitted a perfect assignment. Peer review
takes this stress away and allows students to focus on their learning. As an example, the student
enrolled in both groups shared their draft in week 8 to their peers in Group 1. The peer reviewers,
independently, noted that this paper did not emphasize enough material properties. The student
incorporated the recommendations as it is shown in the final paper layout reported in Figure 2.
5.6. Effect on student learning
The use of the QFT was a solid starting point for student papers, however, as more than 90% of
students noted, the final product deviated from the original questions. This was not observed to
be a problem in the learning process, rather as a refining mechanism that allowed the papers to
evolve into more sophisticated products. Most students whose paper deviated from the original
questions reported that the original questions were either no longer relevant, they did not find
enough pertinent information, or they chose to follow the natural flow as the paper developed,
either expanding or narrowing the focus of the paper compared to the original questions.
Student ratings and answers to the additional question in the course evaluation indicates that the
use of the QFT throughout the term may have contributed to the development of higher cognitive
skills according to Bloom’s taxonomy. One question in the final exam asked students what they
had learned from their paper. The purpose of this question was evaluative; however students
were made aware that the weight of this question would not have a strong effect on their final
grade, in an effort to collect information on the main ideas they remember instead of creating a
stressful situation where students could be making up answers. All students were able to answer
this question expanding concepts studied in class (Table 5).
5.7. Effect on course evaluations
In both cases the course evaluation results were very positive (Table 2 and Table 3). Students’
feedback comments lead us to believe that the high ratings in the course evaluations were due to
the implementation and follow up throughout the term of the QFT. The use of the QFT as a
strategy to improve students’ learning experience can be reflected in improved course
evaluations by engaging students in a meaningful and personalized way, as was the case of the
course taught to Group 1. The QFT can also help instructors when implementing new courses, as
was the case of the course offered to Group 2.
6. Conclusion
The QFT was demonstrated to be a robust strategy to develop higher order thinking skills,
collaboration skills, and to facilitate student-centered, independent learning and research. The
present work focuses on Renewable Energy Engineering topics, but the methodology can be
applied to Engineering education in general, and in disparate disciplines and subject areas.
Breaking down a long-term goal (e.g. term paper) into frequent and periodic deliverables
enhances student’s accountability, confidence, and learning skills, while also mitigating
plagiarism. Students’ overall view of the cultivated learning environment is well represented by
the positive influence on course evaluations.
It is advisable to make students familiar with the strategy during a class period before asking
them to use it on their own as starting point for their own learning. There were no observed
variations in approach between undergraduate and graduate students that are exposed to the QFT
for the first time. The collaborative QFT was effective in a course with tighter course objectives.
The QFT for research, although it was developed specifically for research, proved to be practical
for a course that provided a myriad of paths to meet learning outcomes.
The application of the QFT presented in this work centers the learning experience on the student.
Except for setting up checkpoints, where peer-review can play a very significant role, the QFT
does not represent a heavy additional load to the instructor. In fact, it is a simple approach that
has many benefits to the learning experience in general. It can effectively shift the onus of
learning to the students as it fosters not just a collaborative and intellectually curious classroom
that more colleges and universities are seeking to cultivate, but one in which students can drive
their own innovative yet focused research.
7. Limitations
One limitation of this study is that it has yet to examine the learning outcomes as compared to
those in other courses that have not integrated the QFT. For example, more could be understood
by comparing the QFT between courses, and between different samples of students (both within
and across colleges and universities). While we have term papers from students in previous
courses that did not experience the QFT, we have yet to compare the quality of these terms
papers as compared to students who experienced the QFT. Future research and analyses may
benefit from multiple faculty using the QFT and comparing student outcomes with faculty who
do not incorporate the QFT into their pedagogy. We invite the opportunity to think and learn
with other educators and researchers who might like investigate how the QFT for research can
support student research. There is so much to learn about how the strategy can support all
learners from different institutions around the country and world. Further, it is possible that other
inquiry-based approaches may produce similar student and course outcomes, and more research
may help to define the unique contribution of the QFT to student achievement and learning.
8. References
[1] “Fostering doctoral students’ ability to improve their research question formulation skills
and advance impactful research,” Adv. Eng. Educ. (in review)
[2] D. Rothstein and L. Santana, Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own
questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2011.
[3] D. Rothstein, L. Santana, and A. P. Minigan, “Making questions flow,” Educ. Leadersh.,
vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 10–75, 2015.
[4] A. P. Minigan, S. Westbrook, D. Rothstein, and L. Santana, “Stimulating and sustaining
inquiry with students’ questions,” Soc. Educ., vol. 81, pp. 268–272, 2017.
[5] H. J. LeBlanc, K. Nepal, and G. S. Mowry, “Stimulating curiosity and the ability to
formulate technical questions in an electric circuits course using the question formulation
technique (QFT),” in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2017, pp. 1–6.
[6] S. Clark, A. G. Harbaugh, and S. Seider, “Fostering adolescent curiosity through a
question brainstorming intervention,” J. Adolesc., vol. 75, pp. 98–112, 2019.
[7] A. P. Minigan, “Build stem skills and nurture students’ scientific curiosity with the
Question Formulation Technique,” EBSCO Information Services, Inc., 2017. [Online].
Available: https://www.ebsco.com/blog/article/build-stem-skills-with-the-question-
formulation-technique.
[8] A. P. Minigan, “The importance of curiosity and questions in 21st-century learning,”
Education Week, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2017/05/the_5th_c_curiosity_questions_a
nd_the_4_cs.html.
[9] S. Firestein, Ignorance: How it drives science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Tables and Figures
Fig. 1. Checkpoints corresponding to each Group’s specific course calendar
Paper on Material Properties
“Steel in Lignocellulosic Biomass
Fermentation”
Paper on Biomass Conversion Process
“Lignocellulosic Biomass Fermentation”
Fig. 2. Example of topic development for a single student enrolled in both groups for each one of
their papers for Group 1 (left) and Group 2 (right).
Fig. 3. Comparison of paper versus original questions as self-reported by students.
Table 1. Student responses to self-reported question "Compare the current version of your paper with the original questions developed
on week 3. How is the paper answering your original questions? How did the paper deviate from the original questions?” Students are
listed by their group (1 or 2) and classification (U for undergraduate, G for graduate). Answers are unedited.
Student
How is the paper answering your original questions?
How did the paper deviate from the original questions?
2U1
The topic of my paper has indeed been influenced by those
original questions.
It has generally been tailored to answering the questions I
decided base my paper on.
There were many questions originally developed and not all
of them have stayed relevant as I've worked on my paper.
2U2
Therefore, I am still using more of my original questions of
how biomass compares to other renewable energy sources
in Hawaii and its pros and cons, but instead of just focusing
on just one type of biomass, algae, I decided to make it
broader since there is more information on the biomass
usage in Hawaii as a whole.
My original questions developed on week 3 are a little
different from the questions that I am answering in my
current paper. I originally planned on writing about
specifically algae as a potential renewable energy source to
help Hawaii achieve their Clean Energy Initiative.
However, when I started researching more about this
potential topic, I noticed that there wasn't too much
information and reliable sources that would help me write
this paper. Thus, I decided to make my topic less specific
and just focus on biomass and biofuels as a potential
competitive renewable energy source that will be a key
played in Hawaii's Clean Energy Initiative.
2U3
My original questions were inadvertently answered through
my research
however my paper essentially does not follow my original
timeline/table of contents at all. During the writing process,
my paper and topics developed a natural flow that deviated
from my original questions.
2U4
Some of my original questions were:
How do you determine energy density?
Can biomass be use in sequence with a battery for storage?
After going through various lectures from the class, the
paper has opened up to more topics such as energy
densification and torrefied biomass. In addition, there are
different types of batteries explained in the paper. The
paper has also evolved into writing more about biofuels.
The paper is also including the topic of how the energy
The paper, at its latest stages of development, has gone over
how a generator can be put into series with a motor to
convert heat energy into mechanical energy which in turn
can provide the energy for a generator to wind up and store
that energy as an electrical potential. The potential
electrical energy charges up a battery. In addition, there are
carbon-based materials that improve batteries
Energy density, in terms of biogas, is characterized by what
type of starting material is used. The heating value, which
is the heat released during combustion of fuel, relates to the
moisture content as well as the impurities in the fuel itself
after different processing. For example, if there is less
sulfur content then the material is more energy dense.
market is expanding, which was not one of my original
concerns. Battery material composed of biomass is used to
improve its material strength and energy density.
2U5
I have included the more focused questions I had developed
in the body of the current version of the paper (submitted
today) as a frame of reference. As I am still compiling
research, I have not had a chance to address all of my
questions, but the main ones are in the process of being
answered. In particular, the recent innovation in pyrolysis
technology is catalytic pyrolysis, so I am discussing what
that is, what catalysts are being used, and what the effects
are to the products of pyrolysis, with bio-oil as the focal
point. The use of catalysts is making bio-oil more useful for
fuel purposes, answering the big question of what the
implications of this technological advance are. Also, I have
been able to a quick summary of companies using pyrolysis
technology who are driving to make it a more viable energy
resource on the national and international scale.
I have not spent much time researching those who are
against the use of pyrolysis, because I no longer think that
it is important in the scope of this paper. I am also
considering to talk less about all the different types of
pyrolysis reactors to focus more on catalytic pyrolysis. I
suppose you will which direction I go within 48 hours!
2U6
My paper does answer most if not all of my original
questions. Most of those questions are answered in hte
introduction and explanation of the anaerobic digestion
prrocess.
My paper deviates from the original questions by detailing
the cleaing process of biogas, by looking at benefits of
biogas cleaning, and by considering cost benefits.
2U7
The current version of the paper is a broad overview of the
topic, with certain specific areas broken down. This is
basically precisely how the question exercise progressed. I
asked some basic questions and then narrowed down a
couple of topic areas to focus on. The rapid-fire question
gathering was a unique, and I think, helpful way to quickly
choose a topic for a research paper.
The process can otherwise be too open-ended and vague.
1U8
The paper didn't deviate much from the questions but
writing the paper made me ask myself even more questions
which made me write more in depth.
1U9
I've had to narrow my focus questions so I could more
accurately evaluate the component I was studying. The
focus just added to my understanding of SOFCs and their
components.
1U10
Other than this, I feel it did a decent job of answering my
questions, but my questions were more broad, so it wasn't
hard to discuss them.
It deviated away from the questions by only focusing on
specific solar cell types and costs.
1U11
My original plan involved more variety in what materials I
looked at but due to time and difficulty finding research I
spent more time talking about specific materials instead.
1U12
My paper didn't deviate from my original. It made clear to
me why aluminum overhead conductors are popular and
why the expansion of HVDC conductors are slow.
1U12
The paper was more specific than my original questions.
And I broadened the paper from the questions to include
introductory info and other insights.
1U13
The only original question my paper answered was "What
is Lignocellulose Biomass Fermentation."
Other than that, my paper was about 98% deviated from the
original questions.
1U14
The paper deviates from my initial QFC by focusing so
much on the elementary fundamentals of semiconductors,
rather than honing in on the design features of residential
solar panels.
1U15
My paper was originally focused around the physical
properties of CTL but grew to incorporate the
environmental effect of CTL vs concrete/steel. It also spoke
on current projects in North America that are using this
technology. I originally wanted to compare the difference
in cost between CTL and concrete but found it difficult to
find material that showed how a single project would have
cost w/ CTL vs concrete.
1U16
Originally I wanted to also focus on financial costs and
environmental impact of the materials discussed in my
paper. However, I decided to focus more on the material
properties. I decided to focus more on structure,
conductivity, and the photovoltaic effect because after these
lectures I became more interested in their impact on solar
PV cells.
1U17
My paper deviated slightly in that I went into great depth
on the different composite compositions that I forgot to
discuss the great ecological impact of these material
decisions.
2G1
The paper followed my questions pretty closely.
However I combined and rearranged some sections. The
question "what are the different uses of algae?" I spread
throughout the paper, mentioning uses
such as dry biomass and creating bio diesel when I talked
about the harvesting and refining processes.
2G2
When comparing the questions first established during
week three, the paper did deviate a little bit more towards a
density, viscosity, combustion, efficiency, emission, and
cold flow type of route. I had anticipated the research
accumulated regarding differences between saturated and
unsaturated fields would have lead to a biodiesel yield
based topic. This is because I ran several experiments with
varying free fatty acid concentrations and found I always
obtained a higher yield of more ASTM appreciable fuel
when using oils high in unsaturated fats. Instead, I found
out that saturated and unsaturated fatty acid chains are
more like a biodiesel balance, trying to find the most
preferred balance of cold flow, and combustibility
characteristics. One thing I did find interesting toward the
end of my research was the significance of oleic and
linoleic acid groups that contain cis-cis bonds and
categorize poly-unsaturated fatty acid concentrations. The
cis-cis configuration of the hydrogen on one side of the
carbon double bond actually weakens the intermolecular
forces by dipole configurations that actually produces fuel
that seemed more efficient then single bonded saturated
fuels, but shared the same cold flow characteristics as a
unsaturated fatty acid compound. Also learning techniques
to break double bonds and change the acidic concentrations
of existing oils was unexpected.
2G3
Questions
Remarks
Is there any ecological issue
related to biodiversity?
It is discussed on the
paper although the main
issue is not biodiversity
but the human population
that affected by lands
opening for palm oil
plantation
Is it worth to convert the
land for palm oil plantation?
It is shown on the paper
by giving the economic
advantage of palm oil
export
Why is palm oil taken as a
priority?
It is shown on the paper
What is the technological
advancement today
This question is discussed
in a very general way
regarding biodiesel
production from palm oil?
How competitive is biodiesel
compared to fossil fuels?
It is mainly shown the
competitiveness of
biodiesel from the
perspective of
environmental advantages
How is the competition
between palm oil for
biodiesel and for food?
It is shown on the paper
How is the comparison
between palm oil feedstock
and other feedstocks?
It is shown on the
introduction
What is the economic
advantage of producing
biodiesel?
It is shown on the
introduction
How is the support from the
government?
It is discussed specifically
on the body
All of the questions are answered on the paper to a different
scale of analysis. The paper does not deviate at all from the
original questions. They provide a possible direction of the
method being used to develop the whole paper which
finally fixed on SWOT analysis.
2G4
My original questions we asking about what types of
processes and equipment are used in the production of
biodiesel. What feedstock and chemicals are used to
produce biodiesel? My paper no focuses on the different
aspects of the transesterification process that can be altered.
The different types of catalysts used and how these
catalysts can only be used with certain feedstock. My paper
now also looks at different ways to intensify the process so
more biodiesel is produced in a shorter amount of time.
Table 2. Five of the thirteen relevant learning objectives evaluated for Group 1.
Relevant Learning Objective
Importance
Rating
%
Students
Rating
2013
%
Students
Rating
2019
Gaining a basic understanding of the subject (e.g.,
factual knowledge, methods, principles,
generalizations, theories)
Essential
81
100
Learning to apply course material (to improve
thinking, problem solving, and decisions)
Essential
63
(Important)
82
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points
of view needed by professionals in the field most
closely related to this course
Important
63
(Essential)
100
Learning how to find, evaluate, and use resources to
explore a topic in depth
Minor
68
82
Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas,
arguments, and points of view
Minor
38
91
Table 3. Five of the thirteen relevant learning objectives evaluated for Group 2.
Relevant Learning Objective
Importance
Rating
%
Students
Rating
2019
Gaining a basic understanding of the subject (e.g., factual
knowledge, methods, principles, generalizations, theories)
Essential
100
Learning to apply course material (to improve thinking, problem
solving, and decisions)
Important
100
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed
by professionals in the field most closely related to this course
Essential
100
Learning how to find, evaluate, and use resources to explore a topic
in depth
Minor
90
Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and
points of view
Minor
80
Table 4. Anonymous student responses to additional question in course evaluation “Has the term
paper contributed to your learning the course material? Why or why not?” Answers are unedited.
Group
(Responses/
Enrollment)
Student responses
Group 1
(11/11)
• Yes it have,
• Yes, it helps us to focus on analyzing the actual properties of practical
applications.
• The term paper has encouraged more independent learning and reading, which
is overall good practice for continuing education.
• It has helped with the understanding of a specific field though having such a
large choice of topics can lead to difficulties choosing one that can increase
knowledge in all fields.
• Yes. Focusing on a single technology really helps you hone in on material
properties and how important they are for all engineering applications.
• The term paper helped me understand the choices that engineers/system
designers need to make when designing devices based upon material properties.
• Yes. It has caused me to think of the different properties to take into
consideration when doing design analysis. It has helped me in other classes by
making me think of all the components I need to take into consideration.
• Yes, it forced me to look in depth to the concepts and apply them to a real
scenario
• Yes, I find that research papers help me with learning material more on a topic
that I find interesting.
• Yes, I've learned the significance of the subjects taught in this course to
industries I'm interested in working in.
• I have learned so much about the subject Of my paper and it was one Of the
most fun paper to write just because Of how much I have learned from this
class. The topics that we learned in class helped me delve a lot deeper into the
subject
Group 2
undergrad
(7/7)
• Yes, because I have able to dive deeper into the topic of pyrolysis and find out
what has been happening lately with this technology.
• Yes, it offered an opportunity to dive deeper into modern research of biomass-
related practices.
• It has provided an avenue for a deeper exploration of a topic. I deviated from
my initial questions because as I searched, I gained a better understanding of
the subject and formulated more interesting questions.
• Yes, because it helped me understand the process and the different types of
biomass and biomass production methods. In addition, we also learned about
the different products and uses for biomass, thus, helping me write this paper
because I know the important topics to cover.
• Not really. Like many students, most of my energy is spent in just trying to
keep up. This unfortunately means that the vast majority of the term paper
doesn't get completed until shortly before its due.
• Reading articles related to the subject of the paper has helped increase my
overall knowledge of biomass systems and
processes.
• NO, because I haven't done it yet.
Group 2
grad
(2/4)
• I would say so. It let me go more in depth into a topic I was interested in,
which consequently lead to learning more about bioenergy in general.
• Yes. It encourages students to gain more knowledge out of regular class
session
Table 5. Student answers to exam question: “What did you learn through the process of writing
your paper?” Answers are unedited.
Group
(Responses/
Enrollment)
Student responses
Group 1
• I have learned:
• How a possible graphene battery is created and future ways to improve on
them.
• How to extract graphene from graphite and that improvements are yet to be
discovered.
• More about Lithium ion batteries and its graphene hybrids.
• I learned that there is so much more information about SOFCs than I could
discuss in my paper. While I focused on one composition for each component
there are so many more options. I also learned about some cool applications
such as SOFCs in locomotives.
• Through writing this paper I learned how solar panels properly work and the
numerous parts that must work together in order for them to work properly. I
also found new ways they are trying to increase the efficiency of solar panels
with anti-reflective coatings, multilayer semiconductors, and even submerging
them for temperature control.
• No response
• I learnt that many properties and components go into even a simple system.
There are so many properties to take into account and there always is given and
take when deciding what should be used.
• I learned A LOT about evaporation generators, how they work, and how they
could be implemented in a full-scale. I also learned it can be hard to find all of
the properties of materials you are looking for when designing, so your own
testing may be required! And importantly, how the materials used affects how
the generator functions!
• Time management is important. Questions you have before you know anything
about a subject change as you learn about it. Next time it might be a better
practice (at least for me personally) to write a little bit each week focusing on
the topics covered that week during the course.
• I learned so much about solar cells, for one thing. My research really covered a
lot of ground and I only included a small amount of it in my paper. I learned
about material fabrication techniques, data collecting, etc. I also learned the
importance of having a narrow focus on a subject. My questions were broad and
led me to try multiple ideas for my paper before finally choosing one. I will
definitely try to be more specific in the future.
• What I learned about CTL is that it is a promising new material that is
beginning to see a lot of uses in the construction of multi-story buildings. One
of the most interesting aspects of CTL is that the process of the material can
fabricate sections of the building prior to shipping to the construction site. This
speeds up construction time and allows the designer to make the building out of
interlocking parts (like legos). CTL also acts as a viable method of carbon
sequestration since the material is primarily carbon based and buildings
typically have a long life span. You can also grow the base material (wood,
trees) making sustainable* (only if proper measures are taken to ensure future
resources).
• This paper enhanced what knowledge I already had about the photovoltaic
effect and energy band gaps. It also helped me connect optical properties to
those subjects for better than I understood previously. After writing this paper I
feel like I can see how the different properties relate in order to make use of
semiconductors for PV applications. It also gave me perspective into the
engineering approach for choosing materials in order to create devices.
• I learned that there are many material properties being considered when a wind
turbine is being designed. A vast majority of these material considerations are
related to the materials mechanical properties. I learned about the importance of
natural resonance frequency. I learned that there are serious efforts being put
towards making blade materials recyclable.
Group 2
Undergrad
• I learned that biofuel power generation is an extremely effective generation
method when used in conjunction with another renewable power source as part
of a hybrid power system .The biofuel used can be adapted from the region
where the system is located, making it widely applicable. The supplementation
of power generation with other inconsistent sources like solar or wind reduce
the total cost of biofuel needed.
• Through the process of writing my paper, I learned more about the pros and
cons of biomass and the specific reasons as to why biomass isn't as popular in
Hawaii compared to wind and solar, but also why and how biomass can be
incorporated more to help Hawaii reach their Clean Energy Goal. This also
confirmed with what I learned in class about how Biomass/Biofuels really does
depend on the location, the economy, politics, society, and what space and
materials are available. It also confirmed my knowledge on the different
conversion processes, their feedstock, their products, and their own pros and
cons.
• I learned that the questions you develop before you know any information about
something change as you research that subject. I also learned that you cannot
always find direct answers for your questions. In addition to that, I learned the
importance of ethanol to the industry and how to derive it from plant material.
• I have learned a lot about anaerobic digestion and the process of creating
biogas. Creating renewable natural gas can produce heat to generate electricity,
and that electricity can be used to power homes connected to the grid. I learned
how the technical potentials coincide with economical potential when biomass
is used.
• I have learned, and am continuing to learn, as I finish my paper over the next 40
hours, about the recent technological advances in the pyrolysis industry.
Namely, the same change seems to be catalytic pyrolysis, where metal and
other types of catalysts are used in the pyrolyzers to lower the oxygen content
of bio-oil, making it much more valuable as a fuel product.
• On the whole, I enjoyed the exercises of the question improvement model. It
gave me a sense of direction as I began researching on my topic , which at the
start was just the topic of pyrolysis (generally). By forcing us to think about the
topic, it made the process of research somewhat easier, because I had arrived at
several focal points before the onset of research. In the research process,
however, the direction of the paper shifted slightly. I did not originally intend to
focus as much on catalytic pyrolysis as a viable fuel source.
• One thing I did not learn, however, is how not to begin writing my paper sooner
in the term. I have always been a procrastinator with papers, and it seems
nothing has changed. It may mean that I sleep very little in the coming days, but
I will finish the task, indeed.
• I learned the importance of economic potential for any given energy source but
particularly anaerobic digestion. I found a case study from Louisiana where a
parish and the state investigated an AD biogas plant for energy production and
waste disposal. They found that while plenty of feedstock could be sourced
from Universities, schools, hospitals, and grocery stores. The cost of
constructing and operating the plant would be greater than buying energy from
conventional sources and buying land for a new landfill. They projected 20 year
return on investment was around $1 million and both state and parish declined
the project.
• I learned that writing research papers has always been a challenge for me and
will continue to be so no matter how many times I do it. That being said, the
process of question building and rapid-fire brainstorming helped me to narrow
down a topic early on which is always a challenge for me. Landfill gas capture
was something I knew nothing about previously and is an interesting resource
that should be utilized.
Group 2
Graduate
• The question improvement model was one of the more important things I
learned, it was incredibly helpful. When looking into algae as a biomass, I got
an appreciation for the economic and spatial considerations that go into
cultivating biomass. Even if a biomass has great energy potential, if too much
or too little is grown, it cancels out any benefit. Additionally, I was able to
learn more about oil extraction as the methods for algae are similar to methods
used for oil seeds.
• I learned that decreasing temp, increasing temp, decreasing methanol, and
increasing KOH in transesterification process = fatty acid chains to break bonds
and convert to saturated fats.
• Characteristics can be manipulated by oil chosen based on sat % and at % most
poly-sat need a reagent since bonds are so strong thy need to be broken to react.
Saturated Fats
Unsaturated Fats
Poly w/cis bonds
↑N
↓N
↑CN
↓CN
↑CN
↓Cold Flow
↑Cold Flow
Fdaf
↑Chain length bonds
break easier
↑Density, more E to
break bonds
From dipole
configuration have high
E density but break
bonds easily by internal
forces
↑Viscosity
↑Viscosity
• I learned to find a topic and develop them with the help of relevant questions.
Finding resources in journals is also important to be learned during paper
writing. By reading numerous papers that relate to the topic, I learned to
develop my skill in critical thinking that guided the method and the
organization of the paper. In addition, I learned to use the review from the peers
and incorporate them into my paper accordingly.
• I learned that there are multiple types of catalyst that can be used in the
transesterification process. Also some catalyst can be used with higher FFA and
water %. Not all process require a catalyst, creating biodiesel using supercritical
process allows you to need a catalyst. There are ways to increase production
and decrease the time required for production using microwaves, ultrasonic
cavitation, and hydrodynamic cavitation. Also recycling the glycerol into the
reactor can decrease the amount of alcohol you input into the reaction.
Appendix A
Utilizing the Question Formulation Technique to Establish Knowledge Baseline
Instructions:
1. Form groups of 3-4 students
2. Select a note-taker
3. Consider Question Focus: Materials for Renewable Energy Applications
4. Ask Questions Following Rules
1. Ask as many questions as you can
2. Do not stop to answer, judge, or discuss
3. Write down every question exactly as stated
4. Change every statement into a question
5. Number each question
5. Categorize your questions as closed-ended [C] or open ended [O] (1min)
6. Improving Questions: Transform closed-ended questions to open ended questions.
Transform open ended questions to closed-ended questions. (7 min)
7. Prioritize your questions:
Which questions are more relevant for your learning process? (4 min)
8. Share your priority questions with the group and find common themes with other groups
(6 min)
9. Reflection
Appendix B
Question Formulation Technique for Research (Question Improvement Model)
1. Identify research topic
a. Write down some topics you may consider for research (1 minutes)
b. Choose one topic you are considering for your research (15 seconds)
2. Produce questions
a. Ask questions about the topic you chose (3 minutes)
i. Follow the Rules for Producing Questions
1. Ask as many questions as you can about your research topic
2. Do not stop to answer, analyze, or judge questions
3. Write down every question exactly as it comes to mind
4. Change any statements into questions
ii. Number the questions as you produce them
3. Work with questions
a. Label your closed-ended questions with a “C” and your open-ended questions
with an “O” (1 minute)
i. Closed-ended questions are to be answered with a “yes”, “no”, or with a
one-word answer
ii. Open-ended questions require an explanation and could not be answered
with a “yes”, “no”, or a one-word answer
4. Rework questions (1 minute)
a. Change one question either:
i. One closed-ended question and rework so it becomes an open-ended
question
ii. One open-ended question and rework so it becomes closed-ended.
b. Add new question to the bottom of the list of questions.
c. Do you have questions that you would like to rework?
i. If so, rework questions, and add them to the bottom of your list
5. Prioritize and further explore
a. Choose three priority questions that you are most interested in using to guide the
research project. (1 minute)
i. Star your three priority questions
ii. Keep in mind the research topic that you identified earlier
b. Choose one priority question that you would like to use as a guide for a research
project
c. Produce questions about your priority question
i. Follow the rules
ii. Number the questions as you produce them
6. Develop research question and agenda (1 minute)
a. From all the questions that you have asked so far, choose:
i. One question that you are glad you generated through the process
ii. One question that may help you advance your research
7. Reflect
a. What did you learn through this process?
Appendix C
QFT Responses to the QFocus: “Materials for Renewable Energy Engineering”
Students’ answers are unedited.
Group A
1. What are the most important materials in the solar field? (C)
2. What are the most important materials in the wind and geothermal field?
3. What are the most cost effective? (O)
4. What are the most used materials? (C)
5. How do you balance cost vs. practical effectiveness? (O)
6. What are the processes to determine if the materials are viable? (C)
7. Once developed, how do you get it established with building code etc
8. Are materials for RE different than for other non-RE things?
9. What other fields influence materials?
10. Are most RE materials organic or synthetic or etc?
11. What kind of research is going into making it more recyclable?
12. If plastic is best for something, does that counteract having RE source?
13. What is considered a material?
14. Is the renewable energy industry renewable?
15. Are living things considered materials? Algae?
16. Are there different “groups” of materials? Organic? Solid? Liquid?
17. How has 3D printing changed material research?
18. What constraints should be considered when selecting materials?
19. How important is application to the material?
20. What is the most promising upcoming material?
21. What schools/companies are doing most material research?
22. What are most important materials in solar field and why?
23. What makes a material cost effective?
24. What characteristics make materials most popular?
Group B
1. What is “Materials for Renewable Energy Applications” all about? (O)
2. What are materials for Renewable Energy? (O)
3. Will we focus on atomic structure vs. physical structure? (C)
4. Where are materials from? (O)
5. Just for structure or power efficiency? (C)
6. Are materials also for aesthetics vs. performance? (C)
7. How important is materials understanding vs. mechanical/EE engineering? (C)
8. What are the applications? (O)
9. What are the expensive vs. cheap? (O)
10. Most cost effective materials? (O)
11. What doesn’t work for Renewable Energy Applications? (O)
12. Which materials are ideal? (O)
13. What is implementation of ideal materials for Renewable Energy applications? (O)
14. Do some materials serve dual purposes?
15. Are domestic vs. outsourced materials better?
16. What is future outlook of supply of these materials?
17. What advancement has Renewable Energy materials seen?
18. What is cost analysis from zero to fully functional Renewable Energy science?
19. Are organic materials included in this category?
Group C
1. To be or not to be? (O)
2. What is a material? (O)
3. Why is solar used so much? (O)
4. What kinds of crystals are used in solar panels? (O)
5. What are the most cost efficient materials for semiconductors? (O)
6. With the wave of plastic industry, how will it affect the renewable energy industry? (O)
7. How does the type of material used effect battery characteristics? (O)
8. What steps can you use to optimize a Li-Ion battery? (O)
9. What kind of material properties are needed for a space elevator? (O)
10. How has the Trade-War affected the cost of materials/production? (O)
11. How pollutant are Renewable Energy materials to produce? (O)
12. Why do you space elevator when you space sling shot? (O)
13. How large of an inner radial distance (in AU) would a Dyson sphere need to be? (O)