Using process simulators in Chemical Engineering education: Is it possible to minimize the “black box” effect?
Open accessAbstract
Simulators are instrumental to engineers and scientists, in general, and to chemical engineers,more specifically, which enable the optimization and analysis of alternative solutions in a time‐efficient and cost‐effective way. Thus, their integration into Chemical Engineering studies has gained traction over the years in supporting traditional lectures or as the sole tool for knowledge transmission. However, despite their proven benefits in Higher Education, limitations exist, as the application of the tool may result in deficient learning. In fact, the algorithms and design equations that are used to transform inputs into results are not identifiable by the students, thereby instilling a “superficial understanding” of the problem. Thus, the objective of this paper is to provide some guidelines through three simple case studies, which may help minimize the so‐called “black box” effect. Two different state‐of‐the‐art computational tools were used in parallel. Aspen One simulations provided the reference point, which was used by the students to verify the process models built by them with Mathcad Prime. A survey taken by the students then allowed conclusions to be made, which concurred that the experience had been very successful.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior work has proposed pairing simulators with first-principles or computational tools for cross-checking to reduce superficial 'black box' use in simulator-based courses.
“Prior work has proposed approaches to reduce superficial ‘black box’ use in simulator-based courses, including pairing simulators with first-principles or computational tools for cross-checking [19, 26]”
From Comparing predictive, simulation-based and hybrid assessments in undergraduate process engineering (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparing predictive, simulation-based and hybrid assessments in undergraduate process engineering
Jafary, T., Pheiffer, L., Al Maqbali, H., Yeneneh, A. M., & Benayoune, A. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01525-7
- Authors
- Roman, C., Delgado, M. A., & García‐Morales, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Huelva (ES)
- Departamento de Ingeniería Química, PRO2TECS, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Universidad de Huelva Huelva Spain
- Corresponding author
- García‐Morales, Moisés
- Venue
- Computer Applications in Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-07-18
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1369-1385
- ISSN
- 1061-3773 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0542
- OpenAlex
- W3042768811
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer Applications in Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
- Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Huelva (Universidad de Huelva) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Cátedra CEPSA (ASPEN ONE license)
- Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería (PTC MATHCAD PRIME license)
- Vicerrectorado de Innovación y Empleabilidad de la Universidad de Huelva (XXI Convocatoria de Proyectos de Innovación Docente)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Experimental Learning in Engineering
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- process simulator, chemical engineering education, student understanding, process modeling, student survey, engineering pedagogy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review