Assignment Design: Sequencing Assignments
The goal of assignment sequencing is a stepwise development of students’ skills (i.e., movement from preliminary to higher level critical thinking or disciplinary skills) through a progression of assignments that all fit together to produce a larger end product. It involves exploring subject matter in increasingly complex ways or from different angles. Assignment sequences can augment a cohesive course design in that the sequence steps can highlight various key components while the end product can incorporate all elements of the course.
- Use a book-end or entry-exit model. Have students write down everything they know about the targeted issue/skill set at the beginning of the assignment sequence. At the end of the sequence, have them write down everything they know in light of their new experiences.
- Submit drafts . You might ask students to submit drafts in order to receive your quick responses on scope, content, and progress in assignments.
- Require consultations . Have students consult with those who work at different stages of a process, and summarize what they learned (i.e., architect, site planner, construction foreperson, landscaper, real estate agent).
- Explore a subject in increasingly complex ways . A series of assignments may be linked by the same subject matter or topic. Students encounter new perspectives and competing ideas with each new assignment, and thus must evaluate and balance these various points of view and ultimately adopt a position that considers them.
- Change modes of discourse . Have students' assignments move from less complex to more complex modes of discourse (e.g., from expressive to analytic to argumentative; or from lab report to position paper to research article).
- Change audiences . Have students create drafts for different audiences, moving from personal to public (e.g., from self-reflection to an audience of peers to an audience of specialists). Each change would require different tasks and more extensive knowledge.
- Use logical stages. A different approach to sequencing is to create a series of assignments that culminate in a final writing project. In scientific and technical writing, for example, students could write a proposal requesting approval of a particular topic. The next assignment might be a progress report (or a series of progress reports), and the final assignment could be the report or document itself.
- Submit sections . A variation of the previous approach is to have students submit various sections of their final document throughout the semester (e.g., bibliography, review of the literature, methods section, etc.)
Benefits of sequencing assignments
- Provides coherence within a course
- Sustains instructors’ interest in a course
- Mirrors professional work in any discipline
- Can be used for group assignments
- Guarantees progression and continued effort on assignments (no room for last minute/nightbefore work on a large project)
- Allows students ample time to develop more complex ideas/skills
- Encourages complexity without overwhelming students
- Helps to foster students’ confidence in skills and knowledge
- Allows students to see progress and purpose in their work
- Stimulates and sustains students’ motivation for tasks
Drawbacks of sequencing assignments
- Potentially requires more marking effort by instructors (i.e., more work submitted for feedback)
- Not all students have the same level of skill development – earlier steps may be mundane for students with skill levels that exceed those required, whereas students who hit an early “roadblock” in skills development will find later steps frustrating or unattainable
- May be challenging to implement in a 12-week term, depending on the complexity and scope of each assignment
If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.
This Creative Commons license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit us and indicate if changes were made. Use this citation format: Assignment Design: sequencing assignments. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo .
Teaching tip categories.
- Assessment and feedback
- Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
- Career Development
- Course Design
- Course Implementation
- Inclusive Teaching and Learning
- Learning activities
- Support for Student Learning
- Support for TAs
- Published: June 1998
Assignment and sequencing models for thescheduling of process systems
- Jose M. Pinto &
- Ignacio E. Grossmann
Annals of Operations Research volume 81 , pages 433–466 ( 1998 ) Cite this article
This paper presents an overview of assignment and sequencing models that are used inthe scheduling of process operations with mathematical programming techniques. Althoughscheduling models are problem specific, there are common features which translate intosimilar types of constraints. Two major categories of scheduling models are identified:single-unit assignment models in which the assignment of tasks to units is known a priori,and multiple-unit assignment models in which several machines compete for the processingof products. The most critical modeling issues are the time domain representation and networkstructure of the processing plant. Furthermore, a summary of the major features of thescheduling model is presented along with computational experience, as well as a discussionon their strengths and limitations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution .
Buy single article.
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Rent this article via DeepDyve.
K.R. Baker, Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling , Wiley, New York, 1974.
A.P. Barbosa-Póvoa, Detailed design and retrofit of multipurpose batch plants, Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, 1994.
D.B. Birewar and I.E. Grossmann, Incorporating scheduling in the optimal design of multiproduct batch plants, Computers Chem. Eng . 13(1989)141–161.
Article Google Scholar
D.B. Birewar and I.E. Grossmann, Efficient optimization algorithms for zero-wait scheduling of multiproduct plants, I&EC Research 28(1989)1333–1345.
J. Cerdá, G. Henning and I.E. Grossmann, A mixed-integer linear programming model for short term batch scheduling in parallel lines, presented at the ORSA / TIMS Meeting–Global Manufacturing in the 21st Century , Detroit, MI, 1994.
C.A. Crooks, Synthesis of operating procedures for chemical plants, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London, 1992.
S. French, Sequencing and Scheduling: An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Job-Shop , Ellis Horwood, England, 1982.
W.B. Gooding, J.F. Pekny and P.S. McCroskey, Enumerative approaches to parallel flowshop scheduling via problem transformation, Computers Chem. Eng . 18(1994)909–927.
I.E. Grossmann, J. Quesada, R. Raman and V. Voudouris, Mixed integer optimization techniques for the design and scheduling of batch processes, in: Batch Processing Systems Engineering , eds. G.V. Reklaitis, A.K. Sunol, D.W.T. Rippin and O. Hortacsu, Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp. 451–494.
J.N.D. Gupta, Optimal flowshop schedules with no intermediate storage space, Nav. Res. Logist. Quart. 23(1976)235–243.
E. Kondili, C.C. Pantelides and R.W.H. Sargent, A general algorithm for short-term scheduling of batch operations. I. MILP formulation, Computers Chem. Eng . 17(1993)211–227.
H. Ku, D. Rajagopalan and I.A. Karimi, Scheduling in batch processes, Chem. Eng. Prog . 83 (1987)35–45.
C.C. Pantelides, Unified frameworks for optimal process planning and scheduling, in: Foundations of Computer Aided Process Operations , eds. D.W.T. Rippin, J.C. Hale and J.F. Davis, CACHE, Austin, TX, 1994, pp. 253–274.
J.F. Pekny and D.L. Miller, Exact solution of the no-wait flowshop scheduling problem with a comparison to heuristic methods, Computers Chem. Eng . 15(1991)741–748.
J.F. Pekny and M.G. Zentner, Learning to solve process scheduling problems: The role of rigorous knowledge acquisition frameworks, in: Foundations of Computer Aided Process Operations , eds. D.W.T. Rippin, J.C. Hale and J.F. Davis, CACHE, Austin, TX, 1994, pp. 275–309.
J.M. Pinto and I.E. Grossmann, Optimal cyclic scheduling of multistage continuous multiproduct plants, Computers Chem. Eng . 18(1994)797–816.
J.M. Pinto and I.E. Grossmann, A continuous time mixed-integer linear programming model for short term scheduling of multistage batch plants, I&EC Research 34(1995)3037–3051.
J. Pinto and I.E. Grossmann, An alternate MILP model for short term batch scheduling with preordering constraints, Ind. Eng. Chem. Research 35(1996)338–342.
G.V. Reklaitis, Perspectives on scheduling and planning of process operations, presented at the 4th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering , Montebello, Canada, 1991.
G.V. Reklaitis, Overview of scheduling and planning of batch process operations, NATO Advanced Study Institute–Batch Process Systems Engineering , Antalya, Turkey, 1992.
S.H. Rich and G.J. Prokopakis, Scheduling and sequencing of batch operations in a multipurpose plant, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev . 25(1986)979–988.
D.W.T. Rippin, Batch process systems engineering: a retrospective and prospective review, Computers Chem. Eng . 17 (suppl. issue)1993, S1–S13.
N.V. Sahinidis and I.E. Grossmann, MINLP model for cyclic multiproduct scheduling on continuous parallel lines, Computers Chem. Eng . 15(1991)85–103.
N.V. Sahinidis and I.E. Grossmann, Reformulation of multiperiod MILP models for planning and scheduling of chemical processes, Computers Chem. Eng . 15(1991)255–272.
G. Schilling, Y.-E. Pineau, C.C. Pantelides and N. Shah, Optimal scheduling of multipurpose continuous plants, presented at the AIChE National Meeting , San Francisco, CA, 1994.
N. Shah, Efficient scheduling, planning and design of multipurpose batch plants, Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, 1992.
N. Shah, C.C. Pantelides and R.W.H. Sargent, A general algorithm for short-term scheduling of batch operations. II. Computational issues, Computers Chem. Eng . 17(1993)229–244.
N. Shah, C.C. Pantelides and R.W.H. Sargent, Optimal periodic scheduling of multipurpose batch plants, Ann. Oper. Res . 42(1993)193–228.
V.T. Voudouris and I.E. Grossmann, Optimal synthesis of multiproduct batch plants with cyclic scheduling and inventory considerations, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res . 32(1993)1962 –1980.
V.T. Voudouris and I.E. Grossmann, An MILP model for the optimal design and scheduling of a special class of multipurpose plants, Computers Chem. Eng . 20(1996)1335–1360.
S.J. Wilkinson, N. Shah and C.C. Pantelides, Scheduling of multisite flexible production systems, paper presented at the AIChE Annual Meeting , San Francisco, CA, 1994.
P. Williams, Model Building in Mathematical Programming , 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester, Northern Ireland, 1985.
Z. Xueya and R.W.H. Sargent, The optimal operation of mixed production facilities–a general formulation and some approaches to the solution, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Process Systems Engineering , Kyongju, Korea, 1994.
Z. Xueya, Algorithms for optimal process scheduling using nonlinear models, Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, 1995.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rights and permissions
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Pinto, J.M., Grossmann, I.E. Assignment and sequencing models for thescheduling of process systems. Annals of Operations Research 81 , 433–466 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018929829086
Issue Date : June 1998
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018929829086
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Schedule Problem
- Travel Salesman Problem
- Sequencing Model
- Schedule Model
- Find a journal
- Publish with us