Work in Progress: Assessing Biomedical Engineering Student Engagement in Asynchronous and Synchronous Virtual Physiology Laboratory Experiences

Karly Franz; Dawn Kilkenny

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Publication Date: August 23, 2022
Start Date: June 26, 2022
End Date: June 29, 2022
Conference Session: Biomedical Engineering Division Poster Session
Page Count: 5
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--41492
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/41492
Download Count: 285

Paper Authors

biography

Dawn Kilkenny University of Toronto

visit author page

Associate Professor, Teaching Stream in Biomedical Engineering & Engineering Education at the University of Toronto, CANADA

visit author page

author page

Karly Franz University of Toronto

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Given that engineering is a hands-on discipline, much work has been done to analyze engineering student learning styles. Felder has previously shown that engineering students prefer receiving information visually, tend to process information actively, focus on sensory information & understand information globally [1]; similar outcomes have been identified in biomedical engineering student learning [2]. At the University of Toronto, BME curriculum is rich in hands-on laboratory experiences; this is particularly relevant for physiology curriculum given the heuristic experience to explore relevant biological concepts through translation to captured biosignals. In-person, students garner direct experience with biosignal acquisition, processing, and interpretation, skills particularly relevant for those students interested in a career path including design and development of medical devices [3]. Given the global shift to online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic and the inability for in-person laboratory learning, we were interested to understand BME student learning and experience preferences as we modified our laboratory curriculum to the virtual learning environment.

For comparative purposes, we designed two online biosignal-focused lab experiences through the Canvas platform for a cohort of 3rd year BME students (n=13). Each lab was scaffolded to include a conceptual overview, insight into the in-person protocol, a relevant interactive virtual simulation with embedded questions (Labster), datasets for analysis using MATLAB, and overall summary discussion. The first lab experience focused on skeletal muscle biosignals (EMG) and was delivered asynchronously: students were allowed 9 days to engage in supporting instructional elements independently with instructional support provided by a Canvas discussion board and two optional 3-hr office hours using Zoom. The second lab experience focused on cardiorespiratory biosignals and was scaffolded in the same manner but was held synchronously: a single 3-hr online session for all students led by the instructor using Zoom. The degree of instructor engagement was designed to discern how creating online laboratory ‘community’ affected BME student experience. In addition to Canvas analytics (page views, discussion board activity) and data from the Labster Dashboard (attempts; embedded question scores), student perception was gathered using a survey instrument (Likert Scale) and individual written reflection (word frequency, word themes). This study protocol has been approved by the Univesrity of Toronto Research Ethics Board (Protocol #40392).

Our findings indicate that our BME students preferred independent engagement associated with virtual lab simulations and use of coding to analyze biosignal data. The largest detriment included significant amount of time to navigate the experience due to variable experience with coding, confidence in outcomes, and/or non-immediate question response times using an online discussion board. Conversely, our students appreciated community created by a synchronous lab experience, and while many felt loss of independent access to learning tools (simulations, MATLAB) with this mode of delivery, indicated that their experience was enhanced overall by real-time discussion with peers and the instructor. Specific data outcomes will be shared in the full paper.

Understanding the diversity of student learning styles is relevant for appropriate and impactful curriculum design and experience. Despite feeling loss of a learning community in the online environment, we found BME students preferred stepwise independent challenges supported by a synchronous group framework for laboratory curriculum experiences. Positive feedback of asynchronous virtual simulation and coding experiences supports visual, sensory, and active learning; group discussions support desired global learning. This suggests that a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous activity has benefits that will optimize the laboratory experience and learning of our BME students.

[1] Felder, R.M. Matters of Style. ASEE Prism 1996, 6, 18–23. [2] Dee, K.C., Nauman, E.A., Livesay, G.A., and Rice J. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 2002. 30. 1100-1106. [3] Barros, C., Leao, C.P., Soares, F., Minas, G., and Machado, J. International Conference Interaction on Collaborative Learning ICL 2013, September, 290-295.

Citation
Format

Kilkenny, D., & Franz, K. (2022, August), Work in Progress: Assessing Biomedical Engineering Student Engagement in Asynchronous and Synchronous Virtual Physiology Laboratory Experiences Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--41492

TY - CPAPER
AB - Given that engineering is a hands-on discipline, much work has been done to analyze engineering student learning styles. Felder has previously shown that engineering students prefer receiving information visually, tend to process information actively, focus on sensory information & understand information globally [1]; similar outcomes have been identified in biomedical engineering student learning [2]. At the University of Toronto, BME curriculum is rich in hands-on laboratory experiences; this is particularly relevant for physiology curriculum given the heuristic experience to explore relevant biological concepts through translation to captured biosignals. In-person, students garner direct experience with biosignal acquisition, processing, and interpretation, skills particularly relevant for those students interested in a career path including design and development of medical devices [3]. Given the global shift to online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic and the inability for in-person laboratory learning, we were interested to understand BME student learning and experience preferences as we modified our laboratory curriculum to the virtual learning environment.

For comparative purposes, we designed two online biosignal-focused lab experiences through the Canvas platform for a cohort of 3rd year BME students (n=13). Each lab was scaffolded to include a conceptual overview, insight into the in-person protocol, a relevant interactive virtual simulation with embedded questions (Labster), datasets for analysis using MATLAB, and overall summary discussion. The first lab experience focused on skeletal muscle biosignals (EMG) and was delivered asynchronously: students were allowed 9 days to engage in supporting instructional elements independently with instructional support provided by a Canvas discussion board and two optional 3-hr office hours using Zoom. The second lab experience focused on cardiorespiratory biosignals and was scaffolded in the same manner but was held synchronously: a single 3-hr online session for all students led by the instructor using Zoom. The degree of instructor engagement was designed to discern how creating online laboratory ‘community’ affected BME student experience. In addition to Canvas analytics (page views, discussion board activity) and data from the Labster Dashboard (attempts; embedded question scores), student perception was gathered using a survey instrument (Likert Scale) and individual written reflection (word frequency, word themes). This study protocol has been approved by the Univesrity of Toronto Research Ethics Board (Protocol #40392).

Our findings indicate that our BME students preferred independent engagement associated with virtual lab simulations and use of coding to analyze biosignal data. The largest detriment included significant amount of time to navigate the experience due to variable experience with coding, confidence in outcomes, and/or non-immediate question response times using an online discussion board. Conversely, our students appreciated community created by a synchronous lab experience, and while many felt loss of independent access to learning tools (simulations, MATLAB) with this mode of delivery, indicated that their experience was enhanced overall by real-time discussion with peers and the instructor. Specific data outcomes will be shared in the full paper.

Understanding the diversity of student learning styles is relevant for appropriate and impactful curriculum design and experience. Despite feeling loss of a learning community in the online environment, we found BME students preferred stepwise independent challenges supported by a synchronous group framework for laboratory curriculum experiences. Positive feedback of asynchronous virtual simulation and coding experiences supports visual, sensory, and active learning; group discussions support desired global learning. This suggests that a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous activity has benefits that will optimize the laboratory experience and learning of our BME students.

[1] Felder, R.M. Matters of Style. ASEE Prism 1996, 6, 18–23.
[2] Dee, K.C., Nauman, E.A., Livesay, G.A., and Rice J. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 2002. 30. 1100-1106.
[3] Barros, C., Leao, C.P., Soares, F., Minas, G., and Machado, J. International Conference Interaction on Collaborative Learning ICL 2013, September, 290-295.

AU - Dawn Kilkenny
AU - Karly Franz
CY - Minneapolis, MN
DA - 2022/08/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work in Progress: Assessing Biomedical Engineering Student Engagement in Asynchronous and Synchronous Virtual Physiology Laboratory Experiences
UR - https://peer.asee.org/41492
DO - 10.18260/1-2--41492
ER -