Paper ID #43179Effectiveness of Inclusive, Reflective Teaching Practices on Problem SolvingProficiencyDr. Casey Jane Ankeny, Northwestern University Casey J. Ankeny, PhD is an Associate Professor of Instruction and Director of MS Program at Northwestern University.Prof. David P O’Neill, Northwestern University David O’Neill is an Associate Professor of Instruction and the Michael Jaharis Director of Experiential Learning for the Biomedical Engineering Department at Northwestern University. David read Engineering Science at University College, Oxford, receiving his M.Eng. and D.Phil. before undertaking a post-doc in the
Paper ID #43911Take this Job and Love It: Identity-Conscious Self-Reflection as a Tool toSupport Individualized Career Exploration for Graduating Biomedical EngineeringStudentsDr. Uri Feldman, Wentworth Institute of Technology Uri Feldman is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering in the School of Engineering at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston. He received a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab, a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. As a
experience. To assess student perceptions of thenew curriculum intervention, reflections were collected and qualitatively analyzed resulting in 3overarching themes, including creativity in user-centered design, time management, andcommunication/collaboration. These themes demonstrate that students felt they acquired orexpanded skills that are considered vital in a work environment. Therefore, applying this projectexperience on a larger scale can alleviate some of the unpreparedness that engineering studentsfeel as they leave school and enter the workforce. The intervention details will be provided toencourage other engineering instructors to implement similar real-world learning strategies in thehigher education classroom.IntroductionMany
intervention implemented in the course is a case study based on athoughtful 2009 article by Jerome Gropman, entitled Robots that Care [3]. In this activity, allstudents read and discuss not only the technical challenges involved in creating assistive robots,but also explore and reflect on how to implement and regulate the temperament of the robots.From discussion in class, the topic of temperament seemed to engage students, and that is whatprompted this investigation.The activity was delivered in two parts. In the first part, the entire cohort of nineteen studentsenrolled in the Summer of 2023 semester read and reflected on the article. In the second part, thestudents responded to a questionnaire posted on the learning management system. Many of
to make proposals for changes in the curriculum: How could gaps or deficienciesbe addressed? What other data are needed before making changes? (Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5).Again, faculty were highly engaged at each step: 100% of faculty teaching an undergraduatecourse were interviewed, and at the second department retreat, ~70% of faculty participated,including 18 tenure-track faculty (10 full, 4 associate, and 4 assistant), 2 teaching-track faculty,and 1 lecturer. At the conclusion of this retreat, attendees were asked to complete an exit survey.Responses showed clear appreciation for our approach, as well as an acknowledgement that weas a department have work to do together on the curriculum to better reflect our new objectives.Future
supporting STEM faculty on STEM education research projects.Dr. Sharon Miller, Purdue University Sharon Miller, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Practice in the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering at Purdue University. She received a BS degree in Materials Science and Engineering from Purdue University and MS and PhD degrees in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Michigan. Her educational efforts focus on biomedical engineering discipline-based educational research, including design self-efficacy, project-based learning, critical reflection in ethics, and high-impact practices. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024Work in Progress: A Multi-level Undergraduate Curricular
the first chapter and reinforced in eachfollowing chapter [3]. When teaching a course that fosters both process and content mastery, carefulattention must be paid to problem-solving processes, which require a conceptual understanding. Previousstudies have shown that several factors lead to success in problem-solving such as student interest in theprompts, clear explanations, and engaging in reflective practices [1].In order to measure students’ attitudes toward a course, we leveraged findings from two related studies,where students were asked to answer a questionnaire with 60 questions related to disposition that was takenfrom the following validated instruments: the Index of Learning Styles[4], the Growth Mindset Scale[6],and sense of
toincorporate the IDEO model of innovation, wherein projects were validated according to theirdesirability, feasibility, and viability. Desirability considers the users’ needs, where feasibilityand viability reflect the technical ability to develop a solution and marketability potential,respectively. Teams are expected to propose a single unmet clinical need at the conclusion ofCIP and validate it as a potential project according to IDEO model. Here we report on two yearsof our revised CIP, using data from pre- and post-program surveys. Surveys assessed studentexperience, confidence, and perceived necessity of interdisciplinary teaming, primaryethnographic research, and secondary research. Paired data from 28 students was available (14BME, 14 IMED
only presented in English [7] and inaccurate assessment results that may artificiallylower GPAs [7], these factors generate a potential hardship and disadvantage in any STEM internshipapplication process.In attempts to remove these barriers, the traditional cover letter and resume application format were substitutedwith visual application requirements designed to reflect a candidates’ enthusiasm for STEM topics and aninsight into persistence and problem-solving abilities. Additionally, the PROPEL team created 1-2 min. videoswith host labs that relate the lab focus and the summer internship project. Applicants were asked to write a brief,250-word essay reflecting on a personal or academic challenge. This enabled the PROPEL applicationcommittee
of a shortanswer question in which students succinctly describe their post-graduation plans, a freeresponse question which asks students to reflect on their personal strategic focus as a member ofthe BME community, and a copy of their professional résumé at the time they were enrolled inthe course.To date, we have collected over 1000 individual student assignments between both courses andare currently in the process of pairing them so the same students can be tracked across the twotime points. In addition to the students’ assignments, we are also collecting information about thefirst position students attained post-graduation, if available, from public sources such asLinkedIn or the alumni directory. Once data from all three time points is
reflections areshown in Figure 5 with the list of questions in the table below. Based on the survey students'confidence in being a tissue engineer averaged 4.15 ± 0.38. Also, students’ confidence in designinga tissue engineering bioreactor averaged 4.15 ± 0.80. Students' confidence in using the maker spaceand their tools in other projects, like a capstone or senior design project, averaged 4.77 ± 0.44. Thenext question surveyed students' opinions about themselves being good at engineering andaveraged 4.0 ± 0.82. When we asked students about their confidence in applying their theoreticalknowledge in tissue engineering the responses averaged 4.23 ± 0.44. Next, we asked about theirability to work in a team to accomplish a goal, the results averaged 4.77
methods to diverse learning needs, as reflected in varying ratiosof correctness in pre-/post-lecture tests [15]. Collectively, these studies underscore the importanceof recognizing each class as a unique entity, catering to the diverse learning styles and backgroundsof students.In this research, we aim to broaden the application of pre-post lecture assessments, elevating themfrom feedback tools to more refined instruments that measure learning at different cognitive levels,as defined by Bloom's Taxonomy (Figure 1b). Our strategy involves aligning key lecture learningoutcomes with pre/post assessment questions, crafted to probe varying cognitive depths. Thismethod will provide instructors with a more nuanced understanding of student
class is being offered for the first time in the Spring 2024 semester, initial data on theeffectiveness of the proposed teaching methods is still being collected. This data will includeperformance on representative exam questions for key biomechanical concepts, lab reports fromin class hands on experiments, discussion questions from journal articles read and discussed inclass, final presentations on journal articles of the students’ choosing and student evaluations givenby the university. This year’s class consists of only two students, so further data will need to becollected on next year’s class, which is expected to increase to 4 to 6 students. However, this year’sdata will be used to inform the initial round of reflection and changes in the
challenging dominant narratives and fostering inclusive and equitablepractices. By engaging in self-reflection and critical dialogue, engineers can better recognize thesocial implications of their work, identify potential sources of bias or discrimination, and strivetowards more ethical and socially responsible solutions. Critical reflexivity, thus, encouragescollaboration and interdisciplinary engagement, inviting engineering students to consider diverseperspectives and alternative approaches to problem-solving.Pilot Study The initial step in this pilot study entailed selecting a tissue mechanics course that is partof an undergraduate biomedical engineering program. The course consisted of a ‘lecture-driven’,traditional teaching environment
understand howBME students develop an entrepreneurial mindset (EM). These studies explore curricular EMinterventions designed to encourage development of EM skills such as curiosity about the coursetopics [22], reflective thinking [16], and designing for a certain customer base [17], [42]. In Kinget al.'s study [40], BME students participated in capstone design projects where they worked inteams to design prototypes based on existing patent applications of industry professionals. Thesestudents were able to learn about the engineering design process as well as the business side ofintellectual property development such as patents, customer discovery, budgeting, andcommunication of results [40].In several studies on EM development within a BME context
significant time commitmentrequired by the program - 15 hours a week per week for each team member over seven weeks –may have hindered some student’s ability to engage in the project entirely. A more feasibleapproach may students enrolled in multiple IBL courses, as this would better align better with thetime demands of the NSF program. Some results are based on self-assessed opinions, which maynot reflect actual outcomes. Further analysis may be needed to better understand the impact of I-Corps and IBL on engineering education.VII. Conclusion As this study is in its early stages, a definitive conclusion regarding the impact ofintegrating IBL principles with the NSF I-Corps program in engineering education is yet to bedrawn. However, the
entering industry, but recognition only represents base knowledgeacquisition based on Bloom’s Taxonomy principles. Here we describe a set of curricular modulesto enhance students’ understanding of standards in engineering practice that reflect learning at alllevels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e. recognition/understanding, application, revision, and creation).The modules and their implementation will enhance students’ understanding of standards,including 1) searching and identifying appropriate standards, 2) writing appropriate protocols forthe verification of standards, 3) proposing revisions to standards, and 4) developing newstandards. With this methodology applied to different engineering/technical disciplines, we hopeto establish a distinct value
specificknowledge on the project's topic, reflected in increasingly technical descriptions in each of thepresentations. We have taken the metric of the number of articles as an indicator of students' pursuitof new knowledge. In describing the solutions, students included diagrams, concepts, methods,and results in their presentations, which demonstrates their engagement with the articles.Defined RequirementsOne of the most important findings of this study was the analysis of requirements. Only one groupmaintained the number of requirements, indicating that iterative design is necessary to developbetter solutions to problems. In the first iteration, three groups provided more detailedrequirements, either by adding or dividing those initially proposed in the
university undergraduate BME programs and the job market,” IEEE Pulse, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 42–45, 2015, doi: 10.1109/MPUL.2014.2386575.[4] J. Berglund, “The real world: BME graduates reflect on whether universities are providing adequate preparation for a career in industry,” IEEE Pulse, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 46–49, 2015, doi: 10.1109/MPUL.2014.2386631.[5] C. P. Rivera, A. Huang-Saad, C. S. E. Jamison, and A. Wang, “Preparing Early-career Biomedical Undergraduates Through Investigations of Stakeholder Needs: A Qualitative Analysis,” presented at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Jun. 2020. Accessed: Feb. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/preparing-early- career
engineering disciplines and real-world ethical challenges. • Character formation and the role of virtues such as curiosity, humility, and discernment were discussed as to how to embed these character traits through projects or problem-based learning that allowed for ethical learning outcomes to be achieved. • Faculty worked to ensure the ethical principles across both courses were distinct, yet complementary to the learning performed in the prior courses. 6. Implementation Assessment: • Ethical modules were implemented in the expanded set of courses to gauge their impact. • Ongoing assessments, student feedback, and faculty reflections were collected
reinforced skills including experimental design, developing experimental protocols,analyzing data, optimizing a process, and making decisions based on data on a 5-point scale fromstrongly agree (4) to strongly disagree (0).Qualitative Data AnalysisTo better understand the impact of the experiential learning activities, several free responsequestions were included in the surveys. In the survey after each simulated industry experience,students were asked to briefly reflect on the activity by sharing things like what they learnedfrom the activity, how this activity challenged them to think like an engineer in industry, or whatcould be improved about the activity. In addition, students were asked to identify the mainchallenges in the biopharmaceutical
all of the course’s challengeproblems). The grades are indicative of the correctness of the calculated and inferred solution as well as thedescription of the process to reach the solution. Though the student grade is more of a representation of thecognitive domain, it is a good measure of the student engagement level and, when compared to grades inother assignments, reflects the impact of the gamified problem on their learning.In order to separate the assessment of the data (including coding of the reports) from the evaluation ofgrades, the authors split these responsibilities. MG, who was the instructor in the course, assessed all reportswith the rubric. RVG, who did not meet the students and therefore held no biases towards any of them
incorporated into the class to help students toaddress these questions. The lab experimentation provided students with a hands-on opportunity to assess the biological impact of various biomaterials. Through thisexperiment, students gained practical skills in experimental design, data analysis,and interpretation, fostering a deeper understanding of biomaterials beyondtheoretical concepts. The inclusion of ethical considerations in the biomaterialcurriculum was addressed through a debate. This encouraged students to reflect onthe societal implications of biomaterials research, fostering a sense of responsibilityand ethical awareness among future practitioners.The study employed both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods,including pre- and post
solution for everything in our field. The instructormust reflect on whether all course assignments should be turned into games, or if there can bealternatives that could be considered instead.Design Weaknesses:First, building these games requires a substantial amount of effort. Attempting to figure out howbest to convey a topic in a novel manner is a very difficult task when you have never doneanything like this before. Making sure each game is unique and also does not detract from thelesson is a difficult balancing act. In addition, many classes are limited in the amount of time thatcan be spent on instructing how best to play the game at the expense of the time that can beallotted to playing said games.In addition, games have a habit of “running