Paper ID #38280Work in Progress: Can In-Class Peer Reviews of Written AssignmentsImprove Problem Solving and Scientific Writing in a Standard-Based,Sophomore Laboratory Course?Dr. Casey Jane Ankeny, Northwestern University Casey J. Ankeny, PhD is an Associate Professor of Instruction at Northwestern University. Casey received her bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia and her doctorate degree in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University where she studied the role of shear stress in aortic valve disease. Currently, she is investigating equitable
enroll in the same required Physiology course, which includeslabs with multiple full scientific writing deliverables, in the Fall 2023 (FA23) semester. NorthCarolina State University’s Institutional Review Board has reviewed and approved theprocedures of this study.The technical writing modules focus on one report section at a time, allowing students to usefeedback to rewrite that section multiple times. For example, when learning about each section ofa scientific report (e.g., Methods), students were provided a handout describing conventions ofthe genre and appropriate writing style. With this information, they wrote an initial draft that wasanonymously reviewed by two peers. After using this feedback to make improvements, studentssubmitted a
into technical writing instruction.References[1] “Best Practices for Using AI When Writing Scientific Manuscripts: Caution, Care, andConsideration: Creative Science Depends on It” ACS Nano 2023, 17, 5, 4091–4093. 2023.https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c01544[2] Leung TI, de Azevedo Cardoso T, Mavragani A, Eysenbach G. Best Practices for Using AITools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 31;25:e51584. doi:10.2196/51584. PMID: 37651164; PMCID: PMC10502596.[3] J. Qadir, "Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of GenerativeAI for Education," 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Kuwait,Kuwait, 2023, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121.[4] A. Adkins, N. S
the wide-rangingeffect seen here.Discussion and conclusionsThe results seen in this preliminary study match those found in recent work withinbioengineering education. Adkins et al. reported that students found in-person, one-on-onefeedback from an instructor or teaching assistant to the most valuable resource in improving theirwriting, compared to peer review and online resources [10]. In two studies, Gammon-Pitman andNocera evaluated lab report resubmissions and found improvements in early resubmissions andthat a great majority of students self-reported improvements in technical writing skills andconfidence [6], [18]. The preliminary analysis in this work affirms these previous findings, andthe analysis of anxiety-related statements suggests
, feedback, and assessment of each Extended Abstract occur in three stages. Theinstructional team and research team assess each stage differently. Draft stage Peer Review stage Final stage Students… write an abstract then qualitatively and finally, draft, review peer’s draft incorporate feedback using the co-created into final abstract rubric, submission. The instructional does not assess the gives credit for a and grades the final team… abstract draft, complete peer
class module was conducted todemonstrate multiple methods of how to use genAI to improve writing and editing. This lecturealso covered how AI was being adopted across various engineering disciplines and industries toexpose students to broader trends in AI usage. This exposure allowed students to understand howtheir peers and future employers are integrating AI, potentially influencing their own decisions toadopt or reject AI in future tasks. This module relied on students having independentlycompleted written assignments prior to the start of the lecture. During the lecture, the instructorsshowed how to access the genAI tool Microsoft Copilot through an institutionally supportedwebsite. The lecture included demonstrations of how differently
of Biomedical Engineering. I am involved in mentoring students in both the laboratory and in the classroom and have research interests in peer feedback, team dynamics, and incorporating more translatable skills to my classes. Currently, I teach senior capstone, research and experimental design, and medical device design. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in Progress: Towards Self-reported Student Usage of AI to Direct Curriculum in Technical Communication Courses1. IntroductionThe use of AI by students in biomedical engineering courses has rapidly grown in the past year[1]. Courses that prioritize critical thinking and technical writing have seen students relying
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
. However, whether due to length or resources, many of these programs tend to lackintegrated grant-writing and discussion-based components. Teaching grant-writing skills tograduate students proves to be useful later in their careers as it drives students to research in theirfields extensively, emphasizes the role of innovation in research, and enhances the skills neededto display and discuss data [5]. The discussion-based format is vital in enhancing criticalthinking and engagement, promoting collaborative problem-solving, and sharpeningcommunication skills amongst peers [6]. Beyond just being able to identify and solve currentclinical needs, developing adequate writing skills is crucial for graduate students’ success. Ourgoal is to design a course
orqualities do students identify in their peer’s work? We demonstrate that the framework can be usedto effectively capture students cognitive and affective responses and propose how student’s valueassignments of their peers’ work align with their own motivation(s) for success. By examiningstudent reflections on Engineering Studio experiences, we aim to identify participation drivers andstrategies to enhance engagement and learning outcomes in these collaborative spaces.Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks. Our framework draws on the Framework of StudentAffect in Field Biology, adapted and applied to the unique context of our BME studios [10]. Builton the Model of the Affective Domain in the Geosciences, it explores how motivation, emotion,and
students have access primarily to text-based tools totake notes (e.g., writing/drawing with pen and paper or typing text on a laptop). We askedwhether there is an equity gap for students without access to devices such as iPads, which allowstudents to both draw and write text by hand using a stylus.We are concerned about how diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) may be negatively impactedby any differences in student ability to: (1) take notes effectively or (2) afford note-takingdevices such as iPads. Any disparity in note-taking ability among groups of students is likely todecrease achievement or engagement, as note-taking is essential for learning and rememberingcourse material as well as being engaged during class [1-2].The impetus for our
thecreation of innovative assessment strategies that will provide future engineers with the teamworkand individual skills needed for real-world success.To explore these dynamics, this study addresses the following research questions: 1. How do group vs. individual exams impact student collaboration and peer learning? 2. How do students perceive the real-world relevance of group vs. individual exams? 3. How do group vs. individual exams influence accountability and independent learning?MethodologyThis work-in-progress study was conducted in a junior-level undergraduate biomechanics courseat a large R1 university. Students completed four exams during separate lab periods: the first twoas individual exams and the latter two as group exams. The
are in their second or third year. Students meetfor one 90-minute lecture and one 3-hour lab per week.This is a project-based laboratory course, which means that each lab procedure builds on theprevious week’s lab. Project-based learning (PBL) has been shown to enhance studentengagement and understanding of material [4]. Students engage in participatory design of the labproject by making experimental design decisions throughout the quarter. Students will makemost materials used in lab, including bacterial growth media, PCR primers, and competent cellswith appropriate genetic profiles for different cloning steps.Course assignments include: weekly lab quizzes, pre-lab write-ups, lab participation andtechnique, and lab reports. At the end of the
-onecoaches or as project mentors. The learning coaches serve as a bridge between faculty andstudents, offering practical advice, facilitating teamwork, and encouraging intrinsic motivation. Aone-on-one coach is a peer graduate student who provides academic, professional, and personalmentorship to undergraduate students. Project mentors offer similar guidance in the context ofvertically integrated research teams, guiding students through practical aspects of conductingengineering projects. Much of the research on the topic of graduate student mentors focuses onthe role of generic mentoring, coaching techniques, or ethical considerations. There is a need toevaluate the specific impacts on collaborative, academic, and professional culture that
delivered in an asynchronous format (video recordings).At the end of each unit, student teams submitted deliverables using templates modeled aftercompany forms: Product Initiation Request form, Design Inputs table, Design Details form, andFailure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) table. The deliverables, mapped to the learning goals(Appendix A), included writing a need statement based on the VoC; examining regulatory, ethics,and impacts of engineered solutions; creating design inputs; summarizing design details andrecreating a CAD model of an existing product; and identifying potential failure modes of anexisting product. Additional assessments tied to learning goals included maintaining a designhistory file (DHF), team norms, peer evaluations
they care about, the people they are designing for. Through stories, engineers identify the problems that need solving, helping ensure their work truly makes a difference. And through stories, engineers inspire others to join their efforts, helping them write a new and better story for the future. So, it is a leadership skill. And one more thing: by learning to tell your stories, you learn more about yourself. In this course, you will learn to tell your stories in a variety of ways for different audiences.As part of the framing of the course, the instructors seek to “create a safe environment wheresharing freely is supported and respected.” The learning objectives for the course include thoseshown below: 1
) apply mass and energyconservation laws; 2) perform kinetic analysis of reactions; 3) work collaboratively on a team todevelop and solve mathematical models; and 4) develop technical writing and oral presentationskills. The course uses a blend of lecture, in-class and homework problems, and open-endedPBL modules.PBL is based on a constructivist pedagogy, requiring students to work together to createsolutions to complex, open-ended challenges. Since BME 260 focuses on modeling, PBLchallenges were structured to engage teams to develop multi-compartment conceptual models.Teams also developed novel mass accounting and kinetic equations for important chemicalconstituents in their biological system, searched the peer-reviewed literature for
todemonstrate alignment between design inputs and outputs. The device consisted of anelectromechanical suction mechanism paired with flexible tubing to collect tear film samples.Project development was continued by two IMED students who originally helped identify theproblem in CIP. The students, through further clinical observation and testing, identifiedunintended usage of the device and were able to develop a subsequent design to better meetclinical need. A provisional patent has been filed and IRB approval for clinical data collectionand longitudinal development has been obtained.Implementation of the pipeline began in Summer of 2022 with CIP, and continued into the Fallwith the prototyping course and SD. At the time of writing, three projects from
engineering, drug delivery, and cancer treatment. With numerous exter- nal and internal funding sources, he is actively engaged in research involving undergraduate students in various areas, including engineered red blood cells for oxygen therapeutics development. Dr. Zhang has published more than 40 peer-reviewed journal articles, authored the book Nanotechnology for Bioengi- neers, and holds multiple patents. When it comes to engineering and chemical sciences education, he is especially interested in integrating the entrepreneurial mindset into a wide range of courses. Dr. Zhang has been recognized by the ASEE’s Prism magazine as one of 20 high-achieving researchers and educa- tors under 40 (2018), the Milwaukee Business
%. This assignmentasked student teams to do some self-directed learning about a particular healthcare disparity oftheir choice and dig deeper into its impact. Additionally, teams were asked to create engagingand informative infographics, which were printed and on display for the entire class to see. Thisshowcase facilitated a great deal of discussion and energy, as well as peer learning.The case study assignment was also quite effective at increasing social justice issues awareness,with 93% of participants rating it as Very or Somewhat Well. Here, students were asked todiscuss healthcare disparities that have affected them or someone they love in small groups,choose one, and write a case study for the rest of the class to read and comment on
,” Commun. Teach., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 116–129, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1080/17404620802382680.[10] J. Gilmore, M. A. Maher, D. F. Feldon, and B. Timmerman, “Exploration of factors related to the development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants’ teaching orientations,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1910–1928, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.806459.[11] M. Di Benedetti, S. Plumb, and S. B. M. Beck, “Effective use of peer teaching and self-reflection for the pedagogical training of graduate teaching assistants in engineering,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., pp. 1–16, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2022.2054313.[12] J. Agarwal, G. Bucks, and T. J. Murphy, “A Literature
byhaving the students practice reading DNA sequences or performing a short demonstration ofmodel construction. Having students write the complementary sequence to the given sequenceprior to building the model could also rectify this problem. Nevertheless, one student stated thatafter the hands-on activity, “I understood [DNA] much better” (Table 3).As recognized from the students’ workshop preference responses, the Presenting Research:Bioengineering Research Today was difficult for students. Although they enjoyed learning aboutthe cloning of Dolly the Sheep and the breakthrough of AlphaFold, the activity afterward provedchallenging. This workshop was completed in groups where each student followed a documenton a laptop with an accompanying
different learning style, auditory, compared to the usual reading and writing learning style we usually do. This helps me stimulate a different part of my brain and engage with the course material in a new view, which helps me retain the information better as this was a unique learning experience. • While the heart on its own doesn’t sound very musical, describing it as music is a good way to remember certain concepts. • Being able to listen to the sound manifestation of blood flow in the heart was really helpful and allowed me to better interpret the physiological processes we had learned in class. • I am sure that approaching the heart from this new angle will help me retain much more of the
decide to collect pieces of information fromtrusted sources (peer-reviewed articles) to create a model to help explain to Thomas why it wassuggested that he give his son the antibiotics (350 mg/dose) twice daily spaced approximately 8 hours(hint round up to 500 minutes for easier modeling of the input drug). Thomas tells you that his son gulpsthe liquid antibiotics very quickly. After some searching you find the following information: • Gut volume of average 5-year old: 100 mL • Average blood volume of 5-year old: 5.8L • Volume of Ear Canal: 1.2 mL • Rate of exchange of antibiotic from the gut to the blood: 8.75 mL/hr • Rate of exchange of antibiotic from the blood to the ear canal via capillaries: 3.15 mL/min
is a practical underpinning forconsidering curricular revisions across curricular levels (e.g., course, multiple courses, or project).Figure 1. Elements from Lattuca and Stark’s [23] Academic Plan Model were used as a theoreticalunderpinning for our study.Biomedical Engineering Program ContextOur program context is the undergraduate BME program at an R1 institution in the southeasternUnited States. Our ABET-accredited BME program was newly established in 2018, with the firstcohort of undergraduates graduating in May 2022. At the time of writing, our BME programcurrently enrolls ~250 undergraduate students seeking a B.S. in BME, with an additional ~80students pursuing a minor in BME. For over two years, faculty across the tenure and
careershave a stronger purpose in life [11]. In a university engineering setting however, this could provechallenging for undergraduates whose end goal is to work in industry as many faculty have onlyknown academia, and lack industry experience. Kirschenman writes “Engineering is aloneamong professional careers that try to educate future professionals with people that are notproficient in the practical side of the profession” [12]. Therefore, it is imperative thatundergraduate students are connected with professionals who have the real-world, hands-onexperience in the workforce that they hope to pursue in the future. Particularly in an engineeringfield, mentoring is a high impact practice that can assist students in reaching the next stages oftheir
and breaking down professional silos and isolation in healthcare communitieshas led to the use of virtual communities of practice among other professions, such as ineducation and scientific research.Similar to healthcare professionals, education professionals have also experienced barriersassociated with professional silos and isolation. In particular, faculty at research-intensiveuniversities can hold alternative titles and roles within the institution, which can lead to differentperceptions among their faculty peers and students [7]. For instance, faculty on the tenure trackwith a higher research and lower teaching focused role will have the title “Professor”, whereasthose who have a more teaching focused role can be given the title