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
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
. 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
%. 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
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
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