June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
26.412.1 - 26.412.16
Cost-Effective, Inquiry-guided Introductory Biomaterials Laboratory for UndergraduatesInquiry-guided instruction has been shown as more effective than traditional instruction. Ininquiry-based instruction, students work in a self-directed manner to interpret outcomes based oninvestigation of their own question. Here, we describe a cost-effective, sustainable biomaterialslaboratory for undergraduates using inquiry-guided instruction at a large public university.The four laboratory components focused on key biomaterial topics and lasted for two-to-threeweeks. During the first week, students were provided with available materials pertaining to themodule and worked with group members and instructor(s) to devise and test a custom hypothesisinstead of using “cookie cutter” lab manuals. In the second week, students performedexperiments to test their hypotheses. During the last week, student performed analysisappropriate for their custom experimental design. Each lab was scaled to be completed in 90minutes. This allows for multiple mini-sessions in the allotted period, resulting in smaller groupsand a variety of hypotheses. Further, this course design allowed students at a large institution tohave a more personal, hands-on experience. This laboratory was developed for 120 studentsmeeting during the same three hour block. Total costs per student for the four modules were $35per student.To assess this intervention, a mix method approach was adopted, including faculty vignettes anda student knowledge and value survey called the Scientific Literacy and Student Value inInquiry-guided Lab Survey (SLIGS). The SLIGS is comprised of two portions: Part Ainvestigating scientific literacy and Part B investigating student value of the inquiry-guidedpedagogy. Both parts were assessed for validity using factor analysis and reliability usingCronbach’s alpha. Data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric statistics.The SLIGS had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.8). All questions factoredas anticipated with the exception of one per part. Questions that did not factor were excluded.The scientific literacy portion showed high levels of confidence both pre- and post-intervention(76% and 89% respectively, npre = 155 and npost=93). Further, there was a statistically significantincrease in confidence in seven of the nine categories including explanation of scientificoutcomes (79% to 95%), assessment of experimental methodology (75% to 96%), and design ofexperiment (69% to 95%). With respect to the survey portion pertaining to the value of inquiry-guided labs, students showed a high level of interest [73% mid-semester (M); npre = 131 and 81%at the end of semester (E); npost=93]. Further, they felt that the labs were of utility value (77%-Mand 85%-E), and did not require too much in terms of emotional and time costs (71%-M and71%-E). Lastly, there was a statistically significant improvement in mid- to end-of- semesterassessments in several categories, including student engagement, relevance to the real-world, andthe desire to see other inquiry-guided labs.In summary, this laboratory is not only sustainable due to low cost and time requirements butalso adopts the evidence-based practice of inquiry-based instruction. Moreover, assessmentshowed student improvement in scientific literacy and favorable student attitudes in terms ofinterest, utility, and emotional and time costs.
Ankeny, C. J., & Stabenfeldt, S. E. (2015, June), Cost-effective, Inquiry-guided Introductory Biomaterials Laboratory for Undergraduates Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23751
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015