Interim Chair and Associate Teaching Professor Widener University Chester, Pennsylvania, United States
Introduction:: Engineering is a discipline with service as a core attribute of the profession (both to the community and the society)1, however, engineering is perceived as a socially isolated, machinery-focused field2, and engineers are stereotyped as not being directly related to the community3. A fundamental cause for this perception is that traditional lecture-based courses do not expose students to non-technical audiences, lacks exposure of hands-on-experience in solving quasi-real or real problems of the community, and concentrate on applying theoretical knowledge to solve sanitized, closed-ended problems4. This approach entails the risk of severing connections between theory and practice and between student and society5,6. Collaborative project-based service-learning (S-L) with its emphasis on problem-solving, experiential-education and community-engagement, is successfully being used within engineering programs to address the numerous recognized shortcomings in the culture of engineering education. The result is the emergence of a new breed of engineers who work collaboratively with each other and community members to address community needs. Therefore, the goal is to revise Bioinstrumentation, a lecture-based junior-level required course, to a collaborative project-based S-L course so that the following learning objectives are met: After completion of the course students will
become versed in sustainable engineering;
get hands-on-experience in design and development of Bio-instruments;
develop skills in effective communication and strategic teamwork;
learn to work with a non-technical audience;
assist in improving access to STEM education for a diverse and underprivileged community; and
engage in activities that address human, societal and community needs which is the core of the engineering profession.
Materials and Methods:: Supported by an external and two internal grants the revised pedagogy included a multi-facetted approach many of which directly aligns with ABET’s student outcomes7 (SO).
BME students were taught about sustainable energy through a PECO (formerly, Philadelphia Electric Company, and external funding source) initiated workshop.
The Bioinstrumentation theoretical lecture was complemented with Arduino-based Bioinstrumentation lab.
Through the foundation received from both the above experiences, students were empowered to develop a workshop-based curriculum (Table 1) of their own, on sustainable energy (Table 1: Workshop# 2,3,4), and bioinstrumentation (Table 1: Workshop# 1,6,7,8). The curriculum included a proposal for theory, related hands-on-activity, and materials, methods, and budget required to develop the activity.
BME students were required to be involved in at least 10 hours of field-based “experiential learning” with our community partner (Boys and Girls Club of Chester, BGCC) who focus on serving a minority-based underprivileged community. BME students were engaged in teaching the curriculum they developed to the youth of BGCC (children between ages 9-11 years) which was followed by working on an activity/multiple activites to augment the understanding of the concepts they taught.
Students were required to interact not only with the children of BGCC but also with the administrative staff and teachers of BGCC, the employees of PECO, Widener University lab engineers and support staff.
Students needed to perform post-workshop reflections every week, and if weaknesses were identified during the reflection discussions, students were required to develop an action plan to rectify the weakness in upcoming workshops.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: 11-BME students enrolled in Bioinstrumentation (SP23), conducted 9-workshops to teach 47-BGCC-youths. This platform gave BME students a direct exposure to practical application (Table 1) of theoretical materials learnt in-class on sustainability and Bioinstrumentation while at the same time solving a community problem (access to hands-on STEM education for a minority-based underprivileged community). Sustainability workshops included projects on harnessing solar, wind and water energy to generate electrical energy. Arduino-based Bioinstrumentation workshops included temperature sensor-based project to analyze increase in temperature with exercise, gyroscope sensor-based project to understand brain-computer-interfacing and pulse sensor-based project to measure resting and active pulse rate. Figure 1, shows results from an anonymous post-course-completion survey collected from BME students to investigate students’ perception of learning objectives met via the collaborative project-based S-L aspect of the course. Based on the results, where agreement indicates both somewhat and strongly agreed:
82% students agreed that PECO projects exposed them to sustainable energy/engineering. (SO#2)
91% students agreed that S-L exposed them to hands-on-experience in design and development of Bio-instruments. (SO#7)
100% students agreed that S-L experience helped them hone their skills in effective communication and strategic teamwork. (SO#5)
91% students agreed that S-L experience taught them to work with a non-technical audience. (SO#3)
91% of the students agreed that S-L experience allowed them to assist in improving access to STEM education for a diverse and underprivileged community. (SO#4)
82% students agreed that S-L experience allowed them to engage in activities that address human, societal and community needs. (SO#2)
This project modeled the idea that giving back to community is an important college outcome, and that providing service to community is a good preparation for the engineering profession, citizenship, and life, which is well reflected in student testimonials (Table 2). It’s evident from the testimonials that the impact on each student was very personalized. While some procured engineering benefits (Table 2: Students 5,7,8,10), others developed a deep sense of satisfaction by serving the community (Table 2: Students 1,3,4,5,6,9,11), while still others pondered on how to make it a better experience for community children (Table 2: Students 2,5,10).
Acknowledgements (Optional): : The author would like to thank the Boys and Girls Club of Chester for providing us with the platform to implement this revised pedagogy. The author would also like to thank the junior BME class for their enthusiasm and commitment towards the S-L aspect of the course.
References (Optional): :
Lucena, J. (ed.). Engineering Education for Social Justice: Critical Explorations and Opportunities. London; Springer (2013).
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls' interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66(3–4),184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z
Brown, A. Bauer, M. (2021, February). Merging Engineering Education with Service Learning: How Community Based Projects Encourage Socially Conscious Engineers. Athens Journal of Education, 8(1) 9-22.
Litzler, E. & Young, J. (2013). Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering: results from the project to assess climate in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 319-345.
Marra, R., Rodgers, K., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2013). Leaving Engineering: A Multi-Year Single Institution Study. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 6-27.
