Assistant Professor of the Practice Duke University, North Carolina, United States
Introduction:: Core technical skills of reading primary literature, oral presentation, and teaming are important outcomes for engineering departments but are often not addressed in core BME courses. Indeed, in our required, junior-level Biotransport Phenomena course, learning outcomes (stated below) are focused on engineering problem solving and recall of transport phenomena.
1. Understand the physical factors governing the transport of mass and how these factors operate in biological systems.
2. Learn and apply the basis of conservation laws underlying mass transfer to 1D and 2D examples.
3. Quantify the transport of mass through fluid mechanics and mass transfer equations.
4. Describe fluid flow for various systems.
5. Identify concentrations and flux of masses at particular locations.
6. Compare and contrast diffusive and convective transfer with respect to biological processes
These learning goals are relevant to the course and ABET requirements, but there are opportunities to teach beyond these goals. By creating in-class activities that allow students to practice teamwork, critical reading skills, and presentations, we can add a second dimension to a course. Interestingly, reading primary literature has been shown to help students think deeply about class content and create connections between class material and the “real world” [1-2]. Similarly, there have been many studies suggesting that both self-explanation [3] and peer discussion [4-6] enhance student comprehension of material.
Materials and Methods:: Students in a core, junior level Biotransport Phenomena class engaged in a two-day activity in class. On the first day, students were assigned to be members of one of seven different groups, via random numbers. Each group was assigned a one-page BMES abstract on a topic related to course work, including but not limited to volumetric flow rates, applications of the Navier-Stokes Equation, laminar and turbulent flow, and diffusion of species. Each group (7-8 students) was also given a Google Slides link, unique to that team, where they were asked to develop a 10-minute presentation to be delivered the following class period. The presentation had to include 1) background of the anatomy and physiology of the system, 2) an overview of the methods used in the abstract, 3) links to class material, and 4) the key findings of the research. During this time, the teaching team provided support by answering questions and suggesting additional topics that groups should research to gain a fuller picture of the abstracts’ contents. During the subsequent class period, each group presented their abstract to their fellow classmates. An anonymous survey was sent out enquiring about student perceptions of the activity and to what extent the activity impacted their learning. Each question allowed for the answer “Not Applicable (missed the activity)” to ensure that accurate data was recorded.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: Of a class of 57 students, a subset of students (n = 45) filled out the survey, 10 of whom answered that they were not in class one of the two days for the activity. Their responses are removed from the survey.
Overall, students viewed the activity favorably. When asked if the activity was engaging and interesting, 28 students agreed or strongly agreed. Two students “Strongly disagreed” with the statement. Similarly, when asked if this assignment should be implemented again in the future, 22 students said it should, 11 of students were unsure and 2 students suggested it not return in future iterations of the course (Figure 1).
Students were also asked to share if they agreed with three statements about the activity’s usefulness; 1) This activity helped me deepen my understanding of this course and at least one of the course objectives, 2) This activity helped me strengthen my skills in reading primary literature, and 3) This activity helped me strengthen my skills in technical oral communication. Overall, 97.1% of students (34 of 35, Figure 2A) believed that this course aligned with course objectives and strengthened their understanding of the course. Students self-reported that this activity was less impactful on technical skills such as reading (80% agreement) and communicating (80% agreement). Interestingly, these were not the same students (Figure 3).
This activity was generally well-received and had a moderate success in encouraging student skills in reading and communication and stronger success in meeting course objectives via student self-reported data. Interestingly, when asked for additional feedback, some students expressed that this module showed them how the course relates to the “outside world”. Students stated that
“I learned that the things that we learn in class are actually used in real life! Also, that many of the assumptions that we make in class aren't actually too unreasonable.”
and
“Learning content is okay, but seeing it apply to research and studies makes it even better”
Future iterations of this course will include a similar assignment, and this may be implemented in other core engineering mathematics courses.
Acknowledgements (Optional): : The authors acknowledge course TAs, Ali Lateef, Biswarup Goswami, Rachel Swingler, and Katy Strand, for their help in this course.
References (Optional): : [1] Pugh-Bernard A and Kenyon KL, Neuroscience Letters, 2021
[2] Rawlings JS, Frontiers in Immunology, 2019
[3] Chi MTH et al, Cognitive Science, 1994
[4] Tullis JG and Goldstone RL, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2020
[5] Rao SP and DiCarlo SE, Advances in Physiology Education, 2000
