Agentive learning in engineering research labs

Abstract

Over the last two years, we have been conducting NSF-funded research on learning in two biomedical engineering research laboratories. Our goal is to understand the mechanisms that support student learning in such innovation communities. We have identified five characteristics of what we call "agentive" learning environments, which seem to account for the rapid membership and robust learning we have chronicled. In using this term, we refer to students both as agents of their own learning but also as assigning agency to the devices and technologies they encounter in the laboratories. In this paper, we present the five principles of an agentive learning environment with examples of how it unfolds day to day life in the labs. Finally we discuss the implications of these principles and our findings for the development of classrooms as sites of learning which better replicate the agentive learning found in the laboratories.Index Terms -Informal learning, research laboratory, agency. RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND LEARNINGWe are studying research laboratories as part of a larger project aimed at designing optimal learning environments for students in the field of biomedical engineering. This relatively new sub-field of engineering is an instance of what we term an interdiscipline. We use this term to denote an interdisciplinary area that has evolved in such a way that the melding of knowledge and practices from more than one discipline spawns highly unique environments and innovative practices, both cognitive and material.In the case of biomedical engineering, meldings of quantitative/qualitative/descriptive methods and varied forms of model-based reasoning from biology and engineering work together to create new ways of thinking and working towards designing and building medical applications. At present there are almost no textbooks for undergraduate education even though the number of new BME degree programs swells every year. More important, however, is the challenge of creating learning environments that immerse students in truly interdisciplinary contexts. This does not mean taking separate courses in biology and then in engineering with hopes that interdisciplinary thinking will somehow magically emerge. Nor does it mean doing some bio-related problems at the end of the chapter in a traditional engineering class. Rather it means designing learning environments where the various disciplines are explicitly required to solve problems.Our efforts to achieve this have been informed by two streams in the learning sciences community-problem-based learning and model-based reasoning. Very specifically, we are seeking ways to modify the PBL environment for engineering education in such a way that models come to the fore in interdisciplinary problem solving. With that goal in mind, we have been investigating BME research laboratories as exemplars of real-world problem-based learning, which utilize multiple forms of representation and types of modeling to push the frontiers of science.Research laboratories, for some decades now, h...

Design Principles for Problem-Driven Learning Laboratories in Biomedical Engineering Education

“…20 In an agentive learning environment, students are agents of their own learning and in determining a course of action. In this sense, they are actively constructing understanding and knowledge as they work through problems.…”

The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning

“…He claims that: cognitive processes may be distributed across the members of a social group, cognitive processes may be distributed in the sense that the operation of the cognitive system involves coordination between internal and external (material or environmental) structure, and process may be distributed through time. (Hutchins, 2001, p.2068) Newstetter et al (2004 use another term 'agentive learning' to explain the important role of artefacts in learning. 'Agents' include both human and nonhuman artefacts, such as devices and physical entities.…”

Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences

“…She suggests that graduate students become well-versed in common readings of their field and gain practice discussing the highlights of the literature. In science and engineering fields, however, a dominant socializing practice is participation in research group experiences (Burt, 2017;Burt, Williams, & Smith, 2018;Campbell, Dortch, & Burt, 2018;Crede & Borrego, 2012;Newstetter, Kurz-Milcke, & Nersessian, 2004;Villa et al, 2013). In these fields, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers often "live" in the lab because their research is tied to the lab and to the lab supervisor's work.…”

“…The degree to which a graduate student demonstrates the ability to be an independent scholar is viewed as a marker of the capacity for success as a faculty member (Bieber & Worley, 2006) because the faculty career is considered an independent and entrepreneurial enterprise. In many science and engineering fields, research group experiences are the locations of teaching and learning where students become independent scholars (Newstetter, Kurz-Milcke, & Nersessian, 2004;Saddler & Creamer, 2009;Stubb, Pyhalto, & Lonka, 2012;Villa et al, 2013). "Research group experiences" refers to any experience where students engage in generating scientific knowledge (e.g., participating in research groups to conduct experiments, learning through group meetings, contributing to publications, presenting at conferences).…”

“…In small groups, supervisors were described as being highly interactive with individual members, and group-related research was dependent on the direction and time of the supervisor. Newstetter, Kurz-Milcke, and Nersessian's (2004) study aimed to better understand the roles that agency, lab membership and identity formation, and interactive relationships play in rapid learning of group members. They found that "agentive environments" included distributed and shared responsibilities for learning; non-hierarchical lab structures, and shared expertise; intentional interactive practices to encourage rapid participation and learning; and, the presence of support systems to help reduce the impact of research-related failures.…”