Comparison of Student Learning in Challenge-based and Traditional Instruction in Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study comparing student learning in an inquiry-based and a traditional course in biotransport. Collaborating learning scientists and biomedical engineers designed and implemented an inquiry-based method of instruction that followed learning principles presented in the National Research Council report "How People Learn" (HPL). In this study, the intervention group was taught a core biomedical engineering course in biotransport following the HPL method. The control group was taught by traditional didactic lecture methods. A primary objective of the study was to identify instructional methods that facilitate the early development of adaptive expertise (AE). AE requires a combination of two types of engineering skills: subject knowledge and the ability to think innovatively in new contexts. Therefore, student learning in biotransport was measured in two dimensions: A pre and posttest measured knowledge acquisition in the domain and development of innovative problem-solving abilities. HPL and traditional students' test scores were compared. Results show that HPL and traditional students made equivalent knowledge gains, but that HPL students demonstrated significantly greater improvement in innovative thinking abilities. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for improving undergraduate engineering education.

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

“…Although student achievement was higher under active learning for both types of assessments, we hypothesize that the difference in gains for examinations versus concept inventories may be due to the two types of assessments testing qualitatively different cognitive skills. This explanation is consistent with previous research indicating that active learning has a greater impact on student mastery of higher-versus lower-level cognitive skills (6)(7)(8)(9), and the recognition that most concept inventories are designed to diagnose known misconceptions, in contrast to course examinations that emphasize content mastery or the ability to solve quantitative problems (10). Most concept inventories also undergo testing for validity, reliability, and readability.…”

Developing of module challenge based learning in environmental material to empower the critical thinking ability

“…Another research conducted by Baloian, Breuer, Hoeksema, Hoppe, & Milrad (2004) suggests that the implementation of CBL learning model encourages students to have a strong focus on learning, cooperation and thinking differently about self-learning. And the results of the study Martin, Rivale, & Diller (2007), O'Mahony et al (2012) show the use of CBL model is more effectively to develop the innovation and thinking ability than the use of traditional learning models and powerpoint slides. And, other research results Swiden (2013), Jou, Min, Hung, Chen Kang, Lai (2010 and Tajuddin, Siti Mariam, Azrol (2013) CBL model is able to increase the activity, motivation and learning outcomes of students.…”

Designing for STEM Integration

“…When reviewing the literature we identified three different types of challenges used within the Challenge-Based Instructional model (Berland & McKenna, 2012): N Problem-based challenges in which students are posed problems that can only be solved through the application of novel concepts. Problem-based challenges focus students on traditional, complex science and math questions that do not require design (e.g., Cordray et al, 2009;Klein & Harris, 2007;Linsenmeier, Harris & Olds, 2002;Martin, Rivale & Diller, 2007) N Engineering design-based challenges which focus on engaging students in the design work of engineers such that the science and math concepts that underlie the challenge are not the primary focus; clearly students must work with those concepts in order to Table 1 Unit Plan for From Pinholes to Pixels Lesson Set 1: Understanding and Characterizing (3-5 days)…”