Poster Q18 - Biomedical Engineering Design Pedagogical Interventions to induce Critical Reflexivity of Undergraduate Biomedical Engineers

Introduction: Although biomedical engineering has frequently adapted to meet advancing medical device needs, curriculum and course pedagogy offered at the undergraduate level often remains unchanged from traditional engineering sequences. While undergraduate biomedical engineering programs are designed to promote the development of a strong foundation of fundamental concepts and critical thinking skills, there is a need to address an inconsistency between the academic and workplace performance of recent graduates (Felder, 2012). Due to this discrepancy, we are prompted to reevaluate current teaching methods used in core undergraduate biomedical engineering courses that are intended to prepare students for future positions. We propose introducing the concept of critical reflexivity into the classroom. Critical reflexivity has been shown as a crucial component in pedagogy that will help students gain a better understanding of the ethical and cultural aspects of biomedical engineering, expanding their understanding of societal/healthcare impact once implemented. Moreover, the course assessed (Biomedical Technology and Product Development, BME Tech&Dev) prepares students to overcome challenges they may encounter in courses such as capstone design and in future careers. To promote critical reflexivity in BME Tech&Dev, we hope to build on the current curriculum by implementing digital (Perusall, DesignSafe and Solidworks) and expanding current in-person (guest speakers and case studies) pedagogical interventions. In turn, we hope to assess if students exhibit increased confidence in their ability to identify and address needs in the biomedical engineering field, if there is an influence on creativity, and if there is an increase in students pursuing careers in industry post-graduation.

Materials and

Methods: The methodology of this study consisted of administering an online qualitative study (survey) during the semester's final week. The respondent group was comprised of current BME 3023 students who were asked to assess the course's limitations. This survey consisted of open-ended questions, multiple choice questions, and a Likert scale to measure the different dimensions of student experiences to address if and how they feel prepared for capstone design I, capstone design II, and future careers in industry. Survey questions consisted of prompts such as: “Do you intend to use the same ‘need’ you came up with this course for capstone design? Why or why not?”. Data collection included the quantification of 49 student artifacts. Based on the findings of the survey, the next steps would include the changes in the incorporation of in-person (guest speakers and case studies) and digital (Perusall, DesignSafe and Solidworks) pedagogical interventions to measure the impact of promoting critical reflexivity on creativity, their ability to problem solve when addressing a need in the biomedical field, and overall preparedness for capstone design. In addition, the current assessments of student mastery for this course are evaluated through homework, presentations, a “knowledge” exam, and a team project report. To maintain this evaluation's consistency, we continued to use these assessments, with an addition of whether students use the same need in capstone design, to measure the success of the implemented interventions. Qualitative analysis of current data was categorical and distributed as parts of the population surveyed through responses.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: Findings from the online survey study indicate the significance of the potential impact of the promotion of critical reflexivity on the critical thinking ability of undergraduate biomedical engineers to enhance career preparedness. Survey responses reflected that when asked if they felt prepared for capstone design over 80 percent of students (Fig 1) conveyed feeling adequately prepared, but when asked if they would use the same need identified in BME Tech&Dev in capstone design over 75 percent (Fig 2) expressed that they will not. This finding highlights a need to evaluate what causes the discrepancy between the objectives and methods of the course and why they do not align with the students’ perception of a significant need for their future capstone design projects. Commentary from students indicates a predilection to riskier projects and more ambitious goals in BME Tech&Dev since they were unconstrained by the practicality of prototyping and testing. Therefore, while the course content of BME Tech&Dev may be directly relevant to capstone design, there is a need to address a disconnect between theoretical learning (methodological knowhow and technical synthesis gained in BME Tech&Dev) and how to apply/execute to a medical device deliverable (established in capstone design). To do this, the implementation of digital and in-person pedagogical interventions aimed at promoting critical reflexivity could assist students in thinking critically, thus prompting the utilization of the synthesized content from BME Tech&Dev to address a practical need in the biomedical field. In turn, better preparing them for their capstone design projects and possible future careers in industry.

Acknowledgements (Optional):