Poster Q19 - Using video checkpoints to aid in the development of problem-solving skills in undergraduate bioengineers

Introduction: A central goal in engineering education is developing students’ creative real-world problem-solving skills [1,2] and there has been much written about the development of expert thinking skills in novice learners. [3–5] Educators realize that the typical single-answer textbook problems, normally seen by mid-career engineering students, are not problems that these students will be exposed to in their future careers. However, there is an expectation that engineering students will develop appropriate problem-solving skills by the time they reach their senior capstone project, where students are expected to apply engineering design to solve ill-formed engineering problems. [6]
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a common instructional method employing complex, real-world problems that require students to develop an approach to address problems that do not have a single correct answer.[3,5,7–9] The use of PBL assignments early in the undergraduate curriculum has been reported to improve metacognitive skills and adaptive learning when presented in open-ended, ill-formed problems as they will encounter in capstone class as well as in their future careers. [7]. Combining PBL assignments with DT process is a method to develop problem-solving skills in novice engineers. The goal of this project was to determine whether mid-career engineering students were making similar decisions when solving an ill-formed problem in a sophomore-level Biomechanics course.

Materials and

Methods: From Spring 2024, a PBL assignment was selected from a sophomore bioengineering course that covers materials typically seen in an Engineering Statics course. The student teams (n = 5 teams of 3-4 students) evaluated two different problems: 1) a patellar tendon injury in a US Nationals weightlifting competition and 2) redesigning a manual wheelchair to improve stability and ease of use for a caregiver of a larger person with mobility issues. The student teams addressed these problems using foundational knowledge to perform a statics-based analysis. Previous work [10] in this area showed that student final reports did not illustrate all of the expert problem-solving decisions that were made using the framework presented by Price, et al. 2021. [11] The instructor included two video checkpoints for each problem prior to the final report that prompted students to report on prior relevant experiences, potential solutions considered, their iterative problem-solving process, and a reflection on the team’s problem-solving efforts in addition to their in-progress solutions to the assignments.
Using a deductive qualitative coding method, the author evaluated the video checkpoint assignment using the Price framework [11] to determine the development of the problem-solving process in the student teams. The work received ethics approval from the Temple University IRB Umbrella protocol (#29039).

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: Four out of the five teams actually addressed all of the added prompts for the video checkpoint assignments. Most students addressed classwork as evidence for prior relevant experiences, although one student commented about previous weightlifting knowledge. The teams commented on at least two different approaches they used to address their injury analyses. One team even described pros and cons of their potential solutions and identified reasons for their final choice. These behaviors are expected when students are working on their senior capstone projects and are part of the design thinking process. It is important for students to develop these behaviors early in their academic careers.
Evidence of iteration in their problem-solving process, which is a requirement for senior capstone projects for accreditation, was a mixed bag. Most teams would comment on how they solved the problem and the resources they used to help them to that point. Lack of depth to this prompt could result from the short nature of the video checkpoint (only 10 minutes total) or the students had not yet fully engaged with the assignment to iterate on their solutions at this point.
The reflection question resulted in a description of how the team went about solving the problem, such as research in the literature, assumptions made, equations used, etc., as opposed to how working on an open-ended problem affected the development of their problem-solving process. This prompt will need to be revised to get students to respond appropriately to the intent of the question.
Students will mimic expert problem-solving behaviors if explicitly prompted. The video checkpoint prompts were able to capture additional information about novice problem solving development as opposed to relying on a static final report. With careful prompt questions, students will show evidence of appropriate expert-level knowledge even when first asked to address an open-ended problem. Future work will include a qualitative analysis of the final reports for this assignment to determine if students continue to use expert problem-solving decisions without specific prompting as was done in the video checkpoints.

Acknowledgements (Optional): [1] Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., and Leifer, L. J., 2005, “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning,” J. Eng. Educ., 94(1), pp. 103–120.
[2] Levine, D. I., Agogino, A. M., and Lesniewski, M. A., 2016, “Design Thinking in Development Engineering,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 32, pp. 1396–1406.
[3] Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M., DiPetro, M., Lovett, M., Norman, M., and Mayer, R., 2010, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
[4] Bransford, J. D., and Schwartz, D. L., 1999, “Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Implications,” Rev. Res. Educ., 24, p. 61.
[5] Felder, R., and Brent, R., 2016, “Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide | Wiley,” Wiley.com [Online]. Available: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Teaching+and+Learning+STEM%3A+A+Practical+Guide-p-9781118925812. [Accessed: 26-Apr-2023].
[6] “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2023 – 2024 | ABET.”
[7] LaPlaca, M., Newsletter, W., and Yoganathan, A., 2001, “Problem-Based Learning in Biomedical Engineering Curricula,” 3lSt ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV, USA.
[8] Johri, A., and Olds, B. M., eds., 2014, Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[9] Mourtos, N., 2010, “Challenges Students Face When Solving Open - Ended Problems,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 26.
[10] Rush, A., and Ochia, R., 2023, “Developing Expert Problem-Solving Approaches in Undergraduate Bioengineers.,” Seattle, WA.
[11] Price, A. M., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., Fritz, A. V., and Wieman, C. E., 2021, “A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 20(3), p. ar43.