Engineering Methods In Biomechanics: A Contextual Learning Strategy For Biomedical Engineering Pedagogy

Undergraduates studying biomedical engineering can easily become overwhelmed by the science within their coursework and miss much of the engineering. To address this concern, an undergraduate course in biomechanics was developed consisting of six contextual learning modules (CLMs). Each CLM emphasized a different fundamental engineering concept or theme that included the following: safety, usability/functionality, buildability, optimization, adaptability, and reliability. All the biomechanical principles taught in a given CLM were focused on how those principles could be used to evaluate the given engineering concept in a biomechanical system. The class met twice a week for 80 min. per class, and each CLM was taught in four to five classes. In addition to assigned readings from their textbook (Fundamentals of Biomechanics, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, 1999), students were assigned to do the relevant skill-based problem sets in the chapters, which were also supplemented with additional problems sets as needed. Each CLM concluded with a class period devoted to applying the newly taught skills to design a novel solution to a broadly-based biomechanics problem. The students were assigned to a design team, consisting of three to five individuals, and each team selected a problem from a list supplied by the instructor. The design teams worked in class to develop general solutions, which were presented orally during the later part of the class and were also critiqued by their classmates. After class, the teams worked on their own to develop specific quantitative solutions that were written up and handed in to be graded. Thus, the students were enabled to immediately use skills in biomechanics to address broad-ranging engineering questions. I. Background and Introduction Throughout the 1960’s, a shift in engineering curricula took place that focused engineering education towards more analytical techniques. With dramatic developments taking place in the basic sciences, opportunities to introduce synthesis skills were displaced by the need to introduce new developments in mathematics, chemistry, materials, and of course, computer science. This represented a transition to the era of engineering science, an era which produced fine analytical P ge 640.1 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright  2001, American Society for Engineering Education engineers, but engineers who were required to learn most, if not all, of their design skills after securing their first engineering position. By the 1980s, the effect of this policy was evident in a report on the status of engineering education worldwide, which noted the students’ remarkable lack of curiosity about the physical meaning of the subjects they were studying. Unfortunately, this extensive emphasis on analysis rather than synthesis has contributed in a substantial manner to the decline of engineering as a career objective for many bright young students who in the past would have entered this field. Even if students undertake an undergraduate degree program, many (perhaps most in the field of Biomedical Engineering) are never employed as practicing engineers. As a result, our profession is currently undergoing a careful examination of the way we train engineers. While there has been a conscientious effort to reintroduce design back into the curriculum, a piecemeal approach to restructuring engineering education may not be adequate. It is necessary to thoroughly review the experience we are providing at the undergraduate level to determine whether we are providing our students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the field of engineering, whether this be in business, government, industry, or in the entrepreneurial environment. Though perhaps not explicitly, each of multiple curriculum redesign efforts has included an attempt to incorporate within engineering educational programs opportunities for the students to develop the three major knowledge processes. These include, as they are now referred to by educational researchers, the cognitive, perceptive, and pragmatic processes. The shift in science and engineering education over the last half of this century has been toward the cognitive, i.e. the analytical, linear, and rational skills, which are critical to defining a problem, gathering information and diagnosis. While technical skills are an absolute necessity in engineering, organization leaders have noted that engineering graduates lack breadth of vision, flexibility and a business orientation. These skills are not associated with cognitive processes, but with perceptive (i.e. intuition, insight, and enthusiasm, leading to the ability to generate solutions and make decisions), and pragmatic (i.e. experiential/ observational modes of thought which facilitate planning, implementation and evaluation) processes. In order to develop a curriculum that achieves the goal of producing a graduate engineer with vision and flexibility, we must re-think the distribution of material presented in our engineering programs. Specifically, the curriculum questions which are most commonly asked include : Is there too much emphasis on tools and techniques? Is there a lack of emphasis on communication skills, social sciences and humanities? Is there enough emphasis on systems and complexity? And, have we gone too far in specialization? In addition, we must think about how we are delivering this material to the students. Are the students getting enough hands-on experience? Are they learning in isolation or are they learning to work in teams? And most importantly, are we instilling the sense of creativity and innovation that will motivate them through their undergraduate years and through their careers? Perhaps in no area of engineering are these questions more salient than in Bioengineering. As in all the branches of engineering, we as faculty feel we must provide our students with the standard core (math, chemistry, thermodynamics, fluids, electrical theory, mechanics) of engineering. But in addition, there is a clear need to introduce the fundamentals of biology and P ge 640.2 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright  2001, American Society for Engineering Education physiologic systems. Furthermore, as our students are entering a relatively nascent field, we sense a particular need to ensure these students exit from their years of formal training with a reasonable competency in the design process. In the more established fields of engineering, many, if not most, of these students will enter small companies or start-up firms that have little engineering infrastructure to nurture these new hires while they develop their skills in the art of synthesis. It may not be realistic to expect any faculty to accomplish these goals within the confines of a traditional "content based" engineering curriculum, although to date, most Bioengineering programs have attempted to do so. As a result, most Bioengineering undergraduate programs consist of a standard engineering core with several specialty electives offered. A minimal exposure to the biological sciences is provided as well as few opportunities to elect vital social science or humanities electives that are needed to provide students with an understanding of the societal context into which their future work will fit. Most importantly, there is even less time available in the curriculum to develop the critical synthesis skills than there is in any of the traditional engineering majors. This is not an optimum state of affairs if Bioengineers are to make the significant contributions expected of them in the field of health care, and just as importantly, the new and rapidly developing field of "sustainable engineering", which will rely heavily on biomimicry and therefore the expertise of bioengineers. A thorough job of educating the Bioengineer can be accomplished in the usual four-year time frame of a Bachelor’s degree program, but the pedagogic approach may need to be fundamentally altered to place greater emphasis on both design, synthesis, and implementation (i.e., perceptive and pragmatic) skills. At Stony Brook, the undergraduate Bioengineering program was formed (formally in the Fall of 1997) primarily to provide an alternative track for Life Science majors. The design and problem solving concepts, which are fundamental to engineering, are not typically introduced to science students, yet scientists are moving ever closer to the process of technology development. This is evident in gene engineering, tissue engineering, biosensor development, drug delivery systems, and the development of cell systems for the production of biologicals. These are all areas where individuals with their primary training in the sciences are on the cutting edge of product development. These areas, therefore, serve as excellent contexts to introduce the basics of the physical sciences, as well as engineering design and analysis concepts to Life Sciences students. It has become clear to us over the past year that a similar Context Based Learning approach should be equally effective in a curriculum for Bioengineering majors as well. In Contextual Based Learning, the fundamental biology and physiology required of Bioengineers can be introduced to the students in the context of design problems, the solution of which requires an understanding of specific engineering concepts. In such a modular learning environment, an integrated understanding of the science, along with the analytic skills and how they are utilized to solve design problems, are presented in a coherent context, providing the students with incentive to learn material which in a traditional content based approach may appear arbitrary and dull. Importantly, the fundamental engineering knowledge can be introduced over an extended period of time (multiple learning mo