1.0 Abstract We designed an inquiry-based pre-laboratory on energy metabolism, applying research on how people learn, toward improving undergraduate biomedical engineering students’ learning and experience. We hypothesized that such instruction would improve students’ capacity to apply core concepts from metabolic physiology and enhance their ability to solve novel problems. Students in the experimental group addressed a challenge: how much food must an astronaut consume daily to keep her or his weight constant? The students’ pre-laboratory was explicitly redesigned to be “learner centered” (students uncovered prior conceptions and debated), “knowledge centered” (students applied knowledge to a real-world problem), “assessment centered” (students discussed their thinking and evoked instructor feedback), and “community centered” (the instructor established cooperative searching for understanding as an in-lab norm). Students then performed the laboratory during which they measured their own metabolic rates. The control group’s experience was similarly challenge-themed and employed the same indirect calorimetry apparatus, but the pre-laboratory instruction was “cookbook” and did not contain the explicit learner-, assessment-, and community-centered aspects. Our assessment included a final exam item constructed to assess students’ ability to apply core energy metabolism concepts in a new context: mass balance and stoichiometry among glucose, respiratory gas values, and energy. This exam item was coded by an evaluator blind as to the condition of each subject, and showed that students who received the experimental pre-laboratory instruction demonstrated a greater ability to apply core concepts, with effect sizes ranging from 0.41 to 0.75. In addition, students completed a survey designed to capture their experience of the course. This survey independently verified the increased learner-, community-, and knowledge-centeredness of the experimental group’s redesigned pre-laboratory. The experimental group also reported a higher degree of satisfaction with the redesigned learning experience.
[1]
Arthur T. Johnson,et al.
Philosophical Foundations of Biological Engineering
,
1995
.
[2]
Lawrence E. Stueck.
The Design of Learning Environments.
,
1991
.
[3]
Sean P Brophy,et al.
Roles for learning sciences and learning technologies in biomedical engineering education: a review of recent advances.
,
2002,
Annual review of biomedical engineering.
[4]
J A Michael,et al.
Undergraduate students' misconceptions about respiratory physiology.
,
1999,
The American journal of physiology.
[5]
Sean Brophy,et al.
Challenge-Based Learning in Biomedical Engineering: A Legacy Cycle for Biotechnology
,
2001
.
[6]
J. Mintzes,et al.
Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology
,
1994
.
[7]
Joseph Krajcik,et al.
Teaching Children Science: A Project-Based Approach
,
1998
.
[8]
D. Silverthorn.
Physiology education today: what comes next?
,
1998,
The American journal of physiology.
[9]
Ann L. Brown,et al.
How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
,
1999
.
[10]
R G Carroll,et al.
Incorporating active learning into a traditional curriculum.
,
1997,
The American journal of physiology.
[11]
Helping undergraduates repair faulty mental models in the student laboratory.
,
2000,
Advances in physiology education.