Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: June 2012

Appendix C - Teaching methodologies in biomaterials

Summary

The field of medical device design is highly multidisciplinary and builds upon a number of specialties including biomaterials science, mechanical engineering, bioengineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, integrative biology, public policy, and clinical medicine. With this broad topic comes the challenge of implementing a course that facilitates learning in an interdisciplinary framework. To this end, we have utilized a number of pedagogical techniques to develop an interdisciplinary course entitled Structural Aspects of Biomaterials, from which this textbook was developed. Specifically we have utilized tools such as (1) structured learning objectives based on Bloom's taxonomy; (2) active learning practices and inquiry-based lectures; (3) clinical case studies; (4) professional development utilizing interdisciplinary teams with diversified learning styles; (5) outreach teaching (service-based learning) in the K-12 sector; and (6) criteria specified by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

Structured learning objectives based on Bloom's taxonomy

As there are so many sub-specializations within the field of medical device design it is useful to have distinct learning objectives that are both observable and specific (Anderson et al., 2001). Clearly defined course objectives provide a guide that facilitates the structure of lectures and serves as a study guide for students. In this respect, the application of Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1984) when developing the learning objectives for a course is quite useful. The use of Bloom's taxonomy in the cognitive domain of learning has been updated by Anderson (Anderson et al., 2001) and comprises both lower level thinking skills (remembering, understanding, applying) as well as higher order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating). Table C.1 shows the ranking (in descending order) of skill levels where Level 6 (L6) represents the highest level of learning (creating) and Level 1 (L1) describes the lowest level of learning (remembering). Creativity is the ultimate outcome for the student and for this reason it is the skill that is listed first in Table C.1. Ideally, each lecture topic addresses all six levels of learning. More important is that the full span of lower-level and upper-level thinking skills is contained within the course content. An example of course learning objectives (http://www.educationoasis.com) that we have employed in past offerings of the Structural Aspects of Biomaterials course is given in Table C.2.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Mechanics of Biomaterials
  • Online ISBN: 9780511977923
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977923
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
References
Anderson, L.W.Krathwohl, D.R. 2001 A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesBoston, MAAllyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group)
Atwood, S.Patten, E.Pruitt, L. 2010 Outreach teaching, communication, and interpersonal skills encourage women and may facilitate their recruitment and retention in the engineering curriculumProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering EducationLouisville, KY
Bloom, B.S. 1984 Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesBostonAllyn and Bacon
Chakravartula, A.M.Li, C.Gupta, S.Ando, B.Pruitt, L. 2006 Undergraduate students teaching children: K-8 outreach within the core engineering curriculumProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering EducationChicago, IL1310
Felder, R.M.Brent, R. 2005 Understanding student differencesJournal of Engineering Education 94 57
Felder, R.M.Silverman, L.K. 1988 Learning and teaching styles in educationJournal of Engineering Education 78 674
Felder, R.M.Spurlin, J.E. 2005 Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning stylesInternational Journal of Engineering Education 21 103http://www.educationoasis.com/curriculum/LP/LP_resources/lesson_objectives.htmhttp://www.engineeringpathway.com/ep/index.jhtml
Halstead, A.Martin, L. 2002 Learning styles: a tool for selecting students for group workInternational Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 39 245
Mooney, M.A.Mooney, P.J. 2001 A student teaching-based instructional modelInternational Journal of Engineering Education 17 10
Newstetter, W. 2005 Designing cognitive approaches for biomedical engineeringJournal of Engineering Education 90 207
Patten, E.Atwood, S.Pruitt, L. 2010 Use of learning styles for teamwork and professional development in a multidisciplinary courseProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering EducationLouisville, KY
Poole, S.J.DeGrazia, J.L.Sullivan, J.F. 2001 Assessing K-12 pre-engineering outreach programsJournal of Engineering Education 90 43
Pruitt, L.Atwood, S.Patten, E. 2010 Body by design: A model for K-12 outreach in engineering educationProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering EducationLouisville, KY
Shuman, L.J.Besterfield-Sacre, M.McGourty, J. 2005 The ABET professional skills – can they be taught? can they be assessedJournal of Engineering Education 94 41
Wilde, D. 2010