English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper compares student learning in challenge-based and traditional engineering classrooms from the perspective of adaptive expertise. Collaborating learning scientists and biomedical engineers designed and implemented a challenge-based method of instruction that followed learning principles presented in the National Research Council report “How People Learn” (HPL). The study was conducted in four different classrooms at three different Research I institutions (2 HPL and 2 traditional classrooms). A preand posttest measured knowledge acquisition in the domain and development of innovative problem-solving abilities. HPL and traditional students’ test scores were compared. Results show that HPL and traditional students made equivalent knowledge gains, but that HPL students demonstrated significantly greater improvement in innovative thinking abilities. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for improving undergraduate engineering education. Objectives and Theoretical Framework Although the engineering knowledge base has advanced immensely over the past century, the way engineering is taught in college classrooms has changed very little. Most core engineering classes are still taught in the traditional lecture style classroom with weekly problem sets and periodic in class quizzes and exams. Students who have learned to be successful in the traditional style are able to master the core content knowledge during the given course. The weaknesses of the traditional model are poor retention, lack of connectedness of the knowledge, and lack of the ability to apply this knowledge to new contexts. Hatano and Inagaki classify this type of inflexible and unconnected mastery as routine expertise. 5 They classify its opposite as adaptive expertise (AE): a more globally organized, connected, and flexible knowledge base. The challenge-based method studied here follows the How People Learn (HPL) framework. 2 This framework proposes that learning environments should be knowledge centered, community centered, assessment centered and learner centered. Research has shown that the HPL method shows advantages in the development of AE. 4,9,11 In experimental studies in biomechanics and bioengineering ethics, HPL students developed more adaptive expert-like behavior along with equivalent levels of knowledge than students taught with traditional pedagogical methods. 6,7,8,12 While these are promising results, these studies covered only one or two instructional modules. Based on these studies, a more robust investigation of the relative outcomes of HPL and traditional instruction is needed. In this paper, we report on a study that compared the two methods over an entire course in biotransport as taught at multiple institutions via HPL and traditional formats.

Comparison Of Student Learning In Challenge Based And Traditional Instruction In Biotransport Engineering Classrooms