Advertisement

A Project-Centric Learning Strategy in Biotechnology

  • Seshasai SrinivasanEmail author
  • Amin Reza Rajabzadeh
  • Dan Centea
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)

Abstract

In this work we present the details on the initiative that has been taken by the Walter Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology at McMaster University to inculcate multi-disciplinary project-based learning activities into the undergraduate curriculum. The approach aims to form groups of students from the different educational backgrounds at the school to solve engineering related problems focusing on building competencies in the students. Specifically, students from three disciplines, namely, Biotechnology, Manufacturing and Automation Engineering Technology are grouped to develop a biosensing platform to detect antibiotics in food. Students from each program will be contributing to a part of the project for which they have developed competencies in their courses. We present a framework to be followed to implement such initiatives, and the expected outcomes and the skills that the students are expected to gain.

Keywords

Multi-disciplinary projects Biotechnology Competency-based training 

References

  1. 1.
    Deane, P. (2011). http://fwi.mcmaster.ca/. Accessed 2 June 2019
  2. 2.
    Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., Donovan, S.S.: Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 21–51 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hake, R.R.: Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wage, K.E., Buck, J.R., Wright, C.H.G., Welch, T.B.: The signals and systems concept inventory. IEEE Trans. Educ. 48, 448–461 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2005.849746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buck, J.R., Wage, K.E.: Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 22, 76–81 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.1406489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prince, M.: Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223–231 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., Bjorklund, S.A.: Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students’ reported learning gains. J. Eng. Educ. 90, 123–130 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00579.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D.: Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instr. 13, 533–568 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capon, N., Kuhn, D.: What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cogn. Instr. 22, 61–79 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M.: Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 27–61 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Inc., London (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M.: Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 123–138 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Centea, D., Srinivasan, S.: A comprehensive assessment strategy for a PBL environment. Int. J. Innov. Res. Educ. Sci. 3, 364–372 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centea, D., Srinivasan, S.: Assessment in problem-based learning using mobile technologies. In: Auer, M., Tsiatsos, T. (eds.) Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things, pp. 337–346 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11434-3_37
  15. 15.
    Cummings, K., Marx, J., Ronald, T., Dennis, K.: Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Am. J. Phys. 67, S38–S44 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burrowes, P.A.: A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: lord’s constructivist model put to a test. Am. Biol. Teacher 65, 491–502 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.2307/4451548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beichner, R.: The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Redish, E.F., Saul, J.M., Steinberg, R.N.: On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. Am. J. Phys. 65, 45–54 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J.W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., Wenderoth, M.P.: Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 132–139 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M.J., Knight, R.D.: A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. Am. J. Phys. 73, 459–462 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1862633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knight, J.K., Wood, W.B.: Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 298–310 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sidhu, G., Srinivasan, S.: An intervention-based active-learning strategy to enhance student performance in mathematics. Int. J. Pedagog. Teacher Educ. 2, 277–288 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Srinivasan, S., Centea, D.: An active learning strategy for programming courses. In: Auer, M., Tsiatsos, T. (eds.) Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning. Springer, Hamilton, pp. 327–336 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11434-3_36
  24. 24.
    Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., Spencer, J.N.: A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 570 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewis, S.E., Lewis, J.E.: Departing from lectures: an evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 135 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roselli, R.J., Brophy, S.P.: Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 311–324 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00906.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S.L., Seymour, E.: Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Sci. Educ. 91, 36–74 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quay, J., Seaman, J.: John Dewey and Education Outdoors, 1st edn. Sense Publisher, Rotterdam (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    University, M.: The Pivot (2019). https://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/about/pivot
  30. 30.
    MIT, New Engineering Education Technology (2019). https://neet.mit.edu/. Accessed 2 June 2019
  31. 31.
    Brawner, B.: Multidisciplinary project-based learning in STEM: a case study. In: Bogacki, P. (ed.) 27th International Conference on Technology Collegiate Mathematics, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 101–109 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seshasai Srinivasan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amin Reza Rajabzadeh
    • 1
  • Dan Centea
    • 1
  1. 1.W Booth School of Engineering Practice and TechnologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations