A Project-Centric Learning Strategy in Biotechnology

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


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.


Multi-disciplinary projects Biotechnology Competency-based training 


  1. 1.
    Deane, P. (2011). 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). 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). 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). 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). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prince, M.: Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223–231 (2004). 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). 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). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capon, N., Kuhn, D.: What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cogn. Instr. 22, 61–79 (2004). 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). 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). 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).
  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). 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). 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). 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). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knight, J.K., Wood, W.B.: Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 298–310 (2005). 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).
  24. 24.
    Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., Spencer, J.N.: A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 570 (1999). 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). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roselli, R.J., Brophy, S.P.: Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 311–324 (2006). 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). 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).
  30. 30.
    MIT, New Engineering Education Technology (2019). 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