With an aging population and increasing demand on health care systems, biomedical engineering as an undergraduate program fits a growing societal need. As such, many Canadian universities have implemented biomedical engineering undergraduate programs. This provides a unique opportunity for core engineering faculty, engineering education researchers, and curriculum specialists to implement proven educational theories in the core curriculum of these programs to ensure exemplary and competent Canadian-trained biomedical engineering graduates.
Purpose
This paper discusses the need for biomedical engineering as a core undergraduate program in Canada, the historical context of educational theories as related to biomedical undergraduate engineering education, a framework for the implementation of proven strategies, and learner-centric methods that benefit the learner, mentor, and society as a whole.
Scope/method: The historical context of curriculum theories related to biomedical engineering undergraduate education, evaluation of the intrinsic and extrinsic curriculum theories in current biomedical engineering undergraduate education, educating progressive learners and development of future biomedical engineering undergraduate education curriculum, is explored.
Conclusion
The integration of educational theories in the development of a biomedical engineering undergraduate engineering education is essential to ensure learners are provided with opportunities to experience cutting edge, quality engineering education. Empirical evidence demonstrates the successful implementation of applied methodologies such as model-electing activities, problem-based learning, and the flipped classroom. Providing biomedical engineering faculty with professional development opportunities around the successfully implementation of these tools aimed at culturally diverse, globalized 21st-century learners, can be catalytic in shifting to a new paradigm for engineering education in Canada and globally.
HarrisTRBransfordJDBrophySP.
Roles for learning sciences and learning technologies in biomedical engineering education: a review of recent advances. Ann Rev Biomed Eng2002;
4: 29–48.
SkinnerBF.
Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behaviorism1977;
5: 1–10.
9.
SkinnerBF. About behaviorism.
New York, NY:
Random House, 2011
10.
BazermanC.
Codifying the social scientific style: the APA publication manual as a behaviorist rhetoric. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Ch. 9. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987; 125–144.
11.
PopkewitzTS.
The production of reason and power: curriculum history and intellectual traditions.Journal of Curriculum Studies 1997;
29: 131–164.
12.
GlatthornAABoscheeFWhiteheadBM.
Curriculum leadership: strategies for development and implementation. SAGE Publications2005; 73–104.
13.
KolodnerJLCrismondDFasseB, et al.
Putting a student-centered learning by design curriculum into practice: lessons learned. J Learning Sci2003;
12: 495–547.
PosnerGJStrikeKA.
A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Rev Educ Res1976;
46: 665–690.
16.
KrathwohlDR.
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract2002;
41: 212–218.
17.
PrincipeJCEulianoNRLefebvreWC.
Innovating adaptive and neural systems instruction with interactive electronic books. Proc IEEE2000;
88: 81–95.
18.
Besterfield-SacreMShumanLJWolfeH, et al.
Defining the outcomes: a framework for EC-2000. IEEE Trans Educ2000;
43: 100–110.
19.
FelderRMBrentR.
the Abc’s of engineering education: Abet, Bloom’s taxonomy, cooperative learning, and so on. Proc 2004 Am Soc Eng Educ Annu Conf Expo2004;
9: 12261–12269.1226.12.
20.
AzumaMCoallierFGarbajosaJ. How to apply the Bloom taxonomy to software engineering. In: Software technology and engineering practice. Eleventh annual international workshop on IEEE, 2003, pp. 117–122.
21.
FerrisTLAzizS. A psychomotor skills extension to Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives for engineering education. Doctoral dissertation, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 2005.
22.
ForbesCTDavisEA.
Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Sci Educ2008;
17: 829–854.
23.
KumarDChubinD. Science technology and society: a sourcebook or research and practice.
London:
Kluwer Academic, 2000.
24.
GrayDSBryceT.
Socio‐scientific issues in science education: implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge J Educ2006;
36: 171–192.
25.
SmithKA. Design of an introductory engineering course. In: Frontiers in education conference. FIE'96. 26th Annual Conference, Proceedings of IEEE, 1996, Vol. 2, pp. 900–904.
26.
SmithKASheppardSDJohnsonDW, et al.
Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. J Eng Educ2005;
94: 87–101.
27.
SiddiquiJAAdamsR. The challenge of change in engineering education: is it the diffusion of innovations or transformative learning? In: Proceedings of the 120th conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, June 2013, pp. 23–26.
28.
AppleM.
Scientific interests and the nature of educational institutions. Curriculum Theorizing Reconceptual1975; 249: 120–130.
29.
PosnerGJStrikeKA.
A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content.Rev Educ Res Am Educ Res1976;
46: 665–690.
30.
PapertS. The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York, NY:
BasicBooks.
31.
SchunnCDSilkEM.
Learning theories for engineering and technology education. In: Barak M and Hacker M (eds) Fostering Human Development Through Engineering and Technology Education. International Technology Education Studies. vol 6. Sense Publishers, 2011, pp. 3–18.
32.
MugishaWMugimuC.
Application of learning theories in curriculum development and implementation of the MLT diploma programme in Uganda. Bjesbs2015;
5: 256–275.
33.
GrolingerK.
Problem based learning in engineering education: meeting the needs of industry. Teaching Innovation Projects2011;
1: 2.
34.
SchofieldM. Extending model eliciting activities (MEAs) beyond mathematics curricula in universities. In: StillmanGKaiserGBlumW, et al. (eds) Teaching mathematical modelling: connecting to research and practice. International perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling.
Dordrecht:
Springer, 2013.
35.
BishopLJVerlegerM.
The flipped classroom : a survey of the research. Proccedings Annu Conf Am Soc Eng Educ2013; 30: 1–18.
36.
BarronBDarling-HammondL. Teaching for meaningful learning: a review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning.
George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2008, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539399.
DeCoitoIRichardsonT. Beyond Angry Birds™: using web-based tools to engage learners and promote inquiry in STEM learning. In: LevinITsybulskyD (eds) Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning.
Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, 2017, pp. 166–196.
39.
ChoiILeeK.
Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educ Tech Research Dev2009;
57: 99–129.
YamauchiLATrevorrowT.
Effective instruction for engaging culturally diverse students in higher education. Int J Teach Learn High Educ2016;
28: 460–470.
46.
PrinceMJFelderRM.
Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ2006;
95: 123–138.
47.
DuchBJGrohSEAllenDE. The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2001.
48.
MooreTDiefes-DuxH.
Developing model-eliciting activities for undergraduate students based on advanced engineering content. 34th Annu Front Educ 2004 FIE2004;
2004: 461–466.
49.
AmbroseSABridgesMWDiPietroM, et al.How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 2010.
50.
FreemanSEddySLMcDonoughM, et al.
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;
111: 8410–8415.
51.
CaulfieldJKiddSKocherT.
Brain-based instruction in action. Educ Leadership2000; 58: 62–65.
52.
GundermanRB. Achieving excellence in medical education.
London:
Springer, 2006.
