Biomechanics originates at the interface of engineering mechanics and biological science. Biomechanics is an essential course for students of various disciplines, such as sports medicine, kinesiology, exercise science, orthopedics, medical sciences, biomedical engineering, and biological sciences. An introductory biomechanics course involves concepts of biology, mathematics, and mechanics that students find difficult to understand. This results in incomplete and ineffective learning of biomechanical concepts. The professional competence of a biomechanics student significantly depends on learning outcomes. Designing and developing an effective instructional methodology for an introductory biomechanics course that can improve students’ learning outcomes is challenging. Teaching a biomechanics course in a low-resource environment lacking expensive biomechanics experiment equipment and commercial software is an additional challenge. Literature suggests that active learning instructional techniques can help overcome these challenges. The present study reviews active learning methods such as Experiential Learning, Problem-based Learning, Challenge-based Instructions, Just-in-Time Teaching, Game-based Learning, and Mobile Learning, which have the potential to enhance the learning outcomes of biomechanics students during an introductory biomechanics course. The present study also discusses the possibility and effectiveness of these pedagogical approaches while teaching an introductory biomechanics course in low-resource environments. A curriculum designed (lecture and laboratory modules) for effectively delivering biomechanics courses to students in low-resource environments has been suggested. This study also highlights open-source software packages and tools that are helpful for teaching and learning introductory biomechanics in low-resource settings.
DeVitoM. Factors influencing student engagement. Unpublished Certificate of Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT.
5.
HamillJ. Biomechanics curriculum: Its content and relevance to movement sciences. Quest2007; 59: 25–33.
6.
MarshallBLoyaADrazanJ, et al.Developing a STEM+ M identity in underrepresented minority youth through biomechanics and sports-based education. J Biomech Eng2021; 143: 041009.
7.
BeichnerR. The SCALE-UP Project: a student-centered active learning environment for undergraduate programs. In: An invited white paper for the National Academy of Sciences.
8.
BeichnerRJSaulJMAbbottDS, et al.The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Res-Based Reform of Univ Phys2007; 1: 2–39.
9.
FreemanSEddySLMcDonoughM, et al.Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2014; 111: 8410–8415.
10.
HoellwarthCMoelterMJ. The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. Am J Phys2011; 79: 540–545.
11.
SinghA. A new approach to teaching biomechanics through active, adaptive, and experiential learning. J Biomech Eng2017; 139: 071001.
12.
KnudsonD. Physics and biomechanics education research: Improving learning of biomechanical concepts. In: ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, 2013.
13.
KnudsonD. What have we learned from teaching conferences and research on learning in biomechanics? In: ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, 2010.
14.
BreenSKnudsonD. International survey of faculty teaching undergraduate introductory biomechanics. Sports Biomech2022: 1–14.
15.
HarrisTRBransfordJDBrophySP. Roles for learning sciences and learning technologies in biomedical engineering education: A review of recent advances. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2002; 4: 29–48.
16.
DrazanJF. Biomechanists can revolutionize the STEM pipeline by engaging youth athletes in sports-science based STEM outreach. J Biomech2020; 99: 109511.
17.
KnudsonD. Active learning—tools for overcoming biomechanics anxiety. Sport Exercise Sci2023; 75: 24–25.
18.
DriessenEPKnightJKSmithMK, et al.Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. LSE2020; 19: ar52.
19.
McConnellDAChapmanLCzajkaCD, et al.Instructional utility and learning efficacy of common active learning strategies. J Geosci Educ2017; 65: 604–625.
20.
HakeRR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys1998; 66: 64–74.
21.
KnudsonDBauerJBahamondeR. Correlates of learning in introductory biomechanics. Percept Mot Skills2009; 108: 499–504.
22.
WallaceBKnudsonD. The effect of course format on student learning in introductory biomechanics courses that utilise low-tech active learning exercises. Sports Biomech2020; 23: 156–165.
23.
HsiehCSmithJDBohneM, et al.Factors related to students’ learning of biomechanics concepts. J Coll Sci Teach2012; 41: 83–89.
24.
HsiehCKnudsonD. Student factors related to learning in biomechanics. Sports Biomech2008; 7: 398–402.
25.
DaleE. Audiovisual methods in teaching.
26.
KnudsonDWallaceB. Student perceptions of low-tech active learning and mastery of introductory biomechanics concepts. Sports Biomech2019; 20: 458–468.
27.
MachemerPLCrawfordP. Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Act Learn Higher Educ2007; 8: 9–30.
28.
BrazealKRCouchBA. Student buy-in toward formative assessments: The influence of student factors and importance for course success. J Microbiol Biol Educ2017; 18: 10–1128.
29.
CavanaghM. Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Act Learn Higher Educ2011; 12: 23–33.
30.
KnudsonD. Do low-tech active-learning exercises influence biomechanics student’s epistemology of learning?Sports Biomech2022; 21: 773–781.
31.
KnudsonD. Active learning and student beliefs about learning. ISBS Proc Arch2019; 37: 328.
32.
BagesteiroLB. Practical experiential learning: A methodology approach for teaching undergraduate biomechanics. J Kinesiology Wellness2020; 9: 58–68.
33.
WallaceBKernozekT. Self-efficacy theory applied to undergraduate biomechanics instruction. J Hosp Leisure Sport Tourism Educ2017; 20: 10–15.
34.
SinghA. A new approach to teaching biomechanics through active, adaptive, and experiential learning. J Biomech Eng2017; 139: 0710011–0710017.
35.
SuC-HChengT-W. A sustainability innovation experiential learning model for virtual reality chemistry laboratory: An empirical study with PLS-SEM and IPMA. Sustainability2019; 11: 1027.
36.
MontesinosLSalinas-NavarroDESantos-DiazA. Transdisciplinary experiential learning in biomedical engineering education for healthcare systems improvement. BMC Med Educ2023; 23: 207.
37.
YewEHGohK. Problem-based learning: An overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Prof Educ2016; 2: 75–79.
38.
McErlain-NaylorSA. Problem based learning: A netball/basketball shooting problem for projectile motion. ISBS Proc Arch2021; 39: 4.
39.
MandevilleDStonerM. Assessing the effect of problem-based learning on undergraduate student learning in biomechanics. J Coll Sci Teach2015; 45: 66–75.
40.
WallaceBKnudsonDGheidiN. Incorporating problem-based learning with direct instruction improves student learning in undergraduate biomechanics. J Hosp Leisure Sport Tourism Educ2020; 27: 100258.
41.
WinarnoSMuthuKSLingLS. Direct problem-based learning (DPBL): A framework for integrating direct instruction and problem-based learning approach. Int Educ Stud2018; 11: 119–126.
42.
DuncanMLyonsMAl-NakeebY, et al.You have to do it rather than being in a class and just listening’: The impact of problem-based learning on the student experience in sports and exercise biomechanics’. J Hosp Leisure Sport Tourism Educ2007; 6: 71–80.
43.
Becerra-LabraCGras-MartíATorregrosaJM. Effects of a problem-based structure of physics contents on conceptual learning and the ability to solve problems. Int J Sci Educ2012; 34: 1235–1253.
44.
ClyneAMBilliarKL. Problem-based learning in biomechanics: Advantages, challenges, and implementation strategies. J Biomech Eng2016; 138: 070804.
45.
RoselliRJBrophySP. Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. J Eng Educ2006; 95: 311–324.
46.
RoselliRJBrophySP. Redesigning a biomechanics course using challenge-based instruction. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2003; 22: 66–70.
47.
MorrisCDBransfordJDFranksJJ. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav1977; 16: 519–533.
48.
BarrRPandyMPetrosinoA, et al.Challenge-based instruction: The VaNTH biomechanics learning modules. In: Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference. IEEE, 2005, pp. S1G–S18.
49.
KeoghJWGowthorpLMcLeanM. Perceptions of sport science students on the potential applications and limitations of blended learning in their education: A qualitative study. Sports Biomech2017; 16: 297–312.
50.
BonefontVCarbinoBZakerzadehR. Addressing test anxiety using game-based assessment. Biomed Eng Educ2022; 2: 319–330.
51.
KeoghJWMoroCKnudsonD. Promoting learning of biomechanical concepts with game-based activities. Sports Biomech2021; 23: 253–261.
52.
DorfnerNZakerzadehR. Academic games as a form of increasing student engagement in remote teaching. Biomed Eng Educ2021; 1: 335–343.
53.
KuehnBM. Virtual and augmented reality put a twist on medical education. Jama2018; 319: 756–758.
54.
WannerT. Enhancing student engagement and active learning through just-in-time teaching and the use of PowerPoint. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ2015; 27: 154–163.
55.
MadirajuCTellez-CorralesEHuaH, et al.Analysis of student perceptions of just-in-time teaching pedagogy in PharmD microbiology and immunology courses. Front Immunol2020; 11: 351.
MarrsKABlakeREGavrinAD, et al.Use of warm up exercises in just-in-time teaching to determine students prior knowledge and misconceptions in biology, chemistry, and physics. J Coll Sci Teach2003; 33: 42–47.
58.
O’MalleyCVavoulaGGlewJ, et al.Guidelines for Learning/Teaching/Tutoring in a Mobile Environment. HAL Open Science. 2005. hal-00696244f.
59.
ChevrierJMadaniLLedenmatS, et al.Teaching classical mechanics using smartphones. Phys Teach2013; 51: 376–377.
60.
KuhnJVogtP. Smartphones as experimental tools: Different methods to determine the gravitational acceleration in classroom physics by using everyday devices. Eur JPhys Educ2013; 4: 16–27.
61.
WangHXieZLuL, et al.A mobile platform-based app to assist undergraduate learning of human kinematics in biomechanics courses. J Biomech2022; 142: 111243.
62.
López-MoranchelIFrancoEUrosaB, et al.University students’ experiences of the use of mLearning as a training resource for the acquisition of biomechanical knowledge. Education Sciences2021; 11: 479.
63.
NavandarAFrías LópezDAlejoLB. The use of Instagram in the sports biomechanics classroom. Front Psychol2021; 12: 711779.
64.
DelpSLAndersonFCArnoldAS, et al.Opensim: Open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2007; 54: 1940–1950.
65.
UhlrichSDFalisseAKidzińskiL, et al.Opencap: Human movement dynamics from smartphone videos. PLoS Comput Biol2023; 19: e1011462.
66.
UhlrichSDFalisseAKidzińskiŁ, et al.OpenCap: 3D human movement dynamics from smartphone videos. Preprint, Bioengineering. Epub ahead of print 10 July 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.07.499061.
67.
DoubeMKłosowskiMMArganda-CarrerasI, et al.Bonej: Free and extensible bone image analysis in ImageJ. Bone2010; 47: 1076–1079.
68.
Foundation B. blender.org - Home of the Blender project - Free and Open 3D Creation Software. blender.org, https://www.blender.org/ (2023, accessed 25 July 2023).
69.
LoggAMardalK-AWellsG. (eds). Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method: The FEniCS Book. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Epub ahead of print 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8.
70.
MaasSAEllisBJAteshianGA, et al.FEBio: Finite elements for biomechanics. J Biomech Eng2012; 134: 011005.
71.
EthierCRSimmonsCA. Introductory Biomechanics: From Cells to Organisms. First South Asian Edition. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
72.
MaasSAEllisBJAteshianGA, et al.FEBio: Finite elements for biomechanics. J Biomech Eng2012; 134: 011005.
