Trace Matrix: A Framing Tool to Improve Communication and Debugging in Remote Instrumentation Lab Courses
- PDF / 779,055 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 593.972 x 792 pts Page_size
- 15 Downloads / 165 Views
Biomedical Engineering Education (Ó 2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-020-00036-7
Review
Trace Matrix: A Framing Tool to Improve Communication and Debugging in Remote Instrumentation Lab Courses S. AHRAR,1,2 D. J. LI,3 J. D. TOWLES,4,5 and R. D. VENOOK
1
1
Department of Bioengineering, Schools of Engineering and Medicine, Stanford University, 443 Via Ortega, Shriram Center, Room 283, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; 2Department of Biomedical Engineering, California State University, ET-110, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840, USA; 3Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, Rice University, 6500 Main Street, MS-650 Room 765, Houston, TX 77030-1402, USA; 4Department of Bioengineering, Schools of Engineering and Medicine, Stanford University, Building 520-251, 452 Escondido Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; and 5Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Stanford University, Building 520-251, 452 Escondido Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA (Received 30 June 2020; accepted 30 September 2020)
CHALLENGE Transitioning a hands-on, project-based instrumentation lab course to remote instruction comes with many pedagogical and practical challenges. These challenges range from distribution of equipment and materials to planning for synchronous and asynchronous instruction to facilitating collaborative project work. In this work, we focus on how to help students communicate and learn to collaboratively debug electromechanical projects to enable iterative design and testing of their projects without access to a shared lab space or working at the same bench. Context: Hands-on Instrumentation Courses and Remote Learning Hands-on instrumentation lab courses are standard across most Biomedical Engineering (BME) and Bioengineering (BIOE) core curricula.1,2 These courses enhance student self-efficacy and self-initiated learning, specifically when constructed around open-ended
Address correspondence to R. D. Venook, Department of Bioengineering, Schools of Engineering and Medicine, Stanford University, 443 Via Ortega, Shriram Center, Room 283, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic mail: [email protected]; J. D. Towles, Department of Bioengineering, Schools of Engineering and Medicine, Stanford University, Building 520-251, 452 Escondido Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic mail: [email protected]
projects.3 Starting only with a loosely defined goal (e.g., building a bacterial fermenter), students work in teams to iteratively formulate designs, articulate specifications, and prototype solutions. Compared to closed-ended laboratory courses, open-ended courses provide students with enhanced opportunities to improve their communication, collaboration, and debugging (i.e., problem-solving) skills. During inperson laboratory circumstances, communication and collaborative debugging are already difficult for students and instructors. As most established pedagogical practices depend on direct interactions centered on a single project artifact (e.g., circuit on the bench in front of two teammates with an i
Data Loading...
