A Course in Biomaterials Taught Using the Socratic Method

William H. Guilford; Michael B. Lawrence

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Publication Date: June 15, 2014
Start Date: June 15, 2014
End Date: June 18, 2014
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Innovations in Pedagogy
Tagged Division: Biomedical
Page Count: 15
Page Numbers: 24.38.1 - 24.38.15
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--19930
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/19930
Download Count: 398

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

William H. Guilford University of Virginia orcid.org/0000-0002-6543-5713

visit author page

Will Guilford is an Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Director of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He received his B.S. in Biology and Chemistry from St. Francis College in Ft. Wayne, Indiana and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Arizona. Will did his postdoctoral training in Molecular Biophysics at the University of Vermont under David Warshaw. His research interests include the molecular mechanisms of cell movement and muscle contraction, and effective means for education.

visit author page

author page

Michael B. Lawrence University of Virginia

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

A Course in Biomaterials Taught Using the Socratic MethodAn undergraduate course in Biomaterials had been taught at XXXX University since 2005, andhad been done so in a lecture format guided by a textbook, and using homework and periodicexams as tools for summative assessment. The emphasis was traditional – the material propertiesof (primarily) musculoskeletal tissues.As part of a major course redesign, we wished to embrace a broader definition of “biomaterial”that included materials of biologic origin as well as exogenous materials used during clinicalpractice. We wanted students to synthesize knowledge ranging from chemical properties to theimmune response to understand how clinical problems are solved (or caused) by a variety ofmaterials. Finally, engineering requires an understanding of what information is relevant to theproblem, identification what information is missing, and discussion of these issues in groups.Thus our learning objectives included: 1. Knowing and comprehending how biomaterials of natural and synthetic origins interact with and are recognized by cells; 2. Analyzing how the physical and chemical properties of biomaterials lend themselves to specific clinical applications; and 3. Synthesizing knowledge to use materials in novel ways for clinical applications. 4. Explaining, defending, and forming positions on technical matters via oral argument.To meet these objectives, we used the Socratic method. There were no lectures; rather,instruction relied entirely on questioning of individual students by the instructor. Students wereprovided with a clinical case study one week before class in which the treatment of a patient’scondition involved a specific material (e.g. stainless steel). Students prepared for class usinggeneric questions to help guide their approach, but were otherwise left to their own devices.At the beginning of each class the students were quizzed to ensure they had prepared for theday’s discussion, and to ensure that they learned during the preceding class period. Six studentswere randomly selected at class time to be discussants for a given period, meaning they neverknew when they would be called upon. The instructor spent the remainder of the periodquestioning these six students while the remainder of the class watched and listened. When thediscussants were unable to answer a question, discussion was opened to the entire class.Summative assessment was based on four factors; performance as a discussant, classroomcontributions on days when one was not a discussant, quiz scores, and peer evaluations.Student course evaluations were far above average compared to others of comparable level(4000) in all but two categories – grading policy, and instructor approachability. We arecurrently conducting a 9-month post-test of the students from the inaugural class to determinewhether learning in the Socratic format improves retention and recall.A typical student comment read, “It was nerve-racking, intellectually satisfying, and the materialwas incredibly engaging. The challenge of having to integrate knowledge on the spot, at thewitness of your peers has been the single most effective method of learning I've had in any of ourcoursework. It forced us to integrate knowledge from our research experiences and priorcoursework to understand all the aspects of a case.”

Citation
Format

Guilford, W. H., & Lawrence, M. B. (2014, June), A Course in Biomaterials Taught Using the Socratic Method Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--19930

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -            A Course in Biomaterials Taught Using the Socratic MethodAn undergraduate course in Biomaterials had been taught at XXXX University since 2005, andhad been done so in a lecture format guided by a textbook, and using homework and periodicexams as tools for summative assessment. The emphasis was traditional – the material propertiesof (primarily) musculoskeletal tissues.As part of a major course redesign, we wished to embrace a broader definition of “biomaterial”that included materials of biologic origin as well as exogenous materials used during clinicalpractice. We wanted students to synthesize knowledge ranging from chemical properties to theimmune response to understand how clinical problems are solved (or caused) by a variety ofmaterials. Finally, engineering requires an understanding of what information is relevant to theproblem, identification what information is missing, and discussion of these issues in groups.Thus our learning objectives included:   1. Knowing and comprehending how biomaterials of natural and synthetic origins interact      with and are recognized by cells;   2. Analyzing how the physical and chemical properties of biomaterials lend themselves to      specific clinical applications; and   3. Synthesizing knowledge to use materials in novel ways for clinical applications.   4. Explaining, defending, and forming positions on technical matters via oral argument.To meet these objectives, we used the Socratic method. There were no lectures; rather,instruction relied entirely on questioning of individual students by the instructor. Students wereprovided with a clinical case study one week before class in which the treatment of a patient’scondition involved a specific material (e.g. stainless steel). Students prepared for class usinggeneric questions to help guide their approach, but were otherwise left to their own devices.At the beginning of each class the students were quizzed to ensure they had prepared for theday’s discussion, and to ensure that they learned during the preceding class period. Six studentswere randomly selected at class time to be discussants for a given period, meaning they neverknew when they would be called upon. The instructor spent the remainder of the periodquestioning these six students while the remainder of the class watched and listened. When thediscussants were unable to answer a question, discussion was opened to the entire class.Summative assessment was based on four factors; performance as a discussant, classroomcontributions on days when one was not a discussant, quiz scores, and peer evaluations.Student course evaluations were far above average compared to others of comparable level(4000) in all but two categories – grading policy, and instructor approachability. We arecurrently conducting a 9-month post-test of the students from the inaugural class to determinewhether learning in the Socratic format improves retention and recall.A typical student comment read, “It was nerve-racking, intellectually satisfying, and the materialwas incredibly engaging. The challenge of having to integrate knowledge on the spot, at thewitness of your peers has been the single most effective method of learning I&#39;ve had in any of ourcoursework. It forced us to integrate knowledge from our research experiences and priorcoursework to understand all the aspects of a case.”
AU  - William H. Guilford
AU  - Michael B. Lawrence
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - A Course in Biomaterials Taught Using the Socratic Method
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/19930
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--19930
ER  -