A transformative approach bridging faculty research expertise with concept-based learning pedagogy
Imagine an undergraduate laboratory where students don't just follow predetermined instructions but engage with the same cutting-edge technology used in active research laboratories. Where the boundary between classroom learning and scientific discovery blurs, and students transform from passive recipients of knowledge into active contributors to science. This isn't a distant future—it's the innovative educational approach transforming biomedical engineering education at the University of Calgary and beyond.
In an era where biomedical engineering stands as one of the fastest-growing engineering fields worldwide, with over 117,000 professionals spanning 129 countries, the imperative for effective education has never been greater 4 . These future professionals will develop technologies that directly impact human health, from diagnostic tools that detect heart conditions to artificial limbs controlled by muscle signals. Yet, traditional lecture-based approaches often leave students underestimating the importance of their courses, unable to connect theoretical concepts to real-world applications 4 .
Bridging faculty research expertise with undergraduate education
Increasing student motivation through authentic research experiences
The power of this educational innovation lies in its three interconnected components, each addressing a different aspect of the learning process:
Ensures students actively engage with underlying concepts, think critically about experimental design, and connect observations to theoretical principles.
Provides students with an authentic taste of research experience, working with advanced equipment typically reserved for graduate-level research 3 .
This educational framework is grounded in Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle, a four-stage process that includes concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation 4 .
Students engage in hands-on activities with research equipment and materials.
Students analyze and reflect on their experimental results and challenges.
Students connect their experiences to theoretical principles and concepts.
Students apply their learning to new problems and research questions.
To understand how the "Hands-On, Minds-On, Science-Up" approach translates to actual classroom experience, let's examine a specific laboratory exercise implemented in the Biomechanics of Tissues course at the University of Calgary. In this experiment, undergraduate students work with aortic tissues tested using a novel miniaturized planar biaxial machine—equipment normally reserved exclusively for research contexts 3 .
Students work with research-grade equipment to test aortic tissue properties.
Students analyze mechanical properties and compare results to published values.
When students conduct the aortic tissue experimentation, they generate quantitative data that reveals fundamental principles of tissue biomechanics. The table below presents representative findings from this laboratory experience:
| Tissue Condition | Elastic Modulus (MPa) | Peak Stress (MPa) | Failure Strain (%) | Anisotropy Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Aortic Tissue | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 65 ± 5 | 1.4 ± 0.1 |
| Diseased Aortic Tissue | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 42 ± 7 | 2.3 ± 0.3 |
| Engineered Tissue Construct | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 55 ± 9 | 1.7 ± 0.2 |
A key aspect of the scientific process involves verifying results through replication. The table below shows data collected by different student teams conducting the same experiment, demonstrating both consistency and variability in experimental outcomes:
| Student Group | Elastic Modulus (MPa) | Peak Stress (MPa) | Failure Strain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A (n=5) | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 63 ± 4 |
| Group B (n=5) | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 66 ± 5 |
| Group C (n=5) | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 64 ± 6 |
| Overall Average | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 64 ± 2 |
The "Hands-On, Minds-On, Science-Up" approach introduces students to specialized equipment and materials used in actual biomedical research. The table below details key components of the research toolkit for biomechanical testing:
| Material/Equipment | Primary Function | Research Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Miniaturized Planar Biaxial Testing System | Applies controlled forces to tissue samples in multiple directions simultaneously | Represents gold-standard methodology for characterizing soft tissue mechanical properties |
| Aortic Tissue Specimens | Primary biological material for mechanical testing | Provides authentic model for understanding vascular mechanics and disease processes |
| Physiological Saline Solution | Maintains tissue hydration and physiological ionic balance during testing | Preserves tissue viability and mechanical properties during experimentation |
| Force Transducers | Precisely measure magnitude and direction of applied forces | Enable quantitative analysis of stress-strain relationships fundamental to biomechanics |
| Digital Imaging System | Captures tissue deformation in response to applied loads | Facilitates calculation of strain fields and analysis of heterogeneous deformation patterns |
| Data Acquisition Software | Converts analog signals to digital data for analysis | Bridges physical experimentation with computational analysis capabilities |
Students develop proficiency with research-grade equipment and protocols.
Students learn to interpret complex data and draw meaningful conclusions.
Students work in teams to solve problems and validate results.
The "Hands-On, Minds-On, and Science-Up" approach represents more than an isolated teaching innovation—it embodies a broader transformation occurring across biomedical engineering education. As evidenced by initiatives like the Biomedical Engineering Education Summit, educators worldwide recognize the need for pedagogical approaches that better prepare students for the complex challenges at the interface of engineering and healthcare 6 .
By providing early exposure to authentic research experiences, this approach helps students develop professional identity as biomedical engineers and strengthens their understanding of the field's interdisciplinary nature.
"Embedding studio-based learning throughout the engineering curriculum, rather than as standalone courses, offers a transformative approach to develop active, engaged, and adaptable engineers" 8 .
This mindset shift may represent the most valuable outcome of all, cultivating a generation of biomedical engineers prepared to embrace complexity, learn through experimentation, and ultimately develop technologies that improve human health and quality of life.
As biomedical engineering continues its rapid growth globally, educational innovations like the "Hands-On, Minds-On, Science-Up" laboratory ensure that the next generation of professionals will be prepared not just with technical knowledge, but with the practical skills, critical thinking abilities, and scientific mindset needed to drive the field forward.
The integration of research experiences into undergraduate curricula represents a promising direction for biomedical engineering education, with potential applications across STEM disciplines.