Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Jigsaw Approach to Strategic Considerations in Biomedical Engineering Design and Innovation

  • Teaching Tips
  • Published:
Biomedical Engineering Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We have implemented a jigsaw framework in our biomedical engineering capstone design course by overlaying strategic consideration groups across our design teams. Collaboration in design courses is usually focused within a design team with some peer feedback, but opportunities to work across teams are often limited. The purpose of this teaching tip is to guide other instructors seeking to create opportunities for student-to-student collaboration across project teams. This tutorial also highlights a means to integrate foundational knowledge and analysis of contextual areas in a design course. Knowledge of strategic considerations, such as intellectual property, regulatory affairs, engineering standards, and reimbursement, informs design translation and is valued in industry. Individual and collective learning outcomes may be enhanced by this cooperative learning approach. In addition to providing a specific example of how to implement jigsaw groups across design teams, we propose an assessment instrument to assess the impacts of this approach on student knowledge, collaboration, communication, and confidence in small cohorts. Areas of future considerations include tracking student career paths and post-graduation assessment of knowledge retention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Ebenstein D, Tranquillo J, Cavanagh D. Developing student design and professional skills in an undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. 2007. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--2700.

  2. Ropella K, Kelso DM, Enderle JD. Preparing biomedical engineers for real world problem solving. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. 2001. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--9662.

  3. Allen T, Peirce-Cottler S. Career development and professionalism within a biomedical engineering capstone course. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. 2008. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--4316

  4. King CE, Hoo CM, Tang WC, Khine M. Introducing entrepreneurship into a biomedical engineering capstone course at the University of California, Irvine. Technol Innov. 2019;20(3):179–95. https://doi.org/10.21300/20.3.2019.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zenios S, Makower J, Yock P, et al. Biodesign: the process of innovating medical technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gettens R, Rust M, Testa D, Cezeaux J. Using quality system regulations and Fda design control guidance as a basis for capstone senior design. 2010. p. 15.1335.1–15.1335.14.

  7. Bosman L, Shirey K. Bioengineering as a vehicle to increase the entrepreneurial mindset. In: Kaya-Capocci S, Peters-Burton E, editors. Enhancing entrepreneurial mindsets through STEM education. Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 351–81.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Mason JL, Johnston E, Berndt S, Segal K, Lei M, Wiest JS. Labor and skills gap analysis of the biomedical research workforce. FASEB J. 2016;30(8):2673–83. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201500067R.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sevier ED, Wang R, Gundersen LE, Dahms AS. Professional master’s degree programs in regulatory affairs and biomedical quality systems. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21(11):1407–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1103-1407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Finegold D. Alternative career options in the biomedical industry: the professional science master’s degree. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(4):503–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0405-503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Artz GM, Jacobs KL, Boessen CR. The whole is greater than the sum: an empirical analysis of the effect of team based learning on student achievement. NACTA J. 2016;60(4):405–11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fowler W. Teaming in engineering design courses. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. 1999. https://peer.asee.org/7983

  13. Desai TS, Kulkarni PP. “Cooperative learning” tool for optimizing outcomes of engineering education. J Eng Educ Transform. 2016. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2016/v0i0/111606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pow-Sang JA, Escobar-Cáceres P. A systematic literature review of the application of the jigsaw technique in engineering and computing. In: Auer ME, Guralnick D, Uhomoibhi J, editors. Interactive collaborative learning. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 322–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kousa MA. Jigsaw cooperative learning in engineering classrooms. In: 2015 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON); 2015. p. 58–62.

  16. Calkins SC, Rivnay J. The jigsaw design challenge: an inclusive learning activity to promote cooperative problem-solving. J Eff Teach High Educ. 2022. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v4i3.249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gomez J, Svihla V, Datye AK. Jigsaws & parleys: strategies for engaging sophomore level students as a learning community. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. 2017. https://peer.asee.org/28597.

  18. Maceiras R, Cancela A, Urréjola S, Sánchez A. Experience of cooperative learning in engineering. Eur J Eng Educ. 2011;36(1):13–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.518232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pow-Sang Portillo JA, Campos PG. The jigsaw technique: experiences teaching analysis class diagrams. In: 2009 Mexican international conference on computer science; 2009. p. 289–93.

  20. Husain H, Husain A, Samad S, Wahab DA. Jigsaw learning technique: addressing problems of implementation. Soc Sci. 2013;8:596–9. https://doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2013.596.599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Natarajan S. Collaborative learning in an operating systems course: an experience report. In: 34th annual frontiers in education, 2004. FIE 2004; 2004. p. S2F-7.

  22. Pow-Sang JA. Replacing a traditional lecture class with a jigsaw class to teach analysis class diagrams. In: 2015 international conference on interactive collaborative learning (ICL); 2015. p. 389–92.

  23. Tahir NM, Othman KA. The jigsaw cooperative method amongst electrical engineering students. In: 2010 2nd international congress on engineering education; 2010. p. 229–33.

  24. Andersson C, Logofatu D. Using a modified jigsaw technique in e-learning laboratory classes for engineering students. In: 2017 international symposium on educational technology (ISET); 2017. p. 244–48.

  25. Appandraj S, Sivagamasundari V, Sakthivadivel V. Role of JIGSAW method of teaching in improving clinical diagnosis among final year medical students—a prospective observational study. Asian J Med Sci. 2021;12(12):44–9. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v12i12.39080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goolsarran N, Hamo CE, Lu W-H. Using the jigsaw technique to teach patient safety. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1710325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1710325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kumar C, Kalasuramath S, Patil S, et al. Effect of jigsaw co-operative learning method in improving cognitive skills among medical students. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6:164–73. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.018.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Layton RA, Loughry ML, Ohland MW, Ricco GD. Design and validation of a web-based system for assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria. Adv Eng Educ 2010.

  29. FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Design control guidance for medical device manufacturers. 1997.

  30. Chen R, Gong J. Can self selection create high-performing teams? J Econ Behav Organ. 2018;148:20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yazdi Y, Acharya S. A new model for graduate education and innovation in medical technology. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(9):1822–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0869-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bruff D. Students as producers: collaborating toward deeper learning. In: Pierard C, Jackso A, Schadl S, editors. Scholarship in the sandbox: academic libraries as laboratories, forums, and archives for student work. Chicago: Association of College and Research Librarians; 2019.

  33. Wageman R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q. 1995;40(1):145–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Slavin RE. Instruction based on cooperative learning. In: Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York: Routledge; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Biology, Engineering, and Medicine, School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Marissa L. Gray & Celinda M. Kofron

Authors
  1. Marissa L. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celinda M. Kofron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MG contributed toward course instruction, data curation, and writing—review & editing; CK contributed toward conceptualization, course instruction, data curation, data analysis, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celinda M. Kofron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Ethical Approval

Brown University’s Office of Institutional Research declared this project non-regulated, i.e., not meeting the federal definition of human subjects research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, M.L., Kofron, C.M. A Jigsaw Approach to Strategic Considerations in Biomedical Engineering Design and Innovation. Biomed Eng Education 4, 153–161 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-023-00125-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-023-00125-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation