Advertisement

Adaptive Evolution of Teaching Practices in Biologically Inspired Design

  • Jeannette YenEmail author
  • Michael Helms
  • Ashok Goel
  • Craig Tovey
  • Marc Weissburg
Chapter

Abstract

At Georgia Tech in 2005, we developed an interdisciplinary undergraduate semester-long course, biologically inspired design (BID), co-taught each year by faculty from biology and engineering. The objective of this chapter is to share our teaching experience with those interested in teaching such a course themselves. The specific curriculum of a BID course must depend on the student mix, the institutional context, and instructor goals. Therefore, rather than presenting a particular curriculum, we present key problems that we encountered in our 8 years of teaching and how we addressed them. We expect that any who try to teach such a course will face one or more of the same challenges, and we offer numerous pedagogical approaches that can be tailored to their specific circumstances. By describing our solutions, their consequences, and the extent to which they met our expectations, we also point out where tough student challenges still exist that are in need of attention from the community.

Keywords

Teaching biologically inspired design Learning biologically inspired design Problem-driven design Solution-based design Analogical design Cross-domain analogy Design by analogy Understanding biological systems Functional decomposition Structure-Behavior-Function Design evaluation Team design Interdisciplinary design Interdisciplinary education Design creativity Engineering design Engineering creativity Multi-disciplinarity Team-based learning Analogical reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to several colleagues who have contributed to this work over the last several years, including Inbal Flash-Gvili, Wendy Newstetter, Swaroop Vattam, and Bryan Wiltgen. We thank the US National Science Foundation for its support of this research through a TUES grant (#1022778) entitled “Biologically Inspired Design: A Novel Interdisciplinary Biology-Engineering Curriculum,” and a CreativeIT Grant (#0855916) entitled “Computational Tools for Enhancing Creativity in Biologically Inspired Engineering Design.”

References

  1. Altendorfer A, Moore N, Komsuoglu H, Buehler M, Brown HB Jr, McMordie D, Saranli U, Full R, Koditschek DE (2001) Rhex: a biologically inspired hexapod runner. Auton Robots 11:207–213zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausubel D (2000) The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view. Kluwer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatta S, Goel A (1997) Learning generic mechanisms for innovative design adaptation. J Learn Sci 6(4):367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2008) AskNature—the biomimicry webportal. http://www.asknature.org/. Retrieved 15 Apr 2012
  5. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2009). Biomimicry: a tool for innovation. http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-tool-for-innovation.html. Retrieved on 15 Apr 2012
  6. Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R (eds) (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruck H, Gershon A, Golden I, Gupta S, Gyger L, Magrab E, Spranklin B (2007) Training mechanical engineering students to utilize biological inspiration during product development. Bioinsp and Biomim 2:S198–S209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee R (1997) Achieving scientific literacy. Heinemann, PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakrabarti A, Shu L (2010) Biologically inspired design. AIEDAM 23:453–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju B (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIEDAM 19:113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan Y, Yu A, Chan C (2010) Assessing students’ integrative learning in biomedical engineering from the perspectives of structure, behavior, and function. In: Proceedings of 40th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, 27–30 Oct 2010, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandrasekaran B (1994) Functional representation: a brief historical perspective. Appl Artif Intell 8:173–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandrasekaran B, Goel A, Iwasaki Y (1993) Functional representation as a basis for design rationale. IEEE Comput 26:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheong H, Chiu I, Shu, Stone R, McAdams D (2011) Biologically meaningful keywords for functional terms of the functional basis. J Mech Des 133: doi: 10.1115/1.4003249
  15. Chiu I, Shu L (2007a) Biomimetic design through natural language analysis to facilitate cross-domain information retrieval. AIEDAM 21:45–59Google Scholar
  16. Chiu I, Shu L (2007b) Using language as related stimuli for concept generation. AIEDAM 21:103–121Google Scholar
  17. Clement J (2008) Creative model construction in scientists and students: the role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunbar K (2001) The analogical paradox. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Dym C, Brown D (2012) Engineering design: representation and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebert-May D, Momsen J, Long T, Wyse S (2010) Dearly departed Grandma Johnson: revealing student understanding of carbon cycling with structure-function-behavior models. In: Proceedings of 95th annual meeting of the Ecological Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  21. Erden M, Komoto H, van Beek T, D’Amelio V, Echavarria E, Tomiyama T (2008) A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. AIEDAM 22:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. French M (1996) Conceptual design for engineers, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cog Sci 7:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2004) The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Des Stud 25:373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gick M, Holyoak KJ (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cog Psych 15:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goel A (1997) Design, analogy and creativity. IEEE Intell Syst 12(3):62–70MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Goel A, Gomez A, Grue N, Murdock W, Recker M, Govindaraj T (1996) Towards design learning environments—exploring how devices work. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent Tutoring systems, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  28. Goel A, Rugaber S, Vattam S (2009) Structure, behavior and function of complex systems: the SBF modeling language. AIEDAM 23:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goel A, Vattam S, Wiltgen S, Helms M (2012) Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Comput Aided Des 44(10):879–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helms M, Vattam S, Goel A (2009) Biologically inspired design: process and products. Des Stud 30:606–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helms M, Vattam S, Goel A, Yen J (2011) Enhanced human learning using structure-behavior-function models. Interactive learning environments. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, Athens, Georgia, USA, July 2011, pp 239–243Google Scholar
  32. Hofstadter D (1996) Fluid concepts and creative analogies: computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic Books, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1995) Mental leaps: analogy in creative thought. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Keane M (1988) Analogical problem solving. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolodner J (1993) Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee H, Lee BP, Messersmith PB (2007) A reversible wet/dry adhesive inspired by mussels and geckos. Nature 448:338–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Long J (2012) Darwin’s devices. What evolving robots can teach us about the history of life and the future of technology. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Markman AB, Gentner D (1993) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cog Psych 25:431–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miklosovic DS, Murray MM, Howle LE, Fish FE (2004) Leading-edge tubercles delay stall on humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) flippers. Phys Fluids 16:L39–L42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagel R, Midha P, Tinsley A, Stone R, McAdams D, Shu L (2008) Exploring the use of functional models in biomimetic concept design. J Mech Des 130:1–13Google Scholar
  42. Nagel J, Nagel R, Stone R, McAdams D (2010) Function-based, biologically inspired concept generation. AIEDAM 24:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nakrani S, Tovey C (2007) From honeybees to internet servers: management of internet hosting centers. Bioinsp and Biomim 2:S182–S197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Research Council (2009) A new biology for the 21st century. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12764. National Academies Press, Washington
  45. National Research Council (2011) A Framework for twenty-first century science education: practices, cross-cutting concepts and core ideas. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165. National Academies Press, Washington
  46. Nersessian NJ (2008) Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. English edition: Wallace K, Blessing L (trans: 3rd edn.) SpringerGoogle Scholar
  48. Potyrailo RA, Ghiradella H, Vertiatchikh A, Dovidenko K, Cournoyer JR, Olson E (2007) Morpho butterfly wing scales demonstrate highly selective vapour response. Nat Photonics 1:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasmussen J (1985) The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 15:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A (2008) The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. AIEDAM 22:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarkar P, Phaneendra S, Chakrabarti A (2008) Developing engineering products using inspiration from nature. J Comp Info Sci Eng 8(3):1–9Google Scholar
  52. Sartori J, Pal U, Chakrabarti A (2010) A methodology for supporting “transfer” in biomimetic design. AIEDAM 24:483–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shu L (2010) A Natural-language approach to biomimetic design. AIEDAM 24:507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silk E, Schunn C (2008) Core concepts in engineering as a basis for understanding and improving K-12 engineering education in the United States. Paper presented to the National academy of engineering/National research council workshop on K-12 engineering education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon H (1996) Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd Ed, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  56. Simonton D (2004) Creativity in science: chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Speth E, Dirnbeck M, Murrilo L, Momsen J, Long T (2011) Introductory (but not simple) biology: student’s representation of complex causal relationships in biological systems. Paper presented to the first meeting of the society for the advancement of biology education research, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  58. Tero A, Takagi S, Saigusa T, Ito K, Bebber DP, Fricker MD, Yumiki K, Kobayashi R, Nakagaki T (2010) Rules for biologically inspired adaptive network design. Science 327:439MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vattam S, Goel A (2011) Foraging for inspiration: understanding and supporting the information seeking practices of biologically inspired designers. In: Proceedings ASME DETC conference on design theory and methods, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2007) Biologically inspired innovation in engineering design: a cognitive study. Technical Report GIT-GVU-07-07, graphics, visualization and usability center, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  61. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2010a) A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. AIEDAM 24:467–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vattam S, Wiltgen B, Helms M, Goel A, Yen J (2010b) DANE: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design. In: Proceedings of first international conference on design creativity, Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  63. Vattam S, Goel A, Rugaber S, Hmelo-Silver C, Jordan R, Gray S, Sinha S (2011) Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. J Educ Tech Soc 14:66–81Google Scholar
  64. Vincent J, Bogatyreva O, Bogatyrev N, Bowyer A, Pahl A (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J R Soc Interface 3:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vogel S (2000) Cat’s Paws and Catapults: mechanical worlds of nature and people. W.W. Norton and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society: the development of the higher psychological processes. The Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Weissburg M, Tovey C, Yen J (2010) Enhancing innovation through biologically inspired design. Adv Nat Sci 3:145–167Google Scholar
  68. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. The Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson J, Rosen D, Nelson B, Yen J (2010) The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Des Stud 31:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yen J, Helms M, Goel A, Vattam S (2010) Evaluating biological systems for their potential in engineering design. Adv Nat Sci 3:168–187Google Scholar
  71. Yen J, Weissburg M, Helms M, Goel A (2011) Biologically inspired design: a tool for interdisciplinary education. In: Bar-Cohen Y (ed) Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannette Yen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Helms
    • 2
  • Ashok Goel
    • 2
  • Craig Tovey
    • 3
  • Marc Weissburg
    • 1
  1. 1. School of BiologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2. School of Interactive ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3. School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations