Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

Video Reporting for Development of Project Management and Interdisciplinarity

Skills

Tino Koponen

, Tommi Lintilä

, Anton Vanamo

Ara Taalas

, Heli Viskari

, Katrina Nordström

Panu Kiviluoma

and Ari Ora

Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems, Aalto University School of Chemical Engineering,

Kemistintie 1, Espoo, Finland

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University School of Engineering, Otakaari 4, Espoo, Finland

heli.viskari@aalto.fi, katrina.nordstrom@aalto.fi, panu.kiviluoma@aalto.fi, ari.ora@aalto.fi

Keywords: Digitalization, Video Reporting, Interdisciplinary Learning, Project Management, Active Learning.

Abstract: A pilot project BIOMEETSMEX, combines two engineering schools to support the development of co-

creative means of project and product presentation, interdisciplinary and problem-solving skills. The aim was

to expand students’ ability to communicate scientific data through self-produced videos rather than written

media, and to offer motivating and informative ways to learn scientific concepts and for teachers to assess

learning. A “library” for learning could be developed, to allow for other students to access student self-

produced videos in future courses.

1 INTRODUCTION

Societies are rapidly changing from being local to

global with a working culture in which data flow is

continuous. Such a working culture has enforced a

paradigm change for educational systems, especially

for developing flexible and rapidly adaptable

approaches for supporting deep learning and

cognitive capacity of students (Sweller et al., 1998).

In parallel, rapid advances in science calls for

interdisciplinary problem-solving ability, for

unraveling current and emerging societal challenges

(Gero, 2017). Interdisciplinary problem solving

increases innovation and supports students to more

smoothly adapt into post-graduation working life

where multidimensional and disorganized problems

are typical. Accordingly, educational systems strive

to support students to develop their capacity to

engage in interdisciplinary thinking, collaboration,

and problem- solving as well as rapidly responding to

the vibrant society in the digital world (Klein & Falk-

Krzesinski, 2017).

Digitalization and robotics are changing the way

societies function and data can be compiled to

different platforms and distributed via tablets, virtual

learning environments, mobile devices etc. to groups

and individuals (Manfra & Hammond, 2008; Gillie et

al. 2017). This highlights the importance of

multidisciplinary teamwork in a space and time

independent manner (Smyth, 2011). In addition,

emerging new approaches use social media channels

in teaching such as Facebook, YouTube, Blogs or

bots (Tess, 2013). This also makes it possible to

digitalize teaching material in a cost-effective way for

larger external audiences. Moreover, such material is

familiar to students and has great significance in

supporting lifelong learning and also offers equal

opportunities for learning for disabled students (Gillie

et al., 2017).

Smyth (2011) has created a model to distinguish

between learner-content and learner-learner

interactivity in learning design. The model promotes

important views into the need for developing more

conceptualized interactive learner spaces, which are

less constricted by the technologies that are used to

support them. These are akin to virtual environments,

such as Second Life (Kangasniemi et al., 2014, Qvist

et. al., 2015) where interaction mimics a face-to-face

environment and where, according to Smyth (2011) ”

‘community’ becomes embedded as pedagogy.”

Regardless of the rapid introduction of digital

teaching resources, there has been limited research

114

Koponen, T., Lintilä, T., Vanamo, A., Taalas, A., Viskari, H., Nordström, K., Kiviluoma, P. and Ora, A.

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX).

DOI: 10.5220/0006697701140123

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 114-123

ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2

into how students use such resources (Gillie et al.

2017). As reviewed by Gillie et al. (2017) Saunders

at Hutt (2014) have defined rich-media as “Pre-

prepared videos, audios and images (still and

animated), which are created for the purposes of

teaching and learning “. In a study on three rich -

media teaching resources, namely lecture podcasts,

key-concept videos and tutorial videos, Gillie et al.

(2017) concluded that engineering undergraduates

find short, focused resources most useful, and also

add that non-native English speakers and students

with disabilities find these resources particularly

useful. Retention rapidly reduces if the length of the

video exceeds five minutes (Gillie et al. 2017).

The use of videos, podcasts, vodcasts, lecture –

capture (audio only, audio only or video only), use of

narrated power points and numerous other digitalized

approaches are already firmly established as part of

higher education and will most likely continue to

develop in accessibility and ease of use (Copley,

2007; Parson et al., 2009; Gillie et al., 2017). There

has been some concern that student-teacher

interactions may diminish, however, these rich-media

are usually part of blended learning approaches, and

not intended to replace traditional face-to-face

interactions by students and teachers (Martinez-Caro

& Campuzano- Bolarin, 2011; Gillie et al., 2017). A

typical feature for all of these approaches is also that

they are not tightly standardized, rather there is a lot

of variation in the purpose (eg. assignment

preparation, revision materials, distribution of class

information etc.), in the preference of students for

different types of media, as well as the perceptions of

students and teachers on how these enhance learning

or support development of skills (Saunders & Hutt,

2014; Gillie et al., 2017).

However, there is also interest in the use of

student self-produced videos in teaching and learning.

Young people today are active producers of video-

clips and other digitalized material with content,

distributed often by smartphones, blogs, or social

networks (Corten-Gualtieri et al. 2015). Moreover,

they are used to spending a lot of time watching

movies, soaps and other audiovisual content, which

has lead Corten-Gualtieri et al. (2015) to study if and

how student produced video clips could enhance

student learning. In their study on how to promote the

concept of Newtonian physics, students created video

clips in which the evaluators and peer students

considered the scientific content to be interesting and

the activities required a genuine cognitive effect from

students. Namely, students needed to question,

analyze, search for information, manage socio-

cognitive conflicts in their groups and reorganize

their conceptual paradigm (Corten – Gualtieri, et al.

2015).

The conceptual paradigm of students can,

however, not be challenged or reorganized by the

students, in a vacuum setting, such as the lecture room

or the laboratory. Rather, advances in science have

wide social implications and videos produced by

students should be anchored into real life (Willmott

2014; Corten-Gualtieri et al., 2017). This is

particularly relevant to engineering and biosciences,

which have also deep social implications to the wider

community. Willmott et al. (2014) used student-

generated videos for the teaching of bioethics, and

concluded that students not only learned about the

core issues, but that the materials could also be used

to enhance the public understanding of the science

and ethics relating to biomedical innovations.

Benefits of the videos to the students were 1) students

had the opportunity to demonstrate their creativity, 2)

genuine teamwork was required, 3) argumentation

and storytelling skills were promoted, 4) students

were exposed to software and other multimedia tools,

which have generic value also for the development of

future professional skills. Wilmott (2014) therefore

concluded that all of these are benefits, which

enhance the employability of the students in the

future.

Our university was founded in 2010 as a merger

of the leading universities of engineering & science,

business and art, in order to create a new concept of

an innovative and interdisciplinary university.

Consequently, our mission is to educate game-

changers, to break disciplinary borders and to

implement novel teaching and learning approaches

into education. As of 2016 onwards the University

has funded some 100 different learning and teaching

development projects, which start as pilots and if

successful, become adopted into the curriculum. This

initiative is administered by a coordination group,

which also is responsible for arranging regular

meetings between all piloting groups, as well as

providing technical and pedagogical support all

through the piloting phase as well as afterwards. The

idea of the pilots fits into the educational design

thinking practices. Even though there is no clear

classification of design thinking as reviewed by

Johansson-Sköldberg, et al. (2013), it provides a very

practical approach and aims to experiment, analyze

and put new approaches into practice after iteration.

Accordingly, experimentation within the pilots aims

at practical outcomes that can be included into

curriculum development and not on extensive

theorizing and researching.

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

115

In this study, we describe one such pilot, Biology

Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX) for which

planning started in 2016 and piloting took place in the

spring of 2017. Namely, we investigated how Master-

level engineering students from Biotechnology,

Biosystems and Mechatronics majors were able to

apply their social, video reporting, project

management, and interdisciplinary skills to achieve a

shared goal of constructing a Rotary Wall Vessel

(RWV) bioreactor. The BIOMEETSMEX pilot

aimed to achieve three educational objectives. First,

the aim was to deepen the students’ understanding,

applying and problem-solving skills on different

levels of interdisciplinary collaboration. Second, the

pilot aimed at providing practical insights into how to

make a product in the real environment. Third, the

aim was to expand the students’ ability to

communicate scientific data through other than

written media, and to offer this also as a less time-

consuming and more informative way for teachers’ to

assess learning. Moreover, a more empirical aim was

to develop a “library” for learning. Such videos could

be used in the following years to show students what

others have done and to learn from these experiences.

However, many technical and legal issues need still

to be resolved, and therefore the present

communication will only present some general views

on such a repository.

2 BIOMEETSMEX

The School of Engineering (ENG) of the University

has arranged a Master-level Mechatronics Project

(MP) course for more 20 years. The goal of the course

has been to encourage and assist students in

conducting their own project that aims to produce a

self-built and designed physical mechatronic machine

or other apparatus over a period of two to three

months. Simultaneously during the spring term, the

School of Chemical Engineering (CHEM) of the

University has arranged a Cell and Tissue

Engineering (CTE) course, which had been held

twice before the collaboration described in this

article.

The CTE course formed the basis of the

BIOMEETSMEX pilot, as the university renewed all

M.Sc. programs during 2015-2017. The CHEM

school completed the new structure in 2016, but

curriculum change was implemented at the ENG

school 2016-2017. To avoid possible work overload

for the MP course teachers at this transition phase, the

CTE was the main platform for the piloting.

2.1 Background

The CTE course is an elective course in the

Biotechnology M.Sc. and the Biosystems and

Biomaterials Engineering M.Sc. majors. The number

of students that are accepted to the course is restricted

to 25, as the cell and tissue laboratory work and the

electrospinning requires very specialized laboratory

space, technical help and expensive materials. The

course is equivalent to 5 ECTS and runs over a period

of 12 weeks from January to April. The total amount

of student work for the course is 135 hours.

According to the University requirements 1 ECTS is

equivalent to 27 hours of students work. The CTE

course has been defined in the curriculum as

containing project work on given assignments (50h),

final presentations (4h), exam (4h) and independent

studying (77h). Independent studying is categorized

as reading materials, meeting with group members,

studying for the exam and producing written reports,

however, this also overlaps into the hours allocated to

project work. At our University all course

requirements are posted on the MyCourses learning

platform so that students can make prior estimates of

the workload and the requirements of the course. A

total of 22 students enrolled to the course, of which

five students from the Biosystems and Biomaterials

Engineering major, could not attend the laboratory

part of the course due to other overlapping

compulsory courses. This major is a new initiative

and offered by the Life Sciences M.Sc. major and

coordinated jointly by several of the schools in the

university, which still causes some problems in

scheduling. Consequently, these students completed

the course by a written project on a chosen topic in

cell and tissue engineering products. They formed an

independent part of the CTE course, and were not

included in the video production, due to their

timetables. Therefore a total of 17 students

participated in the BIOMEETSMEX pilot as

described in this communication. The CTE course in

2017 included a series of collaboration-supporting

lectures focusing on the scientific issues within

bioreactors, cell-extracellular matrix interactions, and

functional tissues. The project work included the

work in the laboratory and the production of the

videos.

The M.Sc. level MP course is a 5-10 ECTS course

for 6 to 12 weeks, which students can complete

according to their own choice in the longer or the

shorter format. However, for the purposes of the

BIOMEETSMEX the focus was on the 5 ECTS

completion, to match the CTE course ECTS’s. The

regular MP course consisted of completion of a

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

116

student project in groups (usually 4-7), with projects

mostly in the areas of robotics, sensors,

instrumentation, as well as large mechatronics

process equipment for industry and in collaboration

with industry. The regular MP course is an elective

course for the study path in Mechatronics in the M.Sc.

program of Mechanical Engineering. There is no

maximum limit to participants, and the estimated

average number of students taking the course is about

70. The MP projects require a literature survey and

report, which are written as scientific articles.

However, for the purposes of the present

BIOMEETSMEX pilot, the collaboration and the

focus of the groups was on the mechanical aspects of

constructing a Rotary Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor,

project management, and presentation via videos

(Figure 1). As the 4 students from the MECH major

had already chosen to to participate in

BIOMEETSMEX during their enrolment to the MP

course, they formed their own group. The possibility

to choose different project is posted some 2 months

prior to the start of the MP and and thus these students

self-selected to participate in the BIOMEETSMEX

pilot.

2.2 Practical Implementation

The BIOMEETSMEX was organized as follows.

Seventeen students from the CTE course formed four

groups (hereafter BIO groups) and four students from

the MP course formed one group (hereafter the

MECH group). The CTE participants formed groups

at random, ie. they could form their groups freely to

include 4-5- members. We have experimented for

many years and on many courses on the optimum

group formation, however, we have come to the

conclusion that at the M.Sc. level, our students prefer

to make their own choices. The arguments for and

against this decision are deliberated on in the

discussion of the present communication. The MECH

group members also took part in each of the BIO

groups as mechatronics consultants in order to assist

the co-working between biotechnology and

mechatronics students. In addition, two teaching

assistants of the CTE course helped to organize the

collaboration practicalities throughout the course in

order to facilitate the working of different groups. The

overall timeline of the collaboration is presented in

Figure 1.

Figure 1: The timeline and the student/teaching staff inputs on the CTE course. L stands for CTE lectures, S stands for session

working, Report refers to the RCCS report that the BIO students produced and Exam refers to the open book exam in the

CTE course. The camera icon indicates the deadline for a video report.

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

117

BIO and MECH groups had both independent and

shared assignments during the collaboration. The BIO

groups were instructed to familiarize themselves with

the commercial RWV bioreactor type called Rotary

Cell Culture System (RCCS). The BIO groups also

acted as consultants for the monitoring of either pH,

oxygen, carbon dioxide or cell amount for the RWV

bioreactor that the MECH-group assembled. In

addition, the BIO groups participated in six different

laboratory exercises in order to learn the main

techniques that are required in tissue engineering and

that affect how the RWV bioreactor is used. The BIO

students also needed to take an open book exam at the

end of the course. The MECH group was to build by

themselves the RWV bioreactor. The main shared

assignment was video reporting.

2.2.1 Student Collaboration

Together with the MECH consultant, each of the BIO

groups were to produce five video reports throughout

the collaboration. The video reports required the

students to reflect on the laboratory exercises, the

group working, the bioreactor building and the

project proceeding. The videos were to be about 5 to

10 minutes long and constructed in a free form as long

as they discussed the project work. Video reporting

is presented in more detail in section 2.2.2. The BIO

and MECH groups also constructed a shared

interdisciplinary dictionary and were to interact with

each other over the bioreactor-design-related

questions. The MECH students were also encouraged

to participate in the laboratory exercises and the

lectures. The teaching assistants were in charge of the

laboratory exercises, produced all of the material and

information that was given to the students at the

beginning of the collaboration, and messaged

additional information throughout the course via the

News forum feature on the University MyCourses

online teaching platform, which is similar to the

Moodle platform. MyCourses was also used

extensively over the course as one goal of the

collaboration was to conduct the majority of the

content online.

Since the BIO groups carried out the laboratory

exercises mainly independently and the MECH group

was physically working on the other side of the

campus, so-called session working was utilized to

enhance co-working. Three sessions (introductory,

middle and conclusive session) were arranged so that

all of the groups came together to conclude the

collaboration so far. The sessions paced the

collaboration and served as landmarks during the

fourteen-week-long collaboration. The project goal,

assignments, and timeline were introduced in the first

session so that the students could easily adjust to work

within the project and to assimilate bioreactor

requirements.

One important emphasis of the first session was

also to get the group members to know each other.

The students were also required to schedule their

laboratory exercise times during the first meeting and

agree on practicalities such as the person responsible

for handing in each of the assignments. The second

session was the first deadline for the MECH group

and they presented their building and design plans for

the first RWV bioreactor model (called Bioreactor 1.0

in Figure 2).

Figure 2: Flow chart of the collaboration.

As the BIO groups simultaneously were to hand

in their written RCCS reports thus knowing the

commercial model features, the RWV features were

discussed and some modification done according to

the session-derived ideas. After the second session,

the MECH group finished building the first RWV

bioreactor model and the BIO groups used this model

in their following bioreactor laboratory exercises.

Based on the hands-on user experience, the BIO

groups gave feedback to the MECH group that then

utilized these ideas to develop and produce a second,

improved model of the RWV bioreactor (Bioreactor

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

118

2.0 in Figure 2). The third conclusive session was

held alongside the Mechatronics Circus, which is an

annual gala at the School of Engineering to showcase

the MP course outcomes for other students,

University staff and industrial partners. The third

session was also a possibility for the BIO groups to

see the improved RWV bioreactor and thus it served

a collaboration-concluding event.

2.2.2 Video Reporting

For the video presentations students were required to

reflect on their own learning. Namely, the goal of the

video reports was to describe how the project is

proceeding and what the group has done so far. The

students were instructed to focus on explaining the

work through the scientific context. The exact

content was rather free as long as the instructions

below were used as a guideline. Format-wise any of

the following suggestions could be used, or students

could come up with their own format. Also it was up

to the students to choose the software and equipment

they wished to use. The instructions were as follows:

1) Students may produce a compilation of short video

clips or pictures merged together for example with

Windows Movie Maker (available on school

computers) or equivalent. These clips could be from

laboratory exercises, lectures, meetings with the

group etc. Snapchatty or GoPro-like material,

however, some sort of a guiding idea is necessary

throughout the video, 2) the groups were required to

have a meeting, make some plans on what they were

going to discuss, press play and talk about the project

– simple, efficient and no editing needed. Students

were instructed to make sure that they do have some

plan for the discussion so that it makes sense and it

covers everything needed, 3) students were also

instructed to think about the visual impression, as

these are videos, not just an audio (a group of people

sitting and talking for 5 minutes might be boring), 4)

a short lecture on the project with focus on the

scientific aspects. The University provides two

programs (Panopto and Adobe Connect) to record a

lecture with power point slides on it. If students felt

that these programs are beneficial they were also

allowed to use them.

The above points were, however, only

suggestions so students were encouraged to feel free

to let out their inner movie director (a movie, a play,

a TED Talk, an interview, a cartoon, drones, selfie

sticks, car chases, non-life-threating explosions etc.)

– they were also told not to get stressed out about this

(a simple video would be completely fine). The

requirement was that every member of the group must

be seen to be part of the production. For content the

following instructions were given, with emphasis on

giving scientific explanations to the issues that are

presented in the video:

1) What (interdisciplinary) have we done in the

project so far?

2) What have we managed to do well?

3) What has caused challenges?

4) What are we going to do next?

Moreover, students were required to answer these

video-specific questions:

Video 1 (Week 3): Did Session 1 after the first

lecture help you to form a group?

Video 2 (Week 5): How is the building process of

the bioreactor proceeding?

Video 3 (Week 7): Discuss the reflective

questionnaire that you have been asked to fill in on a)

your personal social interactions within the group and

your perception of your own role, and b) the

functioning of the group as a team.

Video 4 (Week 10 or 11): Development ideas for

the bioreactor. Praise all team members for something

they have done.

Video 5 (Week 13): Conclude all that you have

done during the project: what did you learn? Also

comment on the online resources you were given and

that you used: did you find them useful?

3 OUTCOME AND DISCUSSION

The outcome of the study will be discussed in the

context of the video reports and the survey questions

that were the theme for video 3, as presented above in

section 2.2.2.

All groups provided the required videos on time

and the video reporting was very popular with the

students. On the other hand, it was evident, that of

the four groups, two were able to focus on the

scientific aspects of their work, whereas the other two

groups were presenting more of an iteration of what

they had done in the laboratory, similar to a

laboratory logbook, without deeper analysis. These

findings are very similar to Corten – Gualtieri et al.

(2017).

The two more successful groups produced very

professional presentations from a scientific point of

view, and were able to explain the scientific reasons

as to why they had made certain choices, what had

worked and why. They also were able to analyse their

own results and to give very logical suggestions to the

future trends of the work, if it were to be continued.

The reason for this difference between the two groups

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

119

Table 1: Student survey in connection with video reporting 3 (see 2.2.2) on student’s personal role as part of the group (compl.

= completely, Tot = total, Av. = Average ).

Student

Agree

fully

Agree Neither Disagree

Disagree

fully

Tot Av

I can be myself 11 5 0 1 0 17 1,47

I can express my opinions 13 4 0 0 0 17 1,24

I focus on the subject in the meetings 9 8 0 0 0 17 1,47

I am genuinely present at the meetings 10 7 0 0 0 17 1,41

I listen to other team members without

prejudice

13 4 0 0 0 17 1,24

I encourage others to speak 7 6 3 1 0 17 1,88

I observe, how others react to my

opinions

6 7 3 1 0 17 1,94

I diminish my thoughts and feelings 0 3 3 7 4 17 3,71

I feel a need to explain my behavior 1 9 6 0 1 17 2,47

I undervalue myself 0 0 5 8 4 17 3,94

I give in to others 0 2 7 8 0 17 3,35

I'm not satisfied with my team 0 1 1 6 9 17 4,35

Table 2: Student survey in connection with Video reporting 3 (see 2.2.2) on functioning of the groups as a team group (compl.

= completely, Tot = total, Av. = Average ).

Student

Agree

fully

Agree Neither Disagree

Disagree

fully

Tot. Av.

Team members are not afraid to

express opinions

10 6 1 0 0 17 1,47

Opinions are well argumented 5 12 0 0 0 17 1,71

Team aims to solve problems 10 7 0 0 0 17 1,41

Responsibilities are shared equally 6 10 1 0 0 17 1,71

Team has common goal 10 5 2 0 0 17 1,53

Team has clear roles 5 4 7 1 0 17 2,24

Team has clear schedule 5 10 0 2 0 17 1,94

could not be explained by the group dynamics,

because the survey on the roles of the students as

individuals within the group and the functioning of

the team as a group, was overall very positive. Table

1 shows the responses as set into a Likert scale of 1 to

5, which shows a very uniform response for a positive

role of each individual. The same was true for the

teams (Table 2). However, prior experience with

making of videos most likely gave more successful

groups more time to focus on the scientific content.

On the other hand, the other two groups did not do

poorly, rather they most probably would have needed

more time and support with the technical

implementation. It was evident that not all students

are familiar with digitalized tools to the extent that

they would feel comfortable experimenting with

different types of presentations.

Group formation and group dynamics has been

extensively studied for decades by many groups and

there are an equally numerous amount of suggestions

on what works and what does not work (Renkonen,

2017). We agree that the common goal uniting all

approaches is, as aptly stated by Björklund et al.

(2017) to encourage students to transform from

“Lonely riders to co-creators”. However, as pointed

out in the introduction of this paper, the aim of

BIOMEETSMEX was to provide practical tools for

creating an additional means for student reporting and

creation of their own work, and not focus research on

learning pedagogies. Accordingly, group formation

was supported only by one short session. On the other

hand, we do recognize the challenges of group

dynamics and especially the need to harmonize the

abilities to use rich media across all groups.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

120

Moreover, there has been concern about the

integration of non-native students, and particularly

non-English speaking students into groups work

(Gillie et al. 2017). On the other hand, as our

University only offers M.Sc. programs in English,

which is not the native language of our students, we

argue that all of our students are in many ways in a

similar position. Clearly also cultural differences may

put students at a disadvantage during group formation

and also needs to be taken into account.

One of the aims of the present pilot was to explore

the possibility of creating a repository of student-

produced videos. We have experimented with a very

wide array of engineering education development,

including project- and problem-based learning,

distance learning, virtual spaces, MOOCS etc. Based

on our own and the experience of others, written

reports by students most commonly become filed and

archived after a course, and most likely shredded a

few years later. This is a great loss, as they contain

a multitude of information, experimentation and

reflections, but which very rarely is read by the

students, or the teachers of the course in the following

years. Accordingly, it would be important to be able

to create a repository for student-created digital

materials. Keba et al. (2015) have studied the creation

of a video-hosting – platform by a team of librarians

at Nova Southeastern University. The initiative,

known as Library Learn, is an excellent example of

how issues of usability, accessibility, updating and

technical issues can be resolved. However, there are

many additional challenges due to copyright,

ownership, quality and legal ownership for content,

which may be university and country-specific.

Namely, student-produced videos often include a

variety of other media resources, which brings

complex issues of ownership as well as legal

responsibility for content. Accordingly, even though

a repository of student videos, which could also be

possibly publicly available, and which is easily

accessed by mobile devices is an interesting idea, it is

still under deliberation for BIOMEETSMEX.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Video streaming is a very useful way to present and

update data, project development and results.

Moreover, video streams can be distributed

independently of time and space to any audience

rapidly. Armstrong & Massad (2009) have studied

student learning in production of podcasts and state

that this encourages students to research, analyze

information, communicate effectively, and

incorporate expert opinions into their production.

Conceptualizing scientific facts has been shown to

enhance student understanding of complex biological

phenomena as well as abstract thinking (Nordström &

Korpelainen, 2011; Passera, 2017). Moreover, by

actively producing their own work and comparing it

to the work of others gives students important

feedback for reflection on their own capabilities. It

also inspires them to try to expand their creativity and

innovative abilities (Armstrong & Massad, 2009). We

would also argue that similar to the production of

podcasts, that video documentation of the student’s

own work has a knowledge-creating value, and they

are a vehicle for disseminating learner-generated

content in accordance with Lee et al. (2008). As

stated by Armstrong & Massad (2009) these forms of

communication promotes learning for the desired

outcomes of a course.

The notion that universities are filled with natural

diginatives is more of an assumption or wishfull

thinking, than the truth in everyday teaching. As

suggested by Amstrong & Massad (2009) it may be

wise to assess the technical capabilities of the

students prior to the formation of groups to ensure

that students with more knowledge of video reporting

or similar digital technologies are present in each

group, which evens out the skill level.

Smyth (2011) emphasizes also the role of the

teacher in student generated video communications.

Namely, the teacher does not feature prominently,

rather the role of a planner, learning designer and

facilitator. Moreover, as the teacher has the final

responsibility for the learning outcomes (Mayer,

2004) it is important that the teacher stimulates the

students, provides encouragement and motivates

students towards achieving the learning outcomes

(Anderson et. al., 2001; Smyth, 2011). This is in line

with learning and teaching in virtual environments,

where the role of the teacher becomes more immersed

and the student – teacher hierarchy is dismantled

(Qvist, et al. 2015).

BIOMEETSMEX is an example of a co-creation

approach aligned with design thinking principles

(Koria, Graff & Karjalainen 2011; Hasso Plattner

Institute of Design at Stanford, 2015; Björklund et al.,

2017). Accordingly, the pilot phase of

BIOMEETSMEX has been completed in 2016-2017,

the iteration phase has been ongoing during 2017,

including analysis of student and teacher feedback.

The concept is currently tested as a course

“prototype” in 2018, to be re-iterated during a 2

phase and finalized for the curriculum in 2019.

Our current efforts during the 2

iteration phase

are on creating more online-materials based on

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

121

teaching videos from YouTube, both by commercial

and other experts around the world, as well as student

self-produced videos, from the previous years. An

online exam base on e-learning reading materials, the

video materials and the student lab-projects is

currently being tested. These developments allow for

a wider participation of students from different

disciplines, who have expressed interest in the course,

but who have no biotechnology nor mechatronics

background. Due to safety regulations they cannot be

allowed directly into regular cell and tissue course

work nor would they satisfy the requirements for the

M.Sc. level MP prerequisites. Work also needs to be

done to clarify the instructions and on group

formation, so that the technical abilities for video or

other media production are adequate in each group.

Our list for future work also includes, creating a

repository for student self-created videos. However,

as discussed above, this adds some additional

challenges due to copyright, ownership, quality and

legal ownership for content, it is still under

deliberation.

According to our experiences, the key to learning

is motivation, which stems from students enjoying

learning. Such motivation can be achieved through

digitalized means of presentation, where students

actively co-create their learning. We also argue that

each educational ecosystem is a co-creation platform,

which is needs to implement educational tools in a

manner that suits the student mindset. Importantly,

intuitive, creative and future ways of working are

promoted by trusting the ability of students to be the

drivers of such ecosystems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study has been supported by the Online Learning

initiative (AOle) of the University 2016-2017.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W.,

Cruickshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al

(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and

assessing: a revision of bloom's taxonomy of

educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Armstrong, G.R., Massad, J.D. & Tucker, J.M. (2009).

Interviewing the experts: Student produced podcast.

Journal of Information Technology Education:

Innovations in Practice, Vol. 8 , pp. 79-90.

Björklund, T.A., Laakso, M., Kirjavainen, S., & Ekman K.

(2017). All you need is love, design, business,

engineering and passion – based co-creation, pp. 14-35

Kirjapaino Bookcover, ISBN (Printed) 978-952-60-

3740-0,(ISBN (electronic) 978-952-60-3741-7.

Copley, J. (2007) Audio and video podcasts of lectures for

campus-based students: Production and evaluation of

student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, 44 (4), pp. 387-399.

Corten-Gualtieri, P., Ritter, C., Plumat, J., Keunings, R.,

Lebrun, M., & Raucent, B. (2016) Having students

create short video clips to help transition from naive

conceptions about mehcanics to true Newtonian

physics. European Journal of Engineering Education,

Vol 41 (4) pp. 438-454.

Gero, A., (2017). Students’ attitudes towards

interdisciplinary education: a course on

interdisciplinary aspects of science and engineering

education. European Journal of Engineering

Education, Vol. 42(3): pp. 260-270.

Gillie, M., Dahli, R.& Gibson, A. (2017) Use of rich-media

resources by engineering undergraduates. European

Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 42(6) pp. 1496-

1511.

Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (23 October

2015) An Introduction to Design Thinking – PROCESS

GUIDE.https://dschool.stanford.edu/groups/designreso

urces/wiki/ed894/The_GiftGiving_Project.html

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J.

& Cetinkaya, M. (2013). Creativity and Innovation

Management, Vol. 22 (2), pp. 121 – 146.

Kangasniemi,T., Olkinuora,S., Joensuu,P., Natri,O.,

Qvist,P., Ketola,M., Närhi,M., Jokela,R., Palomäki,E.,

Tiitu,H. & Nordström, K., (2013). Designing virtual

laboratories: Decarboxylation reactions, vacuum

distillation and virus identification by PCR in the

LaLife3D Second Life Laboratory. In Proceedings of

the 5th International Conference on Computer

Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, 661-672,

2013, Aachen, Germany.

http://www.scitepress.org/DigitalLibrary/PublicationsDeta

il.aspx?ID=cG93RR/qUjc=&t=1

Klein, J.T. & Falk-Krzesinski H.J., (2017).

Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: Framing

promotion and tenure practices and policies. Research

Policy, Vol. 46: pp. 1055-1061.

Keba, M., Segno, J., & Schoefield (2015). Making it work:

Creating a student – friendly repository of insutrctional

videos. Jounral of Library & Information Sciences in

Distance learning. Vol 9 (1-2), pp. 17-29. Koria,M.,

Graff, D. & Karjalainen, T-M., (2011). Learning

Design Thinking: International Design Business

Management at Aalto University. In www.cetiqt.

senai.br/redige

Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk

the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for

knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational

Technology, Vol. 39 (3), pp. 501-521.

Manfra, M. & Hammond T., (2008). Teachers'

instructional choices with student-created digital

documentaries: Case studies. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, Vol. 41: pp. 223-245.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

122

Martinez-Caro E., & Campuzano-Bolarin, F. (2011).

Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering

dicipölines: traditional vs. blended approaches.

European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 36

(5) pp. 473-483.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule

against pure discovery learning?: the case for guided

methods of instruction. American Psychologist, Vol.

59, 1, pp. 14–19.

Nordström K. & Korpelainen, P. (2011). Creativity and

inspiration for problem solving in engineering

education, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol 16

(4),pp. 439-450.

Parson, V.Reddy. P., Wood J., & Senior C. (2009).

Generation: Undergraduate attitudes, experiences and

understanding of vodcast and podcast use. Learning

Media and Technology Vol. 34 (3): pp. 215-228.

Qvist,P.,Kangasniemi,T.,Palomäki,S.,Seppänen,J.,Joensuu

P., Natri,O.,Närhi,M., Palomäki, E., Tiitu, H., &

Nordström, K., (2015). Design of Virtual Learning

Environments: Learning Analytics and Identification of

Affordances and Barriers. International Journal of

Engineering Pedagogy, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 64-75

Renkonen, S. (2017). Unlocking the potential of

interdisciplinary teams. In: Björklund, T.A., Laakso,

M., Kirjavainen, S., & Ekman K. (ed.). All you need is

love, design, business, engineering and passion – based

co-creation, Kirjapaino Bookcover, pp. 91-101. ISBN

(Printed) 978-952-60-3740-0,(ISBN (electronic) 978-

952-60-3741-7.

Saunders, F.C. & Hutt, I., (2014). Enhancing Large-class

Teaching: A Systematic Comparison of Rich-media

Materials. Higher Education Research& Development,

pp. 1-18.

Smyth,R.,(2011). Enhancing Learner-Learner Interaction

Using Video Communications in Higher Education:

Implications from Theorising about a New Model.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol.

42(1), pp.113-127

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer J., & Paas F., (1998).

Cognitive architecture and instructional design.

Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 10(3): pp. 251-

296.

Tess, P.A., (2013). The role of social media in higher

education classes (real and virtual) – A literature

review. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29(5): pp.

A60-A68.

Willmott, C.J.R., (2015) Teaching bioethics via the

production of student-generated videos. Journal of

Biological education, Vol 49 (2), pp. 127-138.

Biology Meets Mechatronics (BIOMEETSMEX)

123