About

Casey J. Ankeny, PhD, is an associate professor of instruction and the director of the MS Program in Biomedical Engineering at Northwestern Engineering. She also serves as the assistant dean of The Graduate School master’s programs. Her research focuses on cyber-based student engagement strategies in both flipped and traditional biomedical engineering courses, as well as the implementation of standards-based grading with reflection. Her work aims to understand and improve student attitude, achievement, and persistence in student-centered courses. Dr. Ankeny has contributed to the field through various conference proceedings, exploring inclusive and reflective teaching practices, active learning pedagogies, and faculty development programs to promote evidence-based instructional strategies.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Multimedia
• World Wide Web
• Psychology
• Sociology
• Engineering
• Engineering management
• Mathematics education
• Knowledge management
• Mathematics
• Statistics
• Software engineering
• Data science
• Aerospace engineering
• Engineering ethics
• Pedagogy
• Marketing
• Business
• Management

Selected publications

• WIP: Effectiveness of Different Reflection Approaches for Improving Mastery in an Engineering Laboratory Course

  2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings · 2024-02-20 · 2 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract Providing students with detailed, descriptive feedback and having them reflect on what they have learned can foster self-directed learning (Ambrose, 2013); a critical ability for future engineers whom need to be able to translate their skills and knowledge to novel situations (Bary & Rees, 2016). Standards-based grading (SBG) has been slowly emerging in the engineering education field as a way to provide students with feedback on how well they are meeting course objectives (Carberry, et. al., 2016). This grading approach contrasts traditional summative based grading which only shows students what they got incorrect and fails to provide assessment of the learning objectives with which they struggle. Our previous research investigated SBG implementation to evaluate lab reports in engineering lab-based courses and identified student weaknesses in two standards: problem identification and interpretation (to be added after review, 2020). Work demonstrating improved SBG value with structured reflection (Diefes-Dux & Castro, 2018) motivates us to leverage reflection in developing students' metacognition with the ultimate goal of improving mastery in their weaknesses. For scientists and engineers, laboratory and design notebooks record a project from its start to completion. When done well, these notebooks are an inherently reflective practice on one's own learning, understanding, and decision-making process (Svarosvsky & Shaffer, 2006). We hypothesize that reflection, especially if done while learning (e.g. lab notebooks) in addition to reflection after receiving SBG feedback, will improve mastery in "problem identification" and "interpretation" as well as result in favorable student attitude about SBG and reflective practices. We will test our hypothesis in an introductory experimental design lab course for sophomore Biomedical Engineering students. This course runs twice a year and enrolls ~25 students per offering. In the winter quarter of 2021 (WQ21), we will assign students lab reports (as previously implemented) and add individual structured reflections of their SBG feedback. Students will reflect on what they have learned, areas in which they want to improve, and specific actions they plan to take to improve in those areas (Diefes-Dux, 2016). In addition to the assigned assessments from WQ, students enrolled in SQ21 will be asked to maintain a laboratory notebook. The students will record and reflect on steps taken during the lab, mistakes made, how they fixed their mistakes, etc.—a reflection on their learning while doing. We plan to determine if there are differences in mastery (quantified by SBG of lab reports) across different reflection implementations (no reflection, SQ20; post-assignment reflection, WQ21; reflection while doing + post-assignment reflection, SQ21). In addition, we will assess attitude adapted from Carberry, et. al., 2013, engagement with the process of reflection and SBG based on Diefes-Dux & Castro, 2019, and the quality of reflections similar to Menekse, et. al., 2011 across terms with different reflection approaches. This study will provide insight into how the integration of reflection (i.e. post-assessment vs during assessment) affects mastery of standards, quality of student reflections, and student attitude toward SBG. Ultimately, providing engineering students' optimized opportunities to reflect on their learning may aid their development as self-directed learners.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Effectiveness of Inclusive, Reflective Teaching Practices on Problem Solving Proficiency

  2024-08-04

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Motivation: Development and evaluation of inclusive teaching practices is a vibrant research area. For four years, we worked to implement three inclusive practices: standards-based grading with reflection, co-created assessment rubrics, and peer review of written deliverables in a sophomore-level experimental design laboratory and lecture course. This study focuses on peer review effectiveness motivated by the work of Saterbak, et al., which showed a strong positive correlation between instructor review and peer review in a biomedical engineering laboratory and suggested that peer review could provide effective feedback. Further, peer review resulted in the perceived improvement of the students' ability to critique. We hypothesize that our implementation of peer review leads to increased achievement over time and positive student attitude. More specifically, our research questions are: 1. Do students provide high quality feedback? 2. Is overall class performance improved as assessed by course standards? 3. Is there a favorable student attitude towards the peer review process from the viewpoint of the critic and critiqued? Methods: Students completed draft and final two-page abstracts individually and provided reciprocal peer feedback in pairs. A research assistant scored the draft and final versions of the extended abstracts using the course's student/instructor co-created rubric based on problem solving standards. These scores were detached from grades. Separately, all student work was graded by teaching assistants who underwent grader-calibration. The research assistant assessed peer review quality on a minimal grading scale (0-2 points) for each of the following: specificity, suggestions, justification, and appropriateness as previously described. Student attitude was assessed using our previously reported survey from the perspective of both the critic and the critiqued. Then, the following analyses were conducted: - Assessment of peer review quality over the term - Assessment of draft and final scores over the term with one-way ANOVA - Investigation of achievement in weak categories using one-way ANOVA - Investigation of student attitude regarding peer review using 25 Likert-scaled questions where "4" refers to "strongly agree" and "1" refers to "strongly disagree" Results: Peer Review Quality: In terms of peer review quality analysis, students excelled at commenting "appropriate[ly]"; however, there is room for improvement with respect to "specificity", "justification", and the ability to provide "suggestions". The overall peer review quality was 35+/-9 out of 48 points. Improvement in Achievement over Time: We saw a significant improvement in achievement between the Abstract #2 draft and the Abstract #3 draft (p=0.046). There was a trend for improvement between the Abstract #1 draft and the Abstract #2 draft (p=0.07, n=16-17). No statistically significant differences existed at the final abstract stage in terms of achievement over time. Additionally, we did not find statistically significant improvements in the two standards with which students typically struggle – "problem identification" and "interpretation". Student Attitude regarding Peer Review: From the perspective of the critic, students rated "enjoying giving feedback" (2.59/4) and "feeling reluctant to give negative non-anonymous feedback" (2.59/4) the lowest. Conversely, students reportedly understood how to assess extended abstracts (3.55/4) and had the confidence to assess others' extended abstracts (3.55/4). From the perspective of the critiqued, students provided the highest rating to "believing it is important for students to learn how to implement the feedback that is provided to [them] by peers" (3.50/4). The lowest ratings corresponded to "it is tough to write an extended abstract knowing it would be evaluated by another student without it being anonymous" (1.86/4). Discussion and Conclusion: Students may struggle with "specificity", "justification", and "providing suggestions" during peer review as they may not have sufficient time and understanding of their peer's work to provide higher-level comments. Students may benefit from additional instruction of peer review. It is possible we only observe an improvement in achievement in draft scores over time, but not final scores, because students were not willing to dedicate as much time for draft preparation as they did for the final versions (which all rose to a high standard throughout the quarter). Draft scores potentially improved due to increase in skill, efficiency, and familiarity with abstract format. We may not see improvements in "weak" areas because the students were not able to provide high quality review in these areas. The fact that students favorably viewed non-anonymous peer review could be because of the strong classroom community. Further, pair-style peer review may be a best practice for implementation. In summary, peer review is an inclusive teaching practice that has the potential to improve draft quality, may require additional instruction, and is viewed favorably by students.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Work in Progress: Can In-Class Peer Reviews of Written Assignments Improve Problem Solving and Scientific Writing in a Standard-Based, Sophomore Laboratory Course?

  2024-02-07 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Introduction: This work-in-progress study assesses the impact of reflective practices, including peer review, on written assignments in a sophomore-level, biomedical engineering laboratory course. The course serves as an introduction to experimentation and covers statistical design of experiments as well as how to quantify the quality of experimental measurement data. Topics include problem-solving skills, scientific writing, hypothesis generation, amongst other research-related topics. Course pedagogy includes standards-based grading and reflection. Our previous work identified weaknesses in the "problem identification" and "interpretation" components of problem solving [1]. As a result, we implemented the evidence-based strategy of reflective practices [2] and noticed a trend suggesting that increased reflective practices, namely the addition of reflective engineering notebooks, may have improved student perception of standards-based grading as well as may increase their engagement with mastery of course standards [3]. To address limitations of our previous study and build upon encouraging results, we will implement the reflective, equitable strategy of peer review [4] on individual written assignments. We hypothesize that the implementation of peer review on individually written extended abstracts will result in increased mastery in course standards, namely "problem identification" and "interpretation", and result in favorable student attitude with regards to the peer review process. Methods: In-class: Written assignments will be assessed by peer reviewers and also by the instructional team, using an enhanced Likert-based, problem-solving rubric [5] which expands on "problem identification" and "interpretation". Both students and the instructional team will undergo grader calibration. During the peer review process, peer reviewers will only provide written feedback (no Likert scores) to follow the evidenced-based process of ungrading [6]. Methods: Study Analysis: Methodologies used in the study will include quantitative and qualitative survey data analysis and analysis of written lab assignments. More specifically, the study team will grade the draft and final submissions using the Likert scale and providing comments. Only the grades for the final submission will be released; however, the researchers will analyze pre- and post-submissions to assess the impact of the peer review process on standards mastery. Further, the researchers will grade the quality of the peer reviews and investigate correlations with mastery levels of both the critics and critiqued. Lastly, the study team will investigate student attitude using surveys. Results: The study team has developed two instruments for assessment: 1) the assessment of peer review quality and 2) an attitudinal survey regarding the peer review process. More specifically, the peer review quality instrument (based on [7]) will assess the appropriateness and specificity of the criticism as well as the justification for why it is included. Lastly, each review will be assessed for the presence and usefulness of any suggestions. The attitudinal survey (based on [8]-[10]) contains two sections, one for the critic and one for the critiqued, and covers areas such as utility, assessment of training/grader calibration, impact on future work, and emotion. Discussion and Conclusion: The use of reflective practices improves the implementation of standards-based grading [2]. Our work has seen a trend suggesting improved engagement and standard-based grading perception [3]; however, further work is needed to assess without previous study limitations. More specifically, this work-in-progress assesses the implementation of an additional reflective practice (peer review) with the goal of improved individual mastery in problem solving and written communication while retaining high student favor. References: [1] blinded [2] H. A. Diefes-Dux and A. R. Carberry, "Cases of Student Reflection within a Course Using Standards-Based Grading," in 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2019, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028501. [3] blinded [4] Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. [5] blinded [6] Kohn, A., & Blum, S.D. (2020). Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). (First edition. ed.). Morgantown: West Virginia University Press. [7] S. Gielen, E. Peeters, F. Dochy, P. Onghena, and K. Struyven, "Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning," Learning and Instruction, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 304–315, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007. [8] Andersson, Magnus, and Maria Weurlander. "Peer Review of Laboratory Reports for Engineering Students." European journal of engineering education. 44.3 (2019): 417–428. Web. [9] Conde, Miguel A. "Application of Peer Review Techniques in Engineering Education." The International journal of engineering education. 33.2 (2017): 918–926. Print. [10] Larsen, Katarina, and Johan Gärdebo. "Retooling Engineering for Social Justice: The Use of Explicit Models for Analytical Thinking, Critical Reflection, and Peer-Review in Swedish Engineering Education." International journal of engineering, social justice and peace. 5.1-2 (2018): 13–29. Web.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Impact of Two Reflective Practices in an Engineering Laboratory Course using Standards-based Grading

  2024-02-06 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  where she studied the role of shear stress in aortic valve disease

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Development of a Low-Cost, Easy-to-Adopt Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program During Crisis

  Biomedical Engineering Education · 2022-06-06 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Creating and Scaling an Evidence-based Faculty Development Program

  2020-09-10 · 4 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract For more effective teaching and learning in undergraduate engineering education, there is a strong need for evidence-based faculty professional development to shift from instructor-centered teaching to student-centered, active learning, which is more effective (Freeman, et al., 2014). The NSF's Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program funded a large-scale faculty development program at a large, public university which uses a train-the-trainer approach, similar to Pimmel, et al., to engage faculty in a year-long modeling program with a semester of eight biweekly workshops, followed by a semester of six biweekly Community of Practice innovation discussions. Here, we describe the creation, scaling, and evaluation of this evidence-based faculty development program. More specifically, we outline the benefits and barriers to faculty development; structure and management; strategies, topics, and materials; assessment; and lessons learned and takeaways in an interactive format. In the “benefits and barriers” component, attendees will learn about foundational research by Prince, Freeman, Smith, and others in the area of engagement and active learning as well as learn about how the represented university addressed barriers to implementation. Attendees will discuss and brainstorm participation incentives from both the administrative and faculty perspectives. During “structure and management”, presenters will discuss the program overview in more detail, including recruitment, organization, and workshop and community of practice structure. Attendees will consider different types of faculty development options and think about implementation and structure in the context of a particular type of institution. During the “strategies, topics, and materials” component, we will describe the project’s models of change, including Rogers’ model of Diffusion of Innovation and Coburn’s model of Sustainable Innovation Scaling. Presenters will also share all workshop materials by Google Drive on topics such as learning objectives, Bloom’s taxonomy, interactive classes, implementing active learning, cooperative learning, student motivation, and inclusive learning environments. Attendees will discuss topics that would be most important for faculty development at their institution. In the “assessment” section, we will provide an overview of how we assessed our faculty development program in terms of the evaluation framework. We will discuss what the instruments measure and the outcomes from the instruments in our setting. Attendees will discuss other potential assessment techniques and how to implement. Throughout the presentation, facilitators will present key lessons learned from the project as well as important points about support and sustainability. In summary, participants will not only learn evidence-based strategies for the class but learn how to structure, implement, scale, and evaluate a faculty development program using lessons learned from a successful, large-scale example.

  PublisherDOI

• Assessing Faculty and Organizational Change in a Professional Development Program with Workshops and Disciplinary Communities of Practice

  2020 · 5 citations

  • Sociology
  • Computer Science
  • Knowledge management

  He teaches in the areas of introductory materials engineering, polymers and composites, and capstone design. His research interests include faculty development, evaluating conceptual knowledge change, misconceptions, and technologies to promote conceptual change. He has co-developed a Materials Concept Inventory and a Chemistry Concept Inventory for assessing conceptual knowledge and change for introductory materials science and chemistry

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Effects of Alternative Course Design and Instructional Methods in the Engineering Classroom

  2020-09-10 · 2 citations

  article

  Abstract This work-in-progress paper reports on the effects of alternative course design and instructional methods in the engineering classroom. The primary method of delivery in undergraduate engineering classrooms remains the traditional lecture format, or teacher-centered instruction, despite evidence that active learning, or student-centered teaching practices, are significantly more effective. Catalyzed by the overwhelming research support for more active learning methods and the promise for creating these opportunities through alternative course models, there has been a more recent shift towards experimentation in delivery and course structure, including strategies such as flipping course content. Flipped course design allows instructors to maintain delivery of critical theoretical and background information by presenting this material to the students outside of formal classroom time, thus preserving time in-class for more active learning and problem-based activities. The flipped learning course design continues to gain popularity in engineering education; however, large-scale quantitative statistical analysis of student outcomes and achievement in courses taught simultaneously through alternative course designs remains limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of these varied instructional methods by investigating the student achievement outcomes of engineering students enrolled in the same course taught through three different instructional models. The study also aims to assess more specific flipped course design components (video lectures) on student outcomes as well as to evaluate the data through the context of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Constructivist theoretical models. Beginning in the fall of 2018, a 200-level mechanical/aerospace course, Statics, was taught by three different faculty members at a large university in the Southwest. Each of these sections were taught in different ways: (a) traditional lecture format, (b) flipped style classroom, and (c) mixed version, which utilized videos created for the flipped classroom as supplemental material but delivered course content primarily through lecture style. Student-level data were collected for all three of the Statics sections of interest in this study. Data were analyzed to determine if students enrolled in flipped or mixed sections experienced improved achievement outcomes greater than their traditional-lecture peers. Initial data showed that the mixed course design had the greatest impact on student achievement as measured by grade distribution, DEW rates, and student performance on class assignments, quizzes, and exams. The flipped and mixed courses were associated with greater improvement for DEW rates, in comparison to the traditional lecture course. Additional data analysis may provide further insight into how specific flipped delivery components, such as video lectures, impact student achievement.

  PublisherDOI

• Characterizing and Addressing Student Learning Issues and Misconceptions (SLIM) with Muddiest Point Reflections and Fast Formative Feedback

  2020-09-04 · 5 citations

  articleOpen access

  He teaches in the areas of bridging engineering and education, capstone design, and introductory materials science and engineering. His research interests include strategies for web-based teaching and learning, misconceptions and their

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Flipped Biomedical Engineering Classroom Using Pencasts and Muddiest Point Web-Enabled Tools

  2020 · 19 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Computer Science
  • Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence

  He teaches in the areas of bridging engineering and education, capstone design, and introductory materials science and engineering.His research interests include strategies for web-based teaching and learning, misconceptions and their repair, and role of formative feedback on conceptual change.He

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Stephen Krause

  Applied Materials (United States)

  69 shared

• David O'Neill

  Northwestern University

  61 shared

• Amy N. Adkins

  North Carolina State University

  50 shared

• Adam Carberry

  Arizona State University

  31 shared

• Milo Koretsky

  Oregon State University

  30 shared

• Bill Brooks

  Radiology Associates of Albuquerque

  30 shared

• Dale Baker

  Missouri University of Science and Technology

  29 shared

• T. L. Alford

  28 shared

Labs

• Ankeny, Casey | Faculty | Northwestern EngineeringPI