Rotating Facilitators Make Problem-Based Learning Work in Biomedical Engineering

Problem-based learning has long been celebrated as one of the most powerful ways to teach engineering students how to grapple with the messy, ill-structured problems they will face in professional practice. Yet the method carries a notorious hidden cost: it demands a small army of dedicated facilitators who can spend an entire semester guiding each student team. A research team at Virginia Tech has now demonstrated a practical workaround that could reshape how universities deliver this pedagogy at scale. In an open-access study published in Biomedical Engineering Education, Tahsin Chowdhury, Sara L. Arena and colleagues describe a rotating facilitator model implemented in an introductory biomedical engineering course, in which volunteer facilitators commit to just one to three class periods per semester rather than an entire term.

The motivation stems from a fundamental tension in biomedical engineering education. The field spans an enormous breadth of science and engineering domains, from biomechanics to biomaterials to physiological systems, and medical technology evolves so rapidly that any fixed curriculum risks obsolescence. As the authors note, citing classic work by Jonassen and Hernandez-Serrano, novices in school are typically trained only on well-structured, contextualized problems, while problems in everyday and professional contexts are complex and ill-structured. Problem-based learning, or PBL, borrowed from medical education, addresses this gap by placing students in teams around open-ended, real-world challenges and asking them to construct knowledge themselves rather than receive it passively from a lecturer.

In a traditional PBL implementation, the facilitator is not a content expert dispensing answers but an expert learner who models effective strategies for inquiry and group dynamics. Facilitators probe student reasoning with questions such as: What is the evidence for your statement? Where did you find this information? How reliable is it? They promote deep engagement with the problem, support shared regulation and self-directed learning by encouraging students to recognize what they do not know, and cultivate productive group dynamics by monitoring interactions and validating contributions. The problem is that this role, done well, requires substantial time, effort and institutional buy-in, particularly at large research universities where a dedicated facilitator for every team in every course is logistically cumbersome.

The Virginia Tech solution was elegantly simple. Faculty members, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students and clinicians were recruited as volunteer facilitators, each attending only one to three 75-minute class periods. Each class session was divided into three 20-minute facilitation periods, with three to five facilitators rotating among different student teams. Over a semester, each team experienced approximately six to eight total facilitation periods spread across the course’s open-ended problems. A week before their assigned session, facilitators received a summary guide of Barrows’ The Tutorial Process, the problem statement, deliverable descriptions, assessment rubrics and team rosters, a lightweight preparation package designed to minimize the burden while maximizing effectiveness.

The course itself, a three-credit requirement for the biomedical engineering major and minor, was redesigned around adapted frameworks from Newstetter and from Clyne and Billiar. Teams of four to five students, assembled using the validated CATME Team Maker tool, tackled an introductory reverse-engineering problem involving common medical devices such as pulse oximeters and blood glucose monitors, followed by two open-ended problems inspired by challenge areas identified by the National Institutes of Health, including pediatric device labeling, glioblastoma treatment and organ transplantation. One open-ended problem emphasized the engineering design process and experimental design; the other focused on mathematical modeling. Each problem unfolded through intermittent individual and team deliverables culminating in a final written and oral product, with mini-lectures on target skills such as reading scientific articles woven in between.

A crucial structural innovation was the Executive Summary. At the start of each facilitation period, one team member delivered a one-to-two-minute verbal briefing defining the problem, summarizing the team’s progress and outlining future plans. Facilitators scored this summary using a rubric assessing communication skills and overall team functioning. The researchers believe this mechanism passively enforced individual accountability and was one of the main drivers of the course’s success, since every student had to be prepared to explain and defend the team’s work at any moment. Team meeting minutes and CATME peer evaluations provided additional layers of accountability, though students rated the meeting minutes as the least helpful of these mechanisms.

The study collected data from the Fall 2020 offering with 53 students and 26 facilitators and the Spring 2021 offering with 71 students and 22 facilitators, both taught online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the team first gathered quantitative survey data and then followed up with open-ended questions analyzed thematically. The results were largely encouraging. Students rated their ability to collaborate effectively within a team highest, with a mean of 3.88 on a four-point scale, while ratings for evaluating and applying mathematical modeling and identifying safety and ethics committees were lower at 3.08, partly reflecting that those outcomes were tied to specific problems. Facilitators were similarly positive, with 88 and 95 percent rating teamwork and communication outcomes as good or excellent.

Perceptions of the rotating model itself revealed both enthusiasm and friction. Roughly 64 to 66 percent of students agreed that rotating facilitators contributed to their individual and team success, with mean agreement scores of 3.76 and 3.81 on a five-point scale. Yet a majority, 56.7 percent, also found the rotations challenging for their individual experience, and half found them challenging for their team, a reaction the authors attribute to unfamiliarity with non-traditional pedagogy. On the facilitator side, 88 percent agreed the rotational model benefited student learning, and 97.7 percent found the time commitment acceptable. Notably, despite the online format, 84 percent of students reported they could engage during Zoom-based facilitation sessions, and facilitators reported that students were often more willing to turn cameras on in small breakout groups than in the main virtual classroom.

Thematic analysis surfaced four key patterns: engagement, knowledge sharing, expectations and the value of rotating facilitation. Students appreciated facilitators who asked probing questions and shared specialized expertise, with one noting that different professors brought knowledge of FDA processes, vascularization and research tools. Facilitators valued meeting multiple teams and offering diverse perspectives, with one observing that more facilitators probing questions can breach the boundaries of a team’s knowledge in more places. The friction centered on mismatched expectations: some students encountered facilitators who seemed unprepared or whose guidance felt too high-level, while some facilitators found teams poorly prepared or Executive Summaries inconsistently delivered. The authors argue this transparency problem, how PBL is communicated to both students and facilitators, deserves far more research attention.

The implications reach beyond a single course. The study demonstrates feasibility rather than definitive effectiveness, lacking a concurrent comparison group and drawing participants from a single department during a pandemic-era online format. Still, the model offers a compelling template for institutions where staffing constraints have made rigorous PBL impractical, and the authors suggest future work should compare rotating and dedicated facilitator models directly, develop frameworks for selecting appropriate open-ended problems, and conduct longitudinal studies tracking how introductory PBL shapes professional skills across the curriculum. For a field that must prepare undergraduates for the relentless pace of medical technology, a facilitation model that trades semester-long commitments for a few well-prepared hours may be the pragmatic unlock that brings deep, active learning to the students who need it most.

Subject of Research: A rotating facilitator model for problem-based learning in an introductory biomedical engineering course

Article Title: Implementation of a Rotating Facilitator Model of Problem-Based Learning in an Introductory Biomedical Engineering Course

Article References: Chowdhury, T., Walker, L. B., Muelenaer, A., Arena, C. B., Murzi, H., & Arena, S. L. (2026). Implementation of a Rotating Facilitator Model of Problem-Based Learning in an Introductory Biomedical Engineering Course. Biomedical Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-026-00252-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43683-026-00252-7

Keywords: problem-based learning, biomedical engineering education, rotating facilitators, student engagement, engineering pedagogy, teamwork, facilitation, active learning, undergraduate education, mixed methods, Virginia Tech, curriculum design