KEENzine5

Students were given a grading rubric in advance, with the following criteria: respect for the other team, information, rebuttal, use of facts and statistics, organization, and understanding of the topic. Several volunteers from the freshman biomedical engineering class served as debate judges, tasked with picking the team with the most convincing arguments. I entered the classroom the day of the debate unsure of whether the students would carry out the assignment and without a clear expectation of how the students would perform. All students were present, dressed professionally, and ready to start the debate. The debate was lively, with positive energy and high student engagement. The students presented strong, well-reasoned arguments based on solid research and published studies. The teams worked enthusiastically during the breaks to prepare rebuttals. The students arguing for CAD brought up interesting arguments related to an increase in breast cancer detection rate, improved radiologist efficiency, and outdated initial negative studies of CAD performance. The students arguing against CAD discussed the economic and personal consequences of increased false positives and patient recalls, along with the potential for radiologist fatigue and legal repercussions. Both sides were effective at presenting their arguments. After several minutes of deliberation, the judges sided with the team that was against the implementation of CAD software, citing that the debate convinced them that the technology was too early to comfortably adopt. The most interesting and surprising part of the class occurred after the judges’ decision. The students in the class initiated a discussion amongst themselves, regarding their personal opinions on the subject after having completed the research and debate. It was interesting to learn that some students were convinced by the other sides’ arguments. This candid and spontaneous discussion demonstrated that the students had become engaged in the topic, were making connections, and were thinking critically. Overall, despite a few hurdles and moments of discomfort, the debate was a success. Although the students required a little prodding to get out of their comfort zones, they demonstrated curiosity and explored a contrarian view. They integrated information from news articles and scientific journals in order to substantiate their claims with data and facts. The students evaluated the benefit and risk of CAD software with respect to economic, societal, and individual needs. They worked effectively in teams and practiced different communication skills, persisting through an assignment that was initially uncomfortable for them. As the students begin careers as software engineers in the medical device industry, I hope this experience helps them anticipate and address the potential risks of the software that they are designing for the purpose of benefiting human health. Taly Schmidt 6