Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Student Evaluations – Evaluations of the class and the Major Project have reinforced the fact that the project is a valuable part of the class. In an end-of-semester survey in fall 2001, 83 students (out of 107 students enrolled) responded. When asked about the benefit of the laboratory project to the goals of the class, the score was 5.70 out of 6.00. When asked about the overall effectiveness of the course, the score was 5.72 out of 6.00. Several students commented on the effectiveness and real-world nature of the Major Project exercise. In a similar survey taken the next year in fall 2002, the question about the benefit of the laboratory project to the goals of the class scored 5.53 out of 6.00, and the question about the overall effectiveness of the course scored 5.81 out of 6.00. Again several comments praised the Major Project effectiveness.

Conclusions – The Major Project has now been an integral part of the class for four years. It has been improved from year to year (by giving the students more human data from which to calculate their model values, and by slightly simplifying the electrical circuit) as experience is gained with its implementation. Based upon student evaluations and feedback, it remains a backbone that ties together and supplements in a practical way many of the rather abstract bioengineering principles and concepts taught in the lecture. An extra benefit of using the CV system as the model system is that students can relate their own and their family's health to results obtained via the modeling.

Bibliography – 1. http://www.cvrti.utah.edu/~macleod/bioen/bioen-courses.html. 2. C. H. Durney, “Principles of Design and Analysis of Learning Systems,” Engineering Education, March 1973, pp. 406-409. 3. S. C. Erickson, “Learning Theory and Educational Engineering,” ERM, March 1969, pp. 17-18. 4. J. Enderle, S. Blanchard and J. Bronzino, Introduction to Biomedical Engineering, Academic Press, San Diego, 2000. 5. M. E. Van Valkenburg, “Are We Ready for Top-Down Curricula?” Engineering Education, vol. 79, no. 4, p. 524. 6. J. Keener and J. Sneyd, Mathematical Physiology, Springer, New York, 1998.

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN – Dr. Christensen currently holds a joint appointment as Professor of Bioengineering and Electrical Engineering at the University of Utah. He joined the University in 1971. He obtained his PhD in Electrical Engineering at the University of Utah in 1967. His research interests include ultrasound and optical sensing for biological applications.

Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Christensen, D. (2004, June), Bringing An Integrative Modeling Experience To A Freshman Biomedical Engineering Course Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--13198