Bowden, A. E., & Ochia, R., & Eggett, D. L. (2015, June), Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24783

\bibitem{asee_peer_24783}
  Bowden, A. E., \& Ochia, R., \& Eggett, D. L. (2015, June), \emph{Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.24783

Anton E. Bowden, Ruth Ochia P.E., and Dennis Lee Eggett.  "Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/24783 Internet.  18 Apr, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_24783}
  Anton E. Bowden, Ruth Ochia P.E., and Dennis Lee Eggett.
  "Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/24783 Internet.  18 Apr, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_24783
author = "Anton E. Bowden, Ruth Ochia P.E., and Dennis Lee Eggett"
title = "Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/24783}
number = {10.18260/p.24783}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                         Survey of U.S. Biomechanics InstructionAlthough pioneering work in biomechanics dates back centuries, formal biomechanicsinstruction has only been a part of modem university education for the last several decades.Indeed, most biomechanics courses have arisen ad hoc based on the research experiences ofindividual faculty members. Anecdotally, teaching methods for biomechanics courses varysubstantially based on institution. The purpose of this work was to identify common practices,instructional techniques, and course materials that are being used in current engineeringbiomechanics courses (i.e., biomechanics courses associated with an engineering curriculum).This paper presents the results of a web survey sent to all known U.S. engineering instructorswho are currently or have recently taught a biomechanics course. Instructor contact informationwas obtained from openly available course information gleaned from U.S. university websitesand comprised of approximately 90 faculty members. We have already received an initial 28%response rate for the survey that was launched in early October 2014. We are also solicitingadditional responses via related nationally recognized and associated e-mail listserv services.Survey questions addressed: Course (student) demographics, instructor experience, coursestructure, resource material (including textbooks), satisfaction with course material, and topicscovered within the biomechanics course. No identifying information was collected fromparticipants and the study was classified as “exempt” following review by our institutionalreview board.Preliminary results indicate that there is tremendous diversity in terms of primary course materialused to teach engineering biomechanics, with over 15% of respondents not using any formaltextbook at all (i.e., using custom course material) and 33% of the respondents using basicmechanics textbooks that contain no biomechanical content. A large majority (78%) ofrespondents also indicated that they utilized secondary course material consisting of selectionsfrom other textbooks and articles from the primary literature.Topics from Bone Mechanics, Soft Tissue Mechanics, and Orthopaedic Biomechanics were mosthighly represented among current biomechanics courses, with each receiving an inclusion rate ofover 78%. Biofluid Mechanics, Vascular Mechanics, Respiratory Mechanics, Medical Imaging& Mechanics, Injury Biomechanics, and Biomedical Engineering Ethics were least represented,with each receiving less than a 25% inclusion rate.There was a significant correlation between the current research topics of the respondents and theincluded topics in their engineering biomechanics courses (Kendall’s Tau correlation test,p=0.44). However, notable outliers were seen in the areas of kinesiology (68% inclusion rate,but only a 33% research relationship), skeletal mechanics (63% inclusion rate, but only a 31%research relationship), and Medical Imaging & Mechanics (21% inclusion rate, with a 56%research relationship).In an open-response query in the survey, respondents identified three additional resources thatwould be most helpful in teaching their current biomechanics course: 1) a unified textbook, 2)sample and homework problems, and 3) descriptive laboratory experiments that can beaccomplishing using routine equipment.This study represents preliminary work identifying the "state of the practice" in terms ofengineering biomechanics education. We anticipate that the results will provide discussionpoints among biomechanics educators and hopefully lead to collaborative efforts to develop amore unified curriculu
AU  - Anton E. Bowden
AU  - Ruth Ochia P.E.
AU  - Dennis Lee Eggett
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Survey of U.S. Biomechanics Instruction
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/24783
DO  - 10.18260/p.24783
ER  -