Conference Session

BME Laboratory Courses and Experiences

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Timothy Allen, University of Virginia; Jeffrey Saucerman, University of Virginia; Jason Papin, University of Virginia; Shayn Peirce-Cottler, University of Virginia

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

learning. The “communication” score reflected the students’ ability toexplain what they did in lab and in the post-lab modeling and analysis, as well as how clearlyand crisply they defined terms and techniques. “Knowledge” was determined by their commandof the relevant background information and modeling approaches. The score for “answeringquestions” reflected not only whether a first answer to a question was correct, but also how wellthe students were able to “think on their feet” when we asked follow-up questions and attemptedto guide them to a greater understanding of a concept if they were initially deficient.“Accomplishment” reflected the overall level of effort and work that went into their modelingand analysis over the module (assuming the

Conference Session

Pedagogical Developments in BME

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mia Markey, University of Texas, Austin; Kathy Schmidt, University of Texas, Austin; Wonsoon Park, University of Texas, Austin

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

the Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2009 American Society for Engineering Educationdesigning and delivery of courses. Now that we have offered courses at a distance, we are able toscrutinize and reflect on these courses.Purpose of the Study In our survey of faculty and students that was conducted before we began regularly offering distance learning courses7 we learned that students and faculty were most concerned about how interactions would be supported in

Conference Session

Integrating Design into the BME Curriculum

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Besterfield-Sacre, University of Pittsburgh; Larry Shuman, University of Pittsburgh; Chris Yoder, University of Pittsburgh; Phil Weilerstein, National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance; Angela Shartrand, National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

describe their process. The teams were asked tofirst select those elements/activities that they actually used in their process and then arrange themtemporally to reflect the team’s design and product development process. The resultant mapswere then analyzed through a series of comparisons between the two sets of design teams. Bothgroups were compared relative to their utilization of the elements, and which elements they hadclassified as being critical, time-consuming and/or problematic to the design process. Followingthis comparison, a path analysis was conducted to determine if teams approached process designactivities in a similar manner. We provide a description of the overall approach, our analysis andresults; and suggest how process maps

Conference Session

Integrating Design into the BME Curriculum

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Patricia Mellodge; Brad Deschenes

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

detailing all of the work that they hadaccomplished during the semester. Each group was required to address the overall project andhow their particular subsystem fit into it. Drawings, schematics, and computer code for allhardware and software were included. As with the presentations, grades were given on a groupbasis.Student grades were individualized using attendance and peer evaluation. Attendance wasrequired and any absences negatively affected grades. Students were expected to be in classparticipating and contributing to the project. Lack of participation was reflected in the peerevaluations given at the end of the semester. Students had the opportunity to assess thecontributions of every other student, not just members of their own group. For

Conference Session

BME Laboratory Courses and Experiences

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Melissa Micou, University of California, San Diego

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

Good Mentoring Practices % Utilized Discussed goals and outcomes of your mentee’s research project 100% Page 14.343.6 Discussed expectations of your mentee with him/her 86% Oriented your mentee to your lab and its practices 86% Talked with your mentee about things other than research 86% Discussed career goals with your mentee 86% Reflected upon your own mentoring philosophy 86% Discussed amount of time mentee was expected to spend on research 71

Conference Session

Pedagogical Developments in BME

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James Cawthorne, Purdue University; Osman Cekic, Purdue University; Monica Cox, Purdue University; Melissa Stacer, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

institutions (associateprofessor), and 21% were working in other areas, possibly out of the academe. The distributionof the participants by gender was about fifty-fifty. Sixty-six percent of respondents were white,10% were Asian, and 14% were African-American. Ninety percent of the respondents were UScitizens and permanent residents compared to 10% non-US citizens.Survey Construction The exploratory survey developed for the graduate students sought to glean insights fromrespondents about their experiences with HPL-oriented, or challenge-based instruction before,during, and after their participation in VaNTH. Participants were asked to (1) reflect and recalltheir understanding of the HPL framework and their concept of effective teaching, (2

Conference Session

Integrating Design into the BME Curriculum

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joe Tranquillo, Bucknell University; Daniel Cavanagh, Bucknell University

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

-class time to write a memo in whichthey must: 1) Compare how their solution compares to the: a. Objectives identified in Assignment 1 b. Functions identified in Assignment 2 c. Specifications identified in Assignment 3 2) Summarize project progress and team performance. Items to address are: a. Is the team on schedule? Why or why not? b. What are the main challenges in completing the project?In addition, a third point must be addressed by each individual on each team. 3) Reflect on your own individual role in the project.Assignment five is not accompanied by formal lectures, but rather is meant to induce individualand group meta-analysis of the design process. The aim is that by identifying

Conference Session

BME Curriculum Development

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Regina Nelson, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Naomi Chesler, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Tagged Divisions

Biomedical

measuring changes in student achievement based on thesethree elements. The weightings of the original metric were refined to reflect the linearcombination that maximally separated two groups of biomechanics students based on their levelsof adaptive expertise15.The resulting metric (AE = 0.14F – 0.36C + 1.27T) is a starting point for quantifying adaptiveexpertise in physiology in this study. However, there are limitations in quantifying a concept likeadaptive expertise. The qualitative data collected in this study will allow examination of theweighted elements of the metric as well as other factors that might contribute to adaptiveexpertise in physiology. The collaborative, challenge-based activities in this study provideopportunities for