instructing in the Biomedical Engineering Department at California State Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo. His academic and industrial experiences include academic positions with the Mendoza College of Business a ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Building and Integrating an Undergraduate Clinical Immersion Experience to Expand Impact1 AbstractExposure to the clinical environment – where the eventual results of student’s engineering effortsare utilized – is a powerful educational experience. It provides real-world context for learningefforts and a hands-on opportunity for developing students to learn how to communicateeffectively with their key
students to learn howto engage with stakeholders can be challenging with only a few case studies published in thisarea. In Fall 2023, a novel student-stakeholder interaction model was implemented as theBiomedical Stakeholder Café, with a successful second iteration in Fall 2024. The paper presents(1) an overview of key improvements to the stakeholder café interaction model and (2) ananalysis of student and stakeholder perspectives of the café experience in Fall 2024 compared toFall 2023.Key improvements implemented in Fall 2024 include changes to timing and number ofconversations, increased communication of expectations to stakeholders, and integrating a noveladaptation to the Relevance, Authority, Date, Appearance, and Reason (RADAR) framework
Paper ID #45775BOARD # 26: Work in Progress: Integration of Medical School and BiomedicalEngineering Curriculum through the Physician Innovator Training Program(PITP)Prof. Christine E King, University of California, Irvine Dr. Christine King is an Associate Professor of Teaching in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at UC Irvine. She received her BS and MS from Manhattan College in Mechanical Engineering and her PhD in Biomedical Engineering from UC Irvine, where she developed brain-computer interface systems for neurorehabilitation. She was a post-doctorate in the Wireless Health Institute at the University of
]. Despite their prevalence in engineering programs, there has been relativelylimited investigation of how students perceive and utilize office hours, particularly at largeresearch-intensive universities where core-curriculum class sizes tend to be substantial [6], [7],[8], [9].The efficacy of office hours is especially relevant in biomedical engineering programs, wherestudents must master complex interdisciplinary content while developing professionalcompetencies [5], [8], [10]. The integration of biological and engineering principles presentsunique challenges that may require additional support and clarification outside of regular classtime [9], [11], [12]. Research has consistently demonstrated that meaningful student-facultyinteractions outside
Paper ID #49157Impact of a curriculum and design course redesign on student’s engineeringdesign process knowledgeDr. William H Guilford, University of Virginia Will Guilford is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He is also the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs in the School of Engineering. He received his B.S. from St. Francis College, and his Ph.D. from the University of Arizona. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship in Biophysics at the University of Vermont before joining UVA in 1997. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025
DelawareLaura Alison Weinstein, University of DelawareChelsea Davis, University of DelawareDr. Sarah Ilkhanipour Rooney, University of Delaware Dr. Sarah I. Rooney is an Associate Professor and Associate Chair of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Delaware. Dr. Rooney’s efforts center around developing and teaching courses in the undergraduate BME curriculum and facilitating continuous improvement of the program.Amy Posch, Pacific Research LabsAmelia Lanier Knarr, The Perry InitiativeElise Corbin, University of Delaware ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Development of a Unique Bioengineering Laboratory Curriculum Focused on Material
ImplementationThe activity we developed was designed to serve both data skills and course-specific learning objectives. In thissection, we describe the curricular and course context as well as the activity. As noted in the intro, this activityis part of a larger data skills initiative in our undergraduate curriculum. Our effort to change BMEundergraduate courses exists within a rapidly increasing ecosystem of AI/ML learning opportunities forstudents at our university. These include an AI/ML-centric minor available to all engineering students [12]. The 1minor is interdisciplinary and is available to students in both our College of Engineering
design and develop aMedical Internet of Things (Med-IoT) biomedical device. International collaboration canexperience several challenges, such as language barriers, local resource management, devicesetup, hardware and software integration, calibration variance across multiple test setups, andhigher reliance on individual skill sets. In this case study paper, data is analyzed from feedbackacquired through semi-structured interviews and an evaluation of the research impacts producedby a focus group participating in the IBL project. As a result, recommendations for best practicesfor students entering the IBL program are discussed on how various challenges can be addressedthroughout the process.Introduction to Innovation-Based Learning ModelThe
differing attention. Additionally, case studymethodology involves in-depth examination of the phenomena, so both course material andinterviews, are needed for data collection. Lastly, the main- and sub-research questions wereinformed by Lattuca and Stark’s eight components of the curriculum (see Appendix C).Design: The design phase focused on finalizing the research design, which entailed scoping thestudy, determining the cases that will be studied, and determining the units of analysis for eachcase. Lattuca and Stark’s [18] framework was used to scope the study. The authors define anacademic program as a group of courses and experiences designed for a specific subset ofstudents [18]. In this study, an academic program is undergraduate BME, which
of AI literacy in the classroom, and the changes thereafter. This may offer valuableinsights for educators and policymakers seeking to develop effective strategies for AI integrationin engineering curriculum.2. MethodsData was collected in a lab-based BME course at Boston University, BE493 BiomedicalMeasurements & Analysis, that includes an emphasis on developing technical communicationskills. Eighty-eight students were in the class, of which 88% of the students were of junior yearstanding, 2% were sophomore standing, and the remaining 10% were students from anaccelerated graduate engineering program whose undergraduate degrees were not in engineering.The students did not have a required technical writing class prior to this course. Data
Paper ID #48633Examining underrepresented student success and engagement in engineeringfollowing completion of a bioengineering bridge programDr. Emma Farago, University of Calgary Dr. Emma Farago received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering with Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada in 2023. She previously received the B.Sc. degree in medical sciences from the University of Western Ontario, in 2012, the B.A.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Windsor, in 2016, and the M.E.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Western Ontario in 2018. She is currently an assistant
gauge the impact of the redesigned courseactivities and learning objectives for BME 2081. For example, we saw clear evidence ofenhancement of metacognitive skills from student reflections regarding a learning progressiondiagram activity. Students were tasked to illustrate how skills learned in class (e.g., creativethinking, effective team strategies) could integrate with other past experiences and be leveragedin future BME work. For this work in progress study, results were drawn from an assignment inModule 3 where students were asked to reflect on technical and transferable skills learned in thiscourse so far, as well as from other courses and any external experiences, and how they cantranslate to skills required for their future careers as
Paper ID #48722BOARD # 35: Work-in-progress: Approaching Bioimaging Challenge Projectsthrough Scaffolding and Improved Time ManagementDr. Travis Carrell, Texas A&M University Dr. Travis Carrell joined the Biomedical Engineering faculty at Texas A&M University as an Instructional Assistant Professor in Fall of 2022. He had the privilege of participating in the curriculum redesign process, which enabled him to co-develop two of the common courses. The integration of engineering education projects within these courses has been a source of evaluation and improvement for the courses, as he and the other faculty within the
work of my peers. 12. During my time in the [course/department/program], I know my work and contributions to the [course/department/program] were noticed and appreciated by the instructors and BME faculty.Self-Actualization Needs (AN) 13. The BME [course/department/program] and its curriculum enable me to pursue my dream career. 14. Courses and course materials were divided effectively to allow me to learn at a comfortable pace through all the different courses in BME. 15. Working in groups in [course/department/program] enhances my ability to learn more effectively from peers who may be stronger in specific topics than I am, compared to a traditional classroom.
Director of the Engineering Communication Program, and an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Washington.David James Kelaita, University of Colorado BoulderTanya Ivanov ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025Work in Progress: A Novel Project-Based Molecular Biology Experimentation and Design Lab Course Using Participatory Design to Promote Student EngagementIntroductionTraditionally, instructors have designed courses without substantial input from undergraduatestudents. However, recent work has shown that participatory design of curriculum results inmore engaging, effective courses [1] and that students who engage in participatory design reporta
Illinois Urbana-Champaign and an Associate in the John A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University. She holds an appointment at the Carle-Illinois College of Medicine in the Department of Biomedical and Translational Sciences. She is also a core faculty member at the Institute for Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access in the College of Engineering. Holly studies biomaterials and soft robotics and their applications in the university classroom, in undergraduate research and in engaging K12 students in STEM. Holly received her BS/MS in Materials Science and Engineering from Drexel University and her PhD in Engineering Sciences from Harvard University. ©American
practical pedagogical implications, showing that intentionallyintroducing CD while providing structured support strengthens students’ problem-solving,adaptability, and confidence in generating innovative solutions, ensuring students are betterequipped to tackle complex, real-world STEM challenges. Introduction Innovation-based learning (IBL) signifies a transformative change in engineeringeducation, focusing on using engineering principles to address real-world issues in ways thatextend past conventional project-based learning. IBL is an overall broad curriculum that includesmany courses that are designed to equip students to confront intricate, open-ended challengesthat demand innovative answers by promoting creativity, critical thinking
” (PDS) [18]. The PDS measures various domains including“Professional Development Attitude” which is based upon the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000(EC2000), an accreditation criteria focused on learning outcomes rather than curriculum [19].The PDS aligns with the goals of this research and was selected to evaluate the influence oflearning coaches on professionalism among engineering students. The PDS has been validated inprior research to assess the professional development of engineering students at ClemsonUniversity and aligns with ABET EC200 criteria. While it was originally designed for broaderuniversity assessment, the modifications made in this study, which replace the focus of “ClemsonUniversity” to “Learning Coaches”, maintain the
: 10.1109/FIE.2007.4418128.[10] A. Adkins, N. S. Husseini, and L. Cartee, “Board 26: Work in Progress: Technical Scientific Writing across the BME curriculum,” in 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2023.[11] T. M. Fernandez, K. M. Martin, R. T. Mangum, and C. L. Bell-Huff, “Whose grade is it anyway?: Transitioning engineering courses to an evidence-based specifications grading system,” in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2020.[12] K. J. McKnelly, M. A. Morris, and S. A. Mang, “Redesigning a ‘Writing for Chemists’ Course Using Specifications Grading,” J Chem Educ, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 1201–1207, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00859.[13] L. M. Litterio, “Contract grading in the
, 3. To document effective methods for integrating bioengineering into middle school curricula, thus providing a replicable model for STEM outreach in diverse educational settings, and 4. To explore how exposure to university students as mentors affects students' perceptions of higher education and STEM careers.Study PopulationThe Mobile Bioengineering Lab collaborated with an 8th-grade science teacher at a localbilingual school in the community surrounding the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.The prescribed curriculum focuses on a genetics-centered core biology course. In total, therewere 47 students across three 45-minute class periods, ranging from 16-18 students per classperiod. The workshops chosen and
broader BMEcommunity. In terms of curricular elements, participants encourage programs to integrate basiccoding, data science, and AI into existing courses. The same could also be done withmathematical modelling and experimental design, two other skills highly valued by academicstakeholders. Another option is to have space in the curriculum for students to take these types ofcourses as an elective from other departments.In terms of suggestions for the broader BME community, it is recognized that there is a need todemystify graduate school options for those interested in BME graduate programs. Studentsshould be able to access information regarding the value of both master’s and Ph.D. programs,the cost-benefit of both degrees, and the differences
engineering education, miniaturized optical imaging and spectroscopy approaches for endoscopy applications, and metabolic imaging of the tumor microenvironment. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Work In Progress - Equipping Biomedical Engineering Students with User-Centered Design Skills: Insights from a Clinical Immersion CourseAbstractA major goal of biomedical engineering is the development of novel and innovative medicaltechnology that advances and improves healthcare outcomes. An essential component of medicaldevice design is identifying the clinical needs of patients and healthcare providers and applyingengineering solutions to meet these needs. Our biomedical engineering