activity, and replaced the other reflections with short assignments inspired by examples from Studying Engineering by Raymond Landis,4 focusing on topics including goal-setting and reflecting on different engineering job functions. Career preparation exercises. In Fall 2015 and Fall 2016, weekly student assignments included preparing a résumé, attending and reporting on a university-hosted career exploration event, and reflecting on their visit to the engineering career services center. In Fall 2015, students also took an online assessment (Indigo) designed to measure workplace competencies (similar to a personality test and DISC assessment combined). Academic success planning. In Fall 2015 and 2016, students were asked to make a
includingbiomechanics, rehabilitation engineering, bionanomaterials and biomedical imaging, the firstyear of the Bioengineering Experience for Science Teachers (BEST) Program provided in-depthparticipant-tailored curricular mentoring via weekly workshops that focused on principles ofeffective planning, instruction, and assessment which will be directly connected to teachers’classroom curriculum. In addition to exposure to research in bioengineering labs, City PublicHigh School teachers from diverse schools across the district also translated their experience intocurriculum unit lesson plans being implemented the following academic year. 1. IntroductionIt has been well established that there is a shortage of STEM professionals [1]. While there are anumber of
Scholaroutcomes are also presented and discussed as well as future plans for the program.INTRODUCTIONHealth care spending represented 17.8 percent of the United States economy in 2015.1Innovations are needed in the healthcare system to enhance patient care and health, whilereducing costs. Educating quality bioengineers trained to identify and solve healthcare problemswill prepare them to develop cost-effective solutions.Our strategy involves team-based design experiences driven by new projects drawn from unmetclinical needs is the strategy used here to train engineers while simultaneously addressinghealthcare problems. Design experiences are core to engineering education and result in studentshaving a deeper understanding and ability to identify and
introduce students to the project management process— including project initiation, planning, execution and closure—in a hands-on way. The curriculum of the graduate project management course (Fig. 1) was linked to that of an undergraduate biomedical engineering
engagement, preparedness, andconfidence in the lab. The following innovations were assessed by instructor observations,excerpts from student reflections, informal student feedback to instructor, and student commentsin end-of-course evaluations. Instructor prompts for each activity are shown in Table 1. 1) In pre-lab written reports, students are required to draw a figure similar to the “graphical Table of Contents consisting of a colorful figure that represents the topic of the review” required for reviews submitted to the American Chemical Society (pubs.acs.org).5 This “snapshot” conveys the student’s overall plan or strategy for the lab and notes any important volumes, time limits, etc. 2) The instructor provides guided
positions. Project teams that moved forward were presented Figure 1. Our interdisciplinary approach with the opportunity to participate in a semester- long course designed to support them as theyworked through the iterations necessary to create a plan for market readiness and a full proposalapplication for funding consideration. Although participation in the course was not required inorder to submit a full proposal application, it was “strongly recommended,” and 95% of applicantschose to participate in the course. Applicant teams were given the option of having existingstudents working on their
%); Undeclared Engineering (26%); Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering (14%); Engineering Mechanics/Astronautics (9%); Biological Systems Engineering(6%); Engineering Physics (6%); and Nuclear Engineering (5%)) agreed to participate and fund amulti-disciplinary hands-on design course. Last year, we analyzed student retention data overthe past three decades and correlated the data with the introduction to engineering course takenas freshmen. [1] Analysis of course-specific retention data did not clearly align with otherresearch suggesting a positive relationship between hands-on design and retention ofunderrepresented minorities. [2-5] Thus, we plan to implement and assess changes to coursestructure and curriculum to determine best practices to create a
genotyped using 23andMe©. Students who participate inthis optional exercise are able the analyze their own genetic data using tools presented in agenetic tools workshop that could potentially be used to individualize treatments. Those studentswho do not choose to have their own DNA genotyped use de-identified data for this activity.For the team project, groups of three to five students are assigned to a disease at the beginning ofthe semester (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis). Each group learns about the disease, identifies one areaof unmet need, designs an approach to solving the problem (with special consideration of howthe patient would interface with the solution), and develops a brief marketing plan. Sampleprojects include a 4D MRI for hepatic
project manager. He is Business Advisor and Speaker for the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation, Director of Duke NeuroInnovations, and on the planning team for BME IDEA. He holds a BS in Physics, English Literature, and Secondary Education from UNC Charlotte, an MS in BME from UNC Chapel Hill’s Medical School, and a Ph.D. from the UNC/NCSU BME Department. Andrew has two children, 15-year-old daughter Virginia Elaine and 13-year-old son Andrew, Jr. His wife, Abigail Kent, is a nurse at the NC State Highway Patrol.Dr. Hatice O. Ozturk, North Carolina State University Dr. Hatice Ozturk is a Teaching Associate Professor at North Carolina State University, Departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Biomedical
, functional parts that are using in tool making such as molds and dies, and medicalmodels including pre-operative physical models and prostheses.3The medical industry was one of the early adopters of RP through “surgical planning andrealization,”5 (i.e. visualizing and planning out a surgery before performing it using rapidprototypes of organs and implants). One of the earliest uses was in CMF (Craniomaxillofacial)surgery where there “are congenital, system-bound growth disorders, facial craniosynostoses…and other congenital skull and face dysplasia.”5 The complexity and high variability of thepresentation of the disorders require patient specific treatments. Rapid prototypes of the facialstructure, made using the patient’s scans, have allowed
[5-10] in recent years. This paper is a continuationof the progress from the first three years of the Clinical Immersion Program beginning Summer 2014,including changes implemented in Summer 2016 as well as further modifications planned for the 2017Program [1]. Interest in this program has been strong and grows every year demonstrated by the increasein applications to the program from bioengineering students. Feedback from past participants (see section4) support the value of experiential learning which introduces students to clinical end users and teachesstudents valuable industry skill sets previously only available as “on the job training.”The Clinical Immersion summer program provides a valuable opportunity for students to observe
change tracks”. Although several of the video lectures have been updated sincethe implementation of the course, we aim to continually improve these. The lower response tothe in-person lecture time as it relates to their future goals is difficult to interpret as the lecturesare designed to prepare the students for the following week’s lab. We plan to evaluate thisdifferently in the future and make adjustments accordingly.Figure 9. Survey responses indicating the effectiveness of each teaching tool used in BME 201related to their future goals: the design project, labs, video lectures and reflections, as well aslectures. Students had a more positive response toward the hands-on components.When given the opportunity to express open ended comments
orient their preparation. However, incontrast to the practice of traditional laboratories, a circuit diagram including componentvalues, or a plan for the experiment including information about the measurements to obtainwas not provided. Each laboratory session started with a discussion moderated by theinstructor and teaching assistant aimed at establishing a layout for the circuit or a template forthe design of the experiment.Two laboratory sections enrolled 23 and 24 students respectively, who completed six “one-session” laboratories and two mini-projects spread over several weeks (electromyogramamplifier and blood pressure monitor). An anonymous student survey was conducted at theend of the semester to gather student feedback about the inquiry
the end of the semester if their project areassubmission was selected. These mentors can plan and engage with teams if they so choose duringthe summer prior to the year-long design course.Results and DiscussionThis model gave both leaders and team members the opportunity to experience clinicalobservation and shifted the logistical burden from the few faculty to the ~14 team leaders and theclinicians promoting their projects of interest. Completing this training ahead of the design teamcourse allowed teams to start with a deeper understanding of medical needs and applications oftheir project need and practical clinical constraints, a working relationship with their clinicalmentor, and primer on team and project management. Survey data
course on Microfluidics. Results of student self-assessment survey according tosix ABET learning outcomes show that students judged the lab as a strongly positive learningexperience. Direct assessment data of student learning is not available at this point of time. Theauthors plan to make the kit available to Biomedical Engineering Education community afterfurther testing and development. Table I Topics covered in the instructional material Subject Topics Cell Biology Extracellular Matrix (ECM) and its impact to cell function Cell adhesion mechanism Biomedical implications of cell adhesion behavior, example: anoikis and change in cell adhesion behavior of cancer
postdoctoral and 8 PhD alumni) responded. This small sample isdiverse in terms of current occupation: 4 are currently postdocs, 4 are tenure track facultymembers, 2 are in other academic positions, and 2 are in industry. No matter what their currentjob is, they are either currently teaching in a formal or informal context, or plan to teach in thefuture. Significantly, both alumni in industry indicated that they were teaching, reinforcing theidea that teaching is a component of many careers that BME PhDs will find themselves in. Weasked how they obtained information about teaching while they were at our university. Eightindicated that their knowledge “came mainly through programs of CIRTL and/or the TeachingCenter,” and two indicated that it “came
their project into a succinct update to a senior leadership board.Admission RequirementsProspective students must have completed a STEM-concentrated degree with a 3.0 or highergrade point average, in order to be considered for admission to the program. In addition, theymust provide scores from a graduate school exam along with transcripts from all post-secondaryinstitutions, two letters of recommendation, a curriculum vitae, and personal statement.Graduation RequirementsIn order to graduate from CCNY MTM, students are required to successfully complete the entirecurriculum as defined above and submit a comprehensive written summary of their BioDesignproject, in the format of a business plan, at the conclusion of the final semester.Inaugural 2015
for the chosen disease. In addition to a 20-30minute final engaging presentation showing the proposed innovation and the integration of thethree pathways, teams were also required to submit a concise yet in-depth research report on theproposed innovation including the potential value of the innovation. Example innovationsincluded a proposal for a policy to reduce hospital acquired infections, a plan for first-aideducational programs for children, and a plan for a new non-profit health care organizationaimed at tackling health-related challenges of refugee camps. Teams were evaluated by theinstructors on their expertise developed, synthesis efforts, and creativity in the final oraldeliverable to which each student was required to invite two
the information chosen in the concept selection step to move towards generating novel ideas. Idea Generation Formally determining potential problem solutions. Idea Evaluation Determining the efficiency and appropriateness of the proposed solution. Implementation Planning Testing the chosen problem solution. Monitoring Searching for evidence to determine the problem solution’s level of success.By emphasizing the parallels between the creative process and the scientific method, faculty whohad previously thought of creativity as being outside the bounds of technical engineering maynow see how the
). Regardless of whether future studies indicate apositive effect or not, we plan to continue this approach, as students were able to successfullyincorporate a second language with no apparent loss of conceptual knowledge. In addition, weintend to introduce the project earlier in the semester so that the students have more time to takeadvantage of this hands-on opportunity.ConclusionsHaving undergraduate BME students complete a project in a different programming language didnot significantly affect final exam score. As such, students were able to learn a secondprogramming language while not reducing their overall comprehension of the principles ofprogramming.References1 Sharp, P. A. & Langer, R. Research agenda. Promoting convergence in
Figure 2. TA feedback on grading indicate a trend in increased confidence (Likert scale 1-5, where 5 is highestconfidence) and decreased grading time when using experimental grading methods. Data are shown as mean +/-standard deviation (n=6).Since TAs did not finalize scores, the “blinded” rubrics added an additional step to the gradingprocess since qualitative rubrics needed to be summed using the predetermined point values. Inthe present study, the scores were tallied and report by an undegraduate grader who did notevaluate the reports. In the future, we plan to implement an automated system that would sumthe student scores after TAs completed grading all the reports.ConclusionsOur preliminary results suggest that “blinding” TAs from point
environment across theprogram.Future plans for BEPI include adding more options to the weekends for students who havealready selected a focus area. We are also currently developing advanced residency courses,which offer students the opportunity to learn the state-of-the art in a specific field taught byleading scientists and working biomedical engineers.BackgroundThe Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that biomedical engineering is expected to be one of thefastest growing occupations from 2014-2024[1]. With a 2015 median pay of almost $90,000 peryear and an expected job growth rate of 23% over the next decade, biomedical engineeringcareers will enjoy a growth rate well above the expected level of 7% for all occupations [2]. Thedata are summarized in
of enzyme that optimizes between signal-to-noise (more enzyme is better) and the percent change in glucose concentration in 60 seconds (less enzyme is better). In sessions 13 and 14, students use SolidWorks to design and spec a case for their alpha prototype, and they develop a simple business plan analysis and perform a simple statistical analysis to determine how often (based on their sales estimates) that their test strips will yield a catastrophic error. In the final session (15), students go back through all of the previous assignments to modify their design so that it is consistent throughout. For example, if they changed the amount of enzyme used when completing the mass transport analysis, they should change that amount in
clearly identify what minimum quantitative knowledgeis required of the students, i.e., what is the simplest static analysis problem that should be able tobe completed by all students. We also plan to examine if the results from the current offering arerepeatable in the upcoming offering, and control questions to be more directly comparable. Werecognize the value of evaluating long-term retention, but this type of assessment is difficult asthis course is not part of a required sequence of courses; in fact, there are no required courses atour institution.In conclusion, our findings suggest that assigning an open-ended project in lieu of completingmultiple basic statics problems may not produce gains on this low-knowledge-level type ofanalysis
, J. C. & Kim, S. Better understanding through writing: Investigating calibrated peer review. ASEE 2004 Annu. Conf. Expo. "Engineering Res. New Height. June 20, 2004 - June 23, 2004 1159–1164 (2004).22. Cintas, P. Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters 363, 1–4 (2016).23. Pulford, S. Useful but not interesting: Illuminating student task values surrounding engineering writing classes. in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings 2016–June, (2016).24. Lee, E. & Hannafin, M. J. A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 64, 707–734 (2016).25. How to Plan And Guide