Paper ID #24697Work In Progress: Faculty Partnering With Students in Biomedical Engi-neering Undergraduate Curriculum DevelopmentDr. Cristi L. Bell-Huff, Georgia Institute of Technology Cristi L. Bell-Huff, PhD is a Lecturer in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University where she is involved in teaching and engineering education inno- vation and research. In addition to her PhD in Chemical Engineering, she also has an MA in Educational Studies. She has industrial experience in pharmaceutical product and process development as well as teaching experience at the secondary and
Dr. Dianne Hendricks is a Lecturer in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering and the Director of the Engineering Communication Program at the University of Washington. She designs and teaches courses involving universal design, technical communication, ethics, and diversity, equity and inclusion. She co-founded HuskyADAPT (Accessible Design and Play Technology), where she mentors UW students in design for local needs experts with disabilities. She also leads STEM outreach activities for the UW community and local K-12 students involving toy adaptation for children with disabilities. Di- anne holds a PhD in Genetics from Duke University, and BS in Molecular Biology and BA in Psychology from the
] Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), November 24, 2018.[3] B. Harding and P. McPherson, “What do employers want in terms of employee knowledge of technical standards and the process of standardization?,” in Proceedings of the 2010 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY, USA, 2010, pp. 15.1364.1 – 15.1364.10. [4] D. Purcell, “Report on a survey of schools of engineering in the United States concerning standards education,” The Center for Global Standards Analysis, Spring 2004.[5] H. de Vries and T. Egyedi, “Education about standardization: Recent findings,” International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 11
Paper ID #25580Work in Progress: Aligning and Assessing Learning Objectives for a Biomed-ical Engineering Course Sequence Using Standards-based Grading within aLearning Management SystemDr. Casey Jane Ankeny, Northwestern University Casey J. Ankeny, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Instruction at Northwestern University. Casey received her bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia in 2006 and her doctorate degree in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University in 2012 where she studied the role of shear stress in aortic valve disease. Currently, she is
Paper ID #27417Board 1: Introduction to Design Thinking and Human Centered Design inthe Biomedical Engineering freshman yearMr. Jorge E Bohorquez, University of Miami Dr. Jorge Boh´orquez received his bachelor degrees in Physics and Electrical engineering in 1984 and his Ph.D. degree in Biomedical Engineering in 1991. Currently Dr. Boh´orquez works as an Associate professor of Professional Practice at the Department of Biomedical Engineering of the University of Miami. His research interests are Engineering Education, Neural Engineering, Biosignal Processing and Instrumentation.Dr. Ram´on Benjamin Montero, University of
earning his PhD in Biomedical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Stege- mann worked for five years at Boston-based W.R. Grace & Co. (later called Circe Biomedical), where his research focused on cell-based bioartificial organs. Dr. Stegemann’s current research focuses on the use of extracellular environments to control cell function and the development of engineered tissues. He is also an active educator in the BME Design Program at the University of Michigan, with a focus on graduate-level medical product design and development. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 The Clinical Peer Mentors Program: Student Motivations, Skills and Knowledge
efficacy, the molecular basis of cell movement, and the mitigation of infectious diseases.Meg Keeley M.D.Dr. Brian P. Helmke, University of Virginia Brian Helmke is currently Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He received the B.S.E. in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania, the B.S.Econ. from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Ph.D. in bioengineering from the University of California, San Diego. Brian’s research interests include cardiovascular physiology, cellular mechanobi- ology, and nanotechnology-based biomaterials. He is also interested in technology-enhanced teaching and in experiential learning for undergraduates in science and
Academy for Excellence in Engineering Education (AE3) at UIUC. At the national level, she served as the Executive Director of the biomedical engineering honor society, Alpha Eta Mu Beta (2011-2017) and is an ABET evaluator (2018-present).Prof. Marina Marjanovic, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Marina Marjanovic is a Teaching Associate Professor in the Department of Bioengineering and Asso- ciate Director of Center for Optical Molecular Imaging in the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is teaching several undergraduate and graduate courses, and she is active member in the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. She has been Principal
]. Implementation of pedagogical methods such asa flipped classroom may prove beneficial when addressing common limitations in science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines such as long-term knowledge retention and student retentionrates in STEM fields through to graduation. The long-term knowledge retention rates of material implemented ina flipped classroom are unknown, with some studies reporting improved long-term knowledge retention [5],while others report decreased knowledge retention [6]. Furthermore, student retention rates in STEM fields alsoremains a challenge. With 40% of students who enter a University in the United States with an interest in STEMand just 20% of STEM-interested underrepresented minority students finishing
(VaNTH ERC) for Bioengineering Educational Technologies [5], [7], [8], [12]–[14]. A first step in developing a consensus regarding what core content should be included ina degree program is a consensus on the field to which the degree program belongs. Chevilledescribed the importance of a shared understanding of engineering, but the same can be appliedto the specific discipline of BME [10, pg. 3]: “...for engineering educators the definitions of engineering do matter since they inform what we should do. Definitions also point out potential conceptual imprecisions; if we do not interpret a definition the same way then there is a potential for miscommunication and subsidiary ideas may themselves be imprecise. Mitcham
, experimental means will be developed toscientifically determine if the student’s interest are changed due to the introduction of the biomedicaldiscipline.references[1] J. Enderle and J. Bronzino, Introduction to Biomedical Engineering 3rd Edition, Elsevier, 2011.[2] College of Engineering, "Introduction to engineering courses," Carnegie Mellon University, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://engineering.cmu.edu/education/undergraduate- programs/student-life/introductory-courses.html.[3] D. Lauffenburger, P. Matsudaira and B. Belcher, "20.010J Introduction to Bioengineering (BE.010J)," Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biological-engineering/20-010j-introduction
. (2010). Biodesign: The process of innovatingmedical technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[2] Andrade, Heidi, and Anna Valtcheva. “Promoting Learning and Achievement Through Self-Assessment.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 48, no. 1, 2009, pp. 12–19.,doi:10.1080/00405840802577544.5. Appendix5.1 Simplified Course Schedule SAMS Biomedical Engineering Applications Course Schedule Deliverable 7/5/2018 Introduction to BME Class survey on skill sets and interests Lecture: Medical Devices and the FDA and 7/6/2018 Laboratory Time: Tissue Engineering Lecture: Innovation and finding Needs - 7/11/2018 Introducing Teams, Team Building Exercise
as impacting the community through increased K-12 STEM awareness and education. Prior to joining UC Davis, Jennifer taught in the BME Department at Rutgers University, and was a postdoctoral fellow at Advanced Technologies and Regenerative Medicine, LLC. She received her doctoral degree in Biomedical Engineering from Tufts University, M.S. degree from Syracuse University, and B.S. degree from Cornell University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Works In Progress: Impact of a pilot summer innovation internship on student attitudes towards engineering design and entrepreneurshipIntroductionThe interdisciplinary nature of the senior design course requires students to possess
chemistry, physics,engineering, and biology, to design nanomaterials for a wide range of applications, such ascatalysis, energy, and medicine. The medical application of nanotechnology for diagnosis andtreatment of diseases is referred to as nanomedicine and is a cornerstone of biomedicalnanotechnology. This technology has the potential to transform healthcare and clinical outcomes.Due to the impact and potential of nanotechnology on research and society, students inbiomedical engineering benefit from training in basic nanotechnology concepts.There are several examples of nanoparticle labs for undergraduate students in the literature, butthese are typically designed for chemistry students rather than focused on biomedicalapplications [1]–[5]. There
notesonline and addressing a broader range of application in the 2019 iteration of the course.Furthermore, we hope to apply this structure to other courses in biomedical engineering, thusenhancing the students’ experience, their active interaction with the material, and as a result, theirlearning. 7. Acknowledgment We thank Columbia University’s Center for Teaching and Learning for their in-kind supportand collaboration in developing the technological elements of this project, and we acknowledgefinancial support through a Provost Award for Hybrid Learning Course Redesign and Deliveryand NSF grant number NSF-ENG1662329.References1 Silberman, M. Active Learning: 101 Strategies To Teach Any Subject. Allyn and Bacon, (1996).2
, electrode-based circuitry,and photoplethysmographs. These portable units functioned overall well as alternatives fortraditional benchtop equipment in this context, as they helped students to meet learningobjectives for these laboratories and provided straightforward mechanisms for circuit excitation,signal visualization, and data logging, while meeting a price point commensurate with a typicalcollege textbook.AcknowledgementsThis material is based in part upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation Course, Curriculum, & Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program(later the Transforming Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (TUES) Program) under grant DUE–0942425 and the General &Age-Related Disabilities
degrees in the U.S. today, only19% of undergraduate engineering students are female [5]. Additionally, those who are consideredunderrepresented ethnic minorities (URMs) in engineering account for 23% of the total U.S. population, but onlycomprise of 6% of the engineering workforce [6]. These discrepancies are compounded when an individualbelongs to multiple minority groups, i.e. only 0.6% of Black and 0.4% of Hispanic women are represented in thescience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce [6].Of the female and URM students who do pursue engineering degrees, many prefer to enroll in certain engineeringmajors more than others. This discrepancy could be attributed to differences in how each engineering disciplinetraditionally
StudentsIntroductionDuring the past two decades, active learning techniques have received a growing attention ineducational research. Particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)fields, traditional lecturing has indicated a 55% increase in failure rates of undergraduate students,compared to active learning methods [1]. Furthermore, active learning has proven to significantlyenhance students’ examination performance and educational achievements compared to passivelearning [1, 2]. In Biomedical Engineering (BME), active learning can be incorporated throughvarious techniques such as problem- and project-based learning [3]. Such approaches lead studentsto a deeper and more efficient retention of new concepts. Moreover, these methods
partially funded by the National Science Foundation that provides resources for the research and development of distributed medical monitoring technologies and learning tools that support biomedical contexts. His research focuses on (1) plug-and-play, point-of-care medical monitoring systems that utilize interoperability standards, (2) wearable sensors and signal processing techniques for the determination of human and animal physiological status, and (3) educational tools and techniques that maximize learning and student interest. Dr. Warren is a member of the American Society for Engineering Education and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. c American Society for Engineering
Paper ID #26968Specifications Grading in an Upper-Level BME Elective CourseDr. Brian P. Helmke, University of Virginia Brian Helmke is currently Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He received the B.S.E. in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania, the B.S.Econ. from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Ph.D. in bioengineering from the University of California, San Diego. Brian’s research interests include cardiovascular physiology, cellular mechanobi- ology, and nanotechnology-based biomaterials. He is also interested in technology-enhanced teaching