students take atleast one course at a distance, while public higher education institutions serve two-thirds of alldistance learners [1]. The growing student population and the need for more skilled workforce,together, are changing the landscape of online education in engineering disciplines. Theoverarching purpose of this work is to review and demonstrate the implications of onlineeducation in biomedical engineering. Specifically, this work will present strategies, qualityassessment, and lessons from designing and implementing the first fully online course in theDepartment of Biomedical Engineering (BME) at the University of Arizona.BackgroundAfter three years of offering an on-campus version of an introductory, dual-level (graduate
learning and development [1]. Broadly, studies of student engagement have oftenexamined relationships between a student’s educational experiences and the outcomes of interest,finding that, in general, higher engagement was linked to gains in outcomes such as learning andpersistence [2], [3]. In particular, engagement in co-curricular settings, or experiences outside theclassroom, has been linked to the development of several technical and professional outcomesfor engineering students such as leadership, ethical decision making, teamwork, andcommunication [4]–[9]. Beyond those outcomes, co-curricular engagement has also been linkedto outcomes such as self-efficacy and a sense of belonging, which can improve retention andpersistence in engineering
constructed to analyze what predictorconstructs contribute to a stronger identity for either engineering or science and how theseidentities influence career path goals and choices. This study shows that recognition from othersis a significant predictor of individual identity and that personal interest is a significant predictorof how an individual views BME. Gender was not found to influence professional identity orperception of BME in this study.1. IntroductionWhile biomedical engineering (BME) continues to grow as a discipline and the number ofprograms increase, there continues to be difficulties with defining BME [1][2]. BMEincorporates aspects of several science disciplines including biology, chemistry, and physics, aswell as traditional
the field ofBME where advancements are often made at the interface of materials, electrical, mechanical,and medical knowledge. Moreover, today’s biomedical engineers must be capable problem-solvers who are comfortable working in multidisciplinary teams within the design process.Traditional educational approaches, which leverage standard lecture-style dissemination of siloedinformation with limited hands-on project and design experience, are not sufficiently preparingour graduates for success in the interdisciplinary, project-focused world [1]. At UVM,foundational technical content is currently taught across the departments of MechanicalEngineering, Civil Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. In the new curriculum, these topicswill be
assignments. Students then have the opportunity to demonstratemastery of the LOs several times throughout the term. Instead of traditional summativeassessment, this approach aligns the student assessment with mastery of the desired outcomes.SBG allows for student and instructor monitoring of LO mastery and emphasizes the learningrather than earning points.1 Additionally, SBG allows for individualized instruction that adaptsthe course material to address students’ weaknesses in a just-in-time fashion.While used widely in K-12, we are just now beginning to assess SBG in higher education inengineering.2 Recent work by Carberry, et al. has uncovered best practices associated with SBGthat are leveraged in our work, including tracking a small number of
ourstudents with this assignment was their ability to critically evaluate journal articles. As such, weexamined student critical thinking skills through an analysis of written assignments. Althoughwe found that students valued this activity, we found that students did not develop their abilitiesto critically evaluate scientific articles. Future work is needed to develop structured feedback thatcan assist in developing these critical analysis skills.Introduction. Engineering curricula have a tendency of being strongly rooted in theoreticalconcepts that do not provide students with real-world examples of course topics [1], [2]. This canlead to student disengagement and may ultimately lead to decreases in student persistence inengineering programs [3
informed judgements [1]. Despite this,challenges of implementing engineering ethics in BME curricula still exist and can includedifficulty in emulating ethical situations [2], ill-prepared or tentative instructors [2]-[3],peripheral or isolated ethics coursework [4]-[5], and varied engineering ethics educationexpectations. Prior to engaging in this work, our program used varied approaches on teachingethics or ethical reasoning. After a curricular gap analysis, we decided that additionaltouchpoints covering BME-relevant ethical topics throughout our curriculum were warranted.This work in progress shares: 1) a method used by a biomedical engineering department todevelop embedded ethical reflection throughout its curriculum and 2) thematic analysis
pathological), analysis and modeling of human postural control, and time-varying signals and systems. Engineering education research includes curriculum and laboratory development of biomechanics and bio-signal processing concepts. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work in Progress: Engaging Early Career Students in Bioengineering with Student-Specific ContentIntroductionThe number of bachelor’s degrees earned in engineering by women and minorities does not reflecttheir presence in the US population [1]. This lack of diversity impacts the relevance of engineeredsolutions to our diverse population. Thus, there is a need to increase
engineers today often work with industrial designers to help themunderstand unmet needs and generate new healthcare products optimized for intended users [1].Industrial designers can work alongside engineers as employees within a company or as out-sourced consultants [2]. However, few university courses offer students the opportunity todevelop a solution to a current problem with scholars outside of their specific disciplines.Previous initiatives at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) to form multidisciplinary capstoneteams with students in the Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME) and students in theSchool of Design opted to embed a single industrial design (ID) student within a technical groupof 3-4 engineers. Although this offered the benefit
identify and understand unmet global health needs, developand refine sustainable solutions, and form ventures equipped for successful implementation oftheir solutions.ApproachWe created a semester-long course, “Global Health Innovation and Entrepreneurship” aimed atpreparing students (BME and PH) to create sustainable solutions to global healthcareproblems. The learning objectives of the course were (1) create a novel solution to address acompelling unmet global health need (2) demonstrate knowledge of all aspects of human-centered design (3) demonstrate knowledge of how to get to a market-ready product/service andhow to evaluate its impact (4) demonstrate knowledge of how to develop a sustainable businessmodel and (5) develop communication and
primary research interests are bioinformatics and the mechanics of biomaterials. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020Work in Progress: Improving student engagement in undergraduate bioinformaticsthrough research contributionsAbstractCUREs (Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences) are a model for changinglaboratory design to include hallmarks of authentic research. CUREs have been shown to havesimilar improvements in student research skills to apprentice-based research experiences [1].Unlike apprentice-based experiences, course-based research is available to all students in aprogram. At Endicott College, the undergraduate bioinformatics lecture course is
Coordinator at the Center for Excellence and Innovation in Teaching and Learning at the University of New Hampshire.Steven Moore, Carnegie Mellon University, HCII American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work in Progress: Incorporating interactive modules related to cell culture and plasmid design into introduction to biomedical engineering 1 2 2 3 1 Rosalyn Abbott, Sophie Le Blanc, Michael Melville, Steven Moore, Conrad ZapantaCarnegie Mellon University: 1. Biomedical Engineering, 2. Eberly Center, 3. Human-Computer Interaction InstituteIntroduction
crosslistedas a multidisciplinary course in the School of Arts, Science, and Engineering at the University ofRochester instructs on how to interface sensors and actuators with microcontrollers in order to makemeasurements and control objects in the real world.While learning objectives for this course center around teaching students to properly interfacemicrocontrollers with sensors and actuators, the course was designed with a number of meta-objectivesin mind. One such goal is the desire to enhance the employability of our engineering students byproviding them with more and earlier opportunities to acquire and demonstrate technical knowledge andskills, which have been shown to be very important to engineering employers [1] Second, this initiativesought
prosthetics to tissueengineering to bioinformatics [1]. As the field continues to evolve, undergraduate biomedicalengineering programs have also continued to grow and evolve. To support the needs of thegrowing field, biomedical engineering (BME) curricula were established as broad andinterdisciplinary, integrating knowledge from both basic sciences and engineering disciplines.This training prepares graduates for a wide variety of careers in medicine, government, andindustry. The first BME programs were accredited by ABET in the early 1970s [2] and at presentthere are 139 programs accredited, with new programs accredited each year [3].In an effort to define the core content of a BME undergraduate curriculum, the VaNTHcurriculum project identified key
Bioengineering also at Clemson University. Dr. Gomil- lion’s long-standing research interests are in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Specifically, the work of her research group focuses on three general areas: (1) design and modification of biomaterial scaffolds to study cell-biomaterial interactions and to provide cues for directing cell behavior for tissue regeneration; (2) application of engineered tissues for aesthetic and functional tissue replacements; and (3) advanced application of tissue engineering strategies for developing in vitro tissue models for studying disease systems. Dr. Gomillion is committed to the integration of her biomedical interests with education research endeavors, with a specific
Paper ID #29807Work in Progress: Student and faculty perceptions of rotating facultyfacilitators for introductory biomedical engineering problem-basedlearningDr. Sara L Arena, Virginia Tech Sara L. Arena is a Collegiate Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics (BEAM) at Virginia Tech (VT), where she has been teaching since 2017. Prior to this position, Sara was an Assistant Professor of Exercise Science at High Point University (2013-2017). The BEAM Department at Virginia Tech offers two undergraduate programs: (1) Engineering Science and Mechanics and (2) Biomedical Engineering. Sara teaches
complimentary education on user-centered research methods toenhance their ability to define new opportunities, user behaviors, the use environment, and socialand cultural influences. Students will practice these techniques through clinical rotations andlearning forums at the Salem VA Medical Center (SAVMC) and Walter Reed National MilitaryMedical Center (WRNMMC), respectively. A pilot program with 15 students began in Spring2020. Student outcomes will be based on evaluating (1) the students’ ability to recognize unmetneeds that, if addressed, will benefit patients/providers and have the potential to supportcommercialization efforts, (2) the students’ appreciation for different roles and skill sets inmedical device development, and (3) the students
troubleshooting process. Studentsexplore basic equipment operating principles, identify failures and repair devices as a team.In previous course iterations, students expressed unfamiliarity surrounding common parts criticalto equipment e.g. solenoid valves, IR sensors (personal experience). Guided inquiry hasdemonstrated benefits in bridging the scientific gap in knowledge in students as described byNworgu [1]. To address this unfamiliarity among women and men alike, an intervention in theform of guided worksheets was introduced and its effect on student performance assessed.MethodsThe course utilizes a flipped classroom format where all students watch lecture videos andcomplete course readings and pre-labs individually before class. In class, directions
[1]. The practice of connecting projects across years,classes, and student cohorts, and further linking these projects to research interests of the faculty,is a model of education that could benefit members of a university system at all levels [2-3].Programs such as the KEEN network [4] have provided both the resources necessary to rethinktraditional curricula in engineering. Likewise, pedagogical training has reduced the activationenergy required to engage in active learning strategies, specifically open-ended, project basedlearning [5]. This educational model has been cited as one method to increase student motivation,curiosity, and ultimately understanding of how engineering truly fits into the world [6-7]. As theinterrelatedness of
Education, 2021 Work-in-Progress (WIP): Exploring the Relationships between BME Student Perception of the Field and Career PlansIntroduction Biomedical engineering (BME) programs attract students with a range of post-graduationaspirations including medical school, graduate school, engineering-focused industry,biotechnology-focused industry, etc. [1]–[3]. This diversity in how students aim to utilize theirBME degree may reflect diversity in their motivation to study BME, their educationalexpectations, and even their perception of the field [2], [4]. Understanding the relationshipbetween these factors would allow BME programs, at both the curricular and individual courselevels, to better balance students’ interests and
California, Irvine (UCI) American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Work in Progress: Novel Initiatives for Senior Design Collaborative Projects with Healthcare Workers and Undergraduate Students – a COVID-19 Response Nursing HackathonIntroduction:Nurses and healthcare staff are uniquely positioned to identify opportunities to improve systemsof care delivery but are often underrepresented in medical innovation initiatives [1, 2].Furthermore, although hackathons have gained traction over the past decade as a successfulinnovation tool to tackle modern healthcare problems [3], there remains a lack of events thatallow undergraduate students in different
engineering design courses. Creating the conditions however, to promote effectiveparticipation from all students in a team is certainly a challenge many instructors may face. Thischallenge often lies in the complexity of group dynamics and untaught skills that are necessary tofunction effectively on a team. Instructors may recognize the value of teaching process skills tostudents, however many may not feel qualified to teach these skills, or may even feeluncomfortable with coaching teams through their conflicts. Traditional mechanisms forpromoting effective team process skills include strategies such as assigning team roles,developing team contracts and organizing project timelines [1]. While these practices havetremendous value, they often focus on
may haveimportant implications for student recruitment and retention.Introduction The establishment of undergraduate biomedical engineering (BME) programs in the late1960s makes it a relatively new educational option compared to traditional disciplines such asmechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering [1]–[3]. Despite slow growth through the 1990s,there has been a significant increase in the number of undergraduate BME programs and degreesconferred in recent years [1], [2], [4], [5]. Over that time, increasing numbers of BMEdepartments and educators have had to make important decisions regarding how best to educatestudents in this ever-evolving, interdisciplinary field. In perhaps the earliest report on BMEeducation, Harmon
approaches, and professionalism within design classes. Dr. Allen also serves as PI and director for an NSF-funded Multi-Scale Systems Bioengineering REU site at U.Va. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work in Progress: A clinical immersion program for broad curricular impactProblem identification remains a significant challenge in the education of biomedical engineerssince access to clinics and clinicians is limited. A popular approach to overcoming this limitationis the clinical immersion experience [1]–[6], which fall under the umbrella of “high-impacteducational practices” – activities that have especially significant effects on learning
course incorporates content fromthe previous courses in the sequence as well as from a fundamental statistics course in thecontext of experimental design and measurement. We anticipate that SBG will allow forfrequent, formative feedback throughout a single course as well as inform the instruction offaculty teaching subsequent courses building on these standards, including courses beyond thissequence such as Capstone. Our long-term goal will be to identify, align, and assess LO withinand across these courses in the curriculum using SBG. We will also review and assessimplementation of SBG in this context.This preliminary work focuses on implementation of SBG in the culminating course. Wehypothesize that Canvas-mediated SBG will 1) allow for
: JosseyBass Higher and Adult Education. CookSather, A., Matthews, K. E., Ntem, A., & Leathwick, S. (2018). What we talk about when we talk about Students as Partners. International Journal for Students As Partners , 2 (2), 19. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i2.3790 Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014, July). Engagement Through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The Higher Education Academy . MercerMapstone, L., Dvorakova, S., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felton, P., & Knorr, K. (2017, May). A Systematic Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education. International Journal for Students as Partners , 1 (1). (n.d.). In
project.Education of Engineering StandardsSince the 2001-2002 accreditation cycle, undergraduate engineering curricula approved by theEngineering Accreditation Commission of ABET are required to incorporate engineeringstandards [1]. Current criteria require that curricula include “a culminating major engineeringdesign experience that…incorporates appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints”[2]. This requirement addresses demand from industry for engineering graduates to enter theworkforce with knowledge of technical standards, particularly as a generation of baby-boomerswith expertise in standardization retires. This demand encompasses a wide range of industries,including the medical field [3].Despite the ABET requirement and practical need
whether intentional, verticalalignment of engineering experiences ultimately better prepares BME undergraduates for theirsenior design capstone projects and their professional pursuits.IntroductionInductive teaching methods have encouraged higher levels of student cognition [1]-[2], improvedstudent teamwork and communication [3], and allowed increased student confidence duringengineering design prototyping [4]. Paired with a resurgence of hands-on learning in theengineering community [5], inductive teaching methods allow instructors to incorporate realproblems that require physical prototype solutions. Our work aims to incorporate one specificinductive teaching method, project based learning (PBL), into sophomore and junior levelBiomedical
integration of entrepreneurship education andtraining in the undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum.MethodsInternship Selection and Program StructureApplications were solicited from biomedical engineering undergraduate students. Applicationsconsisted of a resume, transcript, and personal statement. Following in-person interviews, fourlower division and four upper division students were selected to participate in the inauguralseven week summer innovation internship (Figure 1).The internship began with a two-day workshop focused on needs-finding, needs statementdevelopment, conducting observations, ethics in observations, value exploration and designthinking. Over the course of seven weeks, students were immersed in full-time
Morgantown, West Virginia as well as a faculty member at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Work in Progress: Fostering Cross-Disciplinary Collaborations between Biomedical Engineering and Occupational Therapy Students: A Model for Clinical Exposures for BMEBackgroundCollaborations between occupational therapy and engineering student design teams are not a newconcept. In some cases, first-year engineering students work on design projects for individualswith disabilities as an introduction to the design process [1], [2]. In general, design teams willinteract with occupational therapists or physical therapists, and