nano educational labs, as well as mentoring students in their senior capstone projects. His current projects include indus- try integration in the curriculum, undergraduate professional development, and entrepreneurial minded learning in the classroom.Amena Shermadou, Ohio State University Amena Shermadou is an Engineering Education graduate student at The Ohio State University. She received her Bachelors and Masters in Biomedical Engineering from Wright State University, in Day- ton, Ohio. Her experience with teaching first-year engineering students has led to research interests in curriculum development, student empowerment and the development of holistic engineers through the collaboration with engineering
redesigned a project in an introductory bioengineering course to explore stress managementtechniques through physiology, biosensors, and design. The project allows students to developdesign skills and to explore the impact of wellness practices on human physiology. Assessmentof the curricular redesign will be measured by student evaluations of the offering and theirwillingness to engage in the mindfulness portion of the course. The COVID-19 pandemic hasemphasized the need to focus on student wellbeing in addition to physical health. Integration ofwellness into the core curriculum promotes the use of existing campus resources presented inclass and may normalize the use of these resources within engineering departments and colleges.Ultimately, the
4 N/A N/A 3.69 8 3.69 8 Evaluate the integrated circuit 2 N/A N/A 2 8 2 8 Identify mitigation options for ambient light 1 N/A N/A 1 8 1 8C. Surveys and Other Assessment MechanismsFormal surveys directly related to the use of AD2 units in these scripted laboratories were notoffered to students, but students did complete pre/post-project surveys affiliated with the follow-on wearable ECG design. These surveys, described in detail in an ASEE 2018 paper [23], askedstudents to rate their understanding of each of a number of topics according to a five-point Likertscale, where a “1” indicated no understanding and a “5” indicated full understanding
senior design courses, which is due inpart to ABET prescribed use of engineering standards in a culminating design experience [4].The use of engineering standards in senior design courses is vital; however, research supportsthat in order to attain a high degree of competence, learners must develop skills, integrate them,and know how to apply them, requiring repeated exposure and practice [5]. Integratingengineering standards throughout the curriculum can strengthen students’ understanding of whatstandards are and how to apply them effectively in senior design [1] and their careers.BackgroundIn 2014, an ABET review identified a weakness in the use of engineering standards in our BMEprogram. As a first step, the use of engineering standards became
their questions outside of the class timeframe. In large-size college classes, usingemails and online office hours have been introduced as effective substitutions for face-to-faceoffice hours [1-4]. Moreover, cooperative learning has repeatedly proven to have positiveimpacts on students’ educational experience [3,5]. Cooperative learning, which can beincorporated in classes of any size, enables students to improve their social and team-workingskills. In addition, cooperative learning provides an opportunity for students to discuss theirquestions and overcome challenges within their groups without forming long lines outside theinstructor’s office during office hours.Nevertheless, for certain technical courses in engineering curriculum
highlyvalues familiarity with these topics in biomedical engineering (BME) undergraduates; there is agrowing demand for professionals who possess a combination of both technical knowledge andregulatory affairs [1]. However, it is challenging to instruct students on these inherently drytopics, particularly in the absence of practical applications.Recognizing that expertise in any of these areas is an impractical goal for undergraduatestudents, BME programs have implemented several different approaches to provide a workingknowledge of these topics to equip graduates for work in the medical device industry. Theseapproaches range from entire courses devoted to singular topics, such as medical deviceregulation [2], to lectures integrated into the capstone
- gineering and also has led multiple curricular initiative in Bioengineering and the College of Engineering on several NSF funded projects.Gabriella R Dupont, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign I am a MEng student in Bioengineering, with a BS, Bioengineering, both from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. I am interested in biomechanics and how curriculum structure affects education outcomes. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Are we on Track with Tracks?It is challenging to achieve technical depth in an undergraduate Bioengineering curriculum dueto the implicit breadth of multidisciplinary technical content underlying the field. Moreover
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
Paper ID #23226Work in Progress: Streamlining the Biomedical Engineering Design ProcessDr. Olga Imas, Milwaukee School of Engineering Olga Imas, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engi- neering, where she teaches a variety of courses in biomedical digital signal processing, medical imaging, computing in biomedical engineering, biomaterials, anatomy and physiology. In addition to her academic responsibilities, she acts as a consultant to GE Healthcare for product development with emphasis on advanced imaging applications for neurology, cardiology, and oncology. Olga’s
as is his B.S. degree. He holds an M.S. in MBE, also from Ohio State. He was the director of the BME program at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) from 2009 to 2017. He has been teaching at MSOE since 1990. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Work in Progress: Redesigning a Biomedical Engineering Capstone Design Sequence toEnhance Student EngagementThe Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology Criterion 5 states that an accreditedundergraduate engineering curriculum must include a capstone design process to better prepareits graduates for careers in engineering [1]. One common pedagogical approach to teachingdesign focuses on problem-based learning and includes clinical
Paper ID #31043Work in Progress: Direct incorporation of research articles intoundergraduate biomedical engineering courses to contextualize complextopicsProf. Mark A Chapman, University of San Diego Mark Chapman is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego in the Department of Integrated Engineering. His interests lie in the fields of skeletal muscle mechanics, muscle disease, exercise physi- ology, international education and engineering education. He earned his MS and PhD in bioengineering from the University of California, San Diego and a B.S. in biomedical engineering from the University of Minnesota.Dr. G
of multi-disciplinary teams [3], [4], theorganizational structure left the ID students’ skillsets underutilized. Industrial designers reportedin the 2018-2019 academic year that they “felt ‘useless’” when meeting to “discuss moretechnical aspects that [they]…had no knowledge in.” The previous course structure also failed torecapitulate the work dynamic of the workforce where subteams of engineers and industrialdesigners communicate on an “as-needed” basis. At specific stages of product development,engineer and ID subteams complete tasks together, while at other times they work independentlyto generate separate-but-related deliverables [5].Our aim for the 2019-2020 school year was to facilitate an engineering and ID integrative BMEcourse that
at the beginningof the module.4 For instance, for “Knowledge Processing”, students received the followingdescription: “[l]ocates, evaluates, integrates, and applies knowledge to support hypothesis.Assesses the accuracy of conclusions in literature.” The grader assigned scores on a scale of one(novice) to five (distinguished) and provided detailed feedback for the rating. The students thenviewed the detailed feedback on Canvas as well as their progress towards mastery through the“Outcomes” feature that is a colorimetric indicator of mastery.4For this study, the instructor graded all of the team reports for the Winter 2019 (W19; n=3)offering as well as an analogous number of reports from Spring 2018 (SP18, n=3) using both theTRAD rubric from
Paper ID #23188Work in Progress: Healthcare Economics and Information Literacy - Re-sources for Success in Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering EducationMr. Alexander James Carroll, North Carolina State University Alex Carroll is the Research Librarian for Engineering and Biotechnology at the NCSU Libraries. He facilitates faculty research and offers curriculum-integrated information literacy instruction to students in the College of Textiles and the College of Engineering, with particular emphasis on areas that intersect with human and animal health. Alex received his BA from James Madison University, and his MSLS from
Paper ID #23450Work in Progress: Bridging Research and Entrepreneurship - Master’s Cer-tificate in Translational Biomedical Research at Northwestern UniversityDr. Gloria J Kim, Northwestern University Gloria Kim is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Northwestern University. She also a courtesy faculty member with the Department of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering at the University of Florida. She obtained her B.S. in Chemistry from Seoul National University, M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Johns Hopkins University, and Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia
Paper ID #23786Work in Progress: Biomedical Prototype Design in Collaborative Teams toIncrease Students’ Comprehension and EngagementKiersten Lenz, University of New Mexico Kiersten Lenz is a graduate student at the University of New Mexico in Biomedical Engineering. She has previous experience as a secondary science teacher at the high school level. Based on her observations as both a teacher and a student, Kiersten believes that the most effective way to teach is through creative lesson plans paired with collaborative problem-based learning.Prof. Eva Chi, University of New Mexico Eva Chi is an Associate Professor in
and Schatzberg [15] point out that definitions are fundamental to philosophy, and our philosophy, whether explicit or not, determines how we educate [16]. More practically, definitions serve as objectives, helping to determine the ultimate aims of education. Thus, definitions may provide insights into how and why engineering education is this way and not that.”As Linsenmeier states in his 2003 IEEE article on biomedical engineering [5], “in order tospecify curriculum, we need to specify the field in which we are trying to provide an education(pg. 33).” Indeed, many of the reports offering suggestions for core BME content begin with adescription of biomedical engineering and how it is distinct from [5], [6], or
Paper ID #23533Work in Progress: The Use of Scaffolding and Peer Reviews to Improve Ef-fective Writing Skills in Biomedical EngineersDr. C. LaShan Simpson, Mississippi State University Dr. Simpson received her B.S. in Biochemistry from Clemson University. Her doctoral research focused on developing cell therapy treatments for vascular calcification. Her research interests were in targeted therapies and she strengthened her polymer expertise during her postdoctoral training at Rice University. Her postdoctoral work focused on injectable gene therapy for bone grafting. As an independent researcher, her work is focused on
an formal assessment of the methodology and preset it as a full paper. Works Cited1. Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: the PBL approach. Annals of biomedical engineering, 34(2), 217-225.2. Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435.3. Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith. Cooperative Learning Returns to College What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30.4 (1998): 26-35.
Paper ID #22634Connecting Theoretical Concepts to Physical Phenomena Using 3-D-printedMicrofluidic DevicesDr. Sarah Ilkhanipour Rooney, University of Delaware Sarah I. Rooney is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Undergraduate Program in the Biomedical Engineering department at the University of Delaware, where she seeks to bring evidence-based teaching practices to the undergraduate curriculum. She received her B.S.E. (2009) and M.S.E. (2010) in Biomed- ical Engineering from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and her Ph.D. (2015) in Bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.Mr. Peter A. Sariano,Mr
Paper ID #26019Creativity Activities in a Design Course Fail to Elicit Gains in Creativity Overand Above those Elicited by the Design Course ItselfDr. William H. Guilford, University of Virginia Will Guilford is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia. He is also the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education in the School of Engineering. He received his B.S. in Biology and Chemistry from St. Francis College in Ft. Wayne, Indiana and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Arizona. Will did his postdoctoral training in Molecular Biophysics at the University of Vermont. His
program and teaches curriculum, instruction, & as- sessment courses to undergraduate and graduate secondary education students. Jennifer’s research focus on urban high school reform is informed by nine years of teaching in Chicago Public Schools, giving her an informed perspective of how policy moves from theory to practice. Dr. Olson’s current research interests include urban teacher preparation, teacher professional development and student voice. Her most recent publication in Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching and Research Becoming A Culturally Responsive Teacher: The Impact Of Clinical Experiences In Urban Schools focuses on elementary and secondary teacher candidates’ perspectives of how their clinical
(from a school that scores poorly on theToronto District School Board’s learning opportunities index) to integrate IBBME teaching labfacilities into their biology, chemistry, and physics curriculum and have their grades 11 and 12students address biomedical engineering design challenges in this environment. Each graduatestudent project team was required to accomplish 4 tasks: 1) propose a theme related tobiomedical engineering based on a single thesis and 2, 3, 4) propose suitable activities that couldbe used in the Discovery program for biology, chemistry, and physics high school students. Graduate Course Discovery Program Knowledge translation Activities completed by
’ recognized by the employers. Graduates are expected to be technicalexperts as well as have high quality ‘professional skills’ [3], [4]. Sighting this demand,engineering educators around the world are now making efforts to change the curriculum byadding an EM based course or incorporating associated modules into their courses. Students canexplore EM concepts related to real-world social issues and expand ‘professional skills’ such asrecognizing opportunities, creativity, communication, leadership and adaptability throughexperiential learning modules. Such modules can be easily integrated into design-based coursesas well as laboratory courses to provide students with a hands-on experience and expose them toopen-ended questions. However, it is
Paper ID #21504Exploring Biomedical Engineering Students’ Self-Raised Motivations for En-gaging in Instructional DesignJacqueline Handley, University of Michigan Jacqueline Handley is a graduate student at the University of Michigan, in Science Education. Her back- ground is in Material Science and Engineering, with an emphasis on Biomaterials Design. She is inter- ested in, broadly, how best bridge engineering practice and education. More specifically, she is interested in access to and inclusion in engineering at the K-12 level.Dr. Aileen Huang-Saad, University of Michigan Aileen is faculty in Engineering Education and
supportsmultiple training and education needs related to data analytics across biopharmaceuticalmanufacturing hubs. As a first-step, our project identified a subset of achievable near-term tasksand objectives needed to develop and pilot an introductory series of active-learning boot campsdesigned to upskill incumbent employees serving in established biomanufacturing scientific andengineering roles (e.g. not trained data scientists) to utilize multivariate analysis tools and extractvalue from complex data sets. Our proposed solution is differentiated by its active collaborationwith industry, and commitment to mentored employee knowledge integration into corporateworkflows.Objectives and Value PropositionsWe propose the development of a workforce
, consistent student teams or groups as implemented here, may contribute tothe social integration of first-year students. However, this is dependent on the formation ofeffective student teams which may involve more thought on the part of the instructor. There are limitations of the active learning implementation method and this assessmentstudy that should be noted. Specifically, the addition of in-class collaborative learning activitieswithout any out-of-class videos to offset instructional content necessitated a slight reduction inthe level of detail covered during lectures. Due to the structure of the curriculum in the School ofBiomedical Engineering, this reduction is not expected to have any effect on future studentsuccess in the program
teaching core undergraduate courses, Jennifer is aimed at integrat- ing engineering design principles and hands-on experiences throughout the curriculum, and playing an active role in the senior design course. She has interests in engineering education, curricular innovation, as well 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
- graduation. References[1] G. M. Fillenwarth, M. McCall, and C. Berdanier, “Quantification of Engineering Disciplinary Discourse in Résumés: A Novel Genre Analysis with Teaching Implications,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 48– 64, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TPC.2017.2747338.[2] M. McCall, G. M. Fillenwarth, and C. G. P. Berdanier, “Chapter 7. Quantification of Disciplinary Discourse: An Approach to Teaching Engineering Resume Writing,” in Diverse Approaches to Teaching, Learning, and Writing Across the Curriculum: IWAC at 25, The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado, 2020, pp. 113–134.[3] C. G. P. Berdanier, M
, as both an accelerated (5 week) study abroadexperience in the United Kingdom and as a standard on-campus course. This course, taught bythe second author, utilizes real world scenarios or “challenges” as a lens through whichbiotransport content is delivered, practiced, and assessed.From a position of curriculum development and education policy, we recognize that inquiry-based learning (IBL) (i.e. challenge based instruction, problem/project based learning) are non-standard in engineering teaching. There are a plethora of rationales provided for this low rate ofadoption, including insufficient faculty-teacher preparation to execute IBL, time constraints onprofessors in their teaching role, and necessity of direct instruction to establish