classroom andlaboratory exercises. Through these opportunities, students are expected to develop an understanding ofimportant issues regarding the application of engineering tools in the study of biological structures and theirfunction. Complete syllabus for the course is provided in the Appendix.Course Management SystemCanvas Infrastructure (Salt Lake City, UT) was used as an online learning platform to distribute all course contentincluding pre-recorded content videos, lecture slides, in-class problems, additional review problems, laboratorymanuals, and to administer and grade homework assignments. Additional features of the online coursemanagement system included discussion boards and a messaging system to provide a line of communicationbetween
, students carryout their plan to generate a functional prototype and demonstrate that it validates the establishedneeds. In pursuit of objective 1, the 2019-2020 course now requires ID students to leadstakeholder interviews and make concept sketches in the fall and generate the following for theproduct in the spring: a logo, a storyboard illustrating product-user interactions, and aninformative webpage. Like previous years, the 2019-2020 course year will end with a final posterpresentation and a written report in the format required for the VentureWell BME ideacompetition. To guide work allocation between subteams, instructors provided recommendationsduring lecture and/or stated in the syllabus (Appendix A) whether engineering, industrial design,or
st 1 year 64% 61% 85 + 42 = 127 2nd year 23% 25% 31 + 17 = 48 rd 3 year 8% 9% 10 + 6 = 16 4th year 5% 5% 7 + 4 = 11 During the first week of the semester, students self-enrolled in teams of 6 or 7 for an out-of-class design project using the self-sign-up group feature of Canvas (Instructure, Salt Lake CityUT); these same teams were also used for all in-class learning activities. Class periods devoted toactive learning where indicated as such on the course syllabus and schedule. On these scheduled
andragogy (the practice ofteaching adult learners), industry best practices, Quality Matters, and the seven Principles forGood Practice in Undergraduate Education (adapted for hybrid learning).7 This workshop wasloosely modeled after the Quality Matters’ Designing Your Online Course Workshop.10 Duringand as a result of this RISE program the BR200 instructor with the help of his coauthors: 1. Developed a detailed BR200 course map including measurable objectives, assessment types, and a schedule overview. This included a syllabus appropriate for online and hybrid courses using a specified Syllabus Template. 2. Created engaging instructional materials and further used technology to create high quality learning experiences for students
in accomplishing team and instructor setcourse objectives as students who participated in teams able to meet face-to-face. The evidencegathered in the MOOCIBL platform shows that students on both types of teams were able toproduce deliverables believed to have high impact and external value beyond the classroombased on the rubric set in the course syllabus. These deliverables include: a patent application,journal and conference papers, competition awards, and invited outreach presentations, just toname a few shown in Table 2 and Table 4.The results suggest Multi-site teams are as capable of being successful as F2F-only teams. Thisis an exciting finding because it opens the possibility for students, who may not otherwiseparticipate in online
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
articles follow the same strategies they can use in their own courses; so facultymembers experience first-hand the types of writing they implement in their courses. Also,several of the readings offer practical guidance for incorporating and assessing student writingassignments. The second half of the MIWE course is largely focused on allowing facultymembers to revise the class they intend to teach MIWE-style. They revise the syllabus anddesign at least one formal writing assignment that will be added to the course work.Throughout the MIWE course, faculty are encouraged to view writing as process rather thanproduct; this places more emphasis on the learning that happens during and as a result of writingrather than on the grade that a given writing
, andassignment descriptions online [link blinded for peer review]. The curricular materialsand insights from this paper are interdisciplinary and transferable to many courses inBME and related fields.In order to make our curriculum more accessible to engineering educators who do nothave backgrounds in critical theory (and because we are not experts in these fieldsourselves), in this paper we do not provide an extensive background of critical theorieson race, gender, sexuality, or disability. However, we do recommend the followingresources: Donna Riley’s book, Engineering and Social Justice [1], The Center forCritical Race and Digital Theories [2], “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” [3], andLangdon Winner’s “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” [4]. As we
biomedical engineering not seen from the classroom, allowing me to become more aware of the possibilities I may want to pursue in the future.”While most students focus on the positive benefits of the course, few comment on anyapprehension or anticipated challenges. A written assignment completed before clinic rotationsincludes a student reflection on “Fears and Concerns”. Table 5 lists the most common responsesfrom the engineering students. The course syllabus and handbook include topics addressingthese issues and may have influenced the students’ responses.Table 5 - Common answers to “Fears and Concerns” Questions Common Answers • Overwhelmed by
. “Design versus research in BME accreditation [ABET requirements and why research cannot substitute for design],” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 80–85, Apr. 2008.[15] “BME Design Course Syllabus and Outline,” Jan. 14, 2020, https://bmedesign.engr.wisc.edu/course/syllabus/.[16] G. N. Svarovsky and D. W. Shaffer. “Design meetings and design notebooks as tools for reflection in the engineering design course,” Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, Oct. 2006, pp. M2G-7-M2G-12, doi: 10.1109/FIE.2006.322548.[17] “Google,” 2020, https://www.google.com/.[18] “Google Scholar,” 2020, https://scholar.google.com/.[19] IEEE. “IEEE Xplore Digital
lecture, thestudents participated in an in-class activity during which they determined the most importantaspects of a molecular biosensor. The influence instructors have on students’ career choices is aphenomenon that has been noted (e.g., [13]). When instructors connect course content to theirown passions, perhaps students are more likely to attain the maintained situational interest phasedescribed by Hidi and Renninger [9].Respiratory Bioengineering and Biomanufacturing were two track codes that were never used. Itis curious, with the abundance of advertising related to respiratory issues and drug deliverymethods, that no topics were proposed in this category. Perhaps the fact that the class, andtherefore the topics listed on the syllabus, did
SustainableDevelopment sub-goals. Also in this section are the methods used to assess the programsusing both structured (e.g. reflection ladder described in Tranquillo, 2016) andunstructured prompts. Specific assignments and a timeline of topics and lectures aregiven in Appendices A and B.Senior Capstone IntroductionOver the past 12 years, teams of 2-3 students engaged in a design sprint as a kick-off tothe senior capstone (Tranquillo and Cavanagh, 2009). Rather than pass out a syllabus fora two-semester design capstone, the challenge served as an introduction to the course. Forthe past three years, the challenge has been driven by the UN Sustainable Development 7Goals