Paper ID #43278Work in Progress: Factors Influencing Career Choice and Success in UndergraduateBME StudentsDr. Tyler George Harvey, Clemson University Tyler G. Harvey is a Lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Clemson University, where he also received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. His teaching focus is at the undergraduate level and includes a variety of required and elective courses including capstone design, bioinstrumentation, and biomechanics. His research interests are in developing outreach programs which increase interest in engineering, especially from underrepresented students and alternative methods of
Paper ID #44315Longitudinal Analysis of Strategies for Improving Biomedical EngineeringStudent Knowledge of Career Paths and Desired SkillsetsDr. Rebecca Anne Scott, University of Oklahoma Rebecca Scott is an Assistant Professor in the Stephenson School of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. She received her B.S. (2010) in Biomedical Engineering from Saint Louis University and her Ph.D. (2014) in Biomedical Engineering from Purdue University.Alex Nelson Frickenstein, University of Oklahoma Alex Frickenstein is an Assistant Professor in the Stephenson School of Biomedical Engineering at the University of
Paper ID #43911Take this Job and Love It: Identity-Conscious Self-Reflection as a Tool toSupport Individualized Career Exploration for Graduating Biomedical EngineeringStudentsDr. Uri Feldman, Wentworth Institute of Technology Uri Feldman is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering in the School of Engineering at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston. He received a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab, a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. As a
pre-college experiences on student career paths, and 2) engineering identity/experiences for the LBGTQ+ community.Dr. Yanfen Li, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Dr. Yanfen Li is an Assistant Professor in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. She received her Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign in 2018. Dr. Li has extensive experience in engineering education focusing on recruitment and retention of underrepresented and under resourced students and engineering pedagogy. Her work spans the areas of curriculum instruction and design, program design and evaluation, and the first-year college experience. Dr Li’s research group aims to further the
Bioengineering/Biomedical Engineering. She focuses on identifying and evaluating mechanisms to enhance the educational experience and develop students into engineers and researchers. Her work includes interventions to enhance training for high school students, undergraduate students, and predoctoral (graduate students) and postdoctoral trainees through training programs such as NIH T32s. These programs include curricular, extracurricular, and professional and career development components with required evaluation and tracking of student participants.Prof. Rohit Bhargava Rohit Bhargava is Bliss Faculty Scholar of Engineering and Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a faculty member with
disciplines [2]. Engineering curriculums typically well-incorporate fundamentalinstruction through required introductory applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, computerscience, and engineering design coursework. However, exposure to multiple disciplines is oftenoverlooked in the process of developing engineering curriculums [3-5]. Given that majorselection is typically done in students’ first and second years [6-11], sufficient exposure toresearch, career/internship, alumni/professional experiences, and ethical/social insights isespecially important early in college. This will enable students to better choose majors/careersthat align with their interests and aptitudes [12-13]. Engineers stand to acquire many benefitsfrom an interdisciplinary
undergraduate research, equitable science education, and professional development for early career scientist.Alyssa A BurgerEmily Goff, University of Minnesota - Twin CitiesCatherine HeremansChristopher Hogan, University of Minnesota, Twin CitiesGina Ristani, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities I am pursuing my PhD in psychological foundations of education, specifically, learning and cognition. I am currently conducting research on using what we know about expert problem-solving for improving novice persistence in the face of failure, and separately how different types of feedback affects student programming outcomes and computing attitudes. My research interests involve learning how to make science more accessible and
. • Increase students’ industry-relevant skills (described in the course learning goals). • Introduce students to the variety of career opportunities within medical devices industry.The scope of this Work in Progress is to describe students’ perceptions of the pilot course.Course DescriptionBMEG260: Introduction to Medical Device Design was piloted as an elective in spring 2022 andenrolled 10 students, prior to becoming a required course for all sophomore-level BMEundergraduates in spring 2023. Students were notified about the pilot through emails sent to allBME undergraduates; any second year BME was eligible to register. The course learning goalsand performance indicators are provided in Appendix A.To achieve these learning goals, students worked
approach may leave students unsure about potential careers [3], since itoften does not include integrating innovation, ideation, and developing new products, which arecrucial areas within the cutting-edge BME field [1], [4].One way to improve BME students’ confidence in their career preparation has been to introducethem to undergraduate research in BME-specific areas, such as research experience forundergraduates (REU) programs [5], [6], [7], as a way to encourage them to pursue graduate-level research and apply their curricular knowledge to practice [2], [8]. Generally, REUprograms have encouraged development of communication skills through both oral presentationand writing technical research, laboratory and computer skills, and collaboration
Areas of Technical Reading,Writing, and PresentingThe pre-course survey questions are listed in Appendix 5.1. Students are asked to complete thesurvey after the first lecture is given and before students work on and submit their firstassignment. Majority of the questions focus on gauging what kind of background andunderstanding students have with respect to technical reading, writing, and presenting. It is alsointeresting to see what career paths the students are interested in at the time they complete thesurvey and how important they think communication skills will be in their future careers. Finally,there are two questions related to student use of generative AI tools prior to the course: firstabout how often students use generative AI tools
recently compiled byGuilford and colleagues [22].At University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), our clinical immersion program (CIP) started as a six-week program solely for rising-senior biomedical engineers to rotate through two clinicenvironments [23]. The program was later expanded to include interdisciplinary teaming withrising-second year medical students [24], and again later to refocus on a single clinicalenvironment and incorporate conceptual development related to identified needs [25]. Ingeneral, students reported that our program impacted their career interests and ability to find ajob after graduation [26]. However, despite all these curricular innovations, clinical immersionexperiences to train students to identify unmet needs ripe for
undergraduate programs provide a foundation of didactic education forstudents to prepare them for a variety of post-graduate career paths including medicine,biotechnology, research, and entrepreneurship. Senior design (also called “capstone”) coursesserve a crucial role in helping to prepare bioengineering students for many career options. Thesecourses also serve to directly address several ABET criteria for engineering programs such asgeneral Criterion 5d: “a culminating major engineering design experience”. Senior designcourses also provide a rich platform to deliver many other ABET program criteria includingfunctioning effectively in a collaborative team, conducting appropriate experimentation andanalysis, and applying new knowledge with appropriate
emphasizing essential ethical virtues. Through this, we foster anappreciation among students and faculty on ethical codes of conduct and character traits we hopebiomedical engineers will uphold in their careers, preparing them to navigate complex ethicaldilemmas with confidence and integrity.The journey commences in Year 1 with a focus on humility. Students are encouraged to balancethe inherent challenges of failure with the pursuit of truth, laying the foundation for a humbleand resilient ethical mindset. Year 2 amplifies the journey with curiosity, urging students toexplore the origins of materials and contemplate the consequences of their use, irrespective ofutility. This curiosity fosters a deep understanding of ethical implications, encouraging
background in his future career in veterinary medicine via research and development in this field.Dr. Mostafa Elsaadany, University of Arkansas Dr. Mostafa Elsaadany is a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Elsaadany teaches Introduction to Biomedical Engineering, Biomechanical Engineering, Biomolecular Engineering, Senior Design, and Entrepreneurial Bioengineering. He is active in Engineering Education Research, where he studies different mentoring strategies to ensure historically marginalized groups’ academic and professional success. Further, he studies strategies for instilling the entrepreneurial mindset in engineering students and innovative
engineering is what makes it smore difficult to understand.” As shown in the qualitative data, students mostly emphasized concern that it is not thecontent that is complex; instead, it is the amount of content relayed in the course and the limitedopportunities to engage in dialogue. The response from this survey further demonstrates thatthere is difficulty in translating academic concepts into practical problem-solving approachesrelevant to the complex challenges they may encounter in their future engineering careers if thereis not ample opportunity to apply and discuss conceptual knowledge. These insights provided bythe student comments highlight students’ perceived need to receive additional opportunities tocritically analyze the
(2015). Engineering innovation in healthcare: technology, ethics, and persons. Hum Reprod & Gen Ethics 17(2) 3. D Leonard and JF Rayport (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1997 4. F.O. Karatas, G.M. Bodner, S. Unal, “First-year engineering students’ views of the nature of engineering: implications for engineering programmes,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 1, 2016. 5. National Academy of Engineering, “Major Findings & Recommendations. Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers,” 2018. 6. Laverty JT, Tessmer S, Cooper MM, Caballero MD. “Engaging physics faculty in course transformation.” Physics
Paper ID #41245Implementation and Evaluation of Experiential Learning to Reinforce Research& Development Skills in a Biopharmaceutical Process Development CourseDr. Deborah Sweet Goldberg, University of Maryland, College Park Deborah S. Goldberg is a full-time senior lecturer in the Fischell Department of Bioengineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is passionate about teaching and mentoring students to prepare them for diverse careers in bioengineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Implementation and Evaluation of Experiential Learning to
Network (KEEN).References1 Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., van Baalen, S.,Klaassen, R., and Boon, M.: ‘Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision,teaching, and support’, Journal of Engineering Education, 2020, 109, (3), pp. 508-5552 Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J.C., HernándezAlcántara, D., and Morales-Menendez, R.: ‘Active learning in engineering education. A reviewof fundamentals, best practices and experiences’, International Journal on Interactive Design andManufacturing (IJIDeM), 2019, 13, (3), pp. 909-9223 Makki, B.I., Feng, F., Waqar, M.A., and Adhikari, I.M.: ‘Work Readiness, Decision-Making Self-Efficacy, and Career Exploration among
understanding diseases, properties of new materials, manufacturing methods,bioinstrumentation, sensors, drug delivery, among others. All these concepts supported not only abetter understanding of requirements but also the development of more detailed solutionsregarding technical descriptions.Being a specialized course, most undergraduate students took it in their career final year. Forgraduate students, most took it as it was related to their current research topics. When comparingthe methodology of this course with others taken, most students compared it with Senior Designor Capstone design courses. Some of the most relevant comments were:"The iterative design process used in this course compared to the ones used in other courses isthat the iterative
choosing biomaterials to design a medical “Strengths of this course included the in- device. The course felt exceedingly relevant to person cytotoxicity lab we conducted. I my career as a biomedical engineer.” enjoyed the hands-on experience we got.” “Final project was really interesting, I wish we devoted more time to it. Maybe longer debates or debates across multiple days” Table 2. All student comments related to the active learning modules from end of year course evaluations.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSIn conclusion, our study demonstrates the