A scoping review found nine papers that examined how BME undergraduate coursesaddressed HD. The review revealed that the incorporation of HD often happens in a single courseas opposed to multiple courses across the four-year curriculum. While two papers focused onincorporating HD throughout the four-year curriculum [9], [17] and one described a global healthdisparities minor [16], the remaining six papers focused on individual courses at different stagesof the curriculum (first year [10], [15], middle years [12]-[15] and last year [11], [15]).Additionally, approaches to incorporating HD vary. Some studies introduced HD topics asadditional modules in a course [10], [11], [15] whereas some studies incorporated HD topics inlesson plans and
without changes in outcome. A self-evaluation can be an obstacle for many students[4].Allowing students to make errors and then reflect on why these occurred has been shown topositively impact learning [5]. By articulating the “whys” and “hows” of errors and finding gapsin thought processes and/or incorrect learnings, students can refine their understanding of coursecontent. In this work-in-progress study, we hypothesize that the use of metacognitive tools suchas exam error classification and progress planning in a sophomore level core curriculumphysiology course will lead to more deep/strategic learning and engagement (as opposed tosuperficial/apathetic learning engagement). Furthermore, the evolution of perceived studentstrengths and weaknesses
use of their own metacognitive skillsthrough self-reporting and intends to expand on instructor-guided future implementation ofpedagogical interventions that support student’s metacognitive skills.Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in the theoretical framework presented in Fostering Metacognitionto Support Student Learning and Performance [4], which defines metacognition as an individual'sawareness and understanding of their own cognitive processes. Metacognition is conceptualized intwo interrelated domains: (1) metacognitive knowledge, which encompasses declarative,procedural, and conditional knowledge, and (2) metacognitive regulation, which involves theprocesses of planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s cognitive
connections.Challenges Faced:It should be made clear that the students are expected to lead the interactions with their mentors.The first year of our program, some students, especially the younger ones saw the mentorssimilar to their faculty members. Since their only previous experience was in a classroom setting,they would show up to a meeting with the mentor and expect the mentor to teach them theknowledge they need like a professor with a lesson plan. To combat this, the application wasupdated to include questions about what the student wanted to get out of the year-longexperience and what questions they planned to ask their mentor so that they are thinking of thesetopics ahead of time. The program announcement and the application also now contain
pages of data.We are using NVivo software to analyze these transcripts, applying the components of SCCT asa priori codes. After we complete this round of coding, we plan to inductively code the data tocatch any relevant data that may not directly map to SCCT. Finally, we will review the data inthese codes as a team for salient themes and answers to our research questions.Preliminary Results and DiscussionThe data have so far confirmed our previous findings. Multiple participants expressed beingunaware of Quality Engineering and related fields as undergraduates. Some participants learnedabout QE through career fairs and networking as undergraduates. The participants viewed R&Dengineering as the most coveted role for BMEs whether or not they
their client. We facilitated relationship-building activities, such as team icebreakers,group lunches, car rides, immersive brainstorming sessions, and informal chats with the clientover snacks and drinks. As the sprint evolved, we observed the students and client becomingincreasingly comfortable sharing ideas and suggestions with each other.For future program iterations, we aim to expand our collection of program assessment data intwo key ways. First, we would expand the post-program longitudinal data collection , enablinganalysis of the impact of the design sprint on student success during senior capstone. We plan toexpand our data collection to include CATME team assessments throughout the academicsemester, which will provide insights on
excited to see links between theirmath and physiology course content. We plan to provide better priming and scaffolding here in future versions.When the code is complete, it generates a confusion chart, inference run time, and test accuracy (Figure 3).Students then enter that information into the Google Spreadsheet (Figure 4) and a cross-class summary is againgenerated (Figure 5). Finally, students are asked to put themselves in the shoes of clinicians and asked whetherthey would rely on this diagnostic tool to guide treatment, and what physiological consequences may resultfrom a treatment choice based on an incorrect diagnosis. We noted that the model trained on raw ECGsperforms at a level that is above the level of most clinicians but below the
across six corecourses and one advanced technical elective in an undergraduate biomedical engineering (BME)program curriculum. Our collaborative autoethnography examines the following researchquestions (RQ):RQ1: Why do faculty revise their BME courses to incorporate health equity concepts?RQ2: How do BME faculty integrate health equity concepts into undergraduate BME courses?RQ3: What best practices can be illuminated to support further health equity-focused curricularreform?Conceptual Framework: The Academic PlanTo establish a shared vocabulary for exploration of our research questions, we leverage Lattucaand Stark’s [23] Academic Plan Model to underpin our collaborative reflections. The AcademicPlan Model is a framework for understanding
terms of 50%. We plan tocontinue to collect data each time the course is offered to strengthen the sample size. That beingsaid, the results are no less valid in the students' experiences in this course. This has encouragedus to use proficiency-based grading in other courses. We also acknowledge that two differentsurveys were used across the two courses. The first pilot survey was quite simple and was usedto determine whether further research would be done on student learning with proficiency-basedgrading. Given the positive responses, a more thorough survey was developed for the secondoffering. This survey will be used in future course offerings enabling us to aggregate our data.Another limitation of our work is that we do not have longitudinal
andintegrate criticism into improved product outcomes.Additionally, following each studio, students wereasked to submit a 1–2-page reflection detailing theirexperience, as outlined below.Data Collection: Student Reflections. Studentsreflected on their studio experience through twosections: Observations of Other Teams' Work andPersonal Reflections (Appendix List 1). The firstsection encouraged students to critically evaluateothers' work, identifying best practices to enhancetheir own team's performance. In the secondsection, students reflected on their personalexperiences, exploring what they found mostinteresting, challenges faced, and how they plan toapply their learnings. The assignment was graded for Figure 1. Conceptual framework usedcompletion
course schedule (Table 3.1) includes preparation for professional andethical conduct in a clinical setting, opportunities for sharing and dissemination of experiences,training in engineering design cycle, prototyping, and module development for future work.Table 3.1: Weekly schedule for SIDE course. Course plan includes preparatory training forprofessionalism and professional conduct in a clinical setting, as well as reporting from clinicalexperiences, and integration of clinical experiences into the product development lifecycle. Week Content Reporting/Submissions 1 Introduction, Responsible Conduct in Research, Ethics CITI Certification
student reflections on their experiences in BME 2081. However,further iterations are needed to address specific areas for improvement.This is only a preliminary analysis and looking ahead, we plan to use longitudinalmixed-methods to triangulate the long-term impact of this course transformation using courseartifacts, surveys, and focus groups/interviews as students continue their careers through seniordesign and beyond. This preliminary analysis is limited by the fact that we only used courseartifacts which were graded assignments and therefore could impart some bias due to powerdynamics or hesitancy to speak freely. As we continue this course transformation, we areinterested in investigating students' thoughts on the importance and intrinsic
protocol is set up as a worksheet with guiding questions, prompts,and space to brainstorm figures. These worksheets are designed to inform their data analysis,discussion, and figure generation in the report. The worksheets are collected and graded for effort,and TAs provide clear and detailed feedback identifying incorrect interpretations of data orinappropriately formatted figures - guiding students to make smart decisions in their written report.Specifically, feedback is given on hypotheses, theorized mechanisms behind the findings, dataentry tables, figure design, and statistical plans. The number of questions and associated points onthe worksheet (Table 1) decreases from the first lab (many required questions, thirty points) to thelast lab
to offer a variety of learningopportunities for students [10], [19]. This need to be flexible and adaptable around variousaspects of educational programming in the K-12 space can be evidenced in many ways. Forinstance, a planned workshop could not come to fruition due to scheduling conflicts in theclassroom. Leaf Chromatography was initially planned at the midpoint of the series, whenstudents were learning about plant cells and chlorophyll in their science class. Though theprepared slidedeck and protocol were not tested in the classroom, this workshop’s documents areshared alongside the other Mobile Bioengineering Lab deliverables on the website.Overall, the post-workshop survey results exhibited generally positive attitudes toward
students, especially in large introductorycourses, which is where many underrepresented students who planned to major in engineeringdecide to leave the major. BME programs may be particularly susceptible to losing students inprerequisite coursework, as students must take prerequisite courses in the typical pre-engineeringareas, such as math and physics, in addition to extensive coursework in chemistry and biology.ResultsWe distributed a survey to 85 BME students and received 40 responses, including upper-divisionstudents already in our major and lower-division pre-major students who are currently enrolledin an introductory prerequisite course in a different department. Of these, 10 volunteered to sharerepresentative examples of their notes, and 4
effort to learn in the course.Throughout this project, students learned a multitude of technical and soft skills (3D printing,working with CT scans, the engineering design process, teamwork, project planning, and timemanagement). Student feedback regarding the project has been incredibly positive after the firstyear. The second iteration with a new student group just started in Fall 2024, with the list ofaddressed organs/anatomy continuing to grow.References[1] “ Nordic Thingy:52,” Accessed Jan 17, 2024. [online] https://www.nordicsemi.com/Products/Development-hardware/Nordic-Thingy-52.[2] Warren, K. N., & Carlson, C., & Warren, S. (2020, June), A Survey of Biomedical Design Projects to Inform Skill Development in a New
processes [2]. For this reason, it isalso important to carefully design hands-on activities to promote a positive interest andmotivation in students to perform the activity and hence to learn from it [3] [4]. Teachingmodules can be created to increase student learning in STEM concepts, using activities thatstudents can enjoy while learning mathematical reasoning [5], suggesting that this can be used topromote conceptual learning and retention. Moreover, well-planned workshops can also helpimprove scientific skills, promoting a better understanding of STEM concepts [6]. This workhypothesizes that teaching modules that include hands-on activities can enhance conceptretention in the BME field, by allowing students to learn and retain the concepts to
and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Dr. Feldman developed informatics metrics to quantify performance of clinicians when using digital diagnostic tools. He has published in Radiology, Academic Radiology, IS&T, SPIE, and RESNA. As a Latino and native Spanish speaker, born in Peru, Dr. Feldman has created markets and commercialized innovative telemedicine products in Latin America for medical device companies, including Orex Computed Radiography, Kodak Health Group, and ICRco. Dr. Feldman also served as Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program where he led the strategic planning and migration to EPIC Electronic Health Records system and novel meaningful use implementations through
scheduled ending time listed (and maintained) would be helpful, fororganizational/planning purposes. Personally, also, I don't like being on campus that late, and mostclasses don't end as late as 5:00, so perhaps holding it a little earlier (to lessen the gap between whenclass ends/when students can leave campus) might be more convenient as wellSee above.I think following the microfluidics lecture, over the course of the years as this elective improves having a30-minute hands-on session is a great learning experience that makes students be able to apply thatlearning. I wish we had that chance (e.g. CAD), for students who've never actually designed to printsomething to actually design and send something to the printer & receive it on the
2024 and 2025 who are enrolled in two courses at Meinig School ofBiomedical Engineering, Cornell University: Course 1: BME 4010 Biomedical EngineeringAnalysis of Metabolic and Structural Systems (Fall ’23 and ’24) and Course 2: BME 4020Electrical and Chemical Physiology (Spring ’24 and ’25). This report presents data from Fall ’23and Spring ’24, with ongoing collection planned for Fall ’24 and Spring ’25. Students scoredtheir physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization needs based ontheir experiences. The IRB at Cornell University approved this study for voluntary participation.(IRB Approval #0146842).The primary research questions we pursued during the study include: RQ1. RQ1. What is the level of satisfaction
responses arereported below. N=19 (except for statements 1 and 3, where N=18).From this week’s module, I became more confident in…Statement Avg ± Std1. Providing equal opportunities of ML-based medical devices to all groups of people. 5.28 ± 0.672. Taking action to prevent reproduction/maintenance of inequalities in machine learning. 4.74 ± 0.933. Designing, implementing, and assessing ML plans with a DEI perspective. 5.11 ± 0.904. Conveying values in DEI issues in ML. 5.16 ± 0.695. Educating ML engineers on DEI issues. 5.05
structurethat allows for limited absences without additional steps or requirements. These findings promptus to further explore students’ motivations for attending class. Specifically, we aim to investigatewhether her attendance decisions are driven more by intrinsic motivation (e.g., a desire to engagein learning) or extrinsic motivation (e.g., a desire to earn a good grade). Understanding thisdistinction could help clarify why she perceived the creative solution policy as less fair or suitabledespite its flexibility.FUTURE WORK. To build on these insights, we plan to refine our interview protocol to includemore direct opportunities for students to describe other “middle ground” attendance policies theyhave experienced. Additionally, we will encourage
. Introduction and Educational Research GoalReverse engineering is a process whereby a person deconstructs a device to better understandhow it operates, including features that enable its capabilities [1–4]. Motivations for such anendeavor include the desire to repair a device, a plan to update the device functionality, or anaspiration to identify the design elements that are publicly disclosed given their presence in amarketed physical product. Deconstruction of physical hardware and its documentation are oftenreferred to as a “teardown” – a process that is legal and encouraged in industry, though thesubsequent use of the lessons learned is limited [5]. While teardowns play a prominent role in themedical device industry, including as a means to keep
accuracy, changes in responses, and possible issues with response repeatability raises thequestion of whether a virtual teaching assistant application of Generative AI requires furtherdevelopment.In our limited experience of this study, it was understood from the varied responses of thestudents that if one plans to use Generative AI as a tool in their courses, there is a need tostreamline the prompts to generate a response that aligns well with the requirements of thecourse. As a tool, there is always the difficulty of threading a line between ethical use andmisuse. It might be prudent for the instructor to follow some of these steps: 1. Clearly state that students are allowed to use Generative AI (ChatGPT) to solve or answer questions in a
assess the impact of the BSI onspecific underrepresented groups. In future work, we plan to assess the data by gender and othermarginalized identities to better understand the experiences of underrepresented students.Participation in the student experience survey was voluntary, and survey results may not havebeen representative of the experiences of all BSI alumni. There was less representation fromstudents in earlier cohorts of the program, with no responses from students in the 2019 cohort.However, more recent feedback will allow for iterative improvement of the current offering ofthe BSI.ConclusionThe success of the majority of BSI students in their engineering programs is highly encouraging,with most students successfully transitioning into
academic review process. Confidence in research created by academics isespecially important in the era of ‘doing your own research’, and thus educating all students, notjust those with academic career plans, on the research publication process is important.While current literature (journal articles) is the basis for course discussion and course materials,as due to the nascency of the field there are few texts specifically focused on teaching softrobotics design. In this updated offering, we experimented with providing students with relevantjournal articles, recorded talks, and a podcast from the same author. During the COVID-19pandemic, we were able to have students attend free, virtual conferences during the course.While these opportunities have
did not influence responses to later ones,a general interview protocol was followed that prioritized open-ended questions that allowed fornatural flow in the conversations. Because many alumni did not end up pursuing a career inacademia where grant writing would have been an intensive focus, an additional survey questionwas included regarding budgeting. The final interview questions are displayed below in Table 2,with questions ordered as planned to be introduced, though each interview was a conversationand at times interviewees brought up topics in a different order.Table 2. Final Version of Alumni Interview Questions # Question Category 1 What made you choose the course(s)? 2 Since
and plan for long-term stability andexpansion of the stakeholder cafe student-stakeholder interaction model.Improvements to the Student-Stakeholder Interaction ModelThe overall framework of the student-stakeholder interaction model remained unchanged fromFall 2023 to Fall 2024, and the overall process is shown in Figure 1 [CEEA 2024]. Key changeswere made to the preparatory student workshop and student-stakeholder conversations.Fig. 1. Student-stakeholder interaction model process [19]For the preparatory workshop, the core goal of preparing students for the student-stakeholderconversation and associated content remained essentially unchanged by explaining event rules,reminding students of best practices, and providing an opportunity for