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
academic self-worth [4] and completion of training programs [5] andcurricula [6], and hardiness was identified by the faculty crafting the curriculum as a desiredattribute of both students within the curriculum and alumni of the curriculum.Curricular Structure At the heart of the new curriculum are three design studios. The first studio is an 8 credit hourcourse. It meets 4 days a week for 4, 50-minute class periods a day. The studio integratestypical freshmen courses that include design process, graphical communications, and rhetoricand writing. Each studio is focused around both individual and team design projects and supporta theme. The theme for Studio One is “Play for All.” Individual projects for Studio One includemachining a top, performing
consideration of vulnerable populations including age, gender, and race. The individualreview paper considers a biomechanics topic with a minimum of three peer-reviewedpublications and with further consideration of a selected vulnerable population. Finally, a teamproject uses OpenSim, a 3D biomechanics simulation software, to model a complexbiomechanical movement [5].Biomaterials Design is a new course offered at USD that was launched in the spring semester of2019. The objective of this course is to introduce students to the fundamentals of implantablebiomaterials. Course time is divided between lectures and discussions of scientific articlesrelated to biomaterials. During course lectures, the fundamental principles of biomaterials arepresented as well
Nucleo ECGsimulator program. Bottom trace is the IIR filter output.AssessmentThe following are the course learning outcomes. Students will be able to:1. Design and analyze a variety of FIR and IIR digital filters using a MATLAB program called UW DigiScope specially designed for this purpose.2. Implement these filters on a microcontroller platform for real-time processing of biomedical signals including electrocardiograms using the C/C++ language.3. Write real-time software to find significant features in biomedical signals including their own live ECGs from an ECG amplifier that they breadboarded in the course.4. Write software to implement specialized signal processing techniques such as time epoch signal averaging.In this new version
parameters were not sufficient to fully compare the two methods ofcolloidal stabilization. Students that did unsatisfactory (~9% of students) in comparing differentmethods of colloidal stabilization made conclusions that were not supported by the data theygenerated.Most students (~52%) performed satisfactorily on writing and assessing a hypothesis based onsurface modification of AuNPs. Unsatisfactory performance (~5% of students) were hypothesesthat were illogical or untestable. For instance, “BSA will be better than Pegylation because it is anatural protein”. An example of satisfactory (52%) but not excellent performance (43%) is ahypothesis that is testable based on their experimental tests, but perhaps they vaguely referred to“higher absorbance
looked upon by researchers, the case histories were intended to give thestudents an idea of all the different ramifications of the field of nanobiotechnology. Thus, the casehistories served as conclusions to the three or four classes spent on a specific subject. Typicalquestions that were asked during case history sessions include: 1. What was the state-of-the-art in the field before this paper was published? 2. Why is the research presented in this paper relevant to nanobiotechnology? 3. Critique the paper: if you had to write it, what would you keep, and what would you do differently? In a few cases, we also interviewed the first author of a case history paper. The interviewsaddressed two major topics: the paper itself, and
BME capstone design course. BMECore 1 will comprise biomechanics, instrumentation, and sensors; BME Core 2 will comprisebiophysics, biomaterials, and transport; and BME Core 3 will comprise modeling biologicalsystems and signals. BME Design course 0 will provide the fundamentals of the design processand engage students with small team-based design projects motivated by the clinical needs ofcolleagues in our adjacent medical school. Design courses 1 and 2 will cover regulatorystandards and validation testing, respectively. BME Design 3 will consist of small-scale, team-based collaborations to aid in the transition into Capstone Design, which is required during the4th year. An elective second capstone semester will focus on commercialization of
for Engineering Education, 2018 Work in Progress: Problem Based Learning in a Flipped Classroom Applied to Biomedical Instrumentation TeachingIntroductionBiomedical instrumentation is a required course in our Biomedical Engineering (BME) programfor all concentrations: electrical, mechanical, pre-med and tissue engineering. The course hasbeen part of the curriculum since its inception and it is part of a larger set of courses related withmedical devices, as shown in Figure 1. In the early years of the program, the required coursesincluded other courses taught by the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Department; itincluded courses such as electronics and linear circuits. With the evolution of the BME profession,the
used in biomechanical applications including knee and hip prosthetics;and a review of glass-ceramics, bioceramics and bioactive glasses. The courses aim to givestudents a broad understanding of fundamental materials science concepts as they relate tobiomedical engineering and arm them with the ability to select, with justification, an appropriatematerial for various biomedical applications.At university A, the course is taught twice a week in seventy five minute lectures. Twenty seniormechanical engineering students take the course as a technical elective. The prerequisite for thecourse is an introductory materials course that all mechanical engineering students are requiredto take generally during the fall of their sophomore year. The first
successfully improved student satisfaction and self-perceived understanding of coursematerial. This format also improved the delivery of content to students as assessed bymaintaining pertinence to the lab topics and clear understanding of learning concepts.Keywords: Inquiry-based learning; Flipped lecture; Laboratory modules; Active-learningIntroductionThe Biotransport Laboratory at Purdue University’s Weldon School of BiomedicalEngineering Program implements three main pedagogical learning methods, including inquiry-based, active-learning, and flipped-classroom strategies. Inquiry-based learning has beenstudied extensively and is reported to have positive impact on student performance and on theapplication of fundamental theory.1-4 Through this
Paper ID #30889Work in Progress: Engineering and Industrial Design Subteams for aMulti-Disciplinary Biomedical Engineering Design CourseMs. Erica M Comber, Carnegie Mellon University Erica Comber is a third-year doctorate candidate in the Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME) at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, PA. She received her B.S. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Delaware in Newark, DE. She is an NSF GRFP fellow conducting her PhD research at CMU on tissue engineering gas exchange channels to fabricate biomimetic, artificial lung devices. Erica is a recipient of the 2020 American
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Facilitating student metacognition using exam wrappers and concept maps in a problem-solving-based BME courseAbstractAt University of California Davis (UC Davis), Fundamentals of Bioengineering is a required 2ndyear Biomedical Engineering course aimed to address fundamental bioengineering conceptsthrough the application of conservation principles to biomedical engineering problems. Thiscourse serves as a prerequisite course for the upper-division courses in which subsequent coursesrely on students’ content knowledge from this course. We are therefore continually improvingmethods to make content more accessible from a learning perspective
previouslyunknown, fundamental engineering relationships for students[9, 10]. One challenging piece ofanecdotal evidence, however, is that students prefer traditional pedagogy (i.e. direct instruction,lecture) and will resist IBL[11]. The purpose of this study was to assess students’ preferences forclass and instruction methodology. Comparison of students’ opinions (and the evolution thereof)in two distinct environments (standard on-campus, and accelerated study-abroad formats)provided qualitative and quantitative evidence for areas of challenge and synergy with IBL andsemester structure.The goal of this study was to assess the following sequence of hypotheses systematically: 1. Students’ preferences for class style and instruction methods are in
Paper ID #30827Benefits of Long Distance Collaboration in Higher Education Institutionsto Train Students in Innovation PracticesMary Pearson, North Dakota State University Mary is a Ph.D. candidate in biomedical engineering with research focused in the area of bioelectromag- netics, specifically designing electronics that can be used as medical devices. She obtained her B.S. and M.S. degrees at NDSU in electrical and computer engineering. Mary is also interested in STEM education research.Ms. Lauren Singelmann, North Dakota State University Lauren Singelmann is a Masters Student in Electrical and Computer Engineering at
Paper ID #21704The Influence of an Externship on BME Predoctoral Students’ Career Devel-opmentMs. Julia N. Savoy, University of Wisconsin-Madison Julia N. Savoy, M.S., is an Assistant Researcher in the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Univer- sity of Wisconsin-Madison. One aspect of her research examines the effects of professional development participation on the career pathways of doctoral students, postdoctoral scholars, and early-career faculty.Prof. Mia K. Markey, The University of Texas at Austin Dr. Mia K. Markey is a Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Engineering Foundation Endowed Faculty Fellow in
ASEE Conference in New Orleans.8-9 This introduced the con-cept of classroom reflective exercises. That participation led to the publication of a short CPREEactivity guide on the topic of story writing as a tool for enhancing engineering education.4 Thisalso formed the basis of a companion paper at this ASEE Conference.10 The instructor receivedone of 8 CPREE mini-grants at his university. He implemented reflective practices in BR200.4From the CPREE Website:9 The ultimate goal of the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education is [to target] an essential but oft-neglected component for effective learning: reflection. Reflecting, or exploring the meaning of experiences and consequences for future action
variety of subjectmatters in different class environments.The desire for hands-on activities was evident in Quantitative Systems Physiology, a required, 1-semester, sophomore-level course in our BME curriculum. The class size is approximately 60students. In this course, students learn how engineering fundamentals (e.g., mass transport, fluidmechanics, linear and non-linear tissue responses, gas exchange and solubility, ion transport, andmathematical models) apply to the cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal systems of the humanbody. In the same survey, 95% of respondents agreed strongly (54/91 responses) or somewhat(32/91 responses) that a hands-on module that depicts fluid flow through channels, mimickingthe circulatory system, would benefit
5 FS BME 674 Medical Imaging 3 S CIS 200 Programming Fundamentals 4 FS ECE 512 Linear Systems 3 FS ECE 540 Applied Scientific Computing for Engineers 3 FS ECE 772/3 Theory & Techniques of Bioinstrumentation Lecture/Lab 3 F Sub‐Total Credit Hours 36 COMMUNICATION CORE Credits Semester ENGL 100 Expository Writing 1