(pp. 1-8). IEEE. 2. Glassey, J., Novakovic, K., & Parr, M. (2013). Enquiry based learning in chemical engineering curriculum supported by computer aided delivery. Education for Chemical Engineers, 8(3), e87-e93. 3. Gomes, V. G., Barton, G. W., Petrie, J. G., Romagnoli, J., Holt, P., Abbas, A., Cohen, B., Harris, A.T., Haynes, B.S., Langrish, T.A.G., Orellana, J.,See, H.T., Valix, M., & White, D.. (2006). Chemical engineering curriculum renewal. Education for Chemical Engineers, 1(1), 116-125. 4. Grant, C. D., & Dickson, B. R. (2006). Personal skills in chemical engineering graduates: the development of skills within degree programmes to meet the needs of employers. Education for Chemical
themachieve a more in-depth understanding of the material (rather than just memorizing information).Since teaching requires a basic understanding of the material and a plan for conveying thismaterial, teachers often learn by (a) reviewing: working with the material while preparing toteach another, and (b) reformulating: organizing the content in a meaningful way that associatesthe material with what the student already knows. Research suggests that learning by teachingalso helps improve communication skills and that it provides the students with an opportunity toexperience realistic social interactions while applying their content knowledge in an appropriatelearning environment5, 10.Description of the Systems Physiology LaboratoryThe Systems
address some of these issues. After the 2014 changes, the Committee notedthat the reduction in scores for outcomes a, b, and d were a result of the greater flexibility in thenew design project solution, however this decline did not persist. Overall scores in the last twoyears for sophomores have been high (above four, which is the benchmark expectation for seniorperformance). A potential major contributing factor beyond the course improvements isconsistency – all students in BME 201 have very similar experiences, i.e., same client, sameadvisor, same project and same resources. The students are allowed to explore and develop theirideas within these confines, thus eliminating any complicating factors or influences onperformance due to varying
work was correctly done), and “learning” was anoverarching score that took into account the students’ ability to synthesize their knowledge andthe techniques they applied in the module to truly understand not only what they did, but why itwas important. All 9 students did well on these oral midterms and demonstrated solidunderstanding of the labs, techniques, and underlying concepts (grades ranging from B to A+).Final Written Examination: At the end of the semester, enrolled students took a three-hourwritten examination which not only covered all three modules, but also asked the students tointegrate modeling approaches from among the three scales to demonstrate their appreciation forthe challenges and possibilities associated with multi-scale
system provides another means for the students to askquestions and share ideas and problems many of which may not have been expressed due to thegeneral student-professor comfort levels. The PAL system is a good educational method toincorporate into a laboratory setting and greatly facilitated the learning process.Bibliography1. ABET: Engineering Criteria (http://www.abet.org/criteria.html).2. Martin, D, Arendale D et al. (1992). Supplemental Instruction: Improving First Year Student Success in HighRisk Courses. University of South Carolina Monograph Series, No. 7.3. McCarthy, A, Smutus, B and Crosser, M. (1997). Assessing the Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction: acritique and a case study. Research into Higher Education, 221-231
. Roselli R, Brophy S. Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. Journal of EngineeringEducation 2006;95:311-324.7. Kolikant Y-D, Linsenmeier R, Hirsch P, Gatchell D. A cognitive-apprenticeship-inspired instructionapproach for teaching scientific writing and reading. Journal of College Science Teaching 2006; 36:20-25.8. Kolikant Y-D, McKenna A, Yalvac B. The emergence of a community of practice in engineeringeducation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2007; :7-16.9. Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R (eds). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and SchoolWashington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.10. Martin T, Petrosino AJ, Rivale S, Diller K. The development of adaptive expertise in biotransport
Paper ID #12298Evaluation of a Nine Year Summer Undergraduate Research Program inBiomedical EngineeringDr. Eric M Brey, Illinois Institute of TechnologyMegan F. Campanile, Illinois Institute of TechnologyDr. Norman G Lederman, Illinois Institute of Technology Dr. Lederman is internationally known for his research on teachers’ and students’ conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry. He is currently Editor of the Journal of Science Teacher Education Page 26.695.1 c American Society for
, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 63, pp. 10-174. Choy, S.J., McNickle, C., and Clayton, B. (2002) Learner Expectations and Experiences. Student Views of Support in Online Learning. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. pp. 106-1225. Hattie, J., Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77 (1), pp. 81-1126. Shaeiwitz, J.A. (1998) Classroom Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education. 87 (2), pp. 179-1837. Cross, K.P., Angelo T.A. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA8. King, D.B. (2011) Using Clickers to Identify the Muddiest Points in Large Chemistry Classes. Journal of Chemical Education. 88, pp. 1485
Paper ID #16778The Medical Device Sandbox: A Creative Learning Experience for BME Stu-dents and Medical LearnersDr. Rachael Schmedlen, University of Michigan Rachael Schmedlen is a Lecturer IV in the Biomedical Engineering Department at the University of Michi- gan. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from Rice University. Over the past ten years, Dr. Schmedlen has played a critical role in evolving the U-M biomedical engineering undergraduate curriculum, particularly the BME Design Program. Passionate about expanding engaged, active
Ultrasound and Image Processing: To gain anintroduction into BME imaging, the students perform B-mode ultrasound imaging with a singletransducer. The transducer moves along a motorized stage over a phantom, and the motor andthe transducer data (collected via an oscilloscope) are coordinated using LabVIEW.Additionally, transducers having different focal depths are used to collect data so that thestudents can learn the effect of focal depth on the final reconstructed image. This lab not onlyteaches the principles of ultrasound imaging, but also a simple control system in LabVIEW. Thestudents are given a non-functioning version of a LabVIEW interface, and they must add thecomponents necessary for the system to operate correctly. The data are then
(s) that will becovered in that day’s readings and lesson, by adding lesson objectives the students gain insightabove and beyond the topic to be covered. As a primary example, consider one of the lessons inthe Biomaterials course that focuses on corrosion. Instead of telling the students that today’slesson will cover concepts simply related to corrosion, and that they should study the assignedreading prior to the lesson, the following lesson objectives are also listed: a. Explain the thermodynamic reason for corrosion and develop the Nernst Equation. b. Analyze Evans plots and polarization curves to better understand corrosion rates. c. Discuss the various types of corrosion, and understand the differences between them.Hopefully it is
pounds of force on a volunteer’s deltoids). What is the benefit of such a design?” The same question was asked on the quizzes in 2012, 2014 and 2015. “How many unknowns can one have in a 2D equilibrium problem (without being statically indeterminate)? How many in a 3D equilibrium problem? Explain why we can only have this many unknowns.” And “For vectors a and b, what is the difference between a x b and b x a? Why is it important for calculating moments?” These exact same two questions were given in 2012.Statistics: Results from the three offerings were compared using one-way ANOVA on ranks withp<0.05 considered significant. When significant effect found, pairwise
session. Thus, in addition to the online preparation throughout thesemester, students are motivated to review the material prior to each practice. One of the lastworkshops of the residency program is a design challenge, where students draw from their priorlearning to come up with solutions to healthcare problems they’ve observed in their clinicalworkshops. The final week of the course is used to integrate themes across the course.Figure 3: Details of the online structure for Module 2 on Myocardial Contractility and the EKG.Each module has one week of online preparation, and one day of the on-site residency. In Unit Aof Module 2, students record from an isolated frog heart to demonstrate the Frank-Starling law.In Unit B, students use a bread board
to TTL levels for devicecontrol. For engineering programs that lack resources for extensive neural interface research,this game offer a less expensive, but no less educational, laboratory experience forundergraduates. The possibility for adaptation of these toys to control various devices for neuralinterface demonstrations is limited only by the imagination of an engineer.References (note to reviewers - references need formatted to ASEE standards)1 Reyes, Janet F. and Tosunoglu, Sabri, “An Overview of Brain-Computer Interface Technology Applications in Robotics” Florida Conference on Recent Advances in Robotics. May 2011.2 Velliste, Meel; Perel, Sagi; Spalding, M. Chance; Whitford, Andrew S.; Schwartz, Andrew B. “Cortical control of
: jmajdans@.edu Or Professor Hazelwood Page 12.7.12APPENDIX B: INFO SESSIONRe: Sports Medicine Research Launch!Hey Gang,Welcome back to Stevens! We hope you had a great holiday break and that you are ready for avery exciting and rewarding semester.Thanks for volunteering to be a subject in the "Biomed Shred" fitness project. Your participationputs you into the elite class of charter membership on the Sports Medicine Research Team. Moreimportantly, your help in this project should enable us to develop some very importantinformation that could potentially improve the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands ofpeople in the future. We sincerely
usefulness of this class. Would you recommend a flip class forother BME classes? Would you recommend any of the aspects of the flip class (Muddiest Point,Pencast Lecture, In-class Activities, Design Project, etc) for other classes? Page 26.1099.16Supplement B: Statistics for Biomedical Engineers Concept Quiz 1. If a sample group has several factors that could produce bias in the data such as gender and age, which method would be best to reduce this bias? A. confounding factor B. grouping factors that could also influence the dependent variable C. randomization D. both B & C 2. All of the following
the case of Experimentation, solutions basedupon the concepts of "work it out", "estimate or guess" and "be prepared for serendipity"are used to as guidelines in brainstorming to develop an idea.The ProcessEffectively developing treatments for heart disease requires that directions for research bedefined and that they then be investigated. Toward the goal of defining research aims, asystematic approach that can be applied is the 8D Methodology. This methodologyconsists of finding ideas that meet defined solution patterns (dimensions). Eight maindimensions are broken up into sub-dimensions to facilitate in the categorization andgeneration of ideas. These sub-dimensions are fully listed in the left column of thesolutions in Part A and B of the
), and suitability of POCT devices for solving problems in medicine andbiology (p=0.014). 5.0 Student Responses (0-4 Likert Scale) * * * 4.0 * * 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e
Competition for the team’s innovation: Assurefit- a chest tube stabilization device. Breanne found her drive for innovation and fascination with design during the development of this technology and seeks to equip students with this same drive through experiential learning.Dr. John D DesJardins, Clemson University Dr. John DesJardins is the Robert B. and Susan B. Hambright Leadership Associate professor in Bioengi- neering at Clemson University and the director of the Frank H. Stelling and C. Dayton Riddle Orthopaedic Education and Research Laboratory at CUBEInC. He received his BS in Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, his MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, and his Ph.D. in
format. Students were assigned randomly into four groups at the beginning of the semester. Twoof the groups (1 & 2) watched the new lectures, and two of the groups (3 & 4) watched the original75-minute lectures (n1=14, n2=16, n3=15, and n4=17). Groups 1 and 4 took version A for the pre-test, and version B for the post-test; whereas, groups 2 and 3 took version B as the pre-test andversion A as the post test. Each quiz had four questions regarding content presented in both of thevideo lecture formats. After completing the pre-test students were directed to watch the firstlecture, or set of lectures, and then return to take the post quiz. After completing the second post-quiz, students were asked to complete the attitudinal survey
. 1), as well as using a near-wall velocity gradient approximation.A sample velocity profile is given in Figure 1a.The second approach employed by students is an experimental one. Here, students are suppliedwith a variety of equipment, most of which they had used in a prior lab module, including aroller pump and pulse dampener (Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL), a rotary liquid flow sensor Page 23.1378.3(Cole-Parmer) and digital multimeter, a differential pressure transducer and strain gage meter(Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT), a catheter introducer sheath set (B. Braun MedicalInc., Bethlehem, PA), and a variety of tubing supply
Paper ID #20106Development of a Graduate Project Management Course Where GraduateStudents Manage Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Design Teams (Workin Progress)Dr. Joseph Towles, University of Wisconsin, Madison Joseph Towles is a faculty associate in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Joe completed his PhD in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University and a research post-doctoral fellowship in the Sensory Motor Performance Program at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Northwestern
participation in online discussion board, and length of reflections (number of words) 5. Qualitative analysis of student reflection (keywords coded by instructor) 6. Project outcomes and perceived student effort in team service projects, based on instructor’s interactions with teams during 2-quarter implementation following seminar 7. Quality of end-of-project deliverables: a. Individual student reflections on experience in the departmental honors program b. Team evaluations of project at end of year c. Completeness and quality of content of sustainability manualsFor the year-long team service projects, student teams may select any bioengineering-relatedtopic that serves the department, university, or
4outcomes for their focus area (Appendix A-A). The aim was to motivate student teams to thinkabout design and proper execution of an experimental plan. Upon assigning students in teams,each team member was encouraged to contribute in identifying different experimentalparameters for their team project; a preliminary list of suggestions was provided by thelaboratory technician to help students narrow-down their options (Appendix A-B). Each studentwas asked to provide rationales for their ideas and to include logs of their thought progressionduring the semester using the e-portfolio, Innovation Portal13, an assessment rubric programdesigned to help students navigate through the engineering design process. This allowed us toidentify individual growth
underrepresented minorities.References[1] Puccinelli, TJ, Fitzpatrick, M., Masters, G., Murphy, JG, The Evolution of the Freshman Engineering Experience to Increase Active Learning, Retention, and Diversity--Work in Progress. American Society for Engineering Education, 2016.[2] B. M. Olds and R. L. Miller, "The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, p. 23, 2004.[3] S. S. Courter, S. B. Millar, and L. Lyons, "From the students' point of view: Experiences in a freshman engineering design course," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, pp. 283-288, 1998.[4] D. W. Knight, L. E. Carlson, and
Paper ID #19331#FunTimesWithTheTA—A Series of Fun Supplementary Lessons for Intro-ductory Level Biomedical Instrumentation Students (Work in Progress)Mr. Orlando Sanguinette Hoilett, Purdue University Orlando is a PhD student in Biomedical Engineering at Purdue University. Orlando graduated from Van- derbilt University in 2014 with a Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering. His academic interests involve developing wearable sensors for mobile health platforms and developing engaging en- gineering design activities for undergraduate students. He has several years of experience with analog circuit design and
subsequently train their team members. (B) Picture of hands-on clinical observation training of leaders with clinical faculty.With a small group of team leaders we are able, with support from medical school faculty, tocoordinate extended and direct access to clinical mentors in our program. The model allowed usto give limited resources to a small number of students who then translated the
. 48, 661–669 (2013).8. Sharoff, L.; J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 5, 13–18 (2015).9. Haspel, R. L., Ali, A. M. & Huang, G. C.; J. Grad. Med. Educ. 80–84 (2016).10. Dunlosky, J., et al; Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. Suppl. 14, 4–58 (2013).11. McLaughlin, J.E., et al; Acad. Med. 89, 236–243 (2014).12. Zalewski, D. & Schneider, K. Assessing Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Graduate Student Perceptions of a Flipped Classroom. ASEE Natl. Conf. Proceedings. New Orleans, LA (2016).13. Beidler, K. & Panton, L.; J. Interact. Technol. Pedagog. (2013).14. Muzyka, J. L.; Journal of Chemical Education (2015). doi:10.1021/ed500904y15. Geetracianne, K. L. & Neilsen, B.; Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 18, 025002 (2012); doi
designprocess, and technical writing and to apply this new knowledge to the real-world challenge ofdesigning for patients with disabilities.Course BreakdownCourse Materials and TopicsThis course focused on three objectives which are (a) to introduce design principles and theirapplication, (b) to develop technical writing skills, and (c) to gain experience through servicewith local partners. More specifically, teams of students were tasked with designing creative,effective, low-cost supportive equipment for children with disabilities.The core material for this course focused on lectures and class discussions that revolved arounddesign principles in engineering and technical writing. The writing topics for the course includedtargeting an audience
and problem being addressed ‐ Relevant research of your need including at least 5 in text citations ‐ Competitive Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Patent Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Include a complete bibliography with formal citations in the style of your team’s choosing citing ALL resources used (including those used for competitive and patent landscape). ‐ Brief justification for your citation style used (2-3 sentences) Quality of Work (Max 10pts) ‐ Thorough analysis of your need. ‐ Detailed descriptions of competitors and patents ‐ All citations are properly formattedAppendix B: BME 352 EX 2 Relevant Research