Paper ID #13604Creating a Pipeline into Biomedical EngineeringMrs. Courtney Lambeth, NC A&T State University Mrs. Lambeth serves as the Educational Assessment and Administrative Coordinator for the Engineering Research Center for Revolutionizing Metallic Biomaterials at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, North Carolina.Dr. Matthew B. A. McCullough, North Carolina A&T State University An assistant professor in the department of Chemical, Biological, and Bioengineering, he has his B.S. in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina A&T and his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering
measurement and testing. In her position, Sarah is responsible for developing instructional support programs for faculty, providing evaluation support for educational proposals and projects, and working with faculty to publish educational research. Her research interests primarily involve creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship education.Prof. Keefe B. Manning, Pennsylvania State University, University ParkDr. Margaret J. Slattery, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Margaret Slattery Ph.D., has been a faculty member at Penn State University in Biomedical Engineering since 2007 and her career has focused on undergraduate students and their academic experiences. She currently is directing a new office within
Page 26.1774.5used to document student experiences.References:[1] E. Litzler and J. Young, “Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering: Results from the project to assess climate in engineering,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, issue 2, pp. 319–345, April 2012.[2] J. D. Karpicke, "Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning," Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 21, issue 3, pp. 157–163, 2012.[3] E. Seymour, A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni, “Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study,” Science Education, vol. 88, issue 4, 493–534, July 2004.Acknowledgement
experience for Master’s studentsthat will fill in knowledge gaps and meet their unique educational and professional goals duringtheir accelerated (~1 year) degree program.B. Our Unique ApproachA one-semester graduate-level course in BME design was developed that incorporated a blendedlearning approach with core video lectures outside the classroom and collaborative in-classlearning experiences. The course enrolled 12 students (4 teams) in the Spring of 2015. Fordevelopment and delivery of this new course, funding and in-kind support, includingcollaboration with an educational technologist from the Center for Teaching and Learning(CTL)b, was provided by a faculty grant from the Columbia University Office of the Provost onHybrid Learning Course
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
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
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
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
typicallytakes two hours and supplies cost $1 per toy. As shown in Figure 2, this includes opening theelectronic toy and finding the circuit that controls its activation (Figure 2A and B). A piece ofwire is then used to determine how the circuit is completed to activate the toy, thereby initiatingsounds, lights, and/or movement (Figure 2C, enlarged in D). A female jack is soldered to a wireand the other end of that wire is soldered to the identified points on the circuit (Figure 2E and F).Finally, the toy is closed (Figure 2G) and repackaged. Toy adaptation is a low-risk introductionto design, circuitry, soldering, and use of basic hand tools. In addition, the clear societal impactof toy adaptation may make it an attractive engineering application to
Paper ID #12283Bioengineering Global Health: Design and Implementation of a Summer DayCamp for High School StudentsDr. Dianne Grayce Hendricks, University of Washington Dr. Dianne G. Hendricks is a Lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Wash- ington. She earned a BS in Molecular Biology at the University of Texas at Austin and a PhD in Genetics at Duke University. Dr. Hendricks’ teaching interests at the University of Washington include develop- ing and teaching introductory and honors courses in bioengineering, tissue and protein engineering lab courses, and capstone projects. She is committed
Paper ID #19665Impact of biomechanics-based activities on situational and individual interestamong K-12 studentsProf. Carrie A Francis, University of Northwestern-St. Paul Carrie Francis is an Assistant Professor of Engineering at the University of Northwestern-St. Paul. She received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has pre- viously received degrees in biomedical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis (B.S.) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (M.S.). Her teaching interests include general physics, statics & dynamics, and mechanics of materials. Her
time in 2013-2014 academic year and two groups completed the project (distal fibular fracture and mandibularfracture). In 2014-2015 academic years, two groups completed the projects (ulna fracture andclavicle fracture), and some student works are shown below. (a) (b) (c)Figure 1. (a) Plate design before surgical instruction given, (b) Plate design after surgicalinstruction given and (c) Size and shape comparision of two 3D printed platesFigure 1 showed that the differences in the plate design before and after the introduction of thesurgical procedure. A group designed the plate for clavicle fracture based on anatomy, fracturesites of clavicle and the engineering mechanics
the semester (see Appendix A) and became less detailed as the semesterprogressed (see Appendix B).Hands-on activities introduced concepts that the students had not previously studied. Rather thanpresenting the mathematical derivation as the introduction to a topic, students were again dividedinto groups and given materials and actions to impose on these materials. A hands-on activity foreach major course topic was created (reactions, stress/strain axial loading, torsion, and bending)to introduce the basic concepts. A provided outline for these “discovery labs” aimed to help thestudents to first observe and describe a physical phenomenon and then represent itmathematically. For example, students were asked to build models of different joints
team. End-of-semester writtenreflections in response to a set of open-ended questions have helped us to capture the key pointsstudents are taking away from the course, as well as their self-identification of how well they aremastering different aspects of the design process.2 We have obtained IRB approval to usehomework submissions and end-of-semester reflections from consenting students as part of ourassessment data for the class (Spring 2016: 104 students; Fall 2016: 78 students).Overall, the course has thus far been well-received by students, with very strong final courseevaluations. We analyzed the end-of-semester student reflections to determine, among otherthings, which aspects of the course they most liked and disliked (Table 2a, b), as
based on key principles in the domain.8 Novicestypically start by trying to find the correct equation based on surface features.8Although there have been numerous studies characterizing experts and comparing experts tonovices, there has been less longitudinal research to explain how these important aspects of AEdevelop.10 Schwartz, Bransford, and Sears (2005) have proposed a theoretical model of AEdevelopment (See Figure 1). 7 This model assumes that AE development is a continuous processthat includes axes for growth along two dimensions: (a) innovation and (b) efficiency. Schwartz,Bransford, and Sears (2005) have hypothesized that these two dimensions co-evolve in what theyhave called the “optimal adaptability corridor” (OAC). 7 The OAC
Paper ID #16066Work in Progress: Immersive First-Year Experience for Bioengineering Cur-riculaDr. Jennifer R. Amos, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr Amos joined the Bioengineering Department at the University of Illinois in 2009 and is currently a Sr Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate programs. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from University of South Carolina. She has developed and offered more than 5 courses since joining the faculty and has taken the lead roll in curriculum development for the department.Dr. Marcia Pool, University of Illinois
of Wisconsin - Madison Tasnia Tabassum is a third-year biomedical engineering student at the University of Wisconsin - Madi- son. She is pursuing the healthcare systems and cellular tissue engineering specializations of biomedical engineering and also has interests in global health. This year, she is on UW-Madison’s Biomedical En- gineering Society (BMES) board as the Counseling and Resources for Undergraduates in Science and Engineering (CRUISE) Chair.Dr. John P Puccinelli, University of Wisconsin - Madison Dr. Puccinelli is the Associate Chair of the Undergraduate Program in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. He began here as student near the start of the UW-BME program and earned his BS, MS, and PhD
Paper ID #18138Bioengineering Experience for High School Science TeachersMr. Sam Dreyer, University of Illinois at Chicago Sam Dreyer is a Masters student researching ocular therapeutic hypothermia and Brain-Computer Inter- faces. He is also passionate about engineering education, teaching high school students and teachers about bioengineering concepts and methods.Dr. Miiri Kotche, University of Illinois at Chicago Miiri Kotche is a Clinical Associate Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and currently serves as Director of the Medical Accelerator for Devices Laboratory (MAD Lab) at