City, Utah, 2018.[8] W. H. Guilford, M. Keeley, B. P. Helmke, and T. E. Allen, "Work in Progress: A Clinical Immersion Program for Broad Curricular Impact," presented at the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida, 2019. Available: https://peer.asee.org/33581[9] J. Kadlowec, T. Merrill, S. Sood, J. G. Ryan, A. Attaluri, and R. A. Hirsh, "Clinical Immersion and Team-Based Design: Into a Third Year," presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, 2017. Available: https://peer.asee.org/28040[10] B. Bakka, H. G. Rylander III, M. K. Markey, and J. N. Savoy, "Towards scalable clinical immersion experiences for engineering students," presented at the ASEE
was performed with support from *blinded for peer review*.References[1] W. Kelly, T. A. Bickart and P. Suett, "Incorporating Standards Into Capstone Design Courses," Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon., Vols. 10.18260/1-2--14650, 2005.[2] B. Harding and P. McPherson, "What do Employers want in Terms of Employee Knowledge of Technical Standards and the Process of Standardization?," Paper presented at 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky., pp. 10.18260/1-2--16474, 2010, June.[3] J. A. LaMack, L. Fennigkoh and P. Licato, "Work In Progress: Improving Student Views of Medical Device Standards through Implementation in a First-term Biomedical Engineering Course," Paper presented
, individual CAD assignments, and individuallow stakes assignments on FDA pathways, ethics, and manufacturing methods.Focus Group EvaluationA focus group discussion (Appendix B) was conducted by a professional external evaluator at theend of spring 2022 with 8 of the 10 enrolled students. The discussion was audio-recorded andprofessionally transcribed, and a coding directory was created using the focus group questions.The transcript was coded to identify primary thematic areas, and the data were entered intoDedoose to facilitate thematic analysis [8]. The evaluation protocol was submitted to and grantedexempt status by the University of Delaware IRB. The themes that emerged from the qualitativedata are summarized below.Course Structure: Overwhelmingly
, "Jupyter Notebooks in Undergraduate Mobile Robotics Courses: Educational Tool and Case Study," Applied Sciences, pp. Vol 11, Iss. 3, 2021.[7] C. Tang, "Computer-aided Linear Algebra Course on Jupyter-Python Notebook for Engineering Undergraduates," Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021.Appendix: BME 303: Modern Diagnostic Imaging Systems Spring 2022 Homework Assignment #3 Part B, 100 points Assigned Friday, February 18th 2022 Part 2 Due: by 12:00am on Gradescope on Friday, March 4th, 20221. Let’s have some fun in Matlab! (a) Build a circle in MATLAB with a diameter of 18cm (like you did in the last problem of Homework 3A) and a µ=0.3 cm 1 using what- ever method you like
developing a medical device. B. Qualitative AnalysisNVivo, a qualitative analysis computer software, was used to analyze the responses from thethree open-response questions. The following sentiment analyses were produced through thesoftware using the auto-code option.How did the clinical needs course affect your knowledge/ perception about how engineering solutions are implemented in a clinical environment? (A) (B) Positive Mixed
-Ended Reflection Question B (Debrief): What went well? What didn’t go so well? What will you do differently next time? • Open-Ended Reflection Question C (Connect to Real World): What skills did you learn? Please consider both professional skills (e.g., communication, collaboration, etc…) and context-specific skills (e.g., topic area). Why are these skills important for engineers in the real world?The data (including pictures and narratives) were stored on a common shared drive within a folder,which could be accessed by all authors involved in this study. To perform data analysis, the authorsused the collected data from the completed questionnaire to explore potential themes (n=3). Afterthe themes were identified, direct
frameworks, and equity in healthcare, while mock patientcases required students to propose a diagnosis and treatment plan for a patient based on givensymptoms. An example of a case study is shown in Appendix B [24]. Supplementing instructor-led lectures, the course welcomed 4 guest speakers who presented about their respectiveacademic/career work (Appendix Table 3). These guest lectures facilitated student networkingwith professionals and exposure to diverse neuroengineering career paths.Assignments and Final Project: To pass this course, students were expected to attend class,complete required assignments, and deliver a final presentation (see Appendix Table 4 fordetails). For this presentation, the class was divided into 4 groups of 5 students
Paper ID #41706Integrating Active Learning, Case Studies, Cytotoxicity Testing, and EthicalConsiderations in Biomaterials Education: A Novel ApproachDr. Shivaun D Archer, Cornell University Shivaun Archer is the John and Janet Swanson Senior Lecturer in the Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering at Cornell University and a Faculty Teaching Fellow in the James McCormick Family Teaching Excellence Institute (MTEI). She teaches lab courses covering nanobiotechnology, cellular, molecular, and tissue engineering, as well as physiology.Dr. Mridusmita Saikia, Cornell University Dr. Mridusmita Saikia is a Lecturer at the Meinig
. 2. H. I. Hassan, L. A. Rodriguez, A. Chatterjee, and A. Layton, “Bio-inspired engineering design: The impact of information representation on access to inspiration from outside one’s discipline,” In 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2023. 3. J. M. Benyus, “Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature,” Morrow New York, 1997. 4. R. James and C. T. Laurencin, “Regenerative engineering and bionic limbs,” Rare Metals, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 143-155, 2015. 5. Y. Bar-Cohen, “Biomimetics—using nature to inspire human innovation,” Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol.1, no. 1, pp.1, 2006. 6. J. W. Park, B. Greenspan, T. Tabb, E. Gallo, and A. Danielescu, “3D printed energy return elements for upper limb
survey used two multiple choice questions and a Likertscale from 1 to 5, 1 indicating minimal involvement and 5 indicating a high level of involvement,and one open response question to assess UG's perception of how active graduate students are inprojects and if graduate students are beneficial to help UG students grow in the skills mentionedabove.Graduate Student Survey Graduate students determined the perceived challenges and advantages of theirinstructional setting, whether in person or online, in mentoring UG students in a collaborativeproject through a seven-question survey (see Appendix B). The graduate student survey usedthree multiple choice and four open-ended response questions to assess instructional setting andperceived
similarly to business professionals thanengineers. References[1] R. A. Linsenmeier and A. Saterbak, “Fifty Years of Biomedical Engineering Undergraduate Education,” Ann Biomed Eng, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1590–1615, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10439-020-02494-0.[2] J. Berglund, “The Real World: BME graduates reflect on whether universities are providing adequate preparation for a career in industry,” IEEE Pulse, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 46–49, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1109/MPUL.2014.2386631.[3] J. Rohde, J. France, B. Benedict, and A. Godwin, “Exploring the Early Career Pathways of Degree Holders from Biomedical, Environmental, and Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary Engineering,” presented at the 2020
shift in Spring 2023when students were also exposed to hands-on laboratory exercises.Figure 3. Confidence in preparedness to work in industry and R&D skills pre and post semesterfor A) SIE only (Fall 2022) and B) SIE + Hands-on laboratory Experiences (Spring 2023)A)B)Figure 4 shows the data from a different angle, with each bar representing the average score gainon the survey from pre-semester to post-semester on a 4-point scale. This data shows that acrossboth semesters and all R&D skills, confidence increased from the beginning of the semester tothe end of the semester. A paired t-test confirmed that gains were significant for both semestersacross all survey items with p<0.01 in each case. The largest gains were seen in
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
Intro to Research: How to Read a Scientific Paper6:00 PM Dinner | Palenque by Mezcal Day 2: Bio-preservation Boot Camp Course Instruction and Conclusion8:00 AM Transportation pick-up8:30 AM Breakfast UCR | Winston Chung Hall 205/2069:00 AM Bio-preservation Lab Tours Group A - Yin Lab | ROOM 307 Group B - Mangolini Lab | MSE 25910:00 AM Bio-preservation Lab Tour Group B - Yin Lab | ROOM 307 Group A - Mangolini Lab |MSE 25912:00 PM Lunch | UCR - ATP-Bio Pillar Leadership Meeting1:30PM Scholar Panel - Trainees
Paper ID #42420Board 7: Work in Progress: A Collaborative, Principle-focused CurriculumDesign Process for a BME Undergraduate ProgramDr. Shannon Barker, University of Virginia Dr Shannon Barker is an Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Director at UVA BMEDr. Brian P. Helmke, University of Virginia Brian Helmke is Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia (UVA), where he teaches courses in diverse topics such as physiology, mechanobiology, biotransport, and bioelectricity. Brian also serves as Faculty Consultant to the UVA Center for Teaching Excellence, acting as facilitator
was a postdoctoral fellow at Advanced Technologies and Regenerative Medicine, LLC. She received her doctoral degree in Biomedical Engineering from Tufts University, M.S. degree from Syracuse University, and B.S. degree from Cornell University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in Progress: Promoting Equitable Team Dynamics in a Senior Biomedical Engineering Design CourseIntroductionTeam-based engineering design projects are common mechanisms to promote hands-onengagement with the engineering design process. Team-based projects are often implemented inboth introductory and senior level courses in the undergraduate engineering curriculum.Navigating the complex team
Paper ID #41694Board 13: Work in Progress: Exploring Student Disposition in a FoundationalConservation Principles of Bioengineering CourseDr. Jennifer R Amos, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Dr Jenny Amos is a Teaching Professor in Bioengineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She is an AIMBE Fellow, BMES Fellow, ABET Commissioner and Executive Committee Member, two-time Fulbright Specialist in engineering education. Amos has over a decade’s worth of experience leading curriculum reform implementing robust assessment strategies at multiple institutions.Yael Gertner, University of Illinois Urbana
Paper ID #43185Board 10: Work in Progress: Design of a Full-Time Summer Research Programfor High School StudentsMarla Hilderbrand-Chae, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Marla Hilderbrand-Chae is a Ph.D. student in the UML Biomedical Engineering Program where she researches engagement and mentorship in engineering education at the high school level. Hilderbrand-Chae has consulted for and presented at conferences sponsored by J-WEL, the World Education Lab at MIT, and has worked in partnership with Boston Scientifics’ Division of Equity and Inclusion group in developing a high school science mentorship program for
Paper ID #43441Board 15: Work in Progress: Mixing Flipped and Traditional Teaching toSupport Conceptual Learning and Motivation in a Cell and Molecular BiologyCourseDr. Laura Christian, Georgia Institute of Technology Laura Christian’s doctorate work at UT Austin was is in the field of cell and molecular biology and she has held biology teaching faculty positions at West Virginia University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is currently a Lecturer in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Georgia Tech. She is excited to combine her experiences in biology teaching with methods used in engineering instruction and to
Paper ID #44112Board 6: Robot Temperament Assessment as a Method to Expose Studentsto the Humanistic Aspects of Biomedical EngineeringDr. 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 Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard Medical School at
Paper ID #42033Work in Progress: A Multi-level Undergraduate Curricular Approach toExploring Health Equity in Biomedical Engineering SolutionsJennifer M Hatch, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Jennifer Hatch is a Lecturer of Biomedical Engineering at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). She earned her BS and MS in Biomedical Engineering from IUPUI.Dr. Steven Higbee, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Steve is a Clinical Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. He received his PhD in Bioengineering from Rice
Paper ID #44106Board 9: Work in Progress: Collaborative Learning to Develop LaboratoryModules that Support Knowledge Gain and Professional Development in aBiomedical Engineering Graduate CourseDr. Marcia Pool, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Dr. Marcia (”Marci”) Pool is the Assistant Director for Education at the Cancer Center at Illinois and a Teaching Associate Professor in Bioengineering. She holds a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering, has served for sixteen years as teaching faculty/staff in biomedical/bioengineering and nine years in departmental/institute educational administration, and is an ABET program evaluator for
A B A B A B A Bcategories of career paths to allow a 2020 2021 2022* 2023direct comparison between the points. Figure 1: Assignment responses and post-graduation positions were codedAggregate data from students in the into broad categories of career paths to allow direct comparison betweenclasses of 2020-2023 are included in the data points for the classes of 2020 (n=88), 2021 (n=81), 2022(n=100)Figure 2. A McNemar-Bowker test for and 2023 (n=111). *Statistically significant (p<0.05)multiple correlated proportions was conducted for each cohort, with only the class of 2022having a significantly different distribution of
and effectively address possible engineering-ethical challenges you may encounter in your career?"Figure 3: Student responses to what extent they believe their Year in School Average Response undergraduate education has prepared them for ethical Sophomore (7) 1.714 challenges they may face in their future careers. A) This table represents the breakdown of responses by year in Junior (8) 2.375 school as well as their average response. B) The graph Senior (13) 2.077 depicts the overall landscape of student answers.In response to questions 14 and 23, students were asked to rank their responses on a Likert scaleof 0-4. (0 – Not at all, 1 – A little bit, 2 – Somewhat, 3 – A good deal, 4 - A
. This suggests that peer review could provide effectivefeedback [26]. Further, Saterbak et al. found that peer review resulted in the perceivedimprovement of the students’ ability to critique [26].We hypothesize that our implementation of peer review leads to positive student attitude andincreased achievement. More specifically, our research questions are: 1. Do students provide high quality feedback in this instructional setting? 2. Does the quality of feedback change over time? 3. Do students produce higher quality written work as a result of the peer review process? 4. Is there a favorable student attitude towards the peer review process from the viewpoint of: a. the critic, and b. the critiqued
± 0.44. The next questionsurveyed whether they could successfully come up with a project, follow through, and present theirfindings, which then averaged 4.77 ± 0.44. Finally, we asked if they felt good at problem-solving,and the results averaged 4.54 ± 0.52.Figure 1: A flow chart describing the steps involving the Scleraxis bioreactor module. (a) Studentsstarted by hand drawing their proposed design after initial research. (b) More detailed technicaldrawings were prepared by students describing working principles and potential pieces. (c) ALEGO® initial prototype. (d) Students were given a budget and started ordering the parts neededto build their bioreactor. (e) A final prototype. (f) Engineering notebooks were submitted aftertesting.Figure 2
(s) where students present to their peers to allow the class tocollectively explore and critique their work-in-progress, and a formal review where groups uploadtheir work for a final critique. All three phases occur during a single, three-hour studio period.Observational Tool. Building on the formative feedback guidelines developed by Kluger andDeNisi [10, 11], Hattie and Timperley [2], and Shute [12], an observational tool was developedand used to characterize feedback exchanges in BME 4010 studios (Appendix B). Divided intotwo components, the framework focuses on the feedback itself and the immediate ECR to thatfeedback by student teams. Data presented in the manuscript was recorded from one team of fivestudents during studio three of the
by the sponsors early in the semester, and students submitproject and team member preferences to the course directors. Course directors assign projectteams by reviewing student preferences for projects and team members and attempt to bestaccommodate all students.Table 1. Project descriptions for the 2023-2024 academic year. Faculty perspective represents what workshop(s)course faculty would have predicted would be most relevant to each project. Project descriptions simplified toprotect sponsor intellectual property. Team Project Description Faculty Perspective A Drug delivery patch CAD, Silicone B Back phantom CAD
. B. Park, “A Case Study of a Systematic Iterative Design Methodology and its Application in Engineering Education”, Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), 2010.[7] L. Belski, A. Hourani, A. Valentine, A. Belski, “Can Simple Ideation Techniques Enhance Idea Generation?”, The 25th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, 2014.[8] S. Antipolis, “From user participation to user seduction in the design of innovative user- centered systems, designing cooperative systems. Use of theories and models”. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP’2000), France, May 2000.[9] S. Bouwstra, W
brilliance, and give you one that you can solve in about 10minutes! Question! Answers 1) Please write the code in MATLAB and have it run 1. and write it on the right: I have 2 models, and Ben has 4 models. If I was to combine both our models, then evenly divide them, how many would I have? Put your answer from here in the table. 2) A= 15; B= 20; C=25; 2. C is the square root of A squared plus B squared. I want to be able to take this answer and across a loop, set this C as the new B and loop until becomes greater than 50. The square root of this number of Cs is your