Taylor, A. C., & Nichols, K. J., & Wright, L., & Neils, C. (2011, June), An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--17470

\bibitem{asee_peer_17470}
  Taylor, A. C., \& Nichols, K. J., \& Wright, L., \& Neils, C. (2011, June), \emph{An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis}
  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
  10.18260/1-2--17470

Alyssa Catherine Taylor, Kelli Jayn Nichols, Laura Wright, and Christopher Neils.  "An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis".  2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2011.  https://peer.asee.org/17470 Internet.  04 Dec, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_17470}
  Alyssa Catherine Taylor, Kelli Jayn Nichols, Laura Wright, and Christopher Neils.
  "An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis".
  \emph{2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2011.
  https://peer.asee.org/17470 Internet.  04 Dec, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_17470
author = "Alyssa Catherine Taylor, Kelli Jayn Nichols, Laura Wright, and Christopher Neils"
title = "An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis"
booktitle = "2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2011"
month = "June"
address = "Vancouver, BC"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/17470}
number = {10.18260/1-2--17470}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -          An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:                     Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis The field of bioengineering is dynamic and constantly evolving. As such, its undergraduateprograms must also evolve and adapt, in order to provide students with the knowledge and skillsnecessary to embark on successful careers and to contribute to the advancement of the currentstate of bioengineering. To this end, at our institution we have conducted an extensiveexamination of our undergraduate bioengineering program. The goal of this study was to utilizea variety of assessment techniques in order to enhance our understanding of the strengths andweaknesses of our curriculum and to identify any aspects of the curriculum which could beoptimized to better meet the needs of the modern bioengineering undergraduate student.In this paper, we present our comprehensive approach to assessing the effectiveness of thecurrent curriculum at [name of institution]. We describe the multiple methods of self-analysisimplemented over the course of our study, including acquisition and evaluation of feedback fromdepartmental faculty, academic staff, industry, alumni, and students enrolled in the program. Inaddition to describing formative feedback techniques and their findings, we also discuss howresults from those assessments were directly translated into curriculum revision actions by ourdepartment. One key method of program evaluation consisted of annual undergraduate programfeedback sessions facilitated by staff from the [name of institution] [name of instructionaldevelopment center]. During separate feedback sessions conducted with both junior and seniorundergraduates, students first completed individual worksheets and then met in small groups todiscuss and record responses to particular questions regarding undergraduate program issuessuch as departmental strengths and recommended changes to the curriculum. After the smallgroup sessions, students also discussed their responses as a large group and proceedings werelater summarized by the facilitator. As one portion of the study presented here, anonymousstudent feedback obtained from sessions from the past eight years (2003 – 2010) was analyzed.The results of this analysis allowed us to gain insight into the strengths and challenges of ourprogram from the perspective of the students and clearly identified potential areas for optimizingtheir educational experience. For instance, at the end of their undergraduate education, althoughseniors indicated that they were overall well-satisfied with the bioengineering program (3.8 ±0.4, on a 5 point scale), 71% of the group session reports cited the desire for track-based electiveoptions based on a thrust area, in order to increase specificity of their knowledge. Based on thisfeedback, we plan to implement a requirement for focus area (i.e. Diagnostics andInstrumentation) specialization in the new bioengineering curriculum.Preliminary effectiveness of additional proposed changes in the bioengineering curriculum, asindicated from the responses from industry, clinicians, and students, serves as an initialindication that our integration of results obtained from the multiple means of assessment allowsfor critical analysis and well-informed revision. Although future assessment of the success ofcurriculum changes implemented in our department will be needed as the new courses are phasedin (starting Jan. 2011), we propose that the methods of program analysis described in this workmay be useful for other departments similarly motivated to evaluate their own curriculum.
AU  - Alyssa Catherine Taylor
AU  - Kelli Jayn Nichols
AU  - Laura Wright
AU  - Christopher Neils
CY  - Vancouver, BC
DA  - 2011/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - An Investigation of Bioengineering Undergraduate Curriculum:   Methods for a Comprehensive Analysis
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/17470
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--17470
ER  -