More Like this

1. “Interdisciplinary Education,” “R&D,” and “Contamination”: Comparing the Stressors of Biomedical Engineering Doctoral Students to Other Engineering Fields

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-024-00148-4  

   Mirabelli, Joseph F; Cromley, Jennifer G; Jensen, Karin J (July 2024, Biomedical Engineering Education)

   Doctoral students experience high rates of mental health distress and dropout; however, the mental health and wellness of engineering doctoral students is understudied. Studies of student persistence, wellness, and success often aggregate fields together, such as by studying all engineering students. Thus, little work has considered the experiences of biomedical engineering (BME) doctoral students, despite differences between doctoral BME research, course content, and career expectations compared with other engineering disciplines. In this qualitative interview case study, we explore stressors present in the BME graduate experience that are unique from engineering students in other disciplines. Methods We analyzed a longitudinal interview study of doctoral engineering students across four timepoints within a single academic year, consisting of a subsample (n=6) of doctoral students in a BME discipline, among a larger sample of engineering doctoral students (N=55). BME students in the sample experienced some themes generated from a larger thematic analysis differently compared with other engineering disciplines. These differences are presented and discussed, grounded in a model of workplace stress. Results BME participants working in labs with biological samples expressed a lack of control over the timing and availability of materials for their research projects. BME participants also had more industry-focused career plans and described more commonly coming to BME graduate studies from other fields (e.g., another engineering major) and struggling with the scope and content of their introductory coursework. A common throughline for the stressors was the impact of the interdisciplinary nature of BME programs, to a greater extent compared with other engineering student experiences in our sample. Conclusions We motivate changes for researchers, instructors, and policymakers which specifically target BME students and emphasize the importance of considering studies at various unit levels (university department level vs college level vs full institution) when considering interventions targeting student stress and wellness. 

   more » « less
2. NSF S-STEM Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation: SPIRIT Program Year-One Results

   https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25808  

   Ferguson, Chip; Yanik, Paul; Yan, Yanjun; Kaul, Sudhir (June 2016, American Society for Engineering Education)

   The NSF S-STEM funded SPIRIT: Scholarship Program Initiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation program at Western Carolina University creates a new approach to the recruitment, retention, education, and placement of academically talented and financially needy engineering and engineering technology students. Twenty-seven new and continuing students were recruited into interdisciplinary cohorts that are being nurtured and developed in a community characterized by extensive peer and faculty mentoring, vertically integrated Project Based Learning (PBL), and undergraduate research experiences. The SPIRIT Scholar program attracted a diverse group of Engineering and Engineering Technology students, thus increasing the percentage of female and minority student participation as compared to the host department program demographics. Over the last academic year, fifty-four undergraduate research projects/activities were conducted by the twenty-seven scholars under the direction of twelve faculty fellows. Additionally, peer-to-peer mentorship and student leadership were developed through the program’s vertically integrated PBL model, which incorporated four courses and seven small-group design projects. Academic and professional support for the student scholars were administered through collaborations with several offices at the host institution, including an industry-engaged product development center. The program participants reported strong benefits from engaging in the program activities during the first year. Specifically, this paper presents results from the program activities, including: cohort recruitment and demographics; support services; undergraduate research; vertically integrated PBL activities; and the external review of the program. Similar programs may benefit from the findings and the external review report, which contained several accolades as well as suggestions for potential continuous improvement. 

   more » « less
3. A Qualitative Examination of Learners’ Experiences in Experiential BME-In-Practice Modules

   Vempala, Vibhavari; Huang-Saad, Aileen (July 2022, ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings)

   Learners of Biomedical Engineering (BME) programs report difficulties finding relevant jobs post-graduation and also express a disconnect between their training and future professional roles. In addition, because of the interdisciplinary nature of BME, there is a lack of shared understanding of the field between learners, departments, and employers. This lack of understanding further contributes to the disconnect between instruction and practice. To bridge the gap between curricular experiences and learners' understanding of career opportunities in BME, we developed a series of 1-credit (4-week) BME-In-Practice Modules that exposed biomedical learners to biomedical engineering practice. Each 1-credit module in the series was designed to run for four weeks and focused on different areas in BME such as Tissue engineering, Computational Modeling, Medical Device Development, Drug Development, Regulations, and Neural Engineering. Learners' enrolled in one or multiple modules and engaged in experiential learning for 4-weeks to gain knowledge and skills relevant to the BME area of focus in the module(s). Following the conclusion of the BME-In-Practice series, we collected survey data from learners who participated in the modules to address the following research questions: 1) What are learners' goals and motivations for enrolling in the BME-In-Practice Module(s)? and 2) How did learners' experiences with the module(s) align with their goals and influence their graduation plans? The survey was administered using Qualtrics and consisted of multiple open-ended questions examining learners' goals and motivations for participating in the BME-in-Practice Module(s) and questions assessing their experiences with the series. Responses to the open-ended survey questions were analyzed using a qualitative interpretive approach. Our results identify different goals related to learners' professional interests and competencies when enrolling in the module. Learners' reported gaining practical experiences as well as clarity and direction about their professional futures. We also discuss the graduation plans and outcomes reported by the learners' who participated in the modules, followed by implications for practice and future research. 

   more » « less
4. Comparison of Job Market and Employer Interest in Undergraduate Engineering Students: An Exploratory Analysis

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34313  

   Alexis Ortiz-Rosario, Nathan Hyungsok (June 2020, ASEE annual conference)

   There is little empirical research that provides a broad understanding of graduates’ interests in industry and engineering job opportunities. This study aimed to analyze differences in industry participation between engineering majors, undergraduate engineering student participation in job fair events, and student hiring recruitment trends.A quantitative approach was used to address: RQ 1: How are the industry work opportunities different between different engineering majors at a large Midwest institution?; and RQ 2: How do job fair participants and hiring in engineering industry differ for BME students from other engineering majors at a large Midwest institution? The Ohio State University Department of Biomedical Engineering has observed lower hiring trends for undergraduate biomedical engineering students pursuing industry relative to other engineering majors. In this study, the number of companies interested in a major was different between majors. This makes it clear that companies present in each job fair have a higher preference for some major over others. Understanding if that difference is more prevalent of pre-major students or a different effect would require further study. Undergraduate student hiring was observed to be different between majors, but this has been previously reported (Nocera et al. 2018, Ortiz-Rosario et al. 2019). This study also found that recruitment-attendance ratios, a rough metric of yield, were significantly different between engineering majors. With better recruitment data, these ratios could indicate differences in the effectiveness of job fairs for different engineering majors. Future work will continue to search for factors that explain why there is a gap in BME industry hiring, and on ways to bridge that gap. 

   more » « less
5. A Liberatory Co-Curricular Program for Engineering Students: Investigating Impacts and Limitations Through Alumni Perspectives

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46450  

   Bond-Trittipo, Bailey; Secules, Stephen; Garcia, Jocelyn; Tinoco_Alegre, Maria; Elaouinate, Malak; Green, Andrew; Tremante, Andres (June 2024, ASEE Conferences)

   Purpose: Identifying the inequities underrepresented groups face in undergraduate engineering education and addressing these inequities is commonly in the hands of faculty and staff rather than the students who experience them firsthand. Seeking to shift away from this dynamic and empower students to name and challenge the oppression they face, we launched the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Ambassador Program at a large Hispanic-Serving Institution in the Southeastern United States. JEDI is a co-curricular program that employs undergraduate engineering students to engage in justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion projects with the guidance of a graduate student or university support staff mentor. In this paper, we investigate the impact and limitations of this attempt at liberatory pedagogy through analyzing exit interviews with the alumni from the first two years of the program. Framework: This study is informed by liberative pedagogy, which facilitates critical consciousness and supports students in bringing their whole selves to a learning space to expand their critical capacities. One of the primary goals in creating JEDI was to provide engineering students space to realize and name the oppression they face and support them in designing their own projects that seek to challenge oppression. This paper investigates our attempt at operationalizing liberatory pedagogy through JEDI. Methods: The first author conducted 80–150-minute semi-structured interviews with program alumni. The interview protocol was informed by constructs from liberative pedagogy, focusing on participants' experiences in the program. The first author utilized thematic coding to identify salient themes across the interviews. Results: The analysis of the interview data revealed several successes and shortcomings related to operationalizing liberative pedagogy. One theme related to the successes was that participants expressed that JEDI offered a safe, welcoming environment in which they could embrace their marginalized identities and freely express their ideas. This finding, along with other themes that will be discussed in the paper, speak to the positive impact of the program. However, one theme related to shortcomings was that participants spoke extensively about the positive impact JEDI had on them as individuals, but they did not express that they saw their projects as having a significant external impact. We see this as a limitation regarding the program engaging the students in liberatory praxis within their local communities. Significance: Findings from this study provide insight into the impact liberative pedagogy has on engineering students and the challenges of operationalizing liberative pedagogy in a formal university context. These results could aid the engineering education community as we continue to search for ways to support and empower students. 

   more » « less