An official website of the United States government
In 2016, our biomedical engineering (BME) department created a new model of instructional change in which undergraduate BME curriculum is closely tied to the evolution of the field of BME, and in which faculty, staff, and students work together to define and implement current content and best practices in teaching. Through an Iterative Instructional Design Sequence, the department has implemented seven BME-in-Practice modules over two years. A total of 36 faculty, post docs, doctoral candidates, master’s students, and fourth year students participated in creating one-credit BME-in-Practice Modules exploring Tissue Engineering, Medical Device Development, Drug Development, Regulations, and Neural Engineering. A subset of these post docs, graduate students and undergraduates (23) also participated in teaching teams of two-three per Module and were responsible for teaching one of the BME-in-Practice Modules. Modules were designed to be highly experiential where the majority of work could be completed in the classroom. A total of 50 unique undergraduates elected to enroll in the seven Modules, 73.33% of which were women. Data collected over the first two years indicate that Module students perceived significant learning outcomes and the Module teaching teams were successful in creating student centered environments. Results suggest that this mechanism enables effective, rapid adaptation of BME curriculum to meet the changing needs of BME students, while increasing student-centered engagement in the engineering classroom. Findings also suggest that this approach is an example of an intentional curricular change that is particularly impactful for women engineering students.
more »
« less
A Qualitative Examination of Learners’ Experiences in Experiential BME-In-Practice Modules
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
- Award ID(s):
- 2126251
- PAR ID:
- 10357028
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings
- ISSN:
- 2153-5868
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The discipline of biomedical engineering (BME) was born from recognition that engineers need to help solve emerging biologically based problems that impact medical device design, therapeutics, diagnostics, and basic discovery. While economic indicators point to significant growth in the field, BME students are reporting significant challenges in competing for jobs against traditional engineering graduates (e.g. mechanical and electrical) and finding post-undergraduate employment. BME programs are therefore in great need of curricula that promote clear professional formation and prepare graduates to be effective in a fast growing and changing industry. Moreover, these changes must be implemented in a challenging environment in which technology and stakeholder (e.g. industry, medical schools, regulatory agencies) priorities are changing rapidly. In 2016, our department created a new model of instructional change in which the undergraduate curriculum is closely tied to the evolution of the field of BME, and in which faculty, staff, and students work together to define and implement current content and best practices in teaching. Through an Iterative Instructional Design Sequence, the department has implemented seven BME-in-Practice modules over two years. A total of 36 faculty, post docs, doctoral candidates, master’s students, and fourth year students have participated in creating the one-credit BME-in-Practice Modules exploring Tissue Engineering, Medical Device Development, Drug Development, Regulations, and Neural Engineering. A total of 23 post docs, graduate students and undergraduates participated on a teaching team responsible for teaching a BME-in-Practice module. Each module was developed to be four weeks long and met at least six hour/week. Two of the seven Modules were iterated upon from year one to year two. Modules were designed to be highly experiential where the majority of work can be completed in the classroom. A total of 50 unique undergraduates elected to enroll in the seven Modules, 73.33% of which were women. Data collected over the last two years indicate that Module students perceived significant learning outcomes and the Module teaching teams were successful in creating student centered environments. Results suggest that this mechanism enables effective, rapid adaptation of BME curriculum to meet the changing needs of BME students, while increasing student-centered engagement in the engineering classroom. Findings also suggest that this curricular is an example of an intentional curricular change that is particularly impactful for women engineering students.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This study investigates career intentions and students’ engineering attitudes in BME, with a focus on gender differences. Data from n = 716 undergraduate biomedical engineering students at a large public research institution in the United States were analyzed using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis. Results revealed five clusters of intended post-graduation plans: Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Job, Non-Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Option, and Any Graduate School. Women were evenly distributed across clusters; there was no evidence of gendered career preferences. The main findings in regard to engineering attitudes reveal significant differences by cluster in interest, attainment value, utility value, and professional identity, but not in academic self-efficacy. Yet, within clusters the only gender differences were women’s lower engineering academic self-efficacy, interest and professional identity compared to men. Implications and areas of future research are discussed.more » « less
-
There are over 100,000 engineering graduates from undergraduate programs annually within the United States. Students graduating from these programs pursue a variety of jobs, with only a subset being engineering positions. Why might an engineering student, after investing considerable resources in their engineering education, select a nonengineering job? What are the specific factors at work for engineering graduates in selecting their first professional position? This study seeks to identify recently graduated engineering students’ motivations in job applications and job selection, particularly as these motives vary by academic and demographic backgrounds. The data for this study come from survey responses of 315 currently employed individuals who were within one year post-graduation from their undergraduate engineering program at one of 27 different institutions across the United States. A mixed methods approach was used to understand the factors influencing their career decisions based on their open- and closed- ended responses to related survey questions. First, using emergent coding, respondents’ self-reported, open-ended descriptions of their job search process that led them to accept the offer for their current employed position were categorized. Then, their open-ended responses were compared to a close-ended, ranking question of the same type, with items that were derived from a question in the National Survey of Recent College Graduates (sponsored by NSF’s Division of Science Resources Studies). Finally, respondents’ background characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status) and undergraduate experiences (e.g., participation in an internship) were analyzed in relation to their job search and job selection processes. Our findings reinforce that job selection is a complex process that often can be a source of anxiety and stress to students. The motivating factors for deciding which jobs to apply to, and which job to ultimately accept, vary for different students. By improving our understanding of student motivations during the job search process, employers can make adjustments to their offers in order to strengthen and diversify the engineering workforce. By knowing what motivates students, advisors can design services to support students in a successful transition from school-to-work. These findings also may be of use to students themselves, helping them see the variety of ways that engineering students pursue and consider job options.more » « less
-
Abstract The resources for carrying out and analyzing microbial evolution experiments have become more accessible, making it possible to expand these studies beyond the research laboratory and into the classroom. We developed five connected, standards‐aligned yeast evolution laboratory modules, called “yEvo,” for high school students. The modules enable students to take agency in answering open‐ended research questions. In Module 1, students evolve baker's yeast to tolerate an antifungal drug, and in subsequent modules, investigate how evolved yeasts adapted to this stressful condition at both the phenotype and genotype levels. We used pre‐ and post‐surveys from 72 students at two different schools and post‐interviews with students and teachers to assess our program goals and guide module improvement over 3 years. We measured changes in student conceptions, confidence in scientific practices, and interest in STEM careers. Students who participated in yEvo showed improvements in understanding of activity‐specific concepts and reported increased confidence in designing a valid biology experiment. Student experimental data replicated literature findings and has led to new insights into antifungal resistance. The modules and provided materials, alongside “proof of concept” evaluation metrics, will serve as a model for other university researchers and K − 16 classrooms interested in engaging in open‐ended research questions using yeast as a model system.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
