Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Engineering: Communication from the Biomedical Engineering Society Long Range Planning Committee
Promotion and tenure (P&T) remain the central tenets of academia. The criteria for P&T both create and reflect the mission of an institution. The discipline of biomedical engineering is built upon the invention and translation of tools to address unmet clinical needs. ‘Broadening the bar’ for P&T to include efforts in innovation, entrepreneurship, and technology-based transfer (I/E/T) will require establishing the criteria and communication of methodology for their evaluation. We surveyed the department chairs across the fields of biomedical and bioengineering to understand the state-of-the-art in incorporation, evaluation, and definition of I/E/T as applied to the P&T process. The survey results reflected a commitment to increasing and respecting I/E/T activities as part of the P&T criteria. This was balanced by an equally strong desire for improving the education and policy for evaluating I/E/T internally as well as externally. The potential for ‘broadening the bar’ for P&T to include I/E/T activities in biomedical engineering may serve as an example for other fields in engineering and applied sciences, and a template for potential inclusion of additional efforts such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the pillars of scholarship, education, and service.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2344705
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10497384
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1865-5025
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 181 to 185
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
To broaden efforts for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in biomedical engineering (BME) education—a key area of emphasis is the integration of inclusive teaching practices. While BME faculty generally support these efforts, translating support into action remains challenging. This project aimed to address this need through a 3-phase inclusive teaching training, consisting of graduate students, faculty, and engineering education consultants. In Phase I, graduate students and faculty participated in a 6-week learning community on inclusive teaching (Foundational Learning). In Phase II, graduate students were paired with faculty to modify or develop new inclusive teaching materials to be integrated into a BME course (Experiential Learning). Phase III was the implementation of these materials. To assess Phases I & II, graduate student participants reflected on their experiences on the project. To assess Phase III, surveys were administered to students in IT-BME-affiliated courses as well as those taking other BME-related courses. Phases I & II: graduate students responded positively to the opportunity to engage in this inclusive teaching experiential learning opportunity. Phase III: survey results indicated that the incorporation of inclusive teaching practices in BME courses enhanced the student learning experience. The IT-BME project supported graduate students and faculty in learning about, creating, and implementing inclusive teaching practices in a collaborative and supportive environment. This project will serve to both train the next class of instructors and use their study of inclusive teaching concepts to facilitate the creation of ideas and materials that will benefit the BME curriculum and students.more » « less
-
National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Engineering Research Centers (ERC) must complement their technical research with various education and outreach opportunities to: 1) improve and promote engineering education, both within the center and to the local community; 2) encourage and include the underrepresented populations to participate in Engineering activities; and 3) advocate communication and collaboration between industry and academia. ERCs ought to perform an adequate evaluation of their educational and outreach programs to ensure that beneficial goals are met. Each ERC has complete autonomy in conducting and reporting such evaluation. Evaluation tools used by individual ERCs are quite similar, but each ERC has designed their evaluation processes in isolation, including evaluation tools such as survey instruments, interview protocols, focus group protocols, and/or observation protocols. These isolated efforts resulted in redundant resources spent and lacking outcome comparability across ERCs. Leaders from three different ERCs led and initiated a collaborative effort to address the above issue by building a suite of common evaluation instruments that all current and future ERCs can use. This leading group consists of education directors and external evaluators from all three partners ERCs and engineering education researchers, who have worked together for two years. The project intends to address the four ERC program clusters: Broadening Participation in Engineering, Centers and Networks, Engineering Education, and Engineering Workforce Development. The instruments developed will pay attention to culture of inclusion, outreach activities, mentoring experience, and sustained interest in engineering. The project will deliver best practices in education program evaluation, which will not only support existing ERCs, but will also serve as immediate tools for brand new ERCs and similar large-scale research centers. Expanding the research beyond TEEC and sharing the developed instruments with NSF as well as other ERCs will also promote and encourage continual cross-ERC collaboration and research. Further, the joint evaluation will increase the evaluation consistency across all ERC education programs. Embedded instrumental feedback loops will lead to continual improvement to ERC education performance and support the growth of an inclusive and innovative engineering workforce. Four major deliveries are planned. First, develop a common quantitative assessment instrument, named Multi-ERC Instrument Inventory (MERCII). Second, develop a set of qualitative instruments to complement MERCII. Third, create a web-based evaluation platform for MERCII. Fourth, update the NSF ERC education program evaluation best practice manual. These deliveries together will become part of and supplemented by an ERC evaluator toolbox. This project strives to significantly impact how ERCs evaluate their educational and outreach programs. Single ERC based studies lack the sample size to truly test the validity of any evaluation instruments or measures. A common suite of instruments across ERCs would provide an opportunity for a large scale assessment study. The online platform will further provide an easy-to-use tool for all ERCs to facilitate evaluation, share data, and reporting impacts.more » « less
-
The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at a large Midwestern University is seeking to enhance undergraduate engineering education through a combination of programmatic efforts to create departmental change. Three distinct programs aim to transform ECE education through collaborative course design, enhancements to the department climate, and increases in the opportunities for underrepresented undergraduate engineering students. Due to the integrative and corresponding programmatic goals, it was vital to develop a unified evaluation in line with the program evaluation standards (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Further, the interaction of multiple programs necessitated evaluating goal attainment at both the programmatic and departmental levels to determine not only the effects of individual programs but also to examine the broader effect of the interaction of multiple ongoing programmatic efforts to enhance engineering education. To facilitate this process, program team members developed comprehensive lists of ongoing activities designed to create change in the department within each program. Evaluators worked with the program teams to theme and cluster activities into similar groups. To understand how each cluster of activities was positioned to create departmental change and revolutionize engineering education, the evaluators and team members then attempted to identify how each cluster of activities worked as change strategies within the model by Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (2011). Thus, evaluators were able to identify over twenty distinct clusters of change activities working as change strategies within the four pillars of the change model: Curriculum and pedagogy, reflective teachers, policy, and shared vision. Positioning activities within this model allowed the evaluators and team members to 1) Better understand the broad scope of departmental activities and change strategies, 2) Identify strengths and challenges associated with their current efforts to transform engineering education within the department, and 3) Develop and integrate ongoing evaluation efforts to further understand both the programmatic and interactive effects of having multiple programs designed at facilitating departmental change and enhancing engineering education. The model for understanding department change and the approaches within that model that are being used to transform ECE education will be presented. We will further explain how the change model approach facilitated evaluating each program and the interactive effects of the combined programmatic efforts within the program evaluation standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy (Yarbrough et al., 2011). Specific programmatic and interactive evaluation approaches will be discussed. References Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984. Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.more » « less
-
While many efforts have begun to increase the diversity of learners in computing and engineering fields, more inclusive approaches are needed to support learners with intersectional identities across gender, race, ethnicity, and ability. A group of 15 experts across a range of computing, engineering, and data-based disciplines joined experts from education and the social sciences to build a plan for intersectional policy, practices, and research in broadening participation in computing and engineering (BPC/BPE) efforts that is inclusive of gender identity. This paper presents findings from the workshop including near and long term agenda items for intersectional research about the inclusion of gender identity in the computing and engineering education research communities; recommendations for advancing collective understanding of and ability to implement principles of intersectionality in future work and; and highlights from existing work, researchers, and thought leaders on the inclusion of gender identity in BPC/BPE initiatives that inform this research agenda. In this report we’ll discuss the origin of the workshop idea, the experience of pulling together the workshop and lessons learned around implementing it, and finally we’ll report about the outputs and emerging outcomes of the workshop experience. This workshop report will contribute to fostering a space where gender expansive work is valued and valuable for those doing, receiving, and being represented by this work. It will also offer readers the opportunity to conceptualize how to expand and refine the inclusion of gender identity as part of their current and future BPC/BPE initiatives. We end with an explicit call for more gender expansive and gender liberationist work be undertaken through the auspices of ASEE.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-023-00767-x
