Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

While student-centered learning has been shown to improve learning experiences in the engineering classroom, adoption of these evidence-based strategies has been slow. Research has shown that faculty beliefs about teaching and limited exposure to formal training influence effective implementation of evidenced-based instructional practices. Thus, in an effort to explore ways to implement long-term instructional change in engineering higher education, a graduate-level course, the Instructional Incubator (I2), was developed to expose future educators to instructional design and evidence-based practices. In the I2, student participants developed new biomedical engineering short-courses in an active learning classroom. For the first two iterations of the I2, we examined how this immersive experience influenced participants’ perceived teaching abilities and understanding before and after enrolling in the I2. Both I2 cohorts reported an increase in knowledge of engineering education related terms and showed a shift away from behaviorist and cognitive beliefs about teaching and learning. Introduction