skip to main content


Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 2126251

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. 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
  2. Evidence has shown that facilitating student-centered learning (SCL) in STEM classrooms enhances student learning and satisfaction [1]–[3]. However, despite increased support from educational and government bodies to incorporate SCL practices [1], minimal changes have been made in undergraduate STEM curriculum [4]. Faculty often teach as they were taught, relying heavily on traditional lecture-based teaching to disseminate knowledge [4]. Though some faculty express the desire to improve their teaching strategies, they feel limited by a lack of time, training, and incentives [4], [5]. To maximize student learning while minimizing instructor effort to change content, courses can be designed to incorporate simpler, less time-consuming SCL strategies that still have a positive impact on student experience. In this paper, we present one example of utilizing a variety of simple SCL strategies throughout the design and implementation of a 4-week long module. This module focused on introductory tissue engineering concepts and was designed to help students learn foundational knowledge within the field as well as develop critical technical skills. Further, the module sought to develop important professional skills such as problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. During module design and implementation, evidence-based SCL teaching strategies were applied to ensure students developed important knowledge and skills within the short timeframe. Lectures featured discussion-based active learning exercises to encourage student engagement and peer collaboration [6]–[8]. The module was designed using a situated perspective, acknowledging that knowing is inseparable from doing [9], and therefore each week, the material taught in the two lecture sessions was directly applied to that week’s lab to reinforce students’ conceptual knowledge through hands-on activities and experimental outcomes. Additionally, the majority of assignments served as formative assessments to motivate student performance while providing instructors with feedback to identify misconceptions and make real-time module improvements [10]–[12]. Students anonymously responded to pre- and post-module surveys, which focused on topics such as student motivation for enrolling in the module, module expectations, and prior experience. Students were also surveyed for student satisfaction, learning gains, and graduate student teaching team (GSTT) performance. Data suggests a high level of student satisfaction, as most students’ expectations were met, and often exceeded. Students reported developing a deeper understanding of the field of tissue engineering and learning many of the targeted basic lab skills. In addition to hands-on skills, students gained confidence to participate in research and an appreciation for interacting with and learning from peers. Finally, responses with respect to GSTT performance indicated a perceived emphasis on a learner-centered and knowledge/community-centered approaches over assessment-centeredness [13]. Overall, student feedback indicated that SCL teaching strategies can enhance student learning outcomes and experience, even over the short timeframe of this module. Student recommendations for module improvement focused primarily on modifying the lecture content and laboratory component of the module, and not on changing the teaching strategies employed. The success of this module exemplifies how instructors can implement similar strategies to increase student engagement and encourage in-depth discussions without drastically increasing instructor effort to re-format course content. Introduction. 
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)