Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Hands-on laboratory courses seldom appear in biomedical engineering (BME) graduate programs, thus limiting graduate students’ ability to acquire wet laboratory skills like cell culturing. At large, BME graduate programs rely on ad hoc training provided by senior graduate students; however, this method cannot be extended to new or non-BME laboratories, which generally lack senior personnel adequately trained in cell culture techniques. This paper describes a graduate student-led, five-session workshop that introduces cell culture fundamentals to interested students with little to no prior experience. The workshop employs novel teaching techniques, such as near-peer and collaborative learning, to enhance students’ understanding and knowledge retention. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this initiative, students assessed their confidence levels with concepts and skills related to cell culture via pre- and post-workshop surveys, where significant improvements in cell culture-related concepts and skills were reported upon completing the workshop. Finally, this paper presents some challenges and reflects on insight gained from this initiative, thus providing a template for implementation at other institutions interested in enriching their graduate student education. PubDate: 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-023-00132-4
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Biomedical engineering is a broad and interdisciplinary field that prepares graduates for a variety of careers across multiple career sectors. Given this breadth, undergraduate degree programs often have formal or informal opportunities for students to further specialize within the biomedical engineering major to develop skills in subdisciplines of biomedical engineering. While previous work has explored factors that influence student decision-making of engineering major choice, including the role of gender, limited work has explored factors that influence intra-major specialization in biomedical engineering. The present study sought to expand on existing research to understand factors that influence biomedical engineering students’ choice of intra-major specializations and how, if at all, these factors are related to gender. Grounded in social cognitive career theory, the present study leveraged quantitative surveys from undergraduate biomedical engineering students to understand factors influencing intra-major specialization choice, including the impact that students viewed on their career plans. Participants rated multiple factors as important in their intra-major specialization decisions, with professors/classes rated as the most important influence and alumni as the lowest. Similarly, participants rated multiple outcome expectations of their specialization, although income was rated lower than other factors. Participants most commonly indicated interest in pursuing careers in industry and medicine. We found some differences in intra-major specialization, outcome expectations, and career interests by gender, with women students indicating a higher influence of professors/classes and higher expectations for their track decision to provide a career with a good income. Further understanding of how undergraduate students select specializations in engineering coursework will inform curriculum design and student advising. PubDate: 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-023-00133-3
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Successful translation of medical devices requires a clear pathway through the business environment, including regulatory obligations and the protection of intellectual property. Introducing these topics can be challenging for biomedical engineering programs, as students prefer hands-on activities and retain concepts best when directly applied to projects or research. To address this challenge, 10 years ago, we created a two-semester course sequence covering these topics, primarily intended for MS students focused on medical device design. Course content is delivered with a “just-in-time” approach to align with ongoing year-long design projects. In the fall semester, our course covers IP and regulatory topics relevant to the selection of an unmet clinical need for further development. The spring course covers topics related to implementation of a business model for a new product, such as licensing, clinical trials, quality systems, and submission of material to the FDA. Over 10 years, we have added numerous special features, including a regulatory science competition, a mock Pre-Submission Project reviewed by regulatory experts, and an IP presentation modeled after industry practices. In this manuscript, we review course content, structure, and outcomes. A survey was used to obtain feedback from graduates now in widely varying positions in the medical innovation space. In addition, we obtained feedback from a sample of external reviewers. With a response rate of ~50%, the survey identified strong support for the courses and identified chosen career paths. The mock Pre-Submission Project was highly valued by students and their employers, as were other assignments that aligned with ongoing design or research activities. Several opportunities for improvement and possible expansion of the course were identified to further enhance this valuable part of our curriculum. PubDate: 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00134-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The breadth of opportunities in biomedical engineering (BME) creates both a diversity of career options for students pursuing the degree and a potential hurdle in communicating the relevance of their skills when applying for specific jobs. This conundrum has driven research efforts seeking to understand what is valued by BME employers. Our work explored this area of need through an analysis of researcher-designed resumes (DRs) based on skills potentially of interest to BME recruiters in industry and academia. DRs were distributed to potential employers through an online survey asking about their perspectives on the quality of a subset of four DRs based on their indicated area of expertise. We performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 12 industry and 6 academic responses and compared our results to existing BME resume evaluation rubrics. Our results confirm a quantitative alignment between existing BME resume rubrics and employer’s perceptions which was previously unexplored. Qualitative results pointed toward (1) the importance of how experiences are represented as an important differentiator in resume reviews, (2) the acknowledgment from reviewers that resumes are only one step in a job application, and (3) specific similarities and differences in the skills that academic and industry employers look for in BME resumes. Our work provides validity evidence from employer perspectives to support the use of existing resume guidance tools in BME. Our qualitative data analysis expands that guidance by making recommendations for additional tools to craft resumes that clearly communicate the relevant experiences of an applicant. PubDate: 2024-06-26 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00154-6
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract 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. 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. 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. 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. PubDate: 2024-06-17 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00148-4
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Biomedical Quality Engineers (QEs) ensure that medical devices are safe, reliable, and consistent. To better understand career pathways for biomedical QEs, we (1) quantified the prevalence of QE skills in entry-level biomedical engineering (BME) job listings and (2) interviewed seven biomedical Quality Engineers with a BME bachelor’s degree. We mapped participant responses to the mechanisms in Social Cognitive Career Theory and identified common career pathways for biomedical QEs. To our surprise, over 40% of entry-level BME jobs were QE positions and 70% required QE-related skills. The interview participants were unaware of careers in QE careers as undergraduates and learned about QE while entering the job market—a surprising finding given the prevalence of entry-level QE jobs. The participants had low outcome expectations for QE careers and higher outcome expectations for research and development positions; instructors should be aware that a design-focused curriculum can bias students against QE careers. BME departments should introduce QE topics and experiences to help students make informed career decisions and be competitive in the sizable biomedical QE job market. PubDate: 2024-06-17 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00150-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Should your department offer a course on how to be a scientist and a successful graduate student' We offer this course at George Mason University as a mandatory part of the graduate curriculum, but this is not common practice for graduate biomedical engineering programs. Graduate education in biomedical engineering is evolving rapidly, with an increasing demand for fundamental research skills, interdisciplinary skills, and professional development. We believe that graduate students will be more successful in their research activities if they are explicitly taught these skills at the beginning of their graduate coursework. This paper describes the design of this course in our bioengineering department. PubDate: 2024-06-05 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00135-9
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In design-oriented biomedical engineering courses, some instructors teach need-driven methods for health technology innovation that use a “need statement” to reflect a student team’s hypothesis about the most fruitful direction for their project. While need statements are of the utmost importance to the projects, we were not aware of any comprehensive rubric for helping instructors evaluate them. Leveraging resources such as the Biodesign textbook along with input from faculty teaching health technology design at our university, we created a rubric for evaluating the construction of need statements. We then introduced the rubric to undergraduate students in a 3-week intersession course in fall 2023. Afterward, we used the rubric to compare the de-identified final need statements from 2023 to the de-identified final need statements from students in the course in 2022 and 2021. Our assumption that need statements from 2023 would score better against the rubric than those from previous years proved not to be the case. However, we gleaned valuable lessons about the role of rubrics in supporting student learning and increasing alignment among faculty, as well as insights about rubric development and areas for future study. In this article, we also share the initial version of the rubric so that other instructors can adapt and improve upon it for their own courses. PubDate: 2024-06-03 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00153-7
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The design of biological systems is a multidisciplinary activity in which biomedical engineers collaborate to build novel biological systems that address society’s needs. One of the most relevant skills for designing biological systems is engineering systems thinking (EST). Among the EST elements, the EST cognitive competencies are comparatively less explored. Particularly, there is a lack of understanding of how undergraduate engineering students manifest EST cognitive competencies in synthetic biology so instructors and curriculum designers can better scaffold students’ learning. In this study, we contribute to that gap by addressing the question: To what extent do multidisciplinary undergraduate teams exhibit EST cognitive competencies when designing a biological system to address societal needs'. We followed a Qualitative Descriptive Research approach to analyze the EST cognitive competencies of five teams who successfully framed a problem and developed a functional biological system as part of their participation in the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. We coded the publicly available teams’ wikis where they registered their design process using the Capacity for Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST) model and procedures from document analysis. The wikis included evidence of seven of the ten EST cognitive competencies from the CEST model. The studied undergraduate participants framed complex problems, designed systems that typically included various subsystems (e.g., biological, mechanical, electrical) and integrated multiple disciplinary concepts and tools. The participants used various approaches to handle the interconnection and synergistic properties of the elements in their biological systems, such as representing their systems at different levels of detail. Competition judges and advisor can support their teams’ EST using our findings. Furthermore, we propose a framework to explore the EST cognitive competencies of undergraduate students in the context of biological synthetic design and suggest how instructors and other interested readers may use our findings to develop learning environments that promote EST. PubDate: 2024-05-23 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00151-9
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In an effort to better engage biomedical engineering technology (BMET) students with material covered in lectures and to connect them with their future careers, we created interactive 360° videos in typical BMET workplaces. Students watched the videos using virtual reality (VR) headsets and reflected on the experience. Students commented that the 360° videos made them feel that they were actually in the workplace and provided a better understanding of the devices that were covered in lectures. The use of interactive 360° videos proved to be an effective way for students to explore equipment and situations and has the potential to be more broadly applied in the biomedical engineering field. PubDate: 2024-05-16 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00152-8
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract A challenge in building the biomedical engineering human factors course at Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences was integrating meaningful direct experiences with medical products. The instructor also noticed a significant gap between the topics in the course and their surrounding clinical context, a low-income setting. Recognizing that devices should be designed and evaluated in the context of the local users’ needs and situations, new hands-on modules were created and implemented in this BME human factors course. Students were asked to critically evaluate and make recommendations to improve the human factors aspects of the software and hardware of the IMPALA, a vital signs monitoring device developed for use in Malawi. Engaging with this medical device, students observed and understood many issues discussed in human factors, including the design of ports, controls, and other user interfaces. The collaboration between the course and the IMPALA project harnessed the local expertise of students to improve the design of a new patient monitoring system. Thus, the IMPALA project itself benefited from this collaboration. Second, students greatly benefited from applying the class concepts to the IMPALA. Students were engaged far more during the interactive components than during the lecture components. Many students successfully translated their knowledge on human factors to their final-year design project. PubDate: 2024-05-06 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00147-5
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Biomedical engineering (BME) spans a wide range of research fields and professional activities. Most BME departments use a seminar series to introduce graduate students to exciting research conducted outside their own university, learn about professional opportunities, and enhance their understanding of related topics (e.g., ethics in BME, engineering education, entrepreneurship). However, even a stellar lineup of expert seminar speakers cannot appeal to all graduate students–even though the information presented may be very important to that student in the future. Can we initiate active learning assignments to increase student engagement with all speakers' Our BME department developed a strategy to scaffold active learning activities to enhance student engagement in the graduate seminars. All speakers supplied three papers for advance reading and students were required to generate questions based on reading the papers. The questions were provided to the speakers in advance of the seminar. Both students and speakers submitted short reflection surveys after the seminar. With increasing graduate experience, students were also required to critique the articles, evaluate presentation styles, and answer the questions of other students. The requirement to read the papers and generate questions definitely increased student engagement with the speakers. The increased personal engagement was evident in the critical thinking by the students as they subsequently discussed trends in different fields, evaluated presentation styles, and learned about different career opportunities. The increase in student engagement had the added benefit of creating a positive impression of our students with the speakers visiting from other institutions. PubDate: 2024-05-03 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00144-8
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Biomedical engineering (BME) undergraduate curricula have begun to address gaps in diversity, especially in response to the newly proposed ABET diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) criteria. However, there is a significant lack of teaching resources, and pedagogical training available for those interested in including DEI into their course material. This is not restricted to BME and permeates many STEM fields. Thus, new engaging techniques to incorporate DEI into STEM teaching must be developed and tested. A mandatory undergraduate BME course at Stony Brook University was redesigned, to include DEI concepts directly into course content. Instructor generated resources were presented and discussed throughout the semester. These resources focused on introducing prominent scholars, engineers, and researchers, who rarely make it into textbook discussions, and their discoveries and contributions. A graded project was incorporated that asked students to generate their own resources, with the understanding that an overarching goal was to develop a library of information to be shared with our student population. After one semester, over seventy biographies have been collated. This approach worked well to highlight individual accomplishments of diverse scholars. Students appeared to be engaged with the discussion (observed through body language and participation), and appreciated researching a prominent engineer outside of those typically discussed. In the future, it will be important to link highlighted engineers more closely to course content, and to include key findings more directly within topics that are under discussion. Importantly, these efforts must be included within the graded course content to help ensure engagement, retention, and understanding. PubDate: 2024-04-30 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00149-3
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Biomedical engineering (BME) is a multidisciplinary, constantly advancing field; as such, undergraduate programs in BME must continually adapt. Elective courses provide opportunities for students to select topic areas relevant to their interests or future careers. Specifically, laboratory courses allow experiential learning in specialized topics in a hands-on manner that is suitable and accessible to undergraduate students. In recent years, neural engineering has emerged as a research sub-specialty within BME, and students preparing to pursue careers in this field will require a broad range of fundamental and experiential training. We sought to demonstrate this possibility by implementing a neural tissue engineering module into an existing upper-level undergraduate biofabrication elective. Organoids, which are self-assembling aggregate cell culture models that mimic a tissue or organ in both function and structure, have been made more accessible by genetic tools and commercially available resources. These experimental tools can be incorporated into basic laboratory experiments to model neurological systems that are otherwise difficult to study. In this paper, we describe the execution of this new module in which teams followed an adapted protocol for producing human neural organoids and then designed and manufactured a 3D-printed 'solution' to a common problem in the fields of neural engineering and organoid research. Additionally, we include student feedback as well as advantages, disadvantages, and opportunities for improvement of this laboratory module in future implementations. Skills gained in this project-based setting could be beneficial in subsequent capstone design courses as well as translated into future courses or graduate research studies. PubDate: 2024-04-30 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00145-7
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We summarize national-scale data for Ph.D. earners in engineering or computer science from 2015 to 2019 whose post-graduate school employment is known, highlighting outcomes for biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering students. We use NSF’s Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), which has collected information from Ph.D. recipients in the USA since 1957. The data are collected at the time of degree completion and constitute a greater than 90% response rate. Compared to all engineering and computer science disciplines, biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering has a higher proportion going to 4yr/med/research institutions (52% vs. 33%) and non-profit (3.6% vs. 2.9%) and lower proportion going to industry (33% vs. 48%), government (4.3% vs. 8.4%), and is similar for non-US positions (6.1% vs. 5.7%). Compared to 2010–2014 biological/biomedical/biosystems engineering Ph.D. recipients, more 2015–2019 recipients are going to industry (25% to 33%) and fewer to 4yr/med/research institutions (59% to 52%) and governmet (5.3% to 4.3%). Across all engineering and computer science disciplines, a smaller proportion of females entered industry (43%) compared to males (49%), while a larger proportion of females entered 4yr/med/research institutions (37%) compared to males (32%). Over half of Asian doctoral recipients entered industry, as compared to 38% of Hispanic doctoral recipients. In contrast, a higher proportion of Hispanic individuals (37%) entered 4yr/med/research institutions after their doctoral programs, as compared to 31% of Asian doctoral recipients. Black doctoral recipients had the highest proportion enter positions in government (14%) and non-profit (4%) sectors. Our results are situated in the broader literature focused on postdoctoral career, training, and employment sectors and trends in STEM. We discuss implications for graduate programs, policymakers, and researchers. PubDate: 2024-04-26 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00140-y
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Experiential learning in biomedical engineering curricula is a critical component to developing graduates who are equipped to contribute to technical design tasks in their careers. This paper presents the development and implementation of an undergraduate and graduate-level soft material robotics design course focused on applications in medical device design. The elective course, offered in a bioengineering department, includes modules on technical topics and hands-on projects relevant to readings, all situated within a human-centered design course. After learning and using first principles governing soft robot design and exploring literature in soft robotics, students propose a new advance in the field in a hands-on design and prototype project. The course described here aims to create a structure to engage students in fabrication and the design approaches taken by practitioners in a specific field, applied here in soft robotics, but applicable to other areas of biomedical engineering. This teaching tips article details the pedagogical tools used to facilitate design and collaboration within the course. Additionally, we aim to highlight ways in which the course creates (1) opportunities to engage undergraduates in design in preparation for capstone courses, (2) outward facing opportunities to connect with practitioners in the field, and (3) the ability to adapt this hands-on experience within a typical lecture structure as well as a hybrid online and in-person offering, thus expanding its utility in bioengineering departments. We reflect on course elements that can inform future design-based course offerings in soft robotics and other design-based multidisciplinary fields in bioengineering. PubDate: 2024-04-26 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00143-9
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Whether doctoral students are funded primarily by fellowships, research assistantships, or teaching assistantships impacts their degree completion, time to degree, learning outcomes, and short- and long-term career outcomes. Variations in funding patterns have been studied at the broad field level but not comparing engineering sub-disciplines. We addressed two research questions: How do PhD student funding mechanisms vary across engineering sub-disciplines' And how does variation in funding mechanisms across engineering sub-disciplines map onto the larger STEM disciplinary landscape' We analyzed 103,373 engineering and computing responses to the U.S. Survey of Earned Doctorates collected between 2007 and 2016. We conducted analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons to examine variation in funding across sub-disciplines. Then, we conducted a k-means cluster analysis on percentage variables for fellowship, research, and teaching assistantship funding mechanism with STEM sub-discipline as the unit of analysis. A statistically significantly greater percentage of biomedical/biological engineering doctoral students were funded via a fellowship, compared to every other engineering sub-discipline. Consequently, biomedical/biological engineering had significantly lower proportions of students supported via research and teaching assistantships than nearly all other engineering sub-disciplines. We identified five clusters. The majority of engineering sub-disciplines grouped together into a cluster with high research assistantships and low teaching assistantships. Biomedical/biological engineering clustered in the high fellowships grouping with most other biological sciences but no other engineering sub-disciplines. Biomedical/biological engineering behaves much more like biological and life sciences in utilizing fellowships to fund graduate students, far more than other engineering sub-disciplines. Our study provides further evidence of the prevalence of fellowships in life sciences and how it stretches into biomedical/biological engineering. The majority of engineering sub-disciplines relied more on research assistantships to fund graduate study. The lack of uniformity provides an opportunity to diversify student experiences during their graduate programs but also necessitates an awareness to the advantages and disadvantages that different funding portfolios can bestow on students. PubDate: 2024-03-26 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00142-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Amidst the dual challenges of an eight-month university closure from nationwide public university strikes in Nigeria and the lingering impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, we needed to innovate the delivery of BME graduate curriculum to ensure graduate students continued to progress in their studies. To ensure BME graduate students were engaging in team-based, clinician-identified engineering design challenges, we developed a digital design notebook (DDN) using Google Sites as an open-access, collaborative tool for scaffolding and documenting the engineering design process. Student design teams remotely uploaded digital content documenting their project work onto scaffolded DDNs created by program instructors. DDNs were purposefully designed to shepherd students through the design process such that each phase of the design process corresponded to an editable “page” of the DDN. Video lectures, learning resources, assignments, and other program information were embedded into the DDN for students to access throughout their design challenge. Project mentors and program instructors remotely monitored and assessed students’ work using the DDN. At the end of the design challenge, students effectively created an e-portfolio which showcased the work they conducted to build a biomedical prototype. Designing and implementing the DDN builds on previous research which demonstrates that “structured” design notebooks can be used as effective tools in engineering design and design thinking education. Our work also leverages educational frameworks for infusing engineering design into existing graduate biomedical engineering curriculum in Nigeria. PubDate: 2024-03-15 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00136-8
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract 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. PubDate: 2024-02-20 DOI: 10.1007/s43683-024-00137-7
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[2468 journals]
