Sharing best practices in teaching biomedical engineering design

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In an effort to share best practices in undergraduate engineering design education, we describe the origin, evolution and the current status of the undergraduate biomedical engineering design team program at Johns Hopkins University. Specifically, we describe the program and judge the quality of the pedagogy by relating it to sponsor feedback, project outcomes, external recognition and student satisfaction. The general pedagogic practices, some of which are unique to Hopkins, that have worked best include: (1) having a hierarchical team structure, selecting team leaders the Spring semester prior to the academic year, and empowering them to develop and manage their teams, (2) incorporating a longitudinal component that incudes freshmen as part of the team, (3) having each team choose from among pre-screened clinical problems, (4) developing relationships and fostering medical faculty, industry and government to allow students access to engineers, clinicians and clinical environments as needed, (5) providing didactic sessions on topics related to requirements for the next presentation, (6) employing judges from engineering, medicine, industry and government to evaluate designs and provide constructive criticisms approximately once every 3-4 weeks and (7) requiring students to test the efficacy of their designs. Institutional support and resources are crucial for the design program to flourish. Most importantly, our willingness and flexibility to change the program each year based on feedback from students, sponsors, outcomes and judges provides a mechanism for us to test new approaches and continue or modify those that work well, and eliminate those that did not.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1869-1879
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Biomedical Engineering
Volume41
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

Biomedical engineering
Teaching
Students
Feedback
Medicine
Industry
Education
Engineers

Keywords

  • ABET
  • Capstone
  • Education
  • Projects
  • Prototypes
  • Team
  • Teamwork

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Sharing best practices in teaching biomedical engineering design. / Allen, Robert; Acharya, Soumyadipta; Jancuk, C.; Shoukas, Artin A.

In: Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 9, 09.2013, p. 1869-1879.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7800badc328e48b99445dabccd7bd5f5,
title = "Sharing best practices in teaching biomedical engineering design",
abstract = "In an effort to share best practices in undergraduate engineering design education, we describe the origin, evolution and the current status of the undergraduate biomedical engineering design team program at Johns Hopkins University. Specifically, we describe the program and judge the quality of the pedagogy by relating it to sponsor feedback, project outcomes, external recognition and student satisfaction. The general pedagogic practices, some of which are unique to Hopkins, that have worked best include: (1) having a hierarchical team structure, selecting team leaders the Spring semester prior to the academic year, and empowering them to develop and manage their teams, (2) incorporating a longitudinal component that incudes freshmen as part of the team, (3) having each team choose from among pre-screened clinical problems, (4) developing relationships and fostering medical faculty, industry and government to allow students access to engineers, clinicians and clinical environments as needed, (5) providing didactic sessions on topics related to requirements for the next presentation, (6) employing judges from engineering, medicine, industry and government to evaluate designs and provide constructive criticisms approximately once every 3-4 weeks and (7) requiring students to test the efficacy of their designs. Institutional support and resources are crucial for the design program to flourish. Most importantly, our willingness and flexibility to change the program each year based on feedback from students, sponsors, outcomes and judges provides a mechanism for us to test new approaches and continue or modify those that work well, and eliminate those that did not.",
keywords = "ABET, Capstone, Education, Projects, Prototypes, Team, Teamwork",
author = "Robert Allen and Soumyadipta Acharya and C. Jancuk and Shoukas, {Artin A}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s10439-013-0781-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1869--1879",
journal = "Annals of Biomedical Engineering",
issn = "0090-6964",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sharing best practices in teaching biomedical engineering design

AU - Allen, Robert

AU - Acharya, Soumyadipta

AU - Jancuk, C.

AU - Shoukas, Artin A

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - In an effort to share best practices in undergraduate engineering design education, we describe the origin, evolution and the current status of the undergraduate biomedical engineering design team program at Johns Hopkins University. Specifically, we describe the program and judge the quality of the pedagogy by relating it to sponsor feedback, project outcomes, external recognition and student satisfaction. The general pedagogic practices, some of which are unique to Hopkins, that have worked best include: (1) having a hierarchical team structure, selecting team leaders the Spring semester prior to the academic year, and empowering them to develop and manage their teams, (2) incorporating a longitudinal component that incudes freshmen as part of the team, (3) having each team choose from among pre-screened clinical problems, (4) developing relationships and fostering medical faculty, industry and government to allow students access to engineers, clinicians and clinical environments as needed, (5) providing didactic sessions on topics related to requirements for the next presentation, (6) employing judges from engineering, medicine, industry and government to evaluate designs and provide constructive criticisms approximately once every 3-4 weeks and (7) requiring students to test the efficacy of their designs. Institutional support and resources are crucial for the design program to flourish. Most importantly, our willingness and flexibility to change the program each year based on feedback from students, sponsors, outcomes and judges provides a mechanism for us to test new approaches and continue or modify those that work well, and eliminate those that did not.

AB - In an effort to share best practices in undergraduate engineering design education, we describe the origin, evolution and the current status of the undergraduate biomedical engineering design team program at Johns Hopkins University. Specifically, we describe the program and judge the quality of the pedagogy by relating it to sponsor feedback, project outcomes, external recognition and student satisfaction. The general pedagogic practices, some of which are unique to Hopkins, that have worked best include: (1) having a hierarchical team structure, selecting team leaders the Spring semester prior to the academic year, and empowering them to develop and manage their teams, (2) incorporating a longitudinal component that incudes freshmen as part of the team, (3) having each team choose from among pre-screened clinical problems, (4) developing relationships and fostering medical faculty, industry and government to allow students access to engineers, clinicians and clinical environments as needed, (5) providing didactic sessions on topics related to requirements for the next presentation, (6) employing judges from engineering, medicine, industry and government to evaluate designs and provide constructive criticisms approximately once every 3-4 weeks and (7) requiring students to test the efficacy of their designs. Institutional support and resources are crucial for the design program to flourish. Most importantly, our willingness and flexibility to change the program each year based on feedback from students, sponsors, outcomes and judges provides a mechanism for us to test new approaches and continue or modify those that work well, and eliminate those that did not.

KW - ABET

KW - Capstone

KW - Education

KW - Projects

KW - Prototypes

KW - Team

KW - Teamwork

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896727129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896727129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10439-013-0781-y

DO - 10.1007/s10439-013-0781-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 23568150

AN - SCOPUS:84896727129

VL - 41

SP - 1869

EP - 1879

JO - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

JF - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

SN - 0090-6964

IS - 9

ER -