O
ver two-thirds of graduating engineerspursue industrial positions immediately following completion of their bachelor’s degree. Upon entering the workforce, the rookie engineer is immediately confronted with challenges like circuit board fabrica-tion, software validafabrica-tion, design reviews, functional requirements, specifications, project scheduling, project management, FDA compliance, 510Ks, clinical trials, ethical debate, patient risk, intellectual property, documentation, and a variety of other responsibilities. Having spent four or more years studying the theory of p-n dop-ing, free-body diagrams, Laplace trans-forms, Fourier transtrans-forms, Kreb’s cycle, and Poiseuille’s law, it is no wonder that the recent graduate is frustrated by the seeming disconnect between higher educa-tion and the “real world.”Academicians struggle to establish that balance between theory and practice. Many fear that too much “real world” is simply job training. Yet, too little practical experi-ence leaves the graduate with naive prob-lem-solving skills and no appreciation for approximation, optimization, and error. Even everyday tasks such as calibrating a transducer, selecting the appropriate
sam-John D. Enderle
1, Kristina M. Ropella
2, David M. Kelso
3, Brooke Hallowell
41Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut 2Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University 3Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University 4Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences, Ohio University
©1997 & 1999 PHOTO DISC INC.
pling frequency for collecting data from an instrument, or writing an effective memo may be beyond the experience of the biomedical engineer trained with clas-sic science and math courses and the-ory-laden textbooks written for disciplines outside biomedical engineering.
Given the wide spectrum of courses addressing these real-world needs, one might consider where courses fall on a “reality” scale. At the lowest level of the reality scale are courses using analytical tools like MATLAB, SolidWorks, Mathematica, or SIMULINK. Level two requires students working in teams to solve problems with a “correct answer” (like a physics or chemistry lab). Level three courses might require problems that are structured and researched by faculty but that could have multiple solutions. As one further ascends the reality scale, one finds industrial clients with fuzzy prob-lem descriptions that require initial re-search to develop specifications before solutions are generated. At the top of the reality chart would be courses that address the myriad of stakeholders one finds in in-dustry, such as the FDA, U/L, end-users as well as manufacturing, service, finan-cial, and legal representatives.
Real-world experience and exposure can be achieved through a number of mechanisms including design courses, computer simulation, laboratory
experi-ments, guest speakers, industrial sponsor-ship of design projects, field trips to hospi-tals and medical industry, internships, and cooperative education. In this article, we describe the mechanisms currently being used in biomedical engineering curricula to create real-world experience and sug-gest future directions for incorporating the real world into undergraduate curricula.
Real-World Experience
Throughout the Curriculum
From freshman design to senior cap-stone design, there is a myriad of real-world experiences being integrated into biomedical engineering curricula throughout the United States. This article summarizes some of the best practices in weaving real-world experiences through-out the four-year curriculum.
Laboratory Courses
Laboratory courses are used through-out the curriculum to give students hands-on, practical experience in basic science, computing, and engineering methods. Through laboratory investiga-tion students learn to:
nmeasure and digitally acquire
physi-cal phenomena relevant to medicine and biology;
ndesign experiments;
ninterpretandstatisticallyevaluatedata, nwrite technical reports; and
ncompare experimental observation
to theory and determine, quantita-tively, how protocols, conditions, and methodology may produce the observed differences.
In the simplest laboratory experiences, students follow step-by-step protocols to demonstrate principles of physics or learn about biological measurement. In more ad-vanced labs, students typically perform ex-periments based on open-ended clinical or research problems. Laboratory experiences may include multi-week group projects that require students to research the literature and use the instruments and equipment available in the lab to prepare a proposal for investigation. The projects may even be presented and defended orally.
Computer Simulation
Theory may be put into practice through modeling and computer simula-tion. Simulation of physiological systems may be performed using a variety of soft-ware packages such as Working Model, SIMM, LabView, Mathematica, and MATLAB. These software packages are
relatively simple to use, require minimal programming skills, and allow fairly so-phisticated analysis of complex systems. In most applications, students construct models of biomedical systems and com-pare theoretical performance to experi-mental observation. For example, at Johns Hopkins University [1], freshman BME students begin their studies with a course called “Models for Life,” where students learn how to model biological systems in a small group tutorial environment. The course emphasizes the modeling aspects of biomedical engineering, integrating the laws of physics and chemistry with math-ematics to model biologic phenomena.
Internships and Cooperative Education
Several programs offer formalized co-operative education and internship pro-grams to their undergraduate and graduate BME students. These programs allow stu-dents to spend one or more semesters work-ing in industry. These internship experiences supplement classroom instruc-tion and help students define their strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. A number of universities also offer summer research experiences for undergraduates. Many of these summer programs are funded by NSF and the Howard Hughes Institute.
The BME program at University of Pennsylvania [2] offers “Preceptorship in Clinical Bioengineering.” This course provides lectures and in-depth exposure to a selected clinical program in the School of Medicine. Half the course time is spent participating in programs with clinical faculty, interns, residents, and re-searchers of a selected clinical department emphasizing areas of particular interest and applications to BME.
Guest Speakers
A typical undergraduate course is taught by one instructor who is expected to teach a fairly broad range of topics. Guest speakers are an excellent means for introducing expertise that is not readily available in the course instructor. When faculty bring in guest speakers or outside experts, they demonstrate to students the need for a team of experts in solving bio-medical problems.
Research
As teacher-scholars, professors should make an effort to bring their research ac-tivities into the classroom. Professors may incorporate actual data into homework
In most senior design
courses, the emphasis
is not on learning new
material but rather
solving large-scale,
open-ended, complex,
and sometimes
ill-defined problems.
and computer projects or have senior de-sign teams build instrumentation for the laboratory. Moreover, most BME pro-grams offer one-on-one independent study allowing undergraduate students to perform research on cutting-edge topics using state-of-the-art facilities and tech-niques.“Research and Professional Prac-tice I and II” at Tulane University [3] introduces the tools, techniques, and rules necessary to function professionally as a researcher or engineer.
Field Trips
The medical device industry often complains about the lack of appreciation that engineers have for the clinical envi-ronment. Too many engineers are sitting in a cubicle designing for an environment to which they have never had exposure. Some courses address this problem by providing students with tours of clinical facilities.
Problem-Centered Instruction
Recent findings from the BME Educa-tion Engineering Resource Center, VaNTH, [4-5] led by Vanderbilt Univer-sity, suggest that students learn better when topics are presented in a prob-lem-focused, modular format. Perhaps BME curricula should consider reformat-ting the traditional courses of chemistry, physics, biology, and calculus. Perhaps teams of scientists, mathematicians, phy-sicians, and engineers might teach the ma-terial in combined fashion using a modular, problem-focused approach. Each topic is first introduced within the context of an appropriate biomedical problem. Then, the potential solutions are covered using knowledge of physics, biol-ogy, chemistry, and engineering methods. Marquette University’s freshman se-quence in Biomedical Engineering Methods I & II is a fully modular, team-taught course whereby each three-to four-week module addresses a biomed-ical problem or challenge. Each module requires six hours of laboratory giving students hands-on experience with circuit design, mechanical models, data acquisi-tion, statistical analysis, CAD, technical writing, measurement, and teamwork [6].
Senior Design
In most senior design courses, the em-phasis is not on learning new material but rather solving large-scale, open-ended, complex, and sometimes ill-defined prob-lems. This is an iterative, decision-making
process in which the students apply previously learned material to meet a stated objective. Most often, students are exposed to system-wide synthesis and analysis, critique, and evaluation for the first time. Typically, the class is divided into small teams of no more than five stu-dents. Each team meets with the course in-structors and faculty advisors on a regular basis, and when appropriate, with clini-cians and industrial sponsors. Some pro-grams have teams consisting only of biomedical engineering students, while other programs offer truly interdisciplinary teams of biomedical, electrical, mechani-cal, and chemical engineers. For example, at Marquette University [6], all senior bio-medical, electrical, and mechanical engi-neering students are combined into one capstone design course where students may select projects offered by any of the participating departments. Project spon-sors typically request that a team be com-prised of a mix of engineering disciplines.
Typically, there are no required text-books, and only a minimal number of lec-tures. Experts from industry, patent law, and government agencies typically provide the lecture material. Students integrate and ap-ply knowledge from their major field of study toward a specific project.
A number of biomedical engineering programs, like the University of Connect-icut [7], have a full year of required senior design courses, here referred to as Design I and II. The major deliverable in Design I is a paper design with extensive modeling and computer analysis. Over the semester,
students are introduced to a variety of sub-jects including working on teams, the de-sign process, planning and scheduling, technical report writing, proposal writing, oral presentations, ethics in design, safety, liability, impact of economic constraints, environmental considerations, manufac-turing, and marketing. Design II requires students to implement their design by completing a working model of the final product. Prototype testing of the paper de-sign typically requires modification to meet specifications.
Team Work
Graduates entering the real world find that just about every project is tackled by a team of engineers, scientists, marketing experts, technicians, and other personnel. Yet, team-based projects tend to be diffi-cult for a student without the basic team-building skills in his or her back-ground [8]. Student learning styles differ within teams and are best described by field-independent and field-dependent learners. Field-independent learners tend to be excellent problem solvers and inde-pendent workers, people who would rather work by themselves than interact in a group. These learners typically have trouble communicating with others and need private time to clarify ideas and solu-tions. Field-dependent learners are excel-lent communicators and need the interaction of the team to clarify ideas and solutions.These learners tend to work op-timally within groups, and without group interaction they would tend to fail.
1. Dr. Kris Ropella and student Aaron Suminski discuss experiment design in Marquette’s biocomputing laboratory.
On a team-based project, each student has tasks that he or she is responsible for successfully completing, and team suc-cess depends on each team member com-pleting his or her own tasks. Naturally, team success depends on each team mem-ber communicating progress on a regular basis. This interaction is vital for the team to complete the project.
Communication
Throughout the design process, stu-dents are required to document their work through a series of required written assign-ments as well as a bound, project notebook. For the final report, documenting the de-sign project involves integrating each of the required reports into a single final doc-ument. Students are often expected to re-cord weekly progress in bound, legal notebooks and on a website [9]. Many graded written reports are required throughout the first semester, culminating in a final report for the project. Successive updating over multiple reports allows the students to improve their writing skills. The web is being used more often to report project progress and communicate with the sponsors and clients.
Students are also required to give oral presentations such as weekly design re-views to fellow team members and faculty advisors and end-of-semester formal pre-sentations to the entire class and clients. At Boston University, the BME program has a senior project conference, which
draws representatives from more than 50 biomedical companies and local hospi-tals, providing a professional style forum for every student to present his or her pro-ject orally [10].
From simple PowerPoint presenta-tions and web pages logging project sta-tus, to Microsoft Project for timelines and project planning, to modeling and simula-tion software, to NetMeeting and video conferencing for distant clients and col-laborations, computer technology and the web will continue to facilitate the design process and communication.
Timelines and Team Meetings
Oftentimes, one or more students on a team are less industrious than others, which can result in a less than satisfactory but still passable project, or a project that is unsatisfactory [11]. While the training in team skills (use of a timeline and team meetings) can reduce the possibility of the latter case, this case is still an unpleasant possibility. Timeline development by the team is usually vital for success, eliminates most management issues, and allows the instructor to monitor the activities by stu-dent team members. For this to be a suc-cess, activities for each week need to be documented for each team member, with best success when there are five to ten ac-tivities per team member each week. When this is done, the team knows what needs to be done and will be successful in complet-ing the project.
Evaluation
Methods of evaluation vary consider-ably across programs, but most allow for both team grades and individual grades. In most courses, a student is individually ac-countable for his or her own grade. In a course with team-based accomplish-ments, grading is based on the success of the team and possibly the success of each individual on that team. One or more fac-ulty typically grade written reports re-quired throughout the semester. In some cases, clients other than faculty contribute to the evaluation process. Oral presenta-tions may be evaluated by class members external to the presenting design team. In addition to faculty evaluations of individ-ual and team performance, students may receive peer evaluations. Some programs even use formal written exams as part of the evaluation process.
Freshman Design
Freshman courses expose students to the design process, which involves gath-ering information, structuring problems, generating alternatives, testing concepts in the lab, and getting user feedback. The process is just as applicable to a bubble gum dispenser as it is to an angioplasty catheter, but students are much more en-gaged by a real problem in their field than by one that is just an exercise.
Teaching design at the freshman level has taught us a number of important les-sons: 1) Skills such as critical thinking, teamwork, decision making, and so forth can be learned by freshman; 2) we need to teach these in new ways, as coaching is of-ten times more effective than lecturing; and 3) real problems really motivate stu-dents to learn engineering science.
Many in engineering education have not considered skills such as teamwork and decision making to be within their do-main. Others have doubted if freshmen are mature enough to learn these “habits of mind.” The evidence now suggests that freshmen are capable of learning these skills and they are most effectively taught in the context of engineering design.
Fostering these skills, however, re-quires engineering professors to interact with freshmen the way they do with their graduate students. These are learned not by memorizing, but by practicing. And we can only see how well the students are do-ing by closely observdo-ing their behavior and the outcomes of their work. Quizzes and exams need to be replaced by open-ended problems and laboratory re-search. These lessons are best learned through team and individual work with coaching by the instructor, not by lectures and reading assignments.
Finally, solving real problems for real people causes students to push themselves to higher levels of performance. This is not surprising to those who have studied how people learn. When learning is orga-nized around authentic problems and pro-jects, students learn faster and retain more [12]. This lesson is not limited to design courses. Any biomedical engineering subject could be taught more effectively if students approached it the same way they do freshman projects.
Fundamentals
At the core of any introductory course is the design process itself and the tools used to generate solutions. The process in-volves: 1) gathering information about
us-Any biomedical
engineering subject
could be taught more
effectively if students
approached it the
same way they do
freshman projects.
ers, products, and technologies; 2) defining complex problems by breaking them down into manageable pieces; 3) generating alternative designs that ad-dress a wide spectrum of user needs; 4) se-lecting the best approaches based on well-defined criteria; and 5) testing con-cepts in the laboratory and in the field. Students learn quickly that the process in not linear and sequential. Steps can be done in parallel, and they are repeated as new information or as ideas surface. Freshmen see that decisions must be made with incomplete and fuzzy information. They also find, as do practicing engineers, that time and a team’s skill set are major constraints to finding working solutions.
For each of these steps, there are tools and techniques that make design a true discipline. These tools include brain-storming, objectives trees, Duncker dia-grams, performance criteria specification, requirements matrices, and morphologi-cal charts. There are a number of text-books that provide an excellent introduction to design [13].
Freshmen should also be introduced to project management techniques such as defining tasks, estimating times, and de-veloping schedules. They should also learn how to divide responsibilities, schedule and conduct meetings, and eval-uate individual and team performance.
Selecting Project
While BME students learn the most from biomedical problems, this is not nec-essarily the only criterion for finding good projects. Equally important is that they ap-pear to be real, meaning that they address apparently unsolved problems that may have a number of alternative solutions. The problems need to be complex enough that there can be many different ways of defin-ing them. The solution, more often than not, depends to a great extent on how the team specified the problem. If a team thinks physicians are their most important users, they may develop a completely dif-ferent device compared to a team that is fo-cused on the needs of the patients.
Pilot Programs
Arizona State University’s Introduc-tion to Engineering Design is one of the most innovative courses developed under the coalition’s initiative [14]. Its goals are to show how engineers approach and solve problems and to increase awareness of and interest in the types of problems con-fronted by engineers. It also strives to
dem-onstrate that solving equations is just one of many tools used to design systems that satisfy human needs. Freshmen learn how to use the design process along with engi-neering and physical principles to formu-late and solve a problem, implement the solution, and document the process. They get to know the customer and how to docu-ment customer needs and expectations in the form of specifications. Freshmen work in teams and learn about team dynamics, communication, social norms, and conflict management. The course teaches students how to teach themselves, set goals, assess their progress, and manage their time. It also covers communication skills, includ-ing how to organize and present oral and written reports and how to use graphical representations.
Johns Hopkins University is leading the field in teaching BME design to freshmen. It has recently developed a two-semester course in which six to eight freshmen work on a team led by a senior who is assisted by two sophomores and two juniors [15]. In the first semester, teams are asked to predict how the body will respond to various stresses. After studying textbooks and bor-rowing or building the required monitors and sensors, they spend a day at Six Flags, an amusement park, measuring both physi-ologic and physical variables. Having col-lected the data, they report on how roller coasters affect the baroreflex or how gravity affects heart rate and blood pressure. In the second semester, teams work for clients on the medical school staff. They design sys-tems to analyze EEGs, measure fluxes through the endothelial cell barrier, assist blind people in navigating, or report when a police officer has been shot. Grades in the course are determined primarily by the stu-dents themselves. Team members evaluate each other, their leader, and themselves. Hopkins now offers BME design courses all four years, so that by the senior year, when they work on industry-sponsored projects, students can have had three years of experi-ence inteamworkonopen-ended problems. Northwestern University’s freshman course is a model for integrating communi-cations into design as well as challenging students with real problems [16]. Engi-neering and writing faculty jointly teach the two-quarter sequence [17]. Students receive credit for both an engineering course and a writing course. The writing faculty mem-bers are not just paper graders, they have co-developed the course with the school of engineering, they teach along side the engi-neering faculty in the small-group sessions,
and they have insured that most lessons are taught by coaching instead of lecture. In the second quarter, when students move from web-based projects to more domain-related ones, they continue to work for real clients on real problems. The teams are not exclu-sively BMEs, they will typically also in-clude MEs or EEs with an interest in biomedical problems. The BME projects could be part of a peritoneal dialysis system for Baxter or a prosthetic for a handicapped individual.
Assessment
A national trend in postsecondary edu-cation toward heightened consumer con-sciousness and increased demands for accountability of educators parallels a na-tional trend in the healthcare industry to-ward increased accountability of those who work in all aspects of medically re-lated services.
Making Our Focus Real, Not Bureaucratic
All regional accrediting agencies in the Unites States now require extensive outcomes assessment plans for all col-leges and universities as well as individ-ual academic departments [18]. The Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has launched efforts to increase accountability of educational programs through an increased focus on assessment of student learning outcomes. One of the dangers of having such de-mands imposed by regulatory agencies is that efforts may be perceived by educators as a bureaucratic chore, thrust upon them by administrators and requiring detailed
Many in engineering
education have not
considered skills such
as teamwork and
decision making to be
and time-consuming documentation. Thus, there is a tendency in many aca-demic units to engage in assessment prac-tices that are not truly “meaningful” [19]. Although what constitutes ideal outcomes assessment practice is largely dependent on the particular program and institution in which that practice is implemented, there are at least some accurate generali-ties regarding what constitutes a “mean-ingful” program. A meaningful program, for example, is designed to enhance an ed-ucational mission in specific, practical, measurable ways, with the goal of im-proving effectiveness. It also involves all of a program’s faculty and students, not just administrators or designated report writers. Furthermore, the results of mean-ingful assessment programs are used to foster real modifications in a program [19]. Within the realm of engineering de-sign-project experiences, a meaningful approach to educational outcomes may lead to: a) improvements in the learning of engineering students and, consequently, b) improved knowledge, design, and tech-nology to benefit individuals in need.
The Need for Demonstrated Outcomes Associated with Design Experiences
There is a lack of documented solid empirical support for the efficacy and va-lidity of biomedical design project experi-ences and the specific aspects of
implementing those experiences. Concerted efforts to improve learning, as-sessment methods, and data collection concerning pedagogic efficacy of design project experiences will enhance student learning while benefiting the community of consumers of biomedical engineering design projects.
Articulating Targeted Outcomes
The development and use of educa-tional assessment methods from an out-comes perspective encourages educators to articulate clearly the important changes they expect to occur in our students as they develop, not just in terms of the ac-quisition of theory and fact but in terms of the gaining of functional abilities that will enrich their professional practice and per-sonal lives. A logical first step in increas-ing the likelihood of achievincreas-ing such goals is for instructors to be very clear about what it is that they want their students to know and achieve as a result of design project experiences.
ABET’s requirements for the engi-neering design experiences in particular provide direction in areas that are essen-tial to assess when monitoring the value of engineering design project experiences. For example, the following are considered “fundamental elements” of the design process: establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. Furthermore, ac-cording to ABET, specific targeted out-comes associated with engineering design projects should include: development of student creativity, use of open-ended problems, development and use of mod-ern design theory and methodology, for-mulation of design problem statements and specifications, consideration of alter-native solutions, feasibility consider-ations, production processes, concurrent engineering design, and detailed system descriptions. The accrediting board addi-tionally stipulates that it is essential to in-clude a variety of “realistic constraints,” such as economic factors, safety, reliabil-ity, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact.
Essential questions for educators, stu-dents and consumers to consider are:
nAre there outcomes, in addition to
those specified by ABET, that in-structors target in their roles as facili-tators of design projects? If so, what are they?
nIs the faculty consistently and clearly
articulating to students what it is that they are expected to learn and
be-come? If not, by what specific means might they more clearly convey to them what it is they are to learn and demonstrate?
Assessing Assessment of Targeted Outcomes
Once faculty members have an exten-sive list of targeted outcomes for design project experiences, and once they have solid means of communicating those tar-geted outcomes to students, it is essential that they address the following questions:
nAre each of those targeted outcomes
held to be important being assessed?
nHow may instructors best
character-ize evidence that students effectively attain desired outcomes?
nAre there ways in which students’
performance within any of these ar-eas might be more validly assessed?
nAre instructors providing thorough
evaluative feedback to students such that their assessments continue to shape learning experiences?
nHow might improved formative
as-sessment of students throughout the design experience be used to im-prove learning?
Conclusions
Mechanisms for preparing biomedical engineering students for real-world prob-lem solving are numerous. Failure to in-corporate such real-world experiences throughout the curriculum creates frustra-tion for the student, particularly for the freshman or sophomore undergraduate who lacks the experience to draw a con-nection between theory and practice. Upon graduation, the biomedical engi-neer is suddenly confronted with real-world problems and design chal-lenges that require a team of experts, pro-ject planning and execution, regulatory and quality control, financial support, and a satisfied customer. Too often, graduates are unprepared for this transition to real-world engineering.
In designing a curriculum to prepare students for future challenges, engineer-ing instructors continually ask, “What is the ‘best practice?’” Good design engi-neers ask, “What are the best ways to mea-sure success?” The weighting and relevance attached to summative metrics such as starting salaries, employer reports of alumni performance, alumni surveys, rankings ofU.S. News and World Report, and licensing exams are important, if dif-ficult, considerations. Only recently have engineering programs been required to
Students must be
taught how to put
theory into practice
and how to adapt
when real-world
behavior cannot be
adequately described
formally assess the outcomes of their edu-cational processes. Many biomedical en-gineering programs continually assess and remold their curricula to enhance their edu-cational missions in specific, practical, measurable ways, with the goals of im-proving the effectiveness of training and education. However, these assessments have typically been somewhat informal and randomly distributed. Even with NSF’s solid commitment to engineering design project experiences, and wide-spread enthusiasm about this experiential approach to learning and service, there is a lack of documented solid empirical sup-port for the efficacy and validity of design project experiences and the specific as-pects of implementing those experiences.
If biomedical engineering programs are to prepare students to solve biomedi-cal problems that impact a wide range of economic, environmental, ethical, legal, and social issues, students must be taught how to put theory into practice and how to adapt when real-world behavior cannot be adequately described by existing theory. Every educational tool, from textbooks, to lab experiments, to homework, to cap-stone design projects, should seek to in-corporate some aspect of real-world implementation and problem solving.
Acknowledgment
Portions of the work presented were funded in part by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers BES-9812042 and 9813338.
John D. Enderle re-ceived the B.S., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering and M.E. degree in elec-trical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, in 1975, 1977, 1980, and 1978, respectively. After com-pleting his Ph.D. studies, he was a senior staff member at PAR Technology Corpo-ration, Rome, New York, from 1979 to 1981. From 1981-1994, Enderle was a faculty member in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Coordinator for Biomedical Engineering at North Da-kota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota. He joined the National Sci-ence Foundation as Program Director for Biomedical Engineering & Research Aiding Persons with Disabilities Program from January 1994 through June 1995. In January 1995, he joined the faculty of the
University of Connecticut (UConn) as professor and head of the Electrical & Systems Engineering Department. In June 1997, he became the director of the Biomedical Engineering Program at UConn. Dr. Enderle is a Fellow of the In-stitute of Electrical & Electronics Engi-neers (IEEE), the current editor-in-chief ofIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Bi-ology Magazine, a past-president of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biol-ogy Society (EMBS), EMBS Conference Chair for the 22nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS and World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering in 2000, Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), an ABET Program Evaluator for Bioengi-neering Programs, a member of the Amer-ican Society for Engineering Education and Biomedical Engineering Division Chair for 2005, and a senior member of the Biomedical Engineering Society. He has also been a Teaching Fellow at the University of Connecticut since 1998. His research interests include modeling phys-iological systems, system identification, signal processing, and control theory.
Kristina M. Ropella re-ceived her B.S. degree in biomedical engineering from Marquette Univer-sity (Milwaukee, WI) in 1985 and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, both in biomedical engineering, from Northwestern Uni-versity (Evanston, IL) in 1987 and 1989, respectively. Ropella is currently an asso-ciate professor of biomedical engineering at Marquette University where she has been a member of the faculty since 1990. Her research interests are in physiologic signal processing, electrophysiology of heart and brain, cardiac arrhythmias, and functional magnetic resonance imaging. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in biomedical signal processing, statistical time-series analysis, biomedical computing, biomedical instrumentation design. and modeling of dynamic systems. She is a past recipient of the Marquette University Robert and Mary Gettel Faculty Award for Teaching Excellence. She di-rects several educational programs, includ-ing the Functional Imaginclud-ing Program, a joint doctoral degree program offered by Marquette University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, and a new under-graduate major in biocomputer engineer-ing. At Marquette, she also co-directs the cooperative education program in
biomed-ical engineering and new initiatives in con-tinuing education for local medical device companies. She is a senior member of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biol-ogy Society and has served on the Admin-istrative Committee, chairing both the strategic planning and education subcom-mittees. She currently serves on the Bio-medical Engineering Society Board and chairs the student affairs committee. She is also a member of the North American So-ciety for Pacing and Electrophysiology, the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology, the American Society for Engineering Education, Sigma Xi, and Tau Beta Pi. She serves on the editorial board for the IEEE Press biomedical engi-neering series, and she has served as track chair and session chair for a number of ed-ucation and university-industry related sessions at the EMBS, BMES, and ASEE society meetings.
David M. Kelso re-ceived a B.S. degree in engineering sciences from Purdue University in 1967. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineer-ing from Northwestern University in 1972 and 1974, respectively. He spent almost 20 years in the medical device industry at Nuclear Chicago, Abbott Laboratories, Pandex Laboratories, and Baxter Interna-tional. His engineering teams produced one of the first microprocessor-controlled immunoassay analyzers in 1977, the first fully automated therapeutic drug analyzer in 1981, and a high-throughput blood screening system in 1990. He was a co-founder of Pandex Laboratories and served as president until it was acquired by Baxter in 1986. Joining the faculty of Northwestern University in 1992, he co-developed a freshman design program in general engineering and teaches the se-nior capstone course. His research inter-ests are focused on high-throughput DNA and protein array technologies.
Brooke Hallowell, Ph.D., CCC/SLP, is as-sociate dean of Re-search and Sponsored Programs in Health and Human Services and as-sociate professor of Neurogenic Communi-cation Disorders at Ohio University. She holds a Ph.D. in speech-language pathology and
audiol-ogy from the University of Iowa, an M.S. in speech-language pathology and audiol-ogy from Lamar University, and an A.B. in cognitive sciences from Brown Univer-sity. She has been engaged in collaborative engineering senior design work since 1997, and she is co-principal investigator with John Enderle on two grant projects on Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities funded by the National Science Foundation. Hallowell is engaged in ongoing research on assessment and pedagogic effectiveness related to bio-medical engineering design experiences for undergraduates. Additionally, she is active in research related to neurogenic communica-tion disorders in adults and in developing technology for improved diagnostic assess-ment of patients with complex neurological conditions. Much of her research is spon-sored by the National Institutes of Health. She is vice president of the Stoke and Apha-siaSocietyofIndia,chairofthenationalJoint Committee on Educational Assessment, and 2002-2003 conference chair for the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders.
References/Endnotes
[1] http:// www.bme.jhu.edu
[2] http://www.seas.upenn.edu/be/index.html [3] http://www.bmen.tulane.edu
[4] J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking, Eds.,How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
[5] http://www.vanth.org
[6] http://www.eng.mu.edu/departments/bien [7] http://design.bme.uconn.edu
[8] J.D. Enderle, W. Pruehsner, J. Macione, and B. Hallowell, Using a multidisciplinary team ap-proach in biomedical engineering senior design,”
Biomed. Sci. Instrument.,vol. 36, pp. 63-68, 2000. [9] J.D. Enderle, A.F. Browne, and M.B. Hallowell, “A Web based approach in biomedical engineering design education,”Biomed. Sci. In-strument.,vol. 34, pp. 281-286, 1998.
[10] http://bme.bu.edu
[11] W. Pruehsner J.D. Enderle, “Use of timelines in senior design – An efficient project manage-ment tool for faculty,”Biomed. Sci. Instrument., vol. 36, pp. 57-62, 2000.
[12] J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking, Eds.,How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
[13] K.T. Ulrich and S.D. Eppinger,Product
De-sign and Development, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1999; C.L. Dym and P.L. Little,
Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduc-tion. New York: Wiley, 2000.
[14] http://www.eas.asu.edu/
[15] http://www.bme.jhu.edu/courses/580.111/ pastprojects.htm
[16] P.B. Hirsch, B. Shwom, J. Anderson, G. Olson, D. Kelso, and J.E. Colgate, “Engineering design and communication: Jump-starting the en-gineering curriculum,” ASEE 1998 Conference, Session 3253, Seattle, WA, June 28 - July 1, 1998. [17] B. Shwom, P. Hirsch, J. Anderson, C. Yarnoff, and D. Kelso, “Using multi-disciplinary teams to teach communication to engineers, or ‘Practicing what we preach,’” ASEE 2000 Con-ference, Session 2461, St. Louis, MO, June 18-21, 2000.
[18] B. Hallowell and N. Lund, “Fostering pro-gram improvements through a focus on educa-tional outcomes (in Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disor-ders),” inProc. 19th Ann. Conf. Graduate Educa-tion, 1998, pp. 32-56.
[19] B. Hallowell, “Formative and summative outcomes assessment: What do we mean by doing it with meaning?” inProc. Twenty-First Ann. Conf. Graduate Education,2000, pp. 91-99.
