Real-World Experience Throughout the Curriculum

1997 & 1999 PHOTO DISC INC. John D. Enderle 1, Kristina M. Ropella 2, David M. Kelso 3, Brooke Hallowell 4 1 Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut 2 Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University 3 Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University 4 Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences, Ohio University ver two-thirds of graduating engineers Opursue 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 fabrication, software validation, 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 doping, free-body diagrams, Laplace transforms, Fourier transforms, Kreb s cycle, and Poiseuille s law, it is no wonder that the recent graduate is frustrated by the seeming disconnect between higher education 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 experience leaves the graduate with naive problem-solving skills and no appreciation for approximation, optimization, and error. Even everyday tasks such as calibrating a transducer, selecting the appropriate sam- March/April 2002 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 0739-5175/02/$17.00 2002IEEE 59

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. pling frequency for collecting data from an instrument, or writing an effective memo may be beyond the experience of the biomedical engineer trained with classic science and math courses and theory-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 problem descriptions that require initial research 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 industry, such as the FDA, U/L, end-users as well as manufacturing, service, financial, and legal representatives. Real-world experience and exposure can be achieved through a number of mechanisms including design courses, computer simulation, laboratory experiments, guest speakers, industrial sponsorship of design projects, field trips to hospitals 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 suggest future directions for incorporating the real world into undergraduate curricula. Real-World Experience Throughout the Curriculum From freshman design to senior capstone 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 throughout the four-year curriculum. Laboratory Courses Laboratory courses are used throughout the curriculum to give students hands-on, practical experience in basic science, computing, and engineering methods. Through laboratory investigation students learn to: measure and digitally acquire physical phenomena relevant to medicine and biology; design experiments; interpret and statistically evaluate data, write technical reports; and compare experimental observation to theory and determine, quantitatively, 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 advanced labs, students typically perform experiments 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 simulation. Simulation of physiological systems may be performed using a variety of software 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 sophisticated analysis of complex systems. In most applications, students construct models of biomedical systems and compare theoretical performance to experimental 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 mathematics to model biologic phenomena. Internships and Cooperative Education Several programs offer formalized cooperative education and internship programs to their undergraduate and graduate BME students. These programs allow students to spend one or more semesters working in industry. These internship experiences supplement classroom instruction 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 researchers 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 biomedical problems. Research As teacher-scholars, professors should make an effort to bring their research activities into the classroom. Professors may incorporate actual data into homework 60 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY March/April 2002

and computer projects or have senior design teams build instrumentation for the laboratory. Moreover, most BME programs offer one-on-one independent study allowing undergraduate students to perform research on cutting-edge topics using state-of-the-art facilities and techniques. Research and Professional Practice 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 environment. 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 Education Engineering Resource Center, VaNTH, [4-5] led by Vanderbilt University, suggest that students learn better when topics are presented in a problem-focused, modular format. Perhaps BME curricula should consider reformatting the traditional courses of chemistry, physics, biology, and calculus. Perhaps teams of scientists, mathematicians, physicians, and engineers might teach the material 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, biology, chemistry, and engineering methods. Marquette University s freshman sequence in Biomedical Engineering Methods I & II is a fully modular, team-taught course whereby each threeto four-week module addresses a biomedical problem or challenge. Each module requires six hours of laboratory giving students hands-on experience with circuit design, mechanical models, data acquisition, statistical analysis, CAD, technical writing, measurement, and teamwork [6]. 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 students. Each team meets with the course instructors and faculty advisors on a regular basis, and when appropriate, with clinicians and industrial sponsors. Some programs have teams consisting only of biomedical engineering students, while other programs offer truly interdisciplinary teams of biomedical, electrical, mechanical, and chemical engineers. For example, at Marquette University [6], all senior biomedical, electrical, and mechanical engineering students are combined into one capstone design course where students may select projects offered by any of the participating departments. Project sponsors typically request that a team be comprised of a mix of engineering disciplines. Typically, there are no required textbooks, and only a minimal number of lectures. Experts from industry, patent law, and government agencies typically provide the lecture material. Students integrate and apply knowledge from their major field of study toward a specific project. A number of biomedical engineering programs, like the University of Connecticut [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 subjects including working on teams, the design process, planning and scheduling, technical report writing, proposal writing, oral presentations, ethics in design, safety, liability, impact of economic constraints, environmental considerations, manufacturing, and marketing. Design II requires students to implement their design by completing a working model of the final product. Prototype testing of the paper design 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 difficult for a student without the basic team-building skills in his or her background [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 independent 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 solutions. Field-dependent learners are excellent communicators and need the interaction of the team to clarify ideas and solutions.these learners tend to work optimally within groups, and without group interaction they would tend to fail. Senior Design 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. This is an iterative, decision-making 1. Dr. Kris Ropella and student Aaron Suminski discuss experiment design in Marquette s biocomputing laboratory. March/April 2002 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 61

Any biomedical engineering subject could be taught more effectively if students approached it the same way they do freshman projects. On a team-based project, each student has tasks that he or she is responsible for successfully completing, and team success depends on each team member completing his or her own tasks. Naturally, team success depends on each team member communicating progress on a regular basis. This interaction is vital for the team to complete the project. Communication Throughout the design process, students are required to document their work through a series of required written assignments as well as a bound, project notebook. For the final report, documenting the design project involves integrating each of the required reports into a single final document. Students are often expected to record 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 reviews to fellow team members and faculty advisors and end-of-semester formal presentations 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 hospitals, providing a professional style forum for every student to present his or her project orally [10]. From simple PowerPoint presentations and web pages logging project status, to Microsoft Project for timelines and project planning, to modeling and simulation software, to NetMeeting and video conferencing for distant clients and collaborations, 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 student team members. For this to be a success, activities for each week need to be documented for each team member, with best success when there are five to ten activities per team member each week. When this is done, the team knows what needs to be done and will be successful in completing the project. Evaluation Methods of evaluation vary considerably across programs, but most allow for both team grades and individual grades. In most courses, a student is individually accountable for his or her own grade. In a course with team-based accomplishments, grading is based on the success of the team and possibly the success of each individual on that team. One or more faculty typically grade written reports required throughout the semester. In some cases, clients other than faculty contribute to the evaluation process. Oral presentations may be evaluated by class members external to the presenting design team. In addition to faculty evaluations of individual 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 gathering 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 engaged 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 lessons: 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 often times more effective than lecturing; and 3) real problems really motivate students to learn engineering science. Many in engineering education have not considered skills such as teamwork and decision making to be within their domain. 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, requires 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 doing by closely observing their behavior and the outcomes of their work. Quizzes and exams need to be replaced by open-ended problems and laboratory research. 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 organized around authentic problems and projects, 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 involves: 1) gathering information about us- 62 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY March/April 2002

ers, products, and technologies; 2) defining complex problems by breaking them down into manageable pieces; 3) generating alternative designs that address a wide spectrum of user needs; 4) selecting the best approaches based on well-defined criteria; and 5) testing concepts 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 brainstorming, objectives trees, Duncker diagrams, performance criteria specification, requirements matrices, and morphological charts. There are a number of textbooks that provide an excellent introduction to design [13]. Freshmen should also be introduced to project management techniques such as defining tasks, estimating times, and developing schedules. They should also learn how to divide responsibilities, schedule and conduct meetings, and evaluate individual and team performance. Selecting Project While BME students learn the most from biomedical problems, this is not necessarily the only criterion for finding good projects. Equally important is that they appear 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 defining 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 different device compared to a team that is focused on the needs of the patients. Pilot Programs Arizona State University s Introduction 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 confronted by engineers. It also strives to demonstrate 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 engineering and physical principles to formulate and solve a problem, implement the solution, and document the process. They get to know the customer and how to document 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, including 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 borrowing or building the required monitors and sensors, they spend a day at Six Flags, an amusement park, measuring both physiologic and physical variables. Having collected 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 systems 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 students 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 experience in teamwork on open-ended problems. Northwestern University s freshman course is a model for integrating communications into design as well as challenging students with real problems [16]. Engineering 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 members are not just paper graders, they have co-developed the course with the school of engineering, they teach along side the engineering faculty in the small-group sessions, Many in engineering education have not considered skills such as teamwork and decision making to be within their domain. 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 exclusively BMEs, they will typically also include 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 education toward heightened consumer consciousness and increased demands for accountability of educators parallels a national trend in the healthcare industry toward increased accountability of those who work in all aspects of medically related services. Making Our Focus Real, Not Bureaucratic All regional accrediting agencies in the Unites States now require extensive outcomes assessment plans for all colleges and universities as well as individual 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 demands imposed by regulatory agencies is that efforts may be perceived by educators as a bureaucratic chore, thrust upon them by administrators and requiring detailed March/April 2002 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 63

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. and time-consuming documentation. Thus, there is a tendency in many academic units to engage in assessment practices 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 generalities regarding what constitutes a meaningful program. A meaningful program, for example, is designed to enhance an educational mission in specific, practical, measurable ways, with the goal of improving effectiveness. It also involves all of a program s faculty and students, not just administrators or designated report writers. Furthermore, the results of meaningful assessment programs are used to foster real modifications in a program [19]. Within the realm of engineering design-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 technology 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 validity of biomedical design project experiences and the specific aspects of implementing those experiences. Concerted efforts to improve learning, assessment 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 educational assessment methods from an outcomes 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 acquisition of theory and fact but in terms of the gaining of functional abilities that will enrich their professional practice and personal lives. A logical first step in increasing the likelihood of achieving 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 engineering design experiences in particular provide direction in areas that are essential 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, according to ABET, specific targeted outcomes associated with engineering design projects should include: development of student creativity, use of open-ended problems, development and use of modern design theory and methodology, formulation of design problem statements and specifications, consideration of alternative solutions, feasibility considerations, production processes, concurrent engineering design, and detailed system descriptions. The accrediting board additionally stipulates that it is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints, such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact. Essential questions for educators, students and consumers to consider are: Are there outcomes, in addition to those specified by ABET, that instructors target in their roles as facilitators of design projects? If so, what are they? Is the faculty consistently and clearly articulating to students what it is that they are expected to learn and become? 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 extensive list of targeted outcomes for design project experiences, and once they have solid means of communicating those targeted outcomes to students, it is essential that they address the following questions: Are each of those targeted outcomes held to be important being assessed? How may instructors best characterize evidence that students effectively attain desired outcomes? Are there ways in which students performance within any of these areas might be more validly assessed? Are instructors providing thorough evaluative feedback to students such that their assessments continue to shape learning experiences? How might improved formative assessment of students throughout the design experience be used to improve learning? Conclusions Mechanisms for preparing biomedical engineering students for real-world problem solving are numerous. Failure to incorporate such real-world experiences throughout the curriculum creates frustration for the student, particularly for the freshman or sophomore undergraduate who lacks the experience to draw a connection between theory and practice. Upon graduation, the biomedical engineer is suddenly confronted with real-world problems and design challenges that require a team of experts, project 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, engineering instructors continually ask, What is the best practice? Good design engineers ask, What are the best ways to measure success? The weighting and relevance attached to summative metrics such as starting salaries, employer reports of alumni performance, alumni surveys, rankings of U.S. News and World Report, and licensing exams are important, if difficult, considerations. Only recently have engineering programs been required to 64 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY March/April 2002

formally assess the outcomes of their educational processes. Many biomedical engineering programs continually assess and remold their curricula to enhance their educational missions in specific, practical, measurable ways, with the goals of improving 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 widespread enthusiasm about this experiential approach to learning and service, there is a lack of documented solid empirical support for the efficacy and validity of design project experiences and the specific aspects of implementing those experiences. If biomedical engineering programs are to prepare students to solve biomedical 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 capstone design projects, should seek to incorporate 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 received the B.S., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering and M.E. degree in electrical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, in 1975, 1977, 1980, and 1978, respectively. After completing his Ph.D. studies, he was a senior staff member at PAR Technology Corporation, 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 Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota. He joined the National Science 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 Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the current editor-in-chief of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, a past-president of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 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 Bioengineering Programs, a member of the American 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 physiological systems, system identification, signal processing, and control theory. Kristina M. Ropella received her B.S. degree in biomedical engineering from Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI) in 1985 and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, both in biomedical engineering, from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) in 1987 and 1989, respectively. Ropella is currently an associate 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 directs several educational programs, including the Functional Imaging Program, a joint doctoral degree program offered by Marquette University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, and a new undergraduate major in biocomputer engineering. At Marquette, she also co-directs the cooperative education program in biomedical engineering and new initiatives in continuing education for local medical device companies. She is a senior member of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society and has served on the Administrative Committee, chairing both the strategic planning and education subcommittees. She currently serves on the Biomedical Engineering Society Board and chairs the student affairs committee. She is also a member of the North American Society 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 engineering series, and she has served as track chair and session chair for a number of education and university-industry related sessions at the EMBS, BMES, and ASEE society meetings. David M. Kelso received a B.S. degree in engineering sciences from Purdue University in 1967. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering 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 International. 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 senior capstone course. His research interests are focused on high-throughput DNA and protein array technologies. Brooke Hallowell, Ph.D., CCC/SLP, is associate dean of Research and Sponsored Programs in Health and Human Services and associate professor of Neurogenic Communication Disorders at Ohio University. She holds a Ph.D. in speech-language pathology and audiol- March/April 2002 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 65

ogy from the University of Iowa, an M.S. in speech-language pathology and audiology from Lamar University, and an A.B. in cognitive sciences from Brown University. 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 biomedical engineering design experiences for undergraduates. Additionally, she is active in research related to neurogenic communication disorders in adults and in developing technology for improved diagnostic assessment of patients with complex neurological conditions. Much of her research is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. She is vice president of the Stoke and Aphasia Society of India, chair of the national Joint 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 approach 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. Instrument., 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 management 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 Design and Development, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1999; C.L. Dym and P.L. Little, Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. 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 engineering 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 Conference, Session 2461, St. Louis, MO, June 18-21, 2000. [18] B. Hallowell and N. Lund, Fostering program improvements through a focus on educational outcomes (in Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders), in Proc. 19th Ann. Conf. Graduate Education, 1998, pp. 32-56. [19] B. Hallowell, Formative and summative outcomes assessment: What do we mean by doing it with meaning? in Proc. Twenty-First Ann. Conf. Graduate Education, 2000, pp. 91-99. 66 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY March/April 2002