Curriculum Key Content Survey

Assess, again on a five-point scale, the importance/relevance of a list of concepts comprising that domain to a core curriculum required of ALL undergraduate Biomedical Engineering majors.

Suggest concepts not included in the original survey but which should be included in the Biomedical Engineering core curriculum.

Participants were also asked to supply the following demographic information:

E-mail address

Company, Institution or University (college) represented

Nature of working environment, e.g., Academia, Industry, Government, etc.

Description of current position, e.g., Administrator, Director/Manager, Engineer, Executive, etc.

Number of years in current position

Area of expertise within the field of Biomedical Engineering

Description of current position and responsibilities, as well as other relevant experiences within the bioengineering field

Area of expertise within the field of Biomedical Engineering

To allow participants to complete the survey in a reasonable amount of time, we divided it into two approximately equivalent parts:

Round One: Key Content Survey - Part One

Round One: Key Content Survey - Part Two

The above links to the survey are for dissemination purposes only. We are not including new responses in the analysis of the first round of the survey.

top

Domains and Concepts

Domains included in the first round of the Key Content Survey

Concepts included in the first round of the Key Content Survey

Mathematics and Scientific Prerequisites included in the first round of the Key Content Survey

top

Preliminary Results - Round One

Overview: The analysis of the first round of the Key Content Survey has revealed some interesting results. For example, it appears that industry and academia disagree on the importance of a number of engineering design concepts (see the link below), even though the average ratings of all 274 concepts by these two groups were surprisingly similar (Academia: 3.71 +/- 0.52. Industry: 3.75 +/- 0.41). In addition, industry rated concepts involving technical skills significantly higher than academia (see the link below showing the concepts with the ten largest ratings differences between academia and industry).

In order to measure the consistency of the surveys ratings, we included some "ringers", i.e., concepts which VaNTH domain experts feel are far too advanced, or tangential, to be required knowledge of all undergraduate BMEs (results are shown below). We also included some redundancies in the survey - concepts which were queried within the context of two distinct domains (results are shown below).

Though our analysis of the 1st round data is still underway, the results below should act as a guide for curriculum planners of BME departments. In particular, the concepts which are more highly valued by industry than academia, as well as the prerequisite courses which were not rated very high by both groups, should be of particular interest. We expect to have our final analysis done by the middle of 2005 and will be presenting these results at the 2005 BMES meeting in Baltimore. We expect to launch the second round of the survey at that time.

Below are links to results from the 1st round of the Key Content Delphi Study:

Biotechnology: Responses to the question, "Should concepts from the Biotechnology domain be considered core elements of an undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum?"
Deltas: Bioengineering concepts with the largest ratings differences between academia and industry
Engineering Design: Comparison of ratings by academia and industry
(Note: This graphic does not show all engineering design concepts queried.)

Prerequisites: Comparison of answers given by academia and industry to the question: "Should the following math and science courses be required of all undergraduate BME majors?"
Ratings Matrix: Comparison of average concept ratings by Academia and Industry
Redundancies: Ratings of concepts queried in the context of more than one domains
Ringers: Ratings of concepts expected to be rated low by survey participants

top

Proceedings and Presentations

Below are links to conference proceedings and presentations describing the first round of the survey

Proceedings

DW Gatchell, RA Linsenmeier and TR Harris. Determination of the Core Undergraduate BME Curriculum – the 1st step in a Delphi Study. Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 2004.

DW Gatchell, RA Linsenmeier and TR Harris. Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey – The 1st Step in a Delphi Study to determine the core undergraduate BME curriculum. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education, 2004.

Presentations

David W. Gatchell and Robert A. Linsenmeier. Biomedical Engineering Key Content Survey - Results from Round One of a Delphi Study. Whitaker Foundation Biomedical Engineering Educational Summit Meeting. March, 2005.

top