Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Process for Faculty-Driven, Data-Informed Curriculum Continuity Review in Biomedical Engineering

  • Innovation Article
  • Published:
Biomedical Engineering Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gaps, redundancies, and bottlenecks in undergraduate curricula can markedly affect faculty teaching courses and the successful preparation of students for the professional biomedical engineering workforce. Anecdotal observations from faculty of potential curriculum deficiencies, the rapidly changing landscape of biomedical engineering education, the changing workplaces of professional biomedical engineers, and accreditation agencies’ mandates to continuously improve provide the impetus to review curriculum continuity. A robust framework for curriculum review is required. This paper presents a seven-step Curriculum Continuity Checkup Process (C3P). The faculty-driven, data-informed process involved multiple stakeholders and qualitative and quantitative data over a 12-month period. During the C3P, course learning outcomes were clarified, a comprehensive set of curriculum outcomes developed, and a curriculum map developed to assess gaps, redundancies, and bottlenecks in a process-oriented fashion. Implications of results on curriculum revision and conclusions about the use of the C3P for the biomedical engineering education community are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

taken from one of four content tracks: bioinstrumentation and bioimaging, biomaterials and tissue engineering, biomechanics, and biomolecular and cellular engineering. UCC denotes University Core Curriculum.

Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Available upon request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. All engineering students complete a common first-year curriculum prior to entry-to-a-major. Students begin one of 20 undergraduate degrees from the 15 engineering departments in their sophomore year.

References

  1. Abdulhay E, Khnouf R, Haddad S, Al-Bashir A. Improvement of medical content in the curriculum of biomedical engineering based on assessment of students outcomes. BMC Med Educ 2017;17(1):129

  2. ABET. Engineering change: lessons from leaders on modernizing higher education engineering curriculum. ABET, Baltimore, MD; 2017. https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ABET_Engineering_Issue-Brief_final_web.pdf

  3. ABET. Sustainable education: readying today's higher Ed students to tackle the world's grand challenges. ABET, Baltimore, MD; 2018. https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ABET_Sustainable-Engineering_Issue-Brief.pdf

  4. ABET. Criteria for accrediting engineering programsm 2021–2022. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2021-2022/.

  5. Alghatrifi I, Musawi AA. Emerging technologies and educational requirements in engineering education for the fourth industrial revolution. In: Engineering education trends in the digital era, edited by S. SerdarAsan, and E. Isikli. Hershey: IGI Global; 2020. p. 26–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. American Society for Engineering Education. Transforming undergraduate education in engineering Phase I: synthesizing and integrating industry perspectives. Arlington, VA; 2013. https://aseecmsduq.blob.core.windows.net/aseecmsdev/asee/media/content/member%20resources/pdfs/tuee_phasei_workshopreport_1.pdf

  7. American Society for Engineering Education. Transforming undergraduate education in engineering Phase II: insights from tomorrow's engineers. Washington DC; 2017. https://aseecmsduq.blob.core.windows.net/aseecmsdev/asee/media/content/member%20resources/pdfs/2017tueephase2_1.pdf

  8. American Society for Engineering Education. Transforming undergraduate education in engineering Phase III: voices on women's participation and retention. Washington DC; 2017. https://aseecmsduq.blob.core.windows.net/aseecmsdev/asee/media/content/member%20resources/pdfs/2017tueephase3_1.pdf

  9. American Society for Engineering Education. Transforming undergraduate education in engineering Phase IV: views of faculty ABD professional societies. Washington, DC; 2018. https://aseecmsduq.blob.core.windows.net/aseecmsdev/asee/media/content/member%20resources/pdfs/2018tueephase4_1.pdf

  10. American Society for Engineering Education. About transforming undergraduate education in engineering. American Society for Engineering Education. https://tuee.asee.org/about/. Accessed 17 Nov 2021

  11. Anderson L, Krathwohl D. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman; 2001. p. 333

    Google Scholar 

  12. Arafeh S. Curriculum mapping in higher education: a case study and proposed content scope and sequence mapping tool. J Further High Educ 2016;40(5):585–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.1000278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bautista-Moncada C, Buhangin JF, Angalan NQ. Review of industry 4.0 competencies and virtual learning environment in engineering education. Int J Eng Educ 2020;36(1):40–7

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bovill C, Bulley C, Morss K. Engaging and empowering first-year studentes through curriculum design: perspectives from the literature. Teach High Educ 2011;16(2):197–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.515024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooks R. First-year engineering program curriculum redesign. In: ASEE Gulf-Southwestern annual conference. Baylor University, Waco; 2021. vol. 35080, p. 1–7.

  16. Brooman S, Darwent S, Pimor A. The student voice in higher educatoin curriculum design: is there value in listening? Innov Edu Teaching Int 2015;52(6):663–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.910128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brumbelow J, Fowler D, Morgan J, Anthony W. Transformation of a large civil engineering department curriculum using the ASCE BOK2. In: ASEE 122nd annual conference and expedition, Seattle, WA; 2015. pp. 1–19

  18. Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Revised bloom's taxonomy. Iowa State University. 2021. https://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/.

  19. Center for Teaching Excellence. Create curriculum map. Texas A&M University. 2021. https://cte.tamu.edu/Faculty-Teaching-Resource/Program-ReDesign/Curriculum-Mapping.

  20. Das S, Kleinke D, Pistrui D. Reimaging engineering education: does Industry 4.0 need Education 4.0? In: 2020 ASEE virtual annual conference, Virtual Online, June 22; 2020. ASEE Conferences. p. 20

  21. Eberly Center. Learning objectives. Carnegie Mellon University. 2021. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html.

  22. Felder R, Brent R. Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. J Eng Edu 2003;92:7–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00734.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fowler D, Anthony W, Poling N, Morgan J, Brumbelow K. Data-driven curriculum redesign in civil engineering. In: 44th American Society for Engineering/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ASEE/IEEE) Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain; 2014. pp. 1–9

  24. Fowler D, Bakenhus C, Kothmann M, Macik M, Poling N, MacWillie S. Redesigning natural resources curricula: a redesign process model at Texas A&M University. J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ 2016;45:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2015.09.0019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fowler D, Froyd J, Layne J. Curriculum redesign: concurrently addressing content mastery and development of cognitive abilities. In: IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), Arlington, VA; 2010. p. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2010.5673605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham R. The global state of the art in engineering education. MIT, Cambridge; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grinter L. Report of the committee on evaluation of engineering education. J Eng Edu. 1955;25-60. https://aseecmsduq.blob.core.windows.net/aseecmsdev/asee/media/content/member%20resources/pdfs/the-grinter-report-pdf_1.pdf.

  28. Jeganathan L, Khan A, Raju J, Narayanasamy S. On a frame work of curriculum for engineering education 4.0. In: 2018 world engineering education forum—global engineering deans council, Albuquerque, NM, November 12-16; 2018: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF-GEDC.2018.8629704.

  29. Knight P. Complexity and curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making. Teach High Educ 2001;6:369–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kolmos A, Hadgraft R, Holgaard J. Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering. Int J Technol Des Educ 2016;26:391–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9319-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kopera-Frye K, Mahaffy J, Svare G. The map to curriculum alignment and improvment. Collect Essays Learn Teach 2008;1(2):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lam B, Tsui K. Examining the alignment of subject learning outcomes and course curricula through curriculum mapping. Aust J Teacher Educ 2013;38(12):97–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Linsenmeier R. The de facto core curriculum in BME and BioE. In: Presented at the 4th biomedical engineering education summit meeting Cleveland, OH, May 29; 2019.

  34. Linsenmeier R, Saterbak A. Fifty years of biomedical engineering undergraduate education. Ann Biomed Eng 2020;48:1590–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02494-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Magarian J, Seering W. Characterizing engineering work in a changing world: synthesis of a typology for engineering students’ occupational outcomes. J Eng Educ 2021;110:458–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Magjarevic R, Diaz MLZ. Biomedical engineering education—status and perspectives (in English). In: 2014 36th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). 2014; p. 5149–52

  37. Mann CR. A study of engineering education, Vol. 11. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York; 1918.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Metzler E, Rehrey G, Kurz L, Middendorf J. The aspirational curriculum map: a diagnostic model for action-oriented program review. Improv Acad 2017;36(2):156–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Miller M, et al. BME 2.0 at Johns Hopkins. Baltimore, MD; 2019. https://www.bme.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BME-2.0-at-Johns-Hopkins.pdf

  40. Moore J. Mapping learning outcomes across biological and agricultural engineering concentrations within the curriculum. In: 2018 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 23; 2018. p. 1–11.

  41. Motyl B, Filippi S. Trends in engineering education for additive manufacturing in the industry 4.0 era: a systematic literature review. Int J Interact Des Manuf 2021;15(1):103–06. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00733-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. National Academy of Engineering. Educating the engineer of 2020. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2005. p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  43. National Academy of Engineering, N. A. Press, Ed. Understanding the educational and career pathways of engineers. Washington, DC; 2018.

  44. Stevens R, Johri A, O’Connor K. Professional engineering work. In: Johri A, Olds B, editors. Engineering education research, Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, New York; 2014. p. 119–37.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Teaching Commons. Course objectives and learning outcomes. DePaul University. 2021. https://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/course-design/Pages/course-objectives-learning-outcomes.aspx.

  46. Texas A&M University. University core curriculum. https://catalog.tamu.edu/undergraduate/general-information/university-core-curriculum/.

  47. Uchiyama KP, Radin JL. Curriculum mapping in higher education: a vehicle for collaboration. Innov High Educ 2009;33(4):271–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Veltri N, Webb H, Matveev A, Zapatero E. Curriculum mapping as a tool for continuous improvement of IS curriculum. J Inf Syst Educ 2011;22:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walkington, J. A process for curriculum change in engineering education. Eur J Eng Educ 2002;27:133–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790210129603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. White JA, et al. Core competencies for undergraduates in bioengineering and biomedical engineering: findings, consequences, and recommendations. Ann Biomed Eng 2020;48(3):905–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02468-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wolf P. A model for facilitating curriculum development in higher education: a faculty-driven, data-informed, and educational developer-supported approach. New Dir Teach Learn 2007;112:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wright B. Knowledge management. In: Presented at the Industry-University-Government Roundtable on Enhancing Engineering Education, Iowa State University, Ames, May 24; 1999.

  53. Zouri M, Ferworn A. An ontology-based approach for curriculum mapping in higher education. In: 2021 IEEE 11th annual computing and communication workshop and conference, Virtual, January 27–30; 2021. IEEE. p. 0141–7

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Charles W. Patrick Jr, James Machek, Reza Avazmohammadi, Daniel L. Alge, Charles W. Peak & Michael McShane

  2. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Daniel L. Alge & Michael McShane

  3. Center for Remote Health Technologies and Systems, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, TX, USA

    Michael McShane

Authors
  1. Charles W. Patrick Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Machek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reza Avazmohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel L. Alge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles W. Peak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael McShane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Charles Patrick and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles W. Patrick Jr.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patrick, C.W., Machek, J., Avazmohammadi, R. et al. Process for Faculty-Driven, Data-Informed Curriculum Continuity Review in Biomedical Engineering. Biomed Eng Education 2, 265–280 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-021-00063-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-021-00063-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation