Icon Legend

This session is not in your schedule.

This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.

Biomedical Engineering Education

Biomedical Engineering Education - Poster Session E

Poster E10 - Understanding Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Curricula: A Systematic Comparison of Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Programs

Saturday, October 26, 2024

10:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST

Location: Exhibit Hall E, F & G

Presenting Author(s)

Kent Qi (he/him/his)

Visiting Student Researcher
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Last Author(s)

LR

Lisa Romkey

Associate Professor, Teaching Stream
University of Toronto, United States

Introduction: There is no universal curriculum for a program that every university must follow. This is especially true for a highly multidisciplinary field like biomedical engineering (BME). While most universities will meet minimum requirements set out by an accreditation organization, the diversity in course offerings and specializations reflects the unique strengths, resources, and values of each institution. This variability can lead to significant differences in the educational experience and skill sets of graduates from different programs.

Understanding these differences is critical for many reasons. For students, it allows them to make more informed decisions in regards to their education. Especially, in BME where sub-fields can be vastly different, a student may enjoy a program with more emphasis on one aspect (e.g. instrumentation) than another (e.g. cellular bioengineering). For institutions, it helps educators and administrators identify areas where their programs can be improved or expanded to better serve their students. For the industry side, it provides employers with insights into the competencies and expertise they can expect from graduates of the field in general, as well as graduates of various programs.

Inspired by the work done by Linsenmeier and Gatchell of the VaNTH Engineering Research Center in Bioengineering Educational Technologies, this project seeks to understand the current state of course sequencing of BME programs in Ontario. Through analysis of core courses and elective options across various BME programs, we sought to identify common patterns, unique approaches, and gaps in the existing educational frameworks.

Materials and

Methods: Data Collection Process:

Full course curriculums for BME programs were found on respective schools online program calendars. The courses and their respective weight/unit were then recorded. Weights were then standardized, based on the total required courses/units required for graduation. Each course was then codified into a broad category (e.g. ‘circuit analysis’, ‘transport phenomena’, ‘anatomy/physiology’). Data was then organized and arranged by school and year. Schools that had programs organized by semester were arranged by 2 semesters = 1 year.

In regards to the codification process, the list of categories themselves is not exhaustive. The original list was acquired from previous literature, however, the final list was modified iteratively to allow for better data analysis. For example, categories that only appeared once or twice were reclassified.

Selection Criteria of Curricula:

1. Limited to schools in Ontario
2. Must be an accredited BME engineering program by Engineers Canada
3. Must be a four-year program

Selection criteria were determined to allow for improved comparability. This selection criteria was created iteratively, as after the initial collection of data of BME curricula in Ontario, there were two outlying programs. Specifically, the BME programs at Western and McMaster. These were five-year programs and both offered an undergraduate BME degree only in conjugation with another engineering major. Given the additional year, there were numerous differences that hindered direct comparison with the other programs .

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: The courses taken in first year across all programs are similar. This should be expected as many engineering schools do a common first-year across all engineering majors (with the required first-year/foundational courses being relatively similar).

Moving onto second year, one can start to see more differences. Math, statistics, circuit analysis, engineering design/practices, along with one or two mechanics courses, make up around 2/3 courses in second year. Differences arise when it comes to the remaining ⅓. Some schools sequence more ‘engineering’ focused courses (e.g. thermodynamics, computer algorithms), while the rest sequence ‘life science’ courses (e.g. Anatomy, biochemistry).

In the third and fourth year, programs generally were divided as followed:
1/4 of various engineering design/practices courses (e.g. capstone)
1/4 of specialized engineering topics (e.g. signals and system, modeling, biophysics)
1/4 of unspecified ‘technical electives’
1/4 of breadth courses in Humanities and Social Science
Based on these results, a possible conclusion is that the BME education community in Ontario places a strong emphasis on their identity as engineers. While this focus on engineering principles ensures a solid foundation and robust technical skills, it may come at the expense of a more comprehensive integration of life sciences.
The difference observed in the second year, where some programs prioritize traditional engineering courses over life science courses, begins to highlight the imbalance. Furthermore, in the upper year curriculum , the relegation of life science courses to 'technical electives' rather than core requirements indicates that these essential topics may be undervalued in the curriculum structure.
Biomedical engineering is not mechanical, electrical, chemical, or some other engineering applied to biological contexts; it is a distinct discipline that requires proper integration of both engineering and life sciences. By incorporating more than only engineering topics as core components rather than optional electives, programs can better prepare students to develop solutions that are truly informed by both engineering and biological perspectives.

Acknowledgements (Optional):