Early engineering design experiences can support the development of technical and professional competencies, yet implementing authentic projects in early-stage courses is often constrained by limited instructional time, credit hours, and student preparation. This study examined the implementation of a scaffolded, systems-oriented design project in a first-year biomedical engineering (BME) course and explored students’ perceptions of difficulty, collaboration, and skill development. A semester-long design project was implemented across four sections of a first-year BME course. Students modified a research-grade syringe pump system to address a safety concern while practicing computer-aided design (CAD), additive manufacturing, assembly, testing protocol development, and verification. The project was intentionally structured around interdependent teams contributing to a shared system and incorporated scaffolds, including guided problem-definition activities, CAD tutorials, and staged testing protocol development. Students completed pre- and post-project surveys assessing project participation, perceptions of difficulty, teamwork, technical confidence, and engineering identity. Students successfully completed the redesign, assembly, testing, and communication activities associated with the project. Most students perceived project activities as appropriately challenging and identified the structured progression, tutorials, and guided activities as important supports. Students reported positive teamwork experiences and frequently highlighted the value of contributing to a shared system and observing how individual contributions integrated into a functioning device. Secondary analyses revealed increases in perceived technical confidence, while engineering identity-related outcomes showed modest positive changes. Scaffolded, systems-oriented design experiences can be successfully implemented in an early-stage, one-credit-hour BME course, providing opportunities for students to engage in authentic engineering practice, develop relevant technical skills, and experience critical systems-oriented collaboration early in the curriculum.
Engineering curricula often emphasize theoretical content while providing limited opportunities for students to engage with authentic engineering challenges, creating a gap between academic preparation and professional practice. Studio-based learning has emerged as a promising pedagogical response, yet its capacity to support systematic engineering thinking remains underexplored in Biomedical Engineering (BME) contexts. This study examines how the PRIME studio model—Physiological system identification, Ranked constraints, Interactive block diagrams, Mathematical modeling, and Evidence-based solutions—supports the application of engineering principles in diabetes-focused design challenges and how student work differs across intentionally scaffolded sophomore and junior implementations. We analyzed final design presentations from diabetes-focused studio challenges across sophomore (n = 6 teams) and junior (n = 12 teams) BME courses. The assignments were intentionally differentiated according to students’ curricular preparation: sophomore work emphasized conceptual and qualitative systems analysis, whereas junior work explicitly incorporated mathematical and computational modeling. Student work was evaluated across three dimensions using systematic coding with high inter-rater reliability (AC1= 0.733–1.000): constraint development, block-diagram complexity, and solution-analysis alignment. Mann–Whitney U tests assessed course-level differences in ordinal rubric scores, with Bonferroni-adjusted p values reported for the block diagram and solution-analysis alignment comparison families. All teams demonstrated application of the PRIME studio model, with selective course-level differences across the assessed dimensions. Junior teams demonstrated higher constraint specificity than sophomore teams (Mdn=3 vs. 1; p < 0.001, r = 0.70) and stronger block-diagram performance in Variables and Constants (Mdn=3.5 vs. 0; Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.003, r = 0.82), Component Interactions (Mdn=3 vs. 2; Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.002, r = 0.85), and Systems Thinking (Mdn=3 vs. 1.5; Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.005, r = 0.79). Consistent with the intentionally differentiated assignment expectations, Quantitative Support was higher among junior teams, who were required to provide quantitative modeling and computational evidence, than among sophomore teams, whose assignment emphasized conceptual and qualitative analysis (Mdn=3 vs. 0; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.001, r = 0.94). The findings illustrate how the PRIME studio model can be adapted across curricular levels to scaffold a shift from conceptual reasoning toward systematic quantitative analysis, offering BME education a scalable instructional approach for bridging clinical inspiration with analytical rigor.
Biomedical engineering (BME) departments have achieved uneven results in preparing students for immediate workforce entry in the health technology sector, with graduates securing engineering-related positions at lower rates than peers in other engineering fields. Motivated to help students better prepare for workforce entry without a significant redesign of the core BME curriculum, we created a co-curricular program aimed at enhancing professional skills development. We hypothesized that providing students with a semi-structured, mentored opportunity to continue their team-based, course-related projects beyond the classroom could enhance their career readiness by allowing them to deepen and apply industry-relevant skills through real-world project advancement. Over nine academic years, 219 students participated across multiple project-based capstone and interdisciplinary courses. To assess program impact, we conducted a survey of participants. Eighty five percent of respondents (n = 40) reported that the program helped prepare them for the workforce, and 90
As biomedical engineering faculty, we are consistently striving to prepare our students for the “real world”. As such, many undergraduate programs focus their curricula on preparing students with the necessary technical expertise. While training students with a technical skillset remains important, here we target an overlooked competency for biomedical industry that is critical to succeed postgraduation: professional resiliency. Thus, our stated challenge is to prepare undergraduate engineers with professional resiliency for careers in biomedical industry. Here we present a novel framework to address the gap in student preparation for professional practice. The structure of this framework begins in the student’s first year with an introductory engineering design course which paves the path for student success. As internships in engineering become increasingly competitive, we must train students to be able to meet industry demands. Within this framework, we outline a scaffolded approach to design curriculum and hands-on experience to transition students from bench research at their home institution to achieving an internship in industry. This teaching tips article will include perspectives from two undergraduate biomedical engineering programs. In summary, the data suggests that introductory engineering design courses, exposure to research opportunities, and team design projects led to improved self-efficacy and industry preparation for undergraduate biomedical engineers. Postgraduation, we aspire that students will be: (1) Prepared for Professional Endeavors and (2) Demonstrate Readiness for Real-World Challenges. Within this framework we hope to develop engineers who are skilled practitioners, but also thoughtful leaders committed to serving society with integrity and purpose.
Biomedical engineering (BME) programs are designed to offer students interdisciplinary experiences and opportunities for collaboration that increasingly span disciplines and institutions. Mentoring is central to how students navigate these environments, but in multi-institutional settings it is distributed across faculty trained in different disciplinary traditions and operating under different departmental norms. The US National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Center (ERC) model is one such environment, bringing faculty and trainees from multiple institutions into shared interdisciplinary projects. Little is known about whether faculty mentors and student trainees in these settings hold shared expectations of what mentoring should provide, or about where those expectations diverge. To address this gap, this study examines the mentoring expectations and experiences of faculty mentors and student trainees engaged in BME research within an ERC, guided by the following research questions: (1) What are the mentoring perceptions and expectations of faculty mentors and student trainees collaborating on a BME project? and (2) In what ways do faculty mentors’ and student trainees’ perceptions of mentoring practices and expectations align or diverge? Using an interpretative phenomenological approach, this study explores both shared and misaligned experiences of mentorship. The findings reveal that participants commonly described their experiences within three thematic domains: access to ERC resources, mentorship beyond supervision, and a collaborative lab culture. At the same time, notable misalignments emerged in areas related to mentor accessibility and mentee independence. These findings offer practical insights into how mentoring expectations form and diverge in research-intensive, interdisciplinary environments, and into how BME programs might establish, sustain, and evaluate mentoring practices in settings where no single set of institutional norms governs them.
