integrated biomedical engineering education using studio-based learning

Discovery-based learning in early biomedical engi-neering courses promotes the development ofskills that are required in later courses and in pro-fessional practice. Studio learning is an alternative

to the conventional lecture/recitation/laboratory format, and itis shown to encourage student inquiry and foster faculty andpeer mentoring. This method also allows significant integra-tion of foundational course materials that are essential for bio-medical engineering while engaging students’ interest in thefield. This article discusses the application of studio-basedlearning to biomedical engineering using examples from NewJersey Institute of Technology’s (NJIT) two introductorysophomore courses in biomedical engineering.

Overview: Boyer, Biomedical Engineering,and Studio LearningNJIT is located within one of the nation’s largest biomedicalindustrial communities that comprises over 700 businessesspecializing in medical devices and software, biotechnology,and pharmaceuticals. To fulfill its role as a public researchuniversity and provide a learning environment that supportsthe workforce needs of this industry, NJIT has developed acomprehensive department of biomedical engineering, withnew curricula leading to the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.

This simultaneous development of undergraduate andgraduate programs has allowed NJIT to heed the advice ofthe Boyer Commission on the Education of Undergraduatesat a Research University [2] and “make the undergraduateexperience an inseparable part of the whole.” That reportcalls on research universities to achieve their potential to of-fer a “potentially matchless” education to undergraduatesand allow students “to enter a world of discovery in whichthey are active participants, not passive receivers.” The re-port challenges research universities to offer research-basedlearning, employing methods that promote discovery guidedby mentoring. The ideal structure, according to the BoyerCommission, is one that promotes learning by inquiry andtransforms the undergraduate experience from a “culture ofreceivers into a culture of inquirers, in which faculty, gradu-ate students and undergraduate students share in an adven-ture of discovery.” The National Science Foundationaddressed a similar theme in the report of its 1994 Workshopon Engineering Education [22]. This report recommends

that curricula include “integrative laboratory experiencesthat promote inquiry, relevance, and hands-on experience”and suggests that the learning experience replace the lectureas its dominant mode and embrace active learning that in-cludes laboratories, internships, and cooperative learning. Inits review of the state of undergraduate education in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology, the AdvisoryCommittee to the NSF’s Education and Human ResourcesDirectorate concluded that too many students find coursesdull and unwelcoming, and that too many graduates enter theworkforce ill-prepared to solve problems in a cooperativeway and lack the skills and motivation to continue learning.They recommend that a student’s educational experience“build inquiry, a sense of wonder, and the excitement of dis-covery” [25].

Educational Needs of Biomedical EngineeringRelated issues were discussed at the Whitaker Foundation’sBiomedical Engineering Academic Summit held in Decem-ber 2000. Several white papers addressed the importance offoundational courses and laboratory experiences in shapingthe abilities of biomedical engineering students. Hart andRabbit [14] encourage the development of thinking, learning,and discovering through the integration of disciplinary mate-rials in foundational courses. They say that, “Biomedical en-gineering programs should have an introductory sequencedesigned to: a) describe the scope, tools, and opportunities inthe field, and b) introduce students to the engineering toolsand techniques used to study physiological systems and de-sign biomedical devices.” They go on to say that, “Teachingfactoids should be discarded in favor of a working knowledgeof fundamental principles that unify biological, chemical, me-chanical, and electrical approaches for the purposes of analy-sis/design of biomedical systems.” Hart and Rabbit emphasizethe importance of the ABET EC2000 criteria that call forundergraduate experiences promoting:➤ the application of knowledge of math, science, and engi-

neering➤ the design and execution of experiments, and the mea-

surement, analysis, and interpretation of data from livingsystems

➤ the ability to contribute in a multidisciplinary team➤ the ability to communicate effectively

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE 0739-5175/03/$17.00©2003IEEE JULY/AUGUST 2003

BME

Educ

atio

n Integrated BiomedicalEngineering Education UsingStudio-Based LearningIncreasing Student Performance and Interest ByStressing Learning Experience and Active LearningOver Traditional LectureRICHARD A. FOULDS,

MICHAEL BERGEN, ANDBRUNO A. MANTILLA

92

©1997 MASTER SERIES

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003 93

➤ an awareness of contemporary issues.Enderle et al. [10] stress the need to promote real-world prob-lem solving with undergraduate programs that promote criti-cal thinking, teamwork, interpersonal skills, group decisionmaking, analytical and problem-solving skills, and communi-cation skills. They link these to specific technical capacitiesthat allow students to measure and acquire physical phenom-ena related to medicine and biology, design experiments, in-terpret and statistically evaluate data, write technical reports,compare experimental outcomes with theoretical values, anddetermine how differences can occur. Holmes [15] similarlycites the importance of laboratory experience as a learning en-vironment and argues that laboratories allow integrationamong educational tracks in biomedical engineering. He sug-gests that laboratories in early courses offer students across-track knowledge base that supports their understandingof the breadth of the field. Dove and Holmes [9] and Litt [19]recognize that laboratory experiences generate motivationand enthusiasm for discovery. They suggest including labora-tories early in the curriculum and moving from recipe-drivenexercises to open-ended hypothesis testing. They also pro-mote the integration of biological, medical, engineering, andmathematical principles, with real-world tools, in laboratoriesthat allow students to pursue issues in depth. In a major at-tempt to provide a focus on the instructional needs of thisfield, the National Science Foundation supports anEngineering Research Center on biomedical engineeringeducation. This Center addresses new instructional materialsas well as important methodological issues [13], [6], [5], [26].

Integrating Foundational Courses inBiomedical EngineeringIn developing its new undergraduate curriculum, NJIT hassought to integrate fundamental engineering content with bio-logical, physiological, and medical knowledge as well as mo-tivate biomedical engineering students to become adaptivelearners and critical thinkers. The implementation of such am-bitious goals presents several challenges. The curriculummust maintain the balance between depth in engineering andbreadth in biological and medical content, while remainingwithin the four-year undergraduate schedule [8]. The fresh-man year, normally dominated by mathematics, physics, andchemistry courses, has been augmented with two introductorybiomedical engineering courses. A first-year biomedical engi-neering seminar and an introductory design course welcomestudents to the department and provide an overview of thefield. Upper-level, elective courses in areas of specialization,as well as the capstone design project, and opportunities forindustrial internships and independent research have been de-veloped for the junior and senior years. Bounded by periods ofintroduction and specialization, the sophomore year isespecially important in providing foundational engineeringcontent that is prerequisite for later learning.

NJIT has developed two sophomore courses that providefoundational material in the context of contemporary biomed-ical engineering. Students are exposed to a wide range of bio-medical engineering topics, while being introduced tofundamental engineering concepts of electronic circuits, digi-tal electronics, computer interfacing, signal acquisition andprocessing, experimental design, statics and mechanics, andfluid mechanics. These are integrated into exploratory labora-tory exercises in which students develop their research and de-

sign skills within the context of biological and medical do-mains. Thus, students become familiar with bioelectricity,bioinstrumentation, biomechanics, biomaterials, biomedicalexperimentation, and bioethics.

Reflecting their technical content, these courses are titled“Electrical Fundamentals of Biomedical Engineering” and“Mechanical Fundamentals of Biomedical Engineering.”They provide an alternative to separate foundational coursesin electronics, fluid mechanics, and statics and dynamics,while strengthening the students’ understanding of biomedi-cal engineering. As the integrated content of these courses isdifficult to provide in a pair of traditional three-credit courses,or even four-credit courses with a laboratory, a different for-mat has been employed. Grants from the National ScienceFoundation and the Whitaker Foundation have supported theadaptation of the studio learning model to fundamentalbiomedical engineering courses.

Studio learning has been the foundation of modern archi-tectural education and has recently been applied to founda-tional engineering courses by the Rennselaer PolytechnicInstitute (RPI). This approach allows the integration of lec-tures and laboratories in a way that very effectively promotesthe integration of an introduction to the field with fundamen-tal technical content. Additional expected benefits of stu-dio-based learning are as follows:➤ improved student comprehension and retention of mate-

rial➤ development of investigation and critical thinking skills

in students➤ encouragement of communication and teamwork skills

among students➤ promotion of sense of scholarly community among un-

dergraduate students➤ improved student satisfaction➤ improved faculty satisfaction➤ improved recruitment of new students➤ improved retention of enrolled students.

Characteristics of Studio-Based LearningThe origins of studio-based learning in U.S. universities arefound in schools of architecture. The prototype architecturestudio is a loft-like space, in which 12 to 20 students learnfrom their mentors, conduct their work, and establish an infor-mal learning community among their fellow workers. Boyerand Mitgang [3] proposed that it be adopted in other disci-plines: “We concluded, in short, that architectural education isreally about fostering the learning habits needed for the dis-covery, integration, application, and sharing of knowledgeover a lifetime .... We were especially inspired by the designstudio.... We are convinced that these studios, scruffy thoughthey may look, are nonetheless models for creative learningthat others on campus might well think about.”

In the early 1990s, RPI began a systematic restructuringof its curriculum. It convened a panel of nationally promi-nent educators, architects, and representatives of industryto examine the needs of undergraduate engineering stu-dents. The consensus of the panel was that RPI shouldmove away from its dependence on the traditional lectureand employ a more hands-on approach to learning [7], [24],[31], [32]. The studio metaphor was selected because it in-vokes a vision of a creative environment in which studentsare engaged in active learning.

Studio learning integrates the traditional lecture/recita-tion/laboratory structure of science and engineering coursesinto two two-hour time blocks each week. The RPI studiomodel involves a minilecture at the beginning of each studiosession, which serves as a connection between the assignedreading, and a studio exercise that is conducted during theclass period. Students work in small teams on these exercises,which are considerably more open-ended than are traditionallaboratory assignments. The instructor and a teaching assis-tant are present throughout the studio session to coach andmentor student groups.

RPI’s studio model has been adapted at a number of otherinstitutions, including Curtin University in Australia [18], theCity University of Hong Kong [20], and Harvey Mudd Col-lege [4]. The NSF Division of Undergraduate Education hassupported studio courses at Rose Hulman Institute of Tech-nology (mechanical systems), Indiana State University (phys-ics), the State University of West Georgia (chemistry), KansasState University (biology), Virginia Commonwealth Univer-sity (materials chemistry), the University of Texas Pan Ameri-can (mathematics), and RPI (biochemistry). In addition tointroductory studio courses, the RPI Department of Biomedi-cal Engineering reports success of a studio-based, upper-levelcourse in biomechanics [23], [28].

Many of these institutions have reported successful evalua-tions of studio learning. Curtin University feels that the studioapproach to learning offers a more flexible means of accom-modating the emerging student populations of nontraditionalengineering and science students. Because students havemore control over the approach they take to address a prob-lem, the Curtin faculty feel that the student teams adjust quitewell to differences in gender, culture, and learning style [20].An externally conducted evaluation of the RPI experience has

shown increased student and faculty satisfaction resultingfrom studio courses. Attendance in introductory courses in-creased from 55% in traditional lectures to nearly 98% in stu-dio courses. This is attributed to both the increase in interest ofthe students and to awareness that each studio session is animportant time in which something new is learned. RPI hasalso shown that student retention of material is increased [12].Economic evaluation of RPI’s studio approach to learningshows that it is cost effective when compared to theconventional lecture/recitation/laboratory structure [24].

NJIT’s two new biomedical engineering studio courses be-gan in 2000–2001 [11] and have shown dramatic increases instudent attendance and interest. Students evaluate their studiocourses with much higher scores than their conventionalcourses. Students transferring to biomedical engineering aftertaking these courses credit the studio approach with excitingtheir interest in the field.

Studio Learning in Biomedical EngineeringThe Biomedical Engineering StudioThe integration of lectures and laboratories requires a facilityin which these activities can be combined. Although educa-tional studios are often customized for specific course con-tent, they share common features. Crucial to success are theaccommodation of 20 to 40 students, the availability of infor-mation technology, and an architectural configuration thatpromotes interaction among the students. In general, studiosare designed so that students can both cluster around sharedworkspaces and focus attention on the instructor or on aparticular student group.

NJIT’s studio courses began in a temporary space in a de-partmental research laboratory. This experience highlightedthe importance of an appropriate facility and led to the designof a new Biomedical Engineering Studio. This new facility in-cludes two rooms, of which one is the studio, with approxi-mately 900 square feet, and is designed to accommodate up to30 students. An adjoining room is a 200-square-foot studiodevelopment laboratory for faculty use. The studio is fullywired for Internet and multimedia, and it is furnished withcomputer tables located around the periphery and in the centerof the room. Chairs are upholstered for seating comfort andcan swivel and roll to allow students to shift their focus of at-tention among mentoring, peer interaction, experimentation,as well as class lectures.

This studio is equipped with ten PC-based laboratory sta-tions that serve groups of two to three students. Each com-puter is supported by MS Office (Microsoft Corporation,Redmond, Washington), as well as MATLAB, Simulink (TheMathworks, Natick, Massachusetts), and LabVIEW (NationalInstruments, Austin, Texas) software. These have been se-lected by NJIT as core technologies for undergraduate educa-tion. Each studio computer has a large-screen monitor, aNational Instruments data acquisition card, two channels ofGrass (Grass-Telefactor, Inc., West Warwick, Rhode Island)bioamplifiers, and two channels of strain gauge amplifiers.Laboratory stations have oscilloscopes, power supplies, func-tion generators, multimeters, and small tools. The selection ofGrass amplifiers instead of an educationally oriented systemsuch as Biopac, provides access to research-quality instru-mentation that is common in faculty and industrial laborato-ries (Figure 1). This facilitates a seamless transfer of technical

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 200394

Fig. 1. The use of research quality instrumentation at the intro-ductory level provides experience that will be useful in latercourses and provides the basis for participation in independ-ent research.

skills into upper level courses, independent research, and em-ployment.

In addition to the student workstations, the studio isequipped with networked laser printers, a PC for the instruc-tor, as well as a video projector and VCR. Computing in theadjoining development laboratory includes a single worksta-tion, identical to the student workstations, for faculty use, anda dedicated network server that supports the studio. The de-velopment laboratory also stores studio materials and pro-motes effective transition between courses that use thefacility. This support facility has been designed to service sev-eral biomedical engineering studios as the NJIT programgrows. A second studio, configured for biomedicalcomputation, was introduced in 2002.

Scaffolding Studio SessionsThe studio metaphor employed in NJIT courses does not en-tirely replicate the architectural studio. In contrast to an archi-tectural studio in which students spend a great deal of theirtime, a studio course represents only one of a students’ four tofive courses in a semester and engages students for only twotwo-hour sessions per week. This limitation on time requiresthat the studio sessions are structured to promote discov-ery-based learning, critical thinking, teamwork, and individ-ual growth. Such a structure or scaffold makes best use oftwo-hour time periods, while minimizing the potential ofsome students becoming lost in an unstructured environment.This is balanced with the need to avoid overspecifying the ac-tivities in a studio session and reverting to recipe-driven,traditional laboratory exercises.

The metaphor of a scaffold is appropriate for this learningenvironment because it is a structure that supports and guidesand can be removed when no longer necessary [17]. Educa-tional scaffolding promotes a dynamic interaction betweenexpert and learners, to whom the responsibility for acquiringnew knowledge is gradually shifted.

Each studio session or group of sessions is developed witha set of well-defined learning objectives. These include do-main-specific concepts as well as integrated knowledge. Thestudio exercises are designed to guide students through a pro-cess of discovery. In this process, they acquire and practicetechnical skills and learn to extend those skills beyond the im-mediate assignment. Students are encouraged to identify andsolve problems, as part of a team of peer investigators andwith faculty guidance. They are free to take different ap-proaches, and they are expected to present and defend theirfindings among their peers. Institutions that have employedstudio learning have found that this helps build a sense ofcommunity among students and builds scholarly socializationskills that are necessary to participate in a team environment.

The structure or scaffold of a studio exercise varies de-pending on the task and the previous experiences of the stu-dents. Most sessions begin with a minilecture that summarizesassigned readings and introduces a new topic or weaves sev-eral topics into an integrated theme. Mazur [21] emphasizesthat science and engineering lectures often repeat what wasread in the text. He argues that the teaching of Shakespearewould be ill served by the instructor using class time to retellthe play. He advocates shorter lectures that maintain studentattention and amplify the content of the text. This leaves themajority of the class time for an experimental exercise that isguided by a written problem statement and set of open-ended

questions. In situations requiring new equipment or software,tutorial documentation is also provided. During the experi-mental exercise, the instructor serves as mentor to the teams(Figure 2). On occasions when a number of groups experiencethe same concerns, the instructor may reconvene the class fora short clarification or may ask a successful group of studentsto demonstrate their solution. Students are encouraged toshare their knowledge with their classmates. Considerable in-teraction takes place among students and with the instructorduring these sessions. On average, this occurs much more of-ten than it would in a traditional lecture course. Through theirmentoring, instructors identify the development of studentskills and can elect to amplify materials to strengthen the classfoundation, or to reduce the level of scaffolding to recognizestudent accomplishment and encourage more independentdiscovery. Student-to-student contact is also greatly enhancedin studio sessions, with students learning the teamwork neces-sary to complete assigned tasks (Figure 3). Studio sessionspromote peer mentoring and instruction, with successfulstudents sharing their understanding of the problem withother groups. In this way, peer competition is replaced withpeer teaching.

Each session is completed with a short discussion of theexperimental work and the techniques that were learned. Theinstructor concludes the class by relating the experiment toupcoming readings and future studio sessions. Laboratory re-ports are completed by the students outside of class and sub-mitted one week later. Minimum requirements include athorough discussion of the student group’s expected results,the experimental procedure, the data and its analysis, and thefindings. Students are expected to consider differences be-tween their expectations and findings and propose additionalexperiments and analyses that address the problems.

Examinations reflect the studio approach and are struc-tured to evaluate both engineering fundamentals and criticalthinking skills. Rather than use easy-to-grade multiplechoice or fill-in-the-blank questions, or even straightforward


Fig. 2. Studio learning promotes interaction among peer stu-dents and with faculty. In contrast with traditional lectures, stu-dio sessions provide the opportunity for faculty mentoring ofsmall groups of students. In classes of 20–30, this occurs severaltimes with each group during every session. Here, the instruc-tor works with one group (foreground) while the graduateteaching fellow works with a second group.

computational problems, studio examinations often ask stu-dents to reanalyze data they have collected during their stu-dio sessions, or to transfer what they have previously learnedto a new situation. Examinations ask students to demonstratethat they have learned to think like an engineer.

The nature of scaffolding allows the written experimentalprocedures to become more open-ended throughout thecourse. Progressively less faculty guidance (either written orspoken) is required as the control of the experiments and theresponsibility for discovery is shifted to the students. This isbest illustrated with examples of studio exercises from the twocourses.

Examples of Integrated Studio ExercisesEach of NJIT’s studio courses includes 26 two-hour studiosessions, two examination sessions, and a final examination.Sessions are organized into integrated modules, e.g.,biomechanics, bioelectric signals, medical imaging,bioinstrumentation, biofluids, biomaterials, and experimentaldesign. Modules typically include two to six studio sessionsthat form a coherent learning unit. Modules are not independ-ent of each other, with many of them building on material thathas been learned in prior sessions.

Bioelectric signals. This module represents four to five studiosessions, which begin with a review of electric principles cov-ered in freshman physics (voltage, current, resistance, Ohm’slaw, etc.). Students are familiarized with laboratory instrumen-

tation, including multimeters, oscilloscopes, variable powersupplies, and function generators. They breadboard a simpleRC circuit and explore the circuit’s response to a step change involtage. Students are led by the exercise’s questions to discoverthe effects of varying the resistance and capacitance.

In subsequent sessions, they are introduced to the bio-chemical processes that result in the generation of bioelectricsignals in the axon of a nerve. Using a software simulation [1],students study the ion and electrical gradients and membranepermeability that result in an action potential. The program al-lows modification of physiologically valid parameters, in-cluding the intracellular and extracellular ion concentrations,the nerve diameter, and the axoplasm temperature. Studentscan externally stimulate the depolarization with a simulatedprobe employing controllable stimulation current and pulseduration. Outputs include depolarization voltages at positionsalong the nerve and an animation of the generation of an ac-tion potential. They consider capacitance and resistance of themembrane and the axoplasm, and they compare the resultingdepolarization curves with the output of their earlier RC cir-cuit. They measure the propagation speed of the action poten-tial and are asked to draw conclusions regarding the RC timeconstant, the need for biochemical regeneration of the signal,and the benefits of myelination. They are asked to determinethe maximum number of action potentials per second that canbe propagated in the axon. They then make a comparison withthe overly simplistic analogy of nerves acting like wires.Open-ended questions relating to nature’s use of cloride, po-tassium, sodium, and neurotransmitters rather than metals,encourage students to think in greater depth about physiologyand to explore alternative designs of nervous systems.Pathologies that interfere with nerve conduction such asmultiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and chemicaldeficiencies are also introduced.

In a logical extension of this, students are introduced to thestimulation of muscle and compare the similarities of muscleaction potentials with nerve action potentials.

Bioinstrumentation. Several sessions are devoted to biomed-ical instrumentation, using the context of cardiacelectrophysiology as a transition from the earlier module. Asstudents are most likely familiar with the electrocardiogram(ECG) as a measure of cardiac function, they explore the elec-trical functioning of the heart muscle. During these sessions,they are introduced to the Grass-Telefactor bioamplifiers andLabVIEW programs that can be used to monitor the ECG.Technical issues such as the use of electrodes, preparation ofthe skin, amplification of low-voltage signals, the removal ofambient noise using differential amplification, and bio-isola-tion are presented in an experiment in which they measure theECGs of their laboratory partners. Students learn about theplacement of electrodes, electrode movement artifacts, andother real-world issues. Pathologies of the heart are explainedin terms of how the ECG may appear different and are demon-strated with stored ECG signals depicting different medicalabnormalities. Instrumentation techniques for other biologi-cal signals, including the EMG, EEG, and EOG, are intro-duced as well.

Signal Acquisition and Processing. The acquisition and pro-cessing of bioelectric signals was introduced in thebioinstrumentation module only in terms of the need for am-


Fig. 3. Students work in small groups taking physiologicalmeasuresments of ECG. Studio exercises provide experiencein collecting and analyzing data using LabView-based soft-ware. The open-ended style of studio learning allows studentsto explore concepts beyond what is normally required in stan-dard laboratory assignments.

plification. This module introduces students to the use of thecomputer to collect analog data through an analog-to-digitalconversion. Using a signal with which they are all familiar,students capture their speech on the studio computers and ap-ply a variety of techniques that significantly transform the sig-nal. This allows students to develop an intuitive sense ofquantization, sampling rate, and filtering as they listen to theeffects of each on their speech.

They view the time-domain waveform and discuss its limi-tations in describing the characteristics of the signal. They areintroduced to spectral analysis (referring to their earlier studyof Fourier transforms) and are shown how to create a spectro-gram of their speech. They explore the spectrogram, examin-ing the various frequency components. At this point, digitalfiltering is reintroduced so students may see as well as hear itseffects on the signal.

Mechanical Foundations. The second foundations course in-troduces a combination of mechanical concepts. A minilec-ture and accompanying reading introduces the concept ofblood flow in the capillaries and highlights the importance ofpressure gradients to the exchange of nutrients and waste. Is-sues of poor blood circulation to peripheral tissue due to ex-ternal pressure exceeding capillary pressure are discussed interms of dicubitus ulcers (bedsores or pressure sores). Stu-dents are asked to hypothesize about the pressure exerted ontheir capillaries when they are seated. They experimentallycompute the average pressure on their backsides by estimat-ing the area of their backsides using graph paper and measur-ing their weights. Due to their sensitivity regarding bothweight and backside area, students do this individually andprivately discover that they exceed capillary pressure by a fac-tor of three. In isolation, students believe that they either erredin their experiment or that they are possibly abnormal. Gradu-ally, students begin to share their findings with each other andfind that everyone exceeds capillary pressure. They then mustexplore why people do not generally develop dicubitus ulcers.What they learn is that the excess pressure is countered by ner-vous sensation (tingling and the urge to move) andneuromuscular response (squirming). The module continueswith an exploration of pressure distributions. Students feel thebony prominences of their ischial tuberocities and are asked toconsider if their estimates of seated pressure are accurate.

Experimental Design. The concepts of experimental designand biostatistics are introduced in the context of abiomechanics investigation. Students are presented a questionabout the variability of pressure on the feet due to a person’sweight [28]. In one session, students create a database consist-ing of the weights, heights, genders, and areas of right and leftfeet of the class. In a second session, they are introduced toMATLAB to create computer files and produce graphicalplots of their data. They examine independent plots of height,weight, and foot area and observe that there is considerablevariation among the class. They are asked to predict the de-gree of variation in foot pressure. Students then test their hy-potheses and discover that the pressure is relatively stableacross the entire class, and they are asked to find out why.

This module includes several sessions on experimental de-sign and biostatistics. Using the data from the previous ses-sions, students compute descriptive statistics of mean,variance, and standard deviation, as well as consider the con-

cept of data scatter. They prepare a histogram that illustratesthe spread of the data. Statistical concepts of regression indi-cating trends in data and correlation showing confidence intrends are then discussed. Students write a simple regressionanalysis program in MATLAB. (Although the same statisticscould be performed in Microsoft Excel, it has been decided toemphasize the use of MATLAB, which is potentially morepowerful in later courses and in employment.) Students con-duct regression analysis and compute correlation coefficientson their pressure data versus both height and weight. Whenthey find that foot pressure is positively correlated with bothheight and weight, they are asked to consider if there is a gen-uine causality or only covariance. They are encouraged toconsider how foot area may vary with height and to examinethe common skeletal basis of foot area and height. Weight isexplored as a partial consequence of skeletal size as well aspersonal habits of eating and exercise.

Finally, student curiosity always leads to a consideration ofwhether there is a difference in height, weight, and foot areadue to gender. Statistical tests that measure differences amongmeans are introduced to address the questions. In general, theclass size is balanced between male and female students andgender differences are found with statistical significance.Comparison of the measured areas of right and left feet do notgenerally show a significant variation in samples of this sizeusing crude measurement techniques (tracing the outline ofthe foot on a piece of graph paper and counting the enclosedsquares). This leads to a discussion of sample size and a verybrief explanation of the power of an experiment. Sample pa-pers from journals are read to illustrate the importance ofbiostatistics in biomedical engineering.

Fluid Mechanics. The earlier discussion of capillary flow isexpanded in a module on fluid mechanics. Using the contextof the circulatory system, students consider the pressure gra-dients needed to move blood from the heart to organs and backto the heart. Students relate this to blood pressure with the useof a sphygmomanometer. They are asked to speculate on whatmakes the sounds they hear in a stethoscope. How can they de-termine if muscle makes noise when it contracts? Concepts oflaminar flow and turbulence are introduced and related to thesounds that are heard. Additional concepts of pressure differ-entials due to elevation are explored by measuring blood pres-sure with the arms elevated, and by taking measurements atthe ankle.

Biomaterials. An introduction to biomaterials is covered insix studio sessions. This involves two sessions covering fun-damental topics of strength of materials, stress, strain, com-pression, and tension. Four subsequent sessions introduce theproperties of natural and manufactured materials. One studioexercise involves measuring the piezoelectric properties ofbone. Students are asked to develop a technique for squeezinga piece of cow bone and determining its electrical output.They are told only that the signal is in the range of 5 mV. Theymust use their experience in measuring small-voltage signals(EMG, ECG, etc.) in noisy environments and recall that theyshould use a differential amplifier. They also discover that thesurface electrodes used in measuring their earlier exercisescannot stand the pressure that must be exerted on a bone toelicit a signal. With minimal faculty guidance, the studentgroups learn that they can squeeze the bone with a pair of pipe


pliers, and that small brass screws inserted in the bone provideacceptable electrodes. Students often speculate on the effectof cooking the bone and design an experiment (using the de-partment microwave) to determine the outcome.

Soft tissue mechanics is introduced with a simple experi-ment using strands of spaghetti. Students suspend the strandvertically and apply varying stresses (paper clips) while mea-suring the strain. Stress is periodically removed to allow thespaghetti to relax. Length measurements determine thechange from elastic to plastic deformation. Stress-straincurves are developed from experimental data.

Finally, manufactured biomaterials are introduced in thecontext of the compatibility of implants. One material used inthe production of stents shapes memory alloy carries over tothe final project.

Measurement and Modeling the Monosynaptic Reflex andMuscle Activation Delays. An example of integrative studiosessions involves the measurement of the time delays intro-duced by the monosynaptic reflex arc and the muscle activa-tion properties. Students are asked to do this using the patellartendon reflex with which they are all familiar from visits to thedoctor. They are given a single accelerometer and a LabVIEWacquisition program (which they have previously used in the

exploration of sensors), three electrodes for measuring EMG,and a physician’s reflex hammer.

Students are guided with a request to sketch the physiolog-ical flow of information and identify physical activities. Thus,they relate the impact of the hammer with the movement ofthe tendon that stretches the muscle and produces a musclespindle output. This signal flows to the spinal cord and resultsin an alpha motor neuron excitation of the muscle. Muscle ac-tivation causes the upward jerk of the lower shank of the leg.Potential delays are identified in the nerve conduction fromthe spindle to the spine and back to the muscle, and in thedynamic activation of the muscle.

Students quickly discover that that can attach the acceler-ometer to the hammer and measure its time of impact. Theycan measure the EMG at the muscle using the electrodes andthe Grass amplifiers. They also find that they can measure theswing of the foot with the accelerometer. However, they can-not do everything at once with only one accelerometer. Sev-eral groups typically take the routine approach and ask theinstructor for another accelerometer, which is not available.Eventually, all groups solve the problem. Solutions includelocating the accelerometer on the ankle and observing that thelarge value associated with the first swing of the leg is pre-ceded by a small spike due to the hammer strike at the patellartendon. Students discover that vibration is transmittedthrough tissue faster than the combined reflex arc and activa-tion delays. Other students conduct two experiments. Theyfirst use the accelerometer on the hammer in conjunction withthe EMG electrodes to determine the reflex arc delay. Theythen repeat the procedure with the accelerometer on the ankleand determine the time between the EMG initiation and theonset of leg movement, which represents the muscle activa-tion time. Summing the two solves the problem. In each class,there is at least one creative group that addressed theequipment problem by partnering with a nearby laboratorygroup and sharing accelerometers.

Finally, a simple Simulink model of the patellar tendon re-flex is introduced. Students can run the model and see the out-put in terms of acceleration, velocity, and position. They caninput their experimental values of reflex arc and muscle acti-vation delays to add realism to the model [16].

Elementary Biomechanics. Much of the semester is con-cerned with mechanical systems in equilibrium. This is ad-dressed in part by homework problems as well as throughgroup problem solving in studio sessions. Students are pro-vided a 2-m wooden board, a bathroom scale, and a tape mea-sure and are asked to experimentally determine their center ofmass. They explore the concept of the line of action of a forceand the generation of torque by fabricating a test-bed using alength of piano wire as a cantilever and a strand of shapememory alloy (Nitinol) connecting the free end of the cantile-ver to the base. The Nitinol is heated by means of an electricalcurrent and responds by contracting by approximately 5% ofits length. Students observe the bending of the beam.

The final studio exercise is conducted over three sessionsand involves the construction of a six-legged robot known asthe Stiquito (Figure 4). Developed at Indiana University andpublicized through the IEEE Press, this robot uses piano wirelegs powered by Nitinol muscles. Students are encouraged tooptimize their robots for a 20-cm dash and a tug-of-war. Cus-tomization includes biomechanical calculation of muscle an-


Fig. 4. In addition to computer simulations and processing ofdata, students engage in the fabrication of electromechani-cal devices that demonstrate both fundamental technologiesas well as biomedical concepts. This project involves pairs ofstudents in the construction and testing of a hexapod robotthat employs shape memory alloy as its muscles. Studentscompute the torque necessary to move the robot’s legs aswell as the current required to contact the muscles, and theydesign a device that ambulates under their control.

gle and point of attachment as well as determination of gaitpattern (Figure 5). The open-ended discovery process wasdemonstrated when one group learned that the force gener-ated in Nitinol is proportional to its diameter. They obtained12-ml strands to replace the normal 4-ml material and wereconvinced of the superior strength of their creation. Duringthe in-class race, their robot was outperformed by all others.In a subsequent analysis, they discovered (and shared with theclass) that the larger diameter Nitinol did increase the strengthof the muscles. However, the contraction time of the materialis also proportional to its diameter. Not only was each musclefour times stronger, but also it was four times slower.

Contemporary Issues. Contemporary issues in biomedicalengineering are introduced throughout both courses. The in-creased interaction among students and between students andinstructor encourage students to informally raise issues aris-ing in the press or coming to their attention in other ways. Aformal opportunity to discuss contemporary issues is pro-vided in the final three sessions of each course. Students areasked to write a short review paper on a contemporary topic inbiomedical engineering. Selection of topics is quite liberal(relating only to the mechanical or electrical basis of thecourses) and is primarily determined by student interest. Thefinal three studio sessions are conducted as a mock researchconference, allowing each presenter 10 minutes for his/herpaper and 5 minutes for questions. All other members of theclass and the instructor complete evaluation forms that rankthe overall quality of the presentation, the presenter’s abilityto answer questions, and the quality of the audio-visuals. Stu-dents are told that their participation from the audience, in theform of questions, will also be evaluated by the instructor.

DiscussionThe Boyer Commission report is critical of the quality of un-dergraduate education at research universities, and it suggestschanges that offer undergraduate students access to the re-search strengths of those institutions. The report considers re-search institutions to be settings where inquiry is highlyprized among faculty and graduate students. It suggests ex-panding that emphasis in inquiry to the undergraduate levelwhen it says that, “Research universities posses unparalleledpower and resources. Their challenge is the make theirbaccalaureate students sharers of the wealth.”

Studio courses are a valid mechanism to engage under-graduate students in inquiry-based study and to enhance stu-dent–faculty interaction. Within a two-hour studio session,each student generally has one or more substantive discus-sions with the instructor. The replacement of the long lecturewith coaching and mentoring encourages dialog between stu-dent and instructor that is often absent in traditional courses.Thomas Dewey concluded that learning is based on discoveryguided by mentoring rather than on the transmission of infor-mation [2]. Inherent in Dewey’s understanding of in-quiry-based learning is the element of reciprocity. This allowswhat Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy ofScience and a member of the Boyer Commission, described asthe “accidental collision of ideas” [2]. The discovery-basedapproach of the studio exercises provides an active form oflearning that promotes the acquisition and retention of new in-formation and promotes an intellectual foundation for laterresearch endeavors.

Experience at NJIT shows that studio-based learning canbe very successful in providing an integration of engineeringfundamentals and contemporary biomedical engineering. Theopportunity for students to learn from their own discoveries,from faculty mentoring, and through peer interactionstrengthens the undergraduate experience. This success, how-ever, does not happen immediately. Students entering studiocourses have little experience outside of lectures and rec-ipe-driven laboratories. They are often unaccustomed toopen-ended questions and expect to simply fill in the blanks.In many instances, students expect to retain factoids only untilthe final examination and see little relationship between thecontent of different courses. Studio courses, offered at the be-ginning of the undergraduate experience, can expand the stu-dents’ understanding that engineering requires independentthought and analysis. They also provide examples of theinterrelationship of different courses and the importance offundamental concepts across specialty areas.

ConclusionThe New Jersey Institute of Technology has adopted the stu-dio-based learning approach for its two introductory sopho-more courses in biomedical engineering. These courses havesuccessfully demonstrated the integration of engineering fun-damentals, methods of scientific inquiry, and domain-specificproblems drawn from biology and medicine. This effort hasinfluenced the Department of Biomedical Engineering to con-sider additional studio courses at both the introductory and theadvanced levels. The Department has constructed a secondstudio to accommodate this growth, and the University hascommitted to the construction of two additional biomedicalengineering studios.

The complete descriptions of the studio exercises de-scribed in this article may be viewed at http://www.njit.edu/bme/Studiocourses.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge the support of the Whitaker Founda-tion in the planning of the studio courses and the design of thestudios, the NSF for studio course development, and the New


Fig. 5. Stiquito robots are built from a kit, while students areencouraged to modify their designs to optimize performancein a 20-cm dash and a tug-of-war.

Jersey Commission on Higher Education and NJIT for theequipment and construction that supports the studio facility.

Richard A. Foulds is an associate profes-sor in the Department of Biomedical Engi-neering, New Jersey Institute ofTechnology (NJIT), where he teaches andconducts research on neuromuscular con-trol by persons with disabilities. He joinedNJIT in 1999 and has played a major role indeveloping the department’s undergradu-

ate and doctoral programs and has been responsible for the de-velopment of studio-based teaching. From 1987 to 1999, hewas a research professor at the University of Delaware anddirector of the Applied Science and Engineering Laborato-ries, a joint research program of the University and the A.I.duPont Hospital for Children. Prior to that, he was an assistantprofessor in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, TuftsUniversity School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Hisresearch includes the modeling of spasticity resulting fromstroke and cerebral palsy as well as computer recognition ofsign language.

Michael Bergen is an adjunct assistantprofessor in the Department of BiomedicalEngineering, New Jersey Institute of Tech-nology, and is the chief of the CSUBI Tech-nology Group at the East Orange V.A.Medical Center, in East Orange, NewJersey. Bergen joined Dr. Foulds in devel-oping studio-based foundational courses in

2001 and has been the primary instructor of the “ElectricalFoundations of Biomedical Engineering” course since thattime.

Bruno Antonio Mantilla is presently aspecial lecturer in the Department of Bio-medical Engineering, New Jersey Instituteof Technology (NJIT), after 15 years ofmedical practice as a neurosurgeon in Bo-gota, Colombia. He emigrated to theUnited States and studied biomedical engi-neering at NJIT from 2000 to 2002, when

he joined the faculty. He teaches the “Mechanical Founda-tions of Biomedical Engineering” course as well as the de-partment’s physiology courses. His research engagesbiomedical engineering with neuroscience in the study ofspasticity resulting from stroke and other neurological condi-tions.

Address for Correspondence: Richard Foulds, Ph.D., Asso-ciate Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, NewJersey Institute of Technology, University Heights, Newark,NJ 07102-1982 USA. Phone: +1 973 596 3335. Fax: +1 973596 5222. E-mail: [email protected].

References[1] F. Bezanilla. (1998). The Nerve Impulse. [Online]. Available:http://pb0l0.anes.ucla.edu/med98a.htm.[2] Boyer Commission, Reinventing Undergraduate Education, a Blueprint for Amer-ica’s Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York, 1998.

[3] E. Boyer and L.D. Mitgang, Building Community: A New Future for Architec-tural Education and Practice. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, 1996.[4] P. Little and M. Cardenas, “Use of “studio” methods in the introductory engi-neering design curriculum,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 309-318.[5] S.P. Brophy and T.D. Giorgio, “Challenge-based instruction in biotechnology:lessons learned,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1, p. 106, 2001.[6] S.P. Brophy and A.J. Petrosin, “Design principles for integrating technol-ogy-based resources into biomedical engineering education,” Ann. Biomed. Eng.,vol. 29, no. S1, p. 105, 2001.[7] T.J. DeLoughry, “Studio classrooms,” Chron. Higher Education, pp. A19-A21,Mar. 1995.[8] T. Desai and R. Magin, “A cure for bioengineering? A new undergraduate curric-ulum,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 231-238, 2001.[9] E. Dove and J. Holmes. (2000). BME Laboratories, Workshop Summary Report.Proc. Whitaker Foundation Educational Summit. [Online]. Available: http://sum-mit.whitaker.org/white/bmelabs.html[10] J.D. Enderle, D. M. Kelso, and K. M. Ropella. (2000). Preparing biomedical en-gineers for real-world problem solving: A white paper. Proc. Whitaker FoundationEducational Summit. [Online]. Available: http://summit.whitaker.org/white/preparing.html[11] R.A. Foulds and M.T. Bergen, “Studio-based learning in biomedical engineer-ing,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1, p. 104, 2001.[12] M.T. Glinkowski, J. Hylan, and B. Lister, “New, studio based, multimedia dy-namic systems course: Does it really work?,” in Proc. Frontiers in Education Conf.,Proc. 1997 27th Annu. Conf. Frontiers in Education, Part 1 (of 3).[13] T.R Harris, “Principles for the design of biomedical engineering curricula,”Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1, p. 104, 2001.[14] R.T. Hart and R. D. Rabbitt. (2000). Engineering foundations: a white paper.Proc. Whitaker Foundation Educational Summit. [Online]. Available: http://sum-mit.whitaker.org/white/foundations.pdf[15] J.W. Holmes. (2000). BME laboratory courses I: goals and strategies: a whitepaper. Proc. Whitaker Foundation Educational Summit. [Online]. Available:http://summit.whitaker.org/white/lab1.html[16] M. Khoo, Physiological Control Systems: Analysis, Simulation, and Estima-tion. New York: Wiley, 2000.[17] S. Land and M.J. Hannafihn, “Patterns of understanding with open-ended learn-ing environments: A qualitative study,” Educ. Technol. Res. Develop., vol. 45, no. 2,pp. 47-73, 1997.[18] S.C.M. Leung, M. Stokes, and R.T. Bradbeer, “Integrated teaching studio at theCity University of Hong Kong,” in Proc. 1996 IEEE Int. Conf. Multi-Media Engi-neering Education, July 3-5, 1996, pp. 161-166.[19] M. Litt, “Experimental design within a discovery-based undergraduate labcourse,” i., vol. 29, no. S1, p. 102, 2001.[20] R. Loss and D. Thornton. (1998). Physics studio—A progress report. Teachingand Learning in Changing Times, Proc. 7th Annu. Teaching Learning Forum, B.Black and N. Stanley, Eds. The University of Western Australia. pp. 171-175. Avail-able: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf98/loss.html[21] E. Mazur, “Peer instruction: getting students to think in class,” in Proc. Int.Conf. Undergraduate Physics Education, Amer. Inst. Phys. Conf., 1997, vol. 339, pp.981-988.[22] C. Meyers and E. Ernst, “Restructuring engineering education: A focus onchange,” Division of Undergraduate Education Directorate for Education and Hu-man Resources, National Science Foundation, Report on NSF Workshop on Engi-neering Education, 1995.[23] L.E. Ostrander, Y. Gou, and R.H. Parsons, “Design of a Laboratory instrumentmodule for classroom use,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1, p. 105, 2001.[24] R.B. Pipes and J.M Wilson, “A multimedia model for undergraduate educa-tion,” Technol. Soc., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 387-401, 1996.[25] “Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate radication in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology,” Education and Human Resources Di-rectorate, NSF Report 96-139, 1996.[26] A.A. Shoukas, J.M. Rice, R.H. Allen, and L.P. Schramm, “JHU-BME longitu-dinal design teams: students teaching students,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1,p. 10, 2001.[27] J.B. Troy, “Preparing freshmen and sophomores for biomedical engineering:their experience at Northwestern University,” in Proc. 1998 Annu. ASEE Conf., June28-July 1, 1998.[28] D. Vahishth, W. George, Y. Guo, J.B. Brunski, and L.E. Ostrander, “Hands-onapproach to biomedical engineering education,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1,p. 108, 2001.[29] S. Vogel, Cat’s Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People.New York: Norton, 1998.[30] J.T. Walsh, A. McKenna, C. Kleweno, and P.J. Wu, “Teaching engineeringbio-optics with a challenge-based approach,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 29, no. S1, p.106, 2001.[31] J. Wilson and W. Jennings, “Studio courses: how information technology ischanging the way we teach, on campus and off,” in Proc. IEEE, vol. 88, pp. 72-80,Jan. 2000.[32] J.M. Wilson, “Institution-wide reform of undergraduate education in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology,” IEEE Frontiers Educ., pp. 541-544,1996.


integrated biomedical engineering education using studio-based learning

Documents