1 / 10

Breakout Session II: Resources for Teaching

Breakout Session II: Resources for Teaching. Four Main Topics:. Funding, Industry Involvement, Facilities/Resources, Faculty. Funding. Group Leader: Harvey Borovetz Members: Shayne Peirce-Cottler, Robert Radwin, James Antaki, Vincent Pizziconi, Gerald Miller, Krishnan Chandran

seanna
Download Presentation

Breakout Session II: Resources for Teaching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Breakout Session II: Resources for Teaching

  2. Four Main Topics: • Funding, • Industry Involvement, • Facilities/Resources, • Faculty

  3. Funding • Group Leader: Harvey Borovetz • Members: Shayne Peirce-Cottler, Robert Radwin, James Antaki, Vincent Pizziconi, Gerald Miller, Krishnan Chandran • First Issue: Sources of Funds • Industry sponsors often fund their specific projects. • Wealthy individuals (e.g. visiting ward committee member, alumnus)  for Naming Rights. • University grants • Department-funded • Student-funded • Govt funding • NCIIA grants • Facilities/Resources Issue: Other departments, if involved, often contribute to funding of projects.

  4. Funding Discussion • Q: Is there a Lab fee involved? • Students is charged for tuition and lab fees (~$100) if they’re involved in lab courses. (Texas A&M). This goes to separate account which will only be spent on undergrad resources. (Other universities require that these lab fees be a small %.)

  5. Industry Involvement • Group Leader: Matthew O’Donnell • Members: Humera Fasihudden, Daniel Kamei, Gerard Cote, William Tang, King Yang • First Issue: Not enough involvement  How to increase? • Bootstrapping with faculty projects. But student numbers grow which becomes problematic. • Leveraging industrial boards and internships add more involvement.

  6. Industry Involvement • Other sources: • Medical school or vet school affiliated with college • NASA and other national labs • Medical centers and charity organizations. • WHO – good source of knowledge/advice but not projects really. • Engineering without Borders: Only provide projects but not funding. • Engineering World Health – They’ll look at projects and then choose one that they’ll fund. • Easter Seals, Light House– Non-profit organizations • Angels • Second Issue: IP • Bigger issue for faculty than industry. • Undergrad student is not employee of university so IP belongs to him. Depends on source of funds: Federal or local. • Industry more used to IP issues and often have a standard procedure to deal with them.

  7. Facilities/Resources Group Leader: Richard Schoephoerster • Members: Sherry Voytik-Harbin, Thomas Papathomas, Samatha Richerson, Edward Guo, David Schneewies, Maria Oden • ABET looks at facilities but there needs to be a criteria. • Training needed for students for fabrication and prototypes. • Staff: Support Staff • Combination lab manager also act as technical advisor. • Clinical Side: Clinical stakeholder who can provide facilities for students. • Testing Resources: Responsibilities fall on sponsor to make sure students have facilities to complete the product.

  8. Facilities/Resources Discussion • Mentor can be alumni who act as additional advisors. • Safety aspects: Lab managers’ presence is necessary. • Problem: Individual team mix up their equipment in shared facilities • Solution: Dedicated faculty allows project to remain in the room. • Testing (Clinical): Use cadavers as human subjects.

  9. Faculty • Group Leader: Jay Goldberg • Members: Steve Jones, Matt Glucksburg, Dan Bogen, • Raymond Fish • First Issue: Faculty have different roles. • Program developer (sets up and running course) • Clients (from BME and other depts.)  generate ideas for projects, and funding sometimes. • Lecturers: • Grad Students as TA’s: • Second Issue: Workload to be handled w/ TAs or more faculty members. • Third Issue: Incentives to encourage faculty • Dedication required.

  10. Faculty Discussion • Q: For faculty-sponsored projects, postdoc are used as mentor/customer. Faculty position is to “sign the check” since as the end of semester nears, they’ll be too busy to be available. • Q. Bias for faculty-sponsored projects: Project goals to benefit their research… • Q. Faculty can create projects that do not have enough design component, and too much research component.  If they’re unfamiliar with ABET criteria • Q: Screening of projects either done by faculty or students • Q: Project outcomes: Program chair needs to be ABET representative (?). Final ppt used to decide about project outcomes. • Q: Lectures provided for faculty who are unfamiliar with industrial field… Faculty’s role is more along the lines of technical advisor.

More Related