Biomedical engineering undergraduate education: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With an aging population and increasing demand on health care systems, biomedical engineering as an undergraduate program fits a growing societal need. As such, many Canadian universities have implemented biomedical engineering undergraduate programs. This provides a unique opportunity for core engineering faculty, engineering education researchers, and curriculum specialists to implement proven educational theories in the core curriculum of these programs to ensure exemplary and competent Canadian-trained biomedical engineering graduates. Purpose This paper discusses the need for biomedical engineering as a core undergraduate program in Canada, the historical context of educational theories as related to biomedical undergraduate engineering education, a framework for the implementation of proven strategies, and learner-centric methods that benefit the learner, mentor, and society as a whole. Scope/method: The historical context of curriculum theories related to biomedical engineering undergraduate education, evaluation of the intrinsic and extrinsic curriculum theories in current biomedical engineering undergraduate education, educating progressive learners and development of future biomedical engineering undergraduate education curriculum, is explored. Conclusion The integration of educational theories in the development of a biomedical engineering undergraduate engineering education is essential to ensure learners are provided with opportunities to experience cutting edge, quality engineering education. Empirical evidence demonstrates the successful implementation of applied methodologies such as model-electing activities, problem-based learning, and the flipped classroom. Providing biomedical engineering faculty with professional development opportunities around the successfully implementation of these tools aimed at culturally diverse, globalized 21st-century learners, can be catalytic in shifting to a new paradigm for engineering education in Canada and globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".