Impact of Team and Advisor Demographics and Formulation on the Success of Biomedical

Engineering Senior Design Projects

Katelyn Mason*, Alyssa Taylor, Ph.D., Timothy E. Allen, Ph.D.*, Shayn Peirce-Cottler, Ph.D*.

 U.Va. Dept. of Biomedical Engineering

April 14, 2011Academic Symposium for the Inauguration of Teresa A. Sullivan

Coursework Innovation: Reflective Teaching and Continuous Improvement

Major Senior Design Experience Required by ABET for BME undergraduate programsU.Va.: Team-based, yearlong Capstone design course

TeamsIndividual 4(+) membersSelf-selected

Advisors1 3(+) advisors/teamFaculty, clinicians, and industrial advisors

School of Engineering and Applied

Science

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

College of Arts and Sciences

Industry

Impact of Team and Advisor Demographics and Formulation on the Success of Capstone Projects

Motivation: What makes a successful Capstone team?Aspects considered:

Success Metrics:

TeamsTeam sizeGenderGPA

AdvisorsNumberDegreesAffiliationExperience

Grant Applied

Provisional PatentConferenceGrant

Received AwardPaperPublished

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Analysis of Yearly Successes

Success Distributions

Y1 Y4Y2 Y3 Y5

Grant Applied

Provisional PatentConference

Grant Received AwardPaper

Published

Y1 Y4Y2 Y3 Y5

*

n=24

n=39

n=44

n=28

n=33

Student # 35 48 6574 61 Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p = 0.03To

tal #

of S

ucce

sses

pe

r Te

am

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Advisor Selection:Number of Advisors Degrees

Tota

l # o

f Su

cces

ses

per

Team

n = 114

n = 48 n = 7

Number of Advisors per Team

1 2 3 (+)

**

Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.005

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

n = 114

n = 26 n = 29

Individual Uniform degrees

Mixed degrees

*

Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.05

Advisor Degrees per Team

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Tota

l # o

f Suc

cess

es

per

Team

Advisor AffiliationBME ENGR Clinicia

nResearch

erNursing Arts/Sci Industry Combo

n = 70 n = 14 n = 9 n = 11 n = 3 n = 1 n = 18 n = 41

* * * *

Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.03

Advisor Selection: Advisor AffiliationSchool of

Engineering and

Applied Science

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

College of Arts and Sciences

Industry

BME ENGR Clinician Researcher

Tota

l # o

f Suc

cess

es

per

Team

Advisor AffiliationStudent’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.03; †p = 0.001

Advisor Selection: Advisor AffiliationSchool of

Engineering and

Applied Science

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

College of Arts and Sciences

Industry

BME ENGR Clinician Researcher

0

0.51

1.52

2.5

33.5

4 **

*

BME ENGR ClinicianResearcherNursing Arts/Sci Industry BME/Industry

BME/Researcher

BME/Clinician

†

n=5

n=6

n=13

Team Formulation:Number of Student Team Members

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Tota

l # o

f Suc

cess

es

per

Team

n = 98

n = 40

n = 8n = 23

Number of Student Members per Team

1 2 4 (+)

Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p ≤ 0.05

*

3

*

Team Formulation:Gender

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Tota

l # o

f Suc

cess

es

per

Team

Gender of Student Team Members

M F M/F

n = 21

n = 23

n = 27

Team Formulation:GPA: 3rd year Cumulative; classified as high or low (relative to average GPA of BME students of that year)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Tota

l # o

f Suc

cess

es

per

Team

GPA of Student Team Members

High

Low Mixed High

Low

Teams of 2(+) Individuals

*

n=16 n=18 n=36 n=63 n=35

Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p = 0.04

Conclusions Recommendations for Advisors:• 3(+) advisors/team • Mixed degrees• Interdisciplinary – mixed affiliations

School of Engineering and Applied

Science

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

College of Arts and Sciences

Industry

BME ENGR Clinician Researcher

Recommendations for Students:• 3(+) students/team • M/F teams• Student with below avg. GPA individual or

w/mixed team• 2.8 GPA minimum for students wanting to work

alone

Future Work Other factors (previous lab experience, career goals)Analysis of individual success metricsAdditional metrics

Student preference surveys

Grant Applied

Provisional PatentConferenceGrant

Received AwardPaperPublished ???

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Team Formulation:Feedback from Undergraduate Students Re: Number of Student Team Members

5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree; avg. + SEM

Our

Gro

up S

ize

Was

App

ropr

iate

1 2 3 4(+)

Number of Student Members per Team

n=10 n=18 n=15 n=4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Team Formulation:Feedback from Undergraduate Students Regarding Work Load Distribution

2 3 4 (+)

Number of Student Members per Team5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree; avg. + SEM

I Did

Mor

e W

ork

Than

the

Oth

er

Mem

bers

of M

y Te

am

n=16 n=14 n=4

Acknowledgments

Kitter Bishop (BME, U.Va.)

Katie Degen (BME, U.Va.)