1. 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, 2011 Academic Symposium for the Inauguration of Teresa A. Sullivan Coursework Innovation: Reflective Teaching and Continuous Improvement

2. Major Senior Design Experience Required by ABET for BME undergraduate programs U.Va.: Team-based, yearlong Capstone design course Teams Individual  4(+) members Self-selected Advisors 1  3(+) advisors/team Faculty, clinicians, and industrial advisors School of Engineering and Applied Science School of Medicine School of Nursing College of Arts and Sciences Industry

3. 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: Teams Team size Gender GPA Advisors Number Degrees Affiliation Experience Grant Applied Provisional Patent Conference Grant Received Award Paper Published

4. Analysis of Yearly Successes Success Distributions Y1Y4Y2Y3Y5 Grant Applied Provisional Patent Conference Grant Received Award Paper Published Y1Y4Y2Y3Y5 * n= 24 n= 39 n= 44 n= 28 n= 33 Student # 3548657461 Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p = 0.03 Total # of Successes per Team

5. Advisor Selection: Number of AdvisorsDegrees Total # of Successes per Team n = 114n = 48n = 7 Number of Advisors per Team 123 (+) * * Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.005 n = 114n = 26n = 29 Individual Uniform degrees Mixed degrees * Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.05 Advisor Degrees per Team

6. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Total # of Successes per Team Advisor Affiliation BME ENGR Clinician Researcher Nursing Arts/Sci Industry Combo n = 70n = 14n = 9n = 11n = 3n = 1n = 18n = 41 * * * * Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.03 Advisor Selection: Advisor Affiliation School of Engineering and Applied Science School of Medicine School of Nursing College of Arts and Sciences Industry BME ENGR Clinician Researcher

7. Total # of Successes per Team Advisor Affiliation Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p < 0.03; †p = 0.001 Advisor Selection: Advisor Affiliation School of Engineering and Applied Science School of Medicine School of Nursing College of Arts and Sciences Industry BME ENGR Clinician Researcher 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 * * * BMEENGRClinicianResearcherNursingArts/SciIndustry BME/ Industry BME/ Researcher BME/ Clinician † n= 5 n= 6 n= 13

8. Team Formulation: Number of Student Team Members Total # of Successes per Team n = 98n = 40n = 8n = 23 Number of Student Members per Team 124 (+) Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p ≤ 0.05 * 3 *

9. Team Formulation: Gender Total # of Successes per Team Gender of Student Team Members MFM/F n = 21n = 23n = 27

10. Team Formulation: GPA: 3 rd 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 Total # of Successes per Team GPA of Student Team Members HighLowMixedHighLow Teams of 2(+)Individuals * n=16n=18n=36n=63n=35 Student’s t-test; avg. + SEM; *p = 0.04

11. 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

12. Future Work Other factors (previous lab experience, career goals) Analysis of individual success metrics Additional metrics Student preference surveys Grant Applied Provisional Patent Conference Grant Received Award Paper Published ???

13. Team Formulation: Feedback from Undergraduate Students Re: Number of Student Team Members 5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree; avg. + SEM Our Group Size Was Appropriate 1234(+) Number of Student Members per Team n=10n=18n=15n=4

14. Team Formulation: Feedback from Undergraduate Students Regarding Work Load Distribution 234 (+) Number of Student Members per Team 5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree; avg. + SEM I Did More Work Than the Other Members of My Team n=16n=14n=4

15. Acknowledgments Kitter Bishop (BME, U.Va.) Katie Degen (BME, U.Va.)