Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Best Practices for Team-Based Assistive Technology Design Courses

  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Team-based design courses focused on products for people with disabilities have become relatively common, in part because of training grants such as the NSF Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities course grants. An output from these courses is an annual description of courses and projects but has yet to be complied into a “best practices guide,” though it could be helpful for instructors. To meet this need, we conducted a study to generate best practices for assistive technology product development courses and how to use these courses to teach students the fundamentals of innovation. A full list of recommendations is comprised in the manuscript and include identifying a client through a reliable clinical partner; allowing for transparency between the instructors, the client, and the team(s); establishing multi-disciplinary teams; using a process-oriented vs. solution-oriented product development model; using a project management software to facilitate and archive communication and outputs; facilitating client interaction through frequent communication; seeking to develop professional role confidence to inspire students’ commitment to engineering and (where applicable) rehabilitation field; publishing student designs on repositories; incorporating both formal and informal education opportunities related to design; and encouraging students to submit their designs to local or national entrepreneurship competitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atman, C. J., D. H. Kilgore, and A. McKenna. Characterizing design learning: a mixed-methods study of engineering designers’ use of language. J. Eng. Educ. 97(3):309–326, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertozzi, N., C. Hebert, J. Rought, and C. Staniunas. Implementation of a three-semester concurrent engineering design sequence for lower-division engineering students. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.

  3. Carlson, L. E., and J. F. Sullivan. Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 15(1):20–31, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Catalano, J. D., P. Wray, and S. Cornelio. Compassion practicum: a capstone design experience at the United States Military Academy. J. Eng. Educ. 89(4):471–474, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper, R. An Introduction to Rehabilitation Engineering. New York: Taylor and Francis, p. 449, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. Resolution on the introduction of the principles of universal design into the curricula of all occupations working on the built environment, 15 February 2001. http://www.logos-net.net/ilo/159_base/instr/coe_adj.htm#s12.

  7. Davis, D. C., S. W. Beyerlein, and I. T. Davis. Deriving design learning outcomes form a professional profile. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 22(3):439–446, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dekker, D., S. Sundarrao, and R. Dubey. A great team: Capstone design conference. In: Engineering Capstone Design Course Conference, 2007.

  9. de Vere, I., G. Melles, and A. Kapoor. Product design engineering: a global education trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design. J. Eng. Educ. 35(1):33–43, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dym, C. L., M. M. Gilkeson, and J. R. Phillips. Engineering design at Harvey Mudd College: innovation institutionalized, lessons learned. J. Mech. Des. 134(8):1–10, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Enderle, J. D. An overview of the National Science Foundation program on senior design projects to aid persons with disabilities. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 15(4):288–297, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Enderle, J. D. National Science Foundation Engineering Senior Design Projects For Persons with Disabilities, 2010. http://nsf-pad.bme.uconn.edu/.

  13. Erlandson, R., J. Enderle, and J. Winters. Educating engineers in universal and accessible design. In: Medical Instrumentation, edited by J. Winters, and M. Follette Story. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 123–145.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erlandson, R. F. Universal and Accessible Design for Products, Services, and Processes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gentili, K. L., J. Hannan, R. W. Crain, D. C. Davis, M. S. Trevisan. A process oriented class in engineering design: how it works. In: Frontiers in Education Conference, 27th Annual Conference. 2, 1997, pp. 972–980.

  16. Georgia Tech Institute of Technology. Georgia Tech Design Course Guiding Principles. www.otl.gatech.edu.

  17. Goldberg, J. Liability issues with assistive technology projects. IEEE Pulse 4–5:2010, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hannukainen, P., and K. Holtta-Otto. Identifying customer needs: disabled persons as lead users. In: ASME 18th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, 4(a), 2006, pp. 243–251.

  19. Instructables. Autodesk Industries, 2012. http://www.instrucatables.com.

  20. Joo, T., and J. Mark. An evaluation of tools supporting enhanced student collaboration. In: 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2008, pp. F3H7–F3H12.

  21. King, P. Design and biomedical education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 15(4):282–287, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mann, D. D., J. Ripat, and A. Quanbury. Interprofessional teaching teams: addressing emerging areas in biosystems engineering using a client-based learning project. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 23(4):691–697, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  23. May-Newman, K., P. Newman, and U. Miyares. Senior design in assistive technology: Opportunities for technology transfer. In: American Society for Engineering Education, 2007.

  24. Stern, P., and E. Trefler. An interdisciplinary problem-based learning project for assistive technology education. Assist. Technol. 9(2):152–157, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Terpenny, J. P., R. M. Goff, M. P. Vernon, and W. R. Green. Utilizing assistive technology design projects and interdisciplinary teams to foster inquiry and learning in engineering design. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 22(3):609–616, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thingiverse. MakerBot LLC, 2012. http://www.thingiverse.com.

  27. University of Minnesota Department of Mechanical Engineering. Capstone Design Project, 2012. http://www.me.umn.edu/courses/me4054/advisors/solicitation.html.

  28. University of Pittsburgh. Patent Policy 11-02-01, 2001. http://www.cfo.pitt.edu/policies/policy/11/11-02-01.html.

  29. Valero-Gomez, A., J. Gonzalez-Gomez, V. Gonzalez-Pacheco, and M. A. Salichs. Printable creativity in plastic valley UC3M. In: Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2012 IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–9.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the Human Engineering Research Laboratories, National Collegiate Innovators and Inventors Alliance, National Science Foundation Quality of Life Technology Center, and VA Center of Excellence on Wheelchairs and Rehabilitation Engineering, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, Human Engineering Research Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 400, 6425 Penn Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15206, USA

    Mary R. Goldberg & Jonathan L. Pearlman

Authors
  1. Mary R. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan L. Pearlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary R. Goldberg.

Additional information

Associate Editor John Desjardins oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldberg, M.R., Pearlman, J.L. Best Practices for Team-Based Assistive Technology Design Courses. Ann Biomed Eng 41, 1880–1888 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0798-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0798-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation