biomedical engineering - nvao tue wo... · the qanu review committee biomedical engineering has...

Biomedical Engineering

June 2007 Versie t.b.v. aanvraag accreditatie

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box 8035 3503 RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)30 230 3100 Fax: +31 (0)30 230 3129 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.qanu.nl © 2007 QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned.

2 QANU / Biomedical Engineering

Table of contents Foreword 5 Part I General Part 7 1. Structure of the Report 9 2. General remarks 11 Part II Programme Reports 15 1. The Master programme Biomedical Engineering offered by the

University of Groningen 17 2. The Bachelor and Master programme Biomedical Engineering offered

by the University of Twente 47 3. The Bachelor and Master programme Biomedical Engineering and the

Master programme Medical Engineering offered by the Technical University Eindhoven 87

Appendices 131 Appendix A: Curricula vitae of the Committee members 133 Appendix B: Domain-specific reference frame 135

QANU / Biomedical Engineering 3

FOREWORD

This report is part of the quality assessment of university Bachelor and Master degree courses in the Netherlands. The purpose of this report is to present a reliable picture of the results of the degree courses submitted for this review, to give feedback to the internal quality assurance of the Institutes concerned, and to serve as the basis for accreditation of the degree courses by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO). The Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Foundation (QANU) aims to ensure independent, unbiased, critically constructive assessments using standardised quality criteria as far as possible, while taking specific circumstances into account. The QANU Review Committee Biomedical Engineering has fulfilled its tasks with great dedication in a period marked by the transition to the Bachelor-Master structure. The courses are evaluated in a thorough and careful manner within a clear framework. We trust the judgements and recommendations will be carefully considered by the course providers, the management of the faculties and the Boards of the Universities concerned. We thank the Chairman and members of the Review Committee for their willingness to par-ticipate in this assessment and for the dedication with which they carried out this task. We also thank the staff of the university departments concerned for their efforts and for their co-operation during the assessment. Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Mr. Chris J. Peels Dr. Jan G.F. Veldhuis Director Chairman of the Board


PART I: GENERAL PART


1. Structure of the report

In this document, the Biomedical Engineering Evaluation Committee (in this report referred to as ‘the Committee’) reports its findings. The report consists of two parts: a general part and a part which contains the results of the evaluation and assessment of the degree course concerned. This report is based on an assessment of the period 2000-2006, in accordance with the assessment protocol of QANU, including a degree of extrapolation into the future by taking into account formally documented actions and adaptations. The report is structured in accordance with the accreditation criteria prescribed by the NVAO (Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders).


2. General remarks

Task of the Committee

The task of the Committee was to evaluate and assess the following degree programmes: Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences & Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University of Groningen • Master programme Biomedical Engineering (CROHO 60621) Faculty of Science and Technology of the University of Twente • Bachelor programme Biomedical Engineering (CROHO 56226) • Master programme Biomedical Engineering (CROHO 66226) Faculty Biomedical Engineering of the Technical University Eindhoven • Bachelor programme Biomedical Engineering (CROHO 56226) • Master programme Biomedical Engineering (CROHO 66226) • Master programme Medical Engineering (CROHO 60344) This evaluation and assessment fully comply with the accreditation requirements of the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO).

The composition of the Committee

The Committee was constituted formally on November 1, 2006, prior to the start of the site visit and consisted of: • Prof. dr. ir. A.F.W. (Ton) van der Steen, Professor and Head of Biomedical

Engineering at Erasmus University Rotterdam, chairman; and as members: • W. (Wouter) Beerepoot, Master student Biomechatronics at the Technical University of

Delft; • Prof. dr. G.A. (George) Truskey, Professor and Chair of the Department of Biomedical

Engineering at Duke University, USA; • prof. dr. ir. P.A. (Peter) Wieringa, Professor Biomechanical Engineering and Vice

Dean of the Faculty of Mechanical, Marine and Materials Engineering at the Delft Universiy of Technology;

• prof. dr. P.G. (Peter) Katona, former president CEO Whitaker Foundation and Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering at George Mason University, USA.

A short curriculum vitae of each of the Committee members is included in Appendix A. N. (Nik) Heerens, QANU office, was appointed secretary of the Evaluation Committee. After he took up a new appointment abroad, the reports were written by drs. A. (Annet) Silljé and finished by drs. R. (Remco) van der Dussen.


The composition of the Committee was formally approved by the QANU Board. All members of the Committee signed a declaration of independence as required by the QANU protocol to assure that: • the panel members judge without bias, personal preference or personal interest, and • the judgement is made without undue influence from the institute, the programme or

other stakeholders.

Materials presented to the Committee

The faculties offering the degree courses prepared a self-evaluation report in accordance with the new NVAO accreditation criteria1 and the QANU Protocol2. Study guides of the programmes were provided as part of the self-evaluation report. As part of the self-evaluation report the faculty also provided lists of the Master's theses of the programme concerned. The Committee selected theses for review and assessment. Representatives of the degree programmes developed a domain-specific reference frame, given in Appendix B, and this was adopted by the committee. The reference frame was used as a guideline together with the elaborated exit qualifications for the Master's programme as defined in the self-evaluation report.

Working method adopted by the Committee

The Committee used the ‘QANU protocol for the assessment of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes’2. This QANU protocol is an elaboration of the assessment criteria of the NVAO and meets all NVAO criteria. The Committee held a preparatory meeting on November 1st, 2006. Based on study of the self-evaluation report, the Committee compiled a list of questions about the programmes concerned, in addition to the test questions specified in the QANU protocol. The first site visit took place on November 1-3 in Groningen. The second visit took place on November 5-7 in Enschede and the last visit took place on November 7-10 in Eindhoven. The visit started with a 3-hour preparatory meeting in which each of the Committee members reviewed a selection of the documentation related to the degree course. Interviews with representatives of all relevant parts of the MT organisation were held during the site visit. The programme of the site visit is included in the part of the degree courses. The Committee interviewed lecturers, students, members of Education Committee (Opleidingscommissie) and of the Examination Committee (Examencommissie), study coordinators, student coaches and members of the (support) staff. Finally, the Committee toured the facility. An informal get-together was organized to meet representatives of the university board and the faculty management. A part of the day was reserved by the Committee for review, to summarise the observations made and to prepare for the close-out meeting. Prior to the close-out meeting,

1 Accreditation protocol for academic educational programmes, NVAO, 14 February 2003 2 QANU protocol for the external quality assessment of academic Bachelor's and Master's programmes for accreditation, v3.1, Jan 2004 – Aug 2005


which was open to all staff and students of the faculty, a no-surprise meeting was held attended by the Dean, the manager of the faculty and the Director of Education. After the site visit a report was drafted by the Committee. The version of the draft report sent for review to the universities was approved by the Committee after in-depth discussions. This version was submitted to the Faculty for the correction of misinterpretations and factual errors. The facet scores in this report follow the scale prescribed by the NVAO and have the following meaning: • Excellent means that the quality level for this facet is very good in all respects and holds

its own against international benchmarking. It is an example of best practice. • Good means that the quality level for this facet exceeds expectations and is the result of a

well-considered policy; • Satisfactory means that for this facet the level meets the basic standard of quality. • Unsatisfactory means that the level for this facet is below the basic standard of quality. The score ‘satisfactory’ means that all basic requirements for academic education are met and that nothing noteworthy has been observed, either in a positive or in a negative sense, relating to a particular facet. The subject scores are expressed on a 2-tier scale per topic: ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. All assessments are based on the status at the time of the evaluation.


PART II: PROGRAMME REPORTS


1. The Master programme Biomedical Engineering offered by the University of Groningen

Administrative data

Master programme: Name: Biomedical Engineering CROHO number: 60621 Level: Master Orientation: Academic Study load 120 EC Grade: Master of Science Variants: Full-time Location: Groningen Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007 1.0. Structure and organization of the faculty The Master's degree programme in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Groningen started as a cooperation between two faculties, Mathematics and Natural Sciences (FMNS) and Medical Sciences (FMS). The idea was to create a BME programme related to market demands. During 1996 the Executive Board (EB) of RUG invited Professor A. Hoekstra (FMS) to present a proposal for a BME school. In 1997 Prof. H. Duifhuis – later the first Programme Director – became involved as coordinator. After consultation with several potential partners within and outside the university, in 1998 a special working group presented a plan that was accepted by the EB and the faculties involved (FMNS and FMS). The plan proposed a three-year specialization within the five-year Applied Physics programme. The BME programme started in the academic year 2001-2002. In 2002 the University accorded with the European development towards a Bachelor/Master degree programme, and the curricula were adjusted accordingly. In the original plans three main output streams were presented: biomaterials, medical instrumentation, and medical imaging. The selection was motivated by local expertise and interest. The student intake made clear that a reduction was necessary. Therefore, the streams with the most similar basic profiles were combined, i.e., medical instrumentation and medical imaging were combined to form medical instrumentation and imaging (MI&I). The majority of students who chose to follow the BME Master had graduated as a Bachelor of Physics. The BME Master started as a specialization of Applied Physics. Nowadays, students with different Bachelor's degrees can start their BME Master. BME is currently an interfaculty programme. BME is anchored in the Life Sciences (LS, a School within FMNS) and is a ‘guest’ at the FMS. There are many arguments in favour of this situation, conceptually, regarding contents, etc. Difficulties could arise, however, concerning personnel management (see Facet 12). Another potential problem is ensuring that the students have sufficient engineering content in their educational programme.


1.1. Introduction of Bachelor-Master structure and phasing out of the old one-tier

programme: current situation. Criterion: The deconstruction of the old one tier programme doesn’t cause problems for the students. The one tier programme is not subject of assessment. Plans are being developed for a Bachelor's programme. More staff and an increase in the number of students are needed, especially for the benefit of the University Hospital UMCG. It is important to have a study programme which is dedicated to BME from the beginning of university studies. A separate BME Bachelor would have some overlap with other Bachelor's programmes, especially in the first year. An increase in diversity would take place after the first year. Shared courses with the Bachelor's programme in Life Sciences and Technology would supply students with enough time to choose the appropriate specialization. Currently, also a Bachelor in the field of Life Sciences is under development. It is not yet clear how strong BME will be within the future programme, but it is expected that it will create greater opportunities for students to prepare for the BME Master, both in qualitative and quantitative (student numbers) terms. A BME Bachelor will affect the BME Master and could change its contents, like possibly less emphasis on physics. The BME Master has obviously been set up based on existing strengths present in Applied Physics. The Committee recommends that the BME Bachelor be independent and not based upon the present structure which has to deal with three faculties. Let the structure be clear. The Committee wants to stress that with BME, RUG is ‘sitting on gold’. The setting is very beneficial for a BME programme, and the potential is considered to be high. 1.2. Assessment protocol 1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree course F1: Domain-specific requirements The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the requirements made to a degree course in the relevant domain (field of study/discipline and/or professional practice) by colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad and the professional practice. RUG has clarified its mission with regard to the BME Master's programme as follows: “Our objective is to educate Masters of Biomedical Engineering who are able to resolve the increasing demands for more advanced equipment, for new ways of administering drugs, for products that increase the quality of medical care and decrease the cost. These engineers are specialized in solving technical problems that require knowledge of the functioning of the human body. They combine knowledge of analysis and synthesis methods from physics and chemistry, computational methods from mathematics, design and mechanics from mechanical engineering, measurement and control from electrical engineering and applied physics, with


adequate basic knowledge of biology and medicine, and knowledge of applicative regulations. They learn to cooperate with medical specialists, other engineers, biologists and biochemists.” Programme development is mainly done by the Programme Committee. Objectives have been compared by the Committee to Dutch and foreign standards3. Teaching staff was recruited after the objectives were defined according to their current state of expertise. Teaching staff from many disciplines are available from various faculties. A wide variety of expertise can be called upon. The domain-specific requirements are clear. They have been specified by the Universities of Groningen, Twente and Eindhoven (see Appendix B) and adequately elaborated into qualifications of the BME Programme at RUG. Specific goals of the BME specialization in Biomaterials have been formulated by RUG as follows: Specific goals After following the Biomaterials specialization students must be able to: • realize restoration of body functions by designing prototypes of new, technologically

innovative implants that are based on fundamental scientific research • conduct scientific research on the functioning of implants, from biological, chemical and

mechanical points of view and based on a modelling approach • improve existing implants in relation to interaction with the body, from biological,

chemical and mechanical points of view • work in interdisciplinary teams • follow postgraduate training in Biomedical Engineering. Specific learning outcomes Students must have knowledge of: • facts and concepts of anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics of the human body • facts and concepts of cell and molecular biology • facts and concepts of pathology • facts and concepts of physical chemistry • facts and concepts of fluid mechanics • facts and concepts of implants and tissue engineering and its application • biological failure mechanisms of implants • materials to be used for implants and tissue engineering. Students must have an understanding of: • scientific methods • numerical simulation methods for the functioning of implants • measuring methods for the physical functioning of implants • evaluation methods for the biological functioning of implants • methods for realizing restoration of function 3 Meijers, A., Overveld, C. van, Perret, J., 2005, Criteria for Academic Bachelor and Master BME curricula


• methods regarding tissue engineering (such as those related to stem cell and gene therapy) • ethical attitudes. Students must be able to apply: • mathematical methods • statistical methods • design methods • methods to determine biomechanical properties • cell biology evaluations. Students must be able to integrate: • acquired knowledge of facts and concepts and acquired methods for realizing the

restoration of function. Specific goals of the specialization in Medical Instrumentation and Imaging have been formulated as follows: Specific goals After following the Medical Instrumentation and Imaging specialization, students must be able to: • conduct scientific research on the functioning of medical instruments, both from

biological and physical points of view and based on a modelling approach • conduct scientific research on medical imaging techniques, both from biological and

physical points of view and based on a modelling approach • improve diagnosis by designing prototypes of new, technologically innovative medical

instruments and imaging techniques that are based on fundamental scientific research • work in interdisciplinary teams • follow postgraduate training in biomedical engineering. Specific learning outcomes Students must have knowledge of: • facts and concepts of anatomy and physiology of the human body • facts and concepts of control engineering • facts and concepts of mathematics • facts and concepts of physics. Students must have understanding of: • scientific methods • methods for determining the physical functioning of measuring and control equipment • methods for performing non-invasive anatomical and functional measurements • ethical and social aspects of the application of biomedical engineering.


Students must be able to apply: • mathematical methods • statistical methods • signal analysis methods • modelling methods. Students must be able to integrate: • acquired knowledge of facts and concepts in biomedical engineering, knowledge of

mathematical, physical and information sciences and acquired methods from medicine and other life sciences.

The programme is both science and engineering oriented. The focus in the Master lies on both the medical and industrial environment. Graduates are considered to be able to work in both industry and the medical environment after graduating. Most graduates, however, find employment in medical environments like hospitals. Graduates from the BME Master can be divided into 25% medical scientists and 75% engineers. One area for improvement is the overall view: a clear overall view of the programme should be developed, presented and shared between all the people involved. This is especially necessary as the personnel have a different background and come from different departments within the University. The Committee finds that the correspondence between the final qualifications of the degree course and the domain-specific requirements fulfil the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F2: Level The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the qualifications of a Bachelor or a Master.

The relation between learning outcomes of the BME Master’s degree programme and the Dublin descriptors is described in the self-evaluation report as follows:


Learning outcomes of the BME Master’s degree programme

Dublin descriptors

Students have acquired in-depth knowledge and understanding of biomedical engineering, in a coherent set of specializations that builds on the basic knowledge acquired in the Bachelor’s phase, and that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing or applying ideas in this specialization.

Students have demonstrated knowledge and understanding that is founded upon and extends and/or enhances that typically associated with Bachelor’s level, and that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing and/or applying ideas, often within a research context.

Students have learned to apply and integrate advanced mathematics, science and engineering knowledge as well as specialized knowledge to model and solve complex biomedical problems in new and unfamiliar environments.

Students can apply their knowledge and understanding, and problem-solving abilities in new or unfamiliar environments within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to their field of study.

Students have learned to make judgements by conducting scientific research in areas of biomedical engineering and technology that are relevant to the advancement of knowledge and insight into fundamental and applied aspects of health and disease. Students have the ability to make measurements of and interpret complex data from living systems, addressing the complex problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems and the ability to successfully recognize and address new problems in the field. Students have the ability to translate a complex, unclearly defined clinical or health-relevant problem or question into an experiment, system, component, or process to meet desired needs and, governed by scientific research or modelling, to advise on issues such as clinical research in biomedical engineering, diagnosis and therapy. Students have an awareness of the potential societal and ethical implications of scientific research in Biomedical Engineering and, in this context, an ability to critically evaluate the effects of the research carried out under their responsibility.

Students have the ability to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and formulate judgements with incomplete or limited information, but that include reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements.

Students have the capability to bridge the gap between complex fundamental and applied research in biomedical engineering and medical (life) sciences, demonstrating the ability to communicate effectively in written and verbal form in Dutch and English, conveying the knowledge and rationale (restricted scope) underpinning their conclusions, to specialist and non-specialist audiences alike and collaborating in a multidisciplinary setting, which may include clinicians, other healthcare workers and industrialists.

Students can communicate their conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously.

Students have the ability to study international scientific research. Students recognize the need for and the ability to engage in ongoing learning beyond the MSc level in a manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.

Students have the learning skills to allow them to continue to study in a manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.


The Committee notes that the relation between the learning outcomes of the BME Master's degree programme and the Dublin descriptors is clearly specified. The Committee finds that the correspondence between the final objectives of the degree course and the Dublin descriptors for the Master's degree level fulfils the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F3: Orientation The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the following descriptions of a Bachelor and a Master at universities: • The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international academic practice

and, if applicable to the course, the relevant practice in the prospective professional field. • A University (WO) bachelor possesses the qualifications that allow access to a minimum of one further University (WO)

degree course at master’s level as well as the option to enter the labour market. • A University (WO) master possesses the qualifications to conduct independent academic research or to solve

multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary questions in a professional practice for which a University (WO) degree is required or useful.

Since the learning outcomes for students include the ability to conduct scientific research in areas of BME and technology, including: • performing measurements and interpreting data, including addressing the complex

problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems,

• translating a complex clinical or health-relevant problem or question into an experiment, system, component, or process to meet the attained targets,

• the awareness of potential societal and ethical implications, • critical evaluation of the effects of the research carried out under their responsibility, students are considered by the BME staff to be prepared for a third cycle of graduate study (PhD programme level) and for comparable research activities. The Master’s degree programme also includes a research project of 40 EC, to be undertaken at one of the research departments involved in the BME Master’s degree programme at RUG. This will bring the student into daily contact with the practice of scientific research. The student has to work in a multidisciplinary team and will be trained to undertake scientific research. The research project is concluded by giving an oral presentation to an audience with ample expertise in the subject of study, followed by a discussion. Students learn how to do research adequately in practical lab settings and multidisciplinary projects. The committee finds that the end objectives of the Master degree course fulfil the criteria as required for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Aims and objectives of the degree course’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Aims and objectives of the degree course’ is Satisfactory


1.2.2. Programme F4: Requirements for university degree courses: The programme meets the following criteria applicable to a degree programme at a University (WO): • The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the relevant disciplines; • The programme follows the developments in the relevant academic discipline(s), as it is demonstrated that it

incorporates current academic theories; • The programme ensures the development of skills in the field of academic research; • For those courses for which this is applicable, the course programme has clear links with the current professional

practice in the relevant professions.

All lecturers are active in one of the areas of BME research. Because they integrate the results of their own current research into the courses that they provide, their students are aware of recent developments in the relevant scientific fields. When undertaking their internship and thesis project, students have a direct link with daily practice in relevant professions, both at university (Master’s thesis project) and in a hospital or industry (internship). The Master’s degree programme aims at students acquiring fundamental scientific skills. In addition to the training given in the technical execution of BME research subjects, the programme also provides compulsory training in a number of relevant public-oriented subjects such as technology and ethics, and the multidisciplinary project. By integrating modules that focus on professional aspects of the three areas of BME (biomaterials, medical instrumentation and imaging), the programme prepares students for professions in these fields. In general, the BME Master adequately links the teaching programmes to current developments in the scientific field. Attention should be paid to the appropriate level of some subjects: it seems that there is not much interest in engineering in the Master's programme. In the current programme two courses are organized on biomaterials. However, more attention could be given to the subject of modelling and design in addition to eventual basic designing courses in some Bachelor's programmes at the FMNS and FMS. A reason given during the site visit that there are no ‘hardware’ engineering courses in the BME Master's projects and also not in the staff's research topics is that ‘this is not a technical university’. It is recommended, however, to evaluate whether some action in this field (science vs. engineering) is necessary. The focus should not just be on science, though focus on the basics of engineering could also partly be organized in the new Bachelor's programme. There are no courses on statistics in the Master's programme. There is a mandatory basic course in statistics in the Bachelor in Life Science and Technology. An advanced course is available as an elective. It is recommended to evaluate whether courses in statistics are needed for BME Master students. Nowadays, the hospital (UMCG) is much more involved in the programme than before. The BME Master's programme in Groningen is highly geared towards creating a strong connection with the medical field. Most of the teachers come from this practical field. They are primarily technicians (clinical physicists). Most of them are doing research besides working with patients.


The BME Master's programme consists of two separate goals: 1. to prepare students for industry and 2. to prepare them for working in hospitals. Many students are more interested in working in a hospital environment (as different from the general university environment) than industry, and many students write their theses in a hospital setting as well. Employment opportunities in hospitals may be limited, however, and there is a need to establish a group of trained BMEs for a growing industry. While working on their theses, students appear to have some interaction with the medical field. In general, more contact with scientific practice could be useful. Some courses have guest lecturers from the industry. Students are in general enthusiastic about them. Through guest lecturers and internships students are able to make connections with the practical field. The Faculty periodically organizes meet-and-greets with industry to foster networking between students and companies. A Study Association (from Physics) regularly organizes excursions to companies. Still the Committee finds that acquainting students with companies could be improved, in order to stimulate more internships in industry. Right now, as said before, most internships are done in hospital. The industrial internship is very important and well arranged, but many students ultimately choose a hospital internship, rather than an industrial one. It is considered very positive that students can choose between two directions, but the BME staff should stimulate the choice for an industrial internship. In general, the Committee is very positive about the professional practice within internships. The Committee finds that the programme fulfils the accreditation requirements for a university Master's degree course. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory F5: Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme • The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orientation, and with

respect to domain-specific requirements. • The final qualifications have been translated adequately into learning targets for the programme or its components. • The contents of the programme offer students the opportunity to obtain the final qualifications that have been

formulated.

The relation between learning outcomes and Master’s degree modules are formulated by the Faculty as follows (in bold: second-year modules, in italics: integrative course):


Learning outcomes of the BME Master’s degree programme

Biomaterials modules

Medical Instrumentation and Imaging modules

Students have acquired in-depth knowledge and understanding of biomedical engineering, in a coherent set of specializations that builds on the basic knowledge acquired in the Bachelor’s phase, and that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing or applying ideas in this specialization.

Biomechanics 2 Biomaterials 2 Recent Developments in Biomaterials Interface Biology Colloid and Interface Science

Scientific Visualization Signal Analysis Control Systems MR Physics Radiation Physics Imaging Techniques in Radiology

Students have learned to apply advanced mathematics, science and engineering knowledge as well as specialized knowledge to model and solve complex biomedical problems in new and unfamiliar environments.

Industrial Internship


Students have learned to make judgements by conducting scientific research in areas of biomedical engineering and technology that are relevant to the advancement of knowledge and insight into fundamental and applied aspects of health and disease.

Thesis Project Thesis Project

Students have the ability to make measurements of and interpret complex data from living systems, addressing the complex problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems and the ability to successfully recognize and address new problems in the field.

Surface Characterization

Integrated Lab Course Biomaterials

Biomedical Instrumentation Neurophysiology

Students have the ability to translate a complex, unclearly defined clinical or health-relevant problem or question into an experiment, system, component, or process to meet desired needs and, governed by scientific research or modelling, to advise on issues such as clinical research in biomedical engineering, diagnosis and therapy.

Design of Implants

Multidisciplinary Project

Integrated Lab Course Biomaterials

Thesis Project

Medical Physics for Radiation Oncology Physiological Instrument. Lab course contr systems Nuclear Medicine, SPECT, PET Multidisciplinary Project Thesis Project

Students have an awareness of potential societal and ethical implications of scientific research in biomedical engineering and, in this context, an ability to critically evaluate the effects of the research carried out under their responsibility.

Technology and Ethics

Quality of Life

Technology and Ethics

Students have the capability to bridge the gap between complex fundamental and applied research in biomedical engineering and medical (life) sciences by demonstrating the ability to communicate effectively in written and verbal form in Dutch and English, conveying the knowledge and rationale (restricted scope) underpinning their research to specialist and non-specialist audiences alike and collaborating in a multidisciplinary setting, which may include clinicians, other health care workers and industrialists.



Thesis Project



Thesis Project


Students have the ability to carry out scientific research in its broadest sense at an international level. Students recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in ongoing learning beyond the MSc level in a manner that is largely self-directed or autonomous.

Thesis Project Thesis Project

The Committee finds that the learning objectives and outcomes are adequately defined and related. All BME subjects - divided over the two streams Biomaterials (BM) and Medical instrumentation/imaging (MI) of the BME Master's programme - are adequately covered, and on the right level, though more attention must be paid to some details: It is difficult for students to crossover between the two streams once one is chosen, as they are clearly different from each other; they mostly consist of different modules. The programme is mainly based on the teachers' expertise, not so much on the programme's vision, even though a few people who mostly work in hospitals have been hired to assess the success of the vision (and mission) of the programme. The ability to do an internship at a location other than Groningen or to choose among a range of faculties for a thesis topic is present and is strongly supported by the Committee. The students who were interviewed during the site visit are quite satisfied overall about the relevance of the courses. Some parts of the field of BME are not covered, however: transport processes, signal analysis, advanced mathematics, and advanced biology are missing. The students acknowledged that it would be difficult to put all these subjects into one year of courses.

Many students seem to be isolated as they are studying in a relatively solitary way. A general introduction to BME could be useful to prevent this from becoming a problem. Students usually get to know each other via multidisciplinary projects. The alumni interviewed find that the BME Master consists of a good set of courses (‘challenging’). An extra introductory course on BME in the beginning of the first year would, however, be useful. The alumni are in general happy with the internships, which are considered very useful, as they make it possible to function in real working environments, and there are possibilities to go abroad. According to the alumni the aims and objectives extend a bit further than is recorded within the programme. The multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary projects aim at integrating knowledge with different ‘disciplines’ (like medicine and biology). It is considered ideal for training people to work with and learn from other disciplines. Students from different backgrounds learn within these projects to work as a team. The projects are oriented to handling practical situations, and start with developing design processes. The main focus appears to be on the process, not much on the product itself. It is considered a good idea to bring medical students and BME students together (e.g. in Master classes). The courses are considered to be useful for medical students, too. The Programme Committee is looking for possibilities to do this, but runs into practical restrictions like the organization of other programmes.


Furthermore, it could be interesting to involve other areas in the projects, like social sciences. In general, there appears to be not enough time for these courses among other disciplines to make the most of it. The Committee finds that multidisciplinarity is quite limited within the programme. In the concept of BME, the multidisciplinary project is very important. Given the opportunities BME Groningen has, it would be better to arrange this course in a different manner: it is recommended to stimulate the involvement of medical students more. BME would benefit from this in two ways: students do truly multidisciplinary work, and they create a platform among the medical students who will become acquainted with BME. This is useful since they are expected to work together in future professional practice. Many persons interviewed during the site visit who were confronted with suggestions from the Committee seemed to respond based on limitations and boundary conditions, and not so much on an overall vision. It seems that practical issues are potentially hindering the further development of the educational programme. The Committee concludes that the relationship between the programme objectives and its curriculum content fulfils the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F6: Coherence of the programme Students follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents.

The Curriculum Committee has a role in ensuring the coherence within the two streams of the Master's programme. If there are problems with the coherence of subjects, informal discussions are used as an easy solution. There is an almost complete separation of the two specializations (also called ‘streams’ or ‘tracks’) MI and BM (7 EC are shared). Though both can be seen as BME, a greater effort should be made to integrate these activities. There is little space for free choice within MI. There are only a few electives, and the courses appear not to be available at the times that students want to take them. However, the staff is working on this difficulty. The problem with electives is that student numbers are low, and for teachers it is time consuming to give a course to a small group of students. Some electives could be taken in other departments/universities. This would also be useful for the further integration of programmes. There are many mandatory courses, and this is considered essential by the students interviewed in a multidisciplinary field. There is some overlap in courses (e.g. biomaterials). According to the students, teachers do not always know what the other teachers cover. There is apparently no real overview available. Improvement of an overall vision is recommended, as stated before. Students find that there is not enough space in the programme for imaging. This situation could be improved. It is advised to change some mandatory courses into electives.


It is recommended to look into possibilities to reduce the number of EC for some courses. Some courses seem to allow for less study load than currently calculated (see also Facet 7). Students are regularly asked for feedback on the coherence of their study. From this feedback it is known that there is some overlap between courses, but students do not always consider that as bad. The overlap can provide an opportunity for review or to view a topic from a different perspective. In annual meetings attention is paid to the ideal order of courses. The vision of the former Programme Director on placing internships at the end of the studies is: “Prove yourself first within university and use all your skills within the internship”. Companies may benefit from this arrangement, as they are provided with students who are well equipped for their jobs. A disadvantage could be the late introduction of students to industry. Prerequisites for certain courses are defined and adhered to. The programme schedule is evaluated by the Committee as adequate. However, in general the Committee considers the curriculum rather rigid. It is recommended to allow for more elective courses (free choice) and more common courses between the two tracks of the programme. More optional modules are necessary to create a stronger crosslink between BM and MI, but even more important to facilitate a flexible intake. The Committee feels that there is room for a flexible intake. The workload at present appears to allow this. The Committee finds that the coherence in the contents of the programme meets the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F7: Study load The programme can be successfully completed within the set time, as certain programme-related factors that may be an impediment to study progress are removed as much as possible.

The programmed study load is used by the lecturers to determine the number of lectures and the amount of practical work. For one hour of lectures, three student hours (the hours students spend on following the courses, preparing them and evaluating them) are added, implying a total of four hours for the student. One day of practical work is taken to be equivalent to 8 hours. One EC represents 28 hours. General rules are used for measuring the study load. Credits per course is estimated as 5 EC. Student questionnaires agree on the correctness of this measurement. At the start of the thesis project, a plan is prepared. This plan is checked regularly to prevent undesirable delay of the project. During each module evaluation the students are interviewed about the module load, and asked whether the actual load was in accordance with the planned load. If the evaluation outcome is unfavourable, then the Study Programme Committee (SPC) can decide that the module must be changed. Until now, no serious complaints have been reported. However, the students interviewed during the site visit said that they spend 15 to 25 hours a week on studying and course attendance. In the final year they spend about 40 hours/week. Most students earn money alongside their studies and do extracurricular work.


Student members of the OC who were interviewed stated that they spend about 30 hours/week on courses. Some students have to take extra preliminary courses, which adds to their workload. Practical periods tend to be very busy, but this differs per track. The interviewed alumni stated that the distribution of the workload is not well balanced. They expect that students study about 30-40 hours per week including lectures. They see internship as a real job, students are expected to work at least 40 hours/week. Students often see it as a career opportunity. The vision on workload of the staff members interviewed is that it depends on the student. They tend to find the learning outcomes more important. According to the teachers interviewed more work could be done at certain times as students appear not to make the most of their assignments. Most teachers think the workload is appropriate for the average student. Most students are more ‘average’ than ‘good’ at the end of their study period. Teachers assert that lots of information is presented in a short time, and they feel that students cannot absorb much more. The Committee concludes that there appears to be a lack of knowledge on how to measure the study load. There is a difference between the impression of teachers and of students on the workload (mismatch). The Committee finds that the study load does not seem to be very well defined and is not equally divided over the two years. The credit range is not really evaluated, and there is need for improvement. In the end the Committee concluded that this aspect is satisfactory, since no structural obstacles were observed. The study load can be increased, especially in the first year. Space for other and more courses in the first year is available and could be filled in with e.g. optional modules and an introductory course (see also Facets 5 and 6). The Committee concludes that the programme can be completed within the given time because the actual study load is adequate, it is distributed well over the programme, and there are no unnecessary obstacles that hinder study. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F8: Intake The structure and contents of the programme are in line with the qualifications of the students that embark on the degree course: • Bachelor’s degree at a University (WO): VWO (pre-university education), propaedeutic certificate from a University of

Professional Education (HBO) or similar qualifications, as demonstrated in the admission process. • Master’s degree at a University (WO): bachelor’s degree and possibly selection (on contents of the subject). Requirements for joining the Master's degree curriculum are a completed Bachelor's degree in Biomedical Engineering. Students with Bachelor's degrees in Physics, Physical Engineering, Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering can be admitted if any deficiencies related to BME are dealt with in the first semester. Proficiency in English is another requirement. All other students who apply to be admitted are screened by the Board of Examiners. This includes students from other universities or from higher professional education (HBO).


The number of entrants was low at first, partly because students came via the Department of Physics, which has a low number of Bachelor graduates. Later it became possible for Bachelors of Life Science & Technology to continue on to a BME Master. In the current Bachelor of Life Science & Technology, a large part is already dedicated to BME, but this possibility appears to be unknown to many newcomers when they first arrive. This situation should be changed. In general, there is clearly a need for a well structured and separate Bachelor's programme. From the students it is known that they choose to study BME in Groningen because they expect this education to be more scientific than technical. The BME Master's programme at RUG is expected to be very competitive, due to the proximity of UMCG and the link with biology. Right now the number of students is relatively small, though it is rising. There is need for growth, while the challenge is to maintain the high level. The intake requirements are: students are allowed to start the BME Master's programme before graduating as a Bachelor by university regulation, but only if they lack fewer than 15 credits. This may only consist of theoretical work, all practical work must have been finished, including Bachelor's projects. The Medical Faculty (FMS) has a long historical connection with some universities in Indonesia. Recently an e-learning programme started which is now in its testing phase. If it is successful, it is intended to be offered to other interested universities worldwide. Intake measures for e-learning will have to be developed separately. There are regulations to prevent a mismatch with Bachelor's education if students have not graduated from a specific BME Bachelor. Dutch non-physics students do a ‘bridging year’. Some interviewed students stated that they could have received more education in engineering/physics, others more in life sciences. This depended on their background. One student stated that for MI it would be very helpful to have a background in physics. It is recommended to tailor to individual needs in this ‘bridging year’. Students are aware of what the BME Master's programme is all about, but they usually need time to get a clear picture. It is advised to produce clarity about the general picture of the BME Master's programme, internally towards staff and students, but also towards the outside world including potential Master students. The Bachelor's programme that is under development appears to stress physics, mathematics and engineering less. This is to promote the Bachelor to students with less knowledge or interest in these studies. For promotional reasons, quite some emphasis is given to the medical part. The Committee strongly feels that this may jeopardise the success of both the Bachelor and Master. It is recommended to give appropriate space to physics, mathematics and engineering and to increase the quality of the BME Master's programme in general as much as possible and make it attractive in that way. In a future BME Bachelor's programme, signal processing and statistics must be included since they are essential competencies for students entering the BME Master's programme. The intake is found to be reasonably well organized in qualitative and quantitative terms.


However, the publicity can be improved. The Committee recommends developing a strong recruitment strategy. The Committee concludes that the relationship between the entrance requirements and the structure and contents of the programme fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F9: Duration The degree course complies with formal requirements regarding the size of the curriculum: • Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule. • Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.

The Master's degree programme is a two-year programme and comprises 120 EC. The first year is designed to provide training which develops specific capabilities and fosters the acquisition of knowledge necessary in the field of BME. The second year consists of the industrial internship and the thesis project. Two years is considered to be appropriate, but there is space in the programme to fill it in better (see Facet 7). The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F10: Coordination of structure and contents of the degree course The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives. The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept.

There appears to be no clearly defined educational concept. However, a philosophy behind certain choices within the programme (e.g. interdisciplinarity, communication, balance in working methods) has been recognized by the Committee. Students gain experience in communicating on their subjects in various ways during their study. About half of the courses include official presentations. Nevertheless, the students interviewed stated that not all courses are interactive enough. The content/focus of the courses and the programme as a whole depends much on the individual staff members involved. When someone leaves, the programme tends to change. This means that a new teacher must start all over to develop and check the programme against the objectives. The courses are in English, unless there are only Dutch-speaking students. Some teachers are said to speak poor English. The slides are sometimes only in Dutch, even with foreign students present in class. The Committee concludes that more attention should be paid to presentations and communication. In the first year about 50% of the study load is spent on self-study. The other 50% is spent on attending lectures, lab practicals and projects. In the second year the self-study decreases to 25%.


The thesis consists of 40 EC. When arranging their thesis, students have to select a research group, and then the chairperson of the group is responsible for the selection of the topic and supervision. Sometimes students come with their own idea. Regarding choosing an internship, it is possible to peruse a list of companies for internships, Dutch and international, on a website. To make it easier for students to work on their theses, they are usually located within departments. It could be useful to provide them with the opportunity to go outside their own department. The planning of the Master's thesis is as follows. Requirements of the thesis are explained in an initial meeting in the first semester (and of courses as well). Students are pressed to start on time. A large part of the thesis consists of literature review. This means studying independently though supervisors are there to help if necessary. Supervision differs per group. A student has weekly meetings with staff members. In general, the supervisors are easily approachable. The final version of the thesis is usually delivered after a few drafts. Some supervisors give feedback afterwards, but not all. Final presentations take place in meetings with all personnel invited. The involvement of the second supervisor is not always clear to students, there appears to be no direct contact. The interviewed alumni stated that the first supervisor gives a lot of feedback. The second supervisor also gives genuine feedback. Only a limited number of staff is allowed to act as first supervisor, according to experience. Internships comprise 20 EC. Bachelor's programmes often contain a form of internship as well. Students appear in general to learn rather late where they can start. Internships are usually found through thesis supervisors. One teacher supervises around 4 students/year. More information on internships appears to be necessary for the students. Students are somewhat reluctant to go to a supervisor at an early stage. Attention could be given to providing sufficient information on the website. This is considered useful. However, detailed information about possible internships cannot be provided only through a website. It is considered more appropriate to do it in a personal way. The BME Master internships are usually planned after the thesis. Students like the idea that it is possible to stay on at the medical institute or company afterwards. According to the staff, students appear to make a better impression in industry when they do their internship at the end of the study, as they are fully trained by that time. They also appear to stick better to deadlines because they have learned about goal-setting, and they may wish to use the internship as an opportunity to obtain employment. The Committee discussed whether it would be better to organize internships earlier on in the programme. A strong case can be made for both options. A solid information infrastructure would be needed for students to make a good choice about where and when to do an internship. It is recommended to explore the potential of synergy between thesis and internship and evaluate the possibility of an internship earlier on in the Master's programme.


Thesis and internship can be linked, but often there appears to be no link between the two. The internship is of good quality according to the Committee and has an important function within the programme. There are, however, several points that need to be improved (see above). The Committee concludes that the teaching methods and the didactic concept correspond adequately with the aims and objectives of the programme. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F11: Assessment and examinations The system of assessments and examinations provides an effective indication whether the students have reached the learning targets of the course programme or its components.

The method of assessing a module is related to the nature of the module. Modules in which knowledge is essential are assessed by written exams (open essay). Modules which train the student’s attitudes are assessed by assignments, presentations and reports. A thesis is assessed by a team of three people: the daily supervisor, the graduate teacher and an external member. After the first evaluation by the two supervisors, a meeting on the thesis is organized with mainly members of the research group, which also plays a role in the assessment. Final presentations in meetings take place with all personnel invited. Assessment of an internship is carried out by supervisors, two at the university and one in the company/institute where the internship takes place. How this is done varies and is the responsibility of the joint supervisors involved. The Board of Examiners is responsible for the examination procedures. All results of exams are presented in public. This creates transparency, which provides the opportunity for comments and feedback by students and personnel. Any misjudgements are given adequate attention and help to improve the system of grading. The Board of Examiners has faith in the teachers' ability to grade well. Grading is their responsibility. Previously, there were no specific guidelines for grading. However, criteria have been formulated recently for the assessment of tests/exams (percentages of different aspects forming the final grade). As to the grading of courses, the Board of Examiners only becomes involved when there is a problem/complaint. The Committee studied several theses, every committee member read two or three theses, in total 11. The Committee members felt that they vary in quality, scientific level, level and quantity of research, clarity about aims, structure, usefulness of data, etc. Some are considered to have ‘low’ and others ‘very high’ quality. Some theses appear to be not quite finished. In general, they would have given the theses lower grades than the BME staff at RUG did. The grades given by staff range between 7 and 9. Based on the information received on organization and contents, the exams are considered by the Committee to fulfil the appropriate demands. The Committee finds that the Board of Examiners functions relatively well and recommends paying attention to grading.


The Committee finds that the system of assessments and examinations fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. Assessment of Subject ‘Programme’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Programme’ is Satisfactory 1.2.3. Deployment of staff F12: Requirements for University The degree course meets the following criteria for the deployment of staff for a degree course at a University (WO): Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.

Personnel management focuses on maintaining the quality of the department, the university and the employee. It also aims to increase the number of women in staff positions. Specific arrangements concerning didactic training form an essential part of the hiring procedure. Special attention is given to the quality of teaching in English (as a second language). Personnel management and recruiting are largely centralized: salary administration and co-ordination of recruiting policies take place at the university level; career coaching is monitored centrally, but carried out at the workplace. Scientific staff members are members of a department, which is part of a teaching and/or a research institute. Currently, all BME staff members are appointed by a research institute. This implies that the input of BME in the performance appraisal interviews is limited. Formally, BME can only apply the ultimate measure of accepting or rejecting applicants. In practice, informal communication with the research institute and direct feedback to involved staff members play a useful role. RUG aims to keep both teaching and research at a high international level. Talented new staff members are appointed for 6 years to a tenure track position. A positive appraisal after 5 years leads to the offer of a tenured position at the associate professor level. After another 5 years a second appraisal precedes possible promotion to full professor. The teaching staff is actively engaged in academic research. The engineering lines of BME are covered by Applied Physics, Computer Sciences and Mechanical Engineering. The Director of the Institute of Life Science (LS) is the person who is primarily responsible for the smooth functioning of staff members in the BME Master's programme. However, performance reviews of staff members are done by the directors of the research institutes. In these interviews, teaching evaluations are done. Since BME depends on the separate faculties for this, it has little control over personnel management. This is a potential threat to the smooth functioning of staff for BME. The Programme Director of BME is usually ‘borrowing’ personnel from faculties for teaching facilities. The deans of the faculties keep the final say in the matter. The Committee recommends paying appropriate attention to the recruitment of personnel for the BME Faculty.


It is recommended to pay appropriate attention in the e-learning programme that is being developed for foreign universities to finding ways to incorporate role models. The Committee concludes that the research background of the staff members is good and incorporated in the programme. The involvement of professors within the entire programme is considered good as well. The Committee concludes that the teaching is provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area and exceeds the requirements for accreditation. The score for the academic requirements is Good. F13: Quantity of staff The staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards.

The staff participation is balanced between the two contributing faculties. The number of FTE for the BME Master is 4.2, and this is spread over 45 teachers. Not all 45 people involved are effectively teaching. This number also includes staff members involved in thesis supervision. At this moment the number of teachers appears to be adequate. However, with a growing number of students and a separate BME Bachelor's programme, an increase in teaching staff will be necessary. Resources for hiring more staff are said to be available. Most teachers give only one Master's course. They are scattered over two different faculties and various schools. This has both advantages (input from various fields) and disadvantages (creating a connection with regard to BME). Students acknowledge that the teaching staff is motivated. They show much enthusiasm for their subjects. However, they note that in general the teachers are not motivated to do more. This may have to do with the time available. The Committee finds that the number of staff fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F14: Quality of staff The staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regards contents, didactics and organization of the course programme are achieved.

The University exercises control over teaching quality, and whenever appropriate, offers additional, continuous training. Results are monitored for each module, discussed by the Study Programme Committee, and conclusions are fed back to the lecturer. This is formalized in the teaching staff evaluation protocol. There appears to be room for some improvement in the BME Master's programme with regard to the depth of subjects. The faculties already intend to hire more specialists as teachers. In general, the staff is very dedicated to their tasks. Everybody is willing to work together.


The programme is very much driven by the specific expertise of the staff (see F13). Didactical training is available for teachers. However, the Committee notes that many teachers do not seem to take advantage of this training, although for some it could be useful. It is not mandatory to take didactical training, not even for new teachers, who can be PhD students. The English fluency is checked. There are English courses provided by the University. Although some teachers have no real problems with teaching or English, others do. English skills require attention. The Committee recommends that teaching and language skills be taken seriously and that teachers are advised more strongly to follow courses (especially English) when necessary. The Committee finds that the quality of staff fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for staff quality is Satisfactory. Assessment of Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ is Satisfactory 1.2.4. Facilities and provisions F15: Material facilities The accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme.

The multidisciplinary nature of BME means that the programme employs facilities from both FMNS and FMS/UMCG. All lecture rooms are equipped with blackboards and whiteboards and modern IT facilities. Laboratories provide the basic equipment required for the Master's degree programme. All students receive a RUG account which provides connection to the internet and libraries. The students interviewed by the Committee evaluated the facilities as ‘very good’. They see possibilities for improving the equipment in the library. The Committee recommends taking any necessary action to correct this situation. In general, the ICT facilities are considered to be adequate. Students remarked during the interview that the virtual learning environment Blackboard is not often used. It is recommended to take action to increase the use of this facility or solve the communication needs in another way. The Committee finds that the material facilities fulfil the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.


F16: Student support and guidance The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students are adequate for the purpose of students’ progress. The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students meet the requirements of the students.

A rule has been set that the results of interim examinations must be communicated within 10 working days of the examinations. There is no information available on experience with this point. During the first year of the Bachelor’s phase, students from several FMNS Bachelor’s degree programmes can take an introductory course in BME. Students from both NST (Natural Science and Technology) and LST (Life Science and Technology) have to take a specific minor programme during their second and third year, and must complete the Bachelor’s thesis project in a BME-related topic to qualify for the BME Master’s degree programme. Student counselling in the Master’s degree programme starts with support information from the BME office and from the Student Counsellor. In the course of the first semester, students have to choose a supervisor and tutor who will assist with the selection of the specific topics, the external internship and final project. Student members of the Study Programme Committee (SPC), which meets six to eight times per year, give effective feedback if any problems arise. The students interviewed are in general happy with guidance and counselling. The Committee is positive about the student guidance. Guidance of the internship can be improved, although it is considered as functioning adequately. Information on guidance and counselling happens to be available only in Dutch and will have to be translated into English when more international students are recruited. It is noted by the Committee that the communication between students and teachers/management is direct. The teachers/management are easily accessible. This is considered as important and good. The Committee finds that the student support and guidance exceed the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Good. Assessment of Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ is Satisfactory


1.2.5. Internal quality assurance F17: Evaluation of results The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.

Protocols on quality assurance have been formulated on both the university and faculty level. The internal quality assurance for the BME Master's programme involves the Board of Examiners and the Study Programme Committee. The study programme is put together by a separate committee called the Curriculum Committee. This Committee meets at least twice a year for the evaluation of each semester. Once a year meetings are organized with regard to the evaluation of activities in the previous year and to the working schedule for the coming year. Courses are evaluated by students via course evaluations. Also, other sessions and meetings where all students participate are assessed, reported on and discussed in the SPC. An overall programme evaluation takes place after each semester and after each year. Criteria for assessment are e.g. coherence, overlap, order, and curriculum change. This assessment is done by the Curriculum Committee. The Review Committee finds that the programme questionnaires contain good and relevant questions. There are no exit programme evaluations right now, but they are in the process of being developed. Currently, alumni only receive a general questionnaire from the University, not specifically about the BME Master's programme. The Committee finds that the evaluation of results fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F18: Measures to effect improvement The results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and that will contribute to reaching the targets.

Both the conclusions from the evaluation of the results and new initiatives from students, staff members, or members of the professional field can lead to modification of the programmes, either in terms of topic studied or teaching method used. The procedure starts with a discussion in the SPC. The Master’s degree programme has been running for 6 years, and adjustments have taken place. Prominent changes were integrated in the BME Master's programme over this period that were imposed by external modification of the curricular system, like the introduction of the Bachelor’s degree in 2002, the change from trimester to semester in 2002 and 2003, and the restructuring of the FMNS Faculty into three schools (LS, NST and IS) called ‘Tripos’. Students give feedback on courses. However, it is not always clear to the students interviewed whether anything is done with the remarks, though examples of improvement are known. Students know that they have an effect on the curriculum as sometimes the content of a course is changed afterwards. For example, a desire that had been communicated by students


to staff members for more active working methods in specific courses has lead to more working groups and practicals. The Committee approves of the monitoring process and recommends creating a more structural feedback process on evaluations to students. Teachers are considered to have an open and positive attitude towards the results of the evaluations and are willing to make improvements. However, the possibilities for improvement could be explored better, there is sometimes a tendency to think in obstacles rather than opportunities. The Committee concludes that the link between evaluations and implemented improvements fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Staff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are actively involved in the internal quality assurance.

The involvement in monitoring the education process of the students is adequate, mainly due to the short communication lines. Teachers are accessible. There is a Steering Committee, consisting of people from the professional (hospital) field and teachers. This Committee gives feedback on the programme when it meets twice a year. The Review Committee feels it would be interesting to expand this Committee with people from industry. Alumni have in general no institutionalized contact with the programme, but some of them work in departments that are involved in the education. Staff and students play an essential part in the SPC, the formal advisory committee that checks study progress, identifies existing and potential problems, and can propose modifications of the curriculum. Subcommittees are active and advisory to the SPC. The Programme Director takes the final decision, but has to ask the viewpoint of the SPC first. The SPC/OC exists of four students and four teachers. Students have an influence in the OC especially regarding the evaluation of courses which is discussed regularly. The OC is not just reactive based on evaluations, but also proactive, and works on possible improvements in education. The SPC/OC mainly evaluates the quality of individual courses, the quality of the education process and the Educational and Examination Regulations (OER). Staff and students are thoroughly involved in the Programme Committee, formally as well as informally. There are still alumni present in the Faculty, but the staff stays in contact with the others who have found employment elsewhere. The Committee finds that the professional field could be better and more structurally involved.


The Committee finds that staff, alumni and the professional field are well involved in the internal quality assurance. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. Assessment of Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ is Satisfactory 1.2.6. Results F20: Level that has been achieved The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements.

Students appear to be well equipped when they start their projects (thesis and internship). The Committee finds that the programme is considered good, expectations are met, there are no important subjects missing. In 2003, 3 Masters graduated, in 2004, 6 and in 2005, 11. The grades given are seldom lower than 7 or higher than 9. Grades lower than 7 are considered to be very poor. Two students graduated cum laude, generally students get high grades for thesis work (see Facet 11). Students are sometimes encouraged to publish their work. In many cases (more than half) the results of Master's theses are presented in meetings (even international ones), often not by the students but by teachers, mostly as poster presentations. The number of diplomas granted thus far is limited because the programme is still in its initial phase, and this is somewhat difficult to evaluate. The Master's thesis is an optimal beginning for a PhD according to alumni interviewed. Most alumni are now doing a PhD or are working as medical researchers. Most of them were offered a job before they graduated, sometimes even before they finished their thesis. Based on the limited experience until now, the industry seems to be very satisfied with the few students they get in. How this will develop in the future will have to be monitored. There are not many graduates yet, so it is not quite clear what the possibilities for students are when their numbers increase. The level of the graduates is considered by the Committee to be good in general. The relationship between the targets of the course and the final qualifications of the graduates fulfils the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.


F21: Success rates To measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses. The success rates meet these targets.

The number of students who finished the Master's degree curriculum within the planned time was about 40%. The aim is to attain a 50% completion rate for two years of active study, increasing to 80% for three years. The Committee finds that the success rate targets set by the programme are quite modest and recommends evaluating them regularly and making adaptations as necessary. The Committee finds that the results fulfil target figures that are common in Dutch universities. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory. Assessment of Subject ‘Results’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Results’ is Satisfactory


Overview of the assessment by the committee Master’s degree course Biomedical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment

F1 Domain-specific requirements Satisfactory F2 Level Satisfactory

1. Aims and objectives of the degree course

+

F3 Orientation Satisfactory F4 Requirements for university degree courses Satisfactory F5 Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme Satisfactory F6 Coherence of the programme Satisfactory F7 Study load Satisfactory F8 Intake Satisfactory F9 Duration Satisfactory F10 Co-ordination of structure and contents of the degree course Satisfactory

2. Programme +

F11 Assessment and examinations Satisfactory F12 Requirements for university degree courses Good F13 Quantity of staff Satisfactory

3. Deployment of staff

+

F14 Quality of staff Satisfactory F15 Material facilities Satisfactory 4. Facilities and

provisions +

F16 Student support and guidance Good F17 Evaluation of results Satisfactory F18 Measures to effect improvement Satisfactory

5. Internal quality assurance

+

F19 Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Satisfactory F20 Level that has been achieved Satisfactory 6. Results + F21 Success rates Satisfactory


Appendix 1. Abbreviations BM BioMaterials BME Biomedical Engineering EB Executive Board FMS Medical Sciences FMNS Mathematics and Natural Sciences HBO Higher professional education (not scientific) IT Information Technology LS Institute of Life Science MI Medical Instrumentation/Imaging OC (=SPC) OER Educational and Examination Regulations QANU Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities RUG University of Groningen SPC Study Programme Committee UMCG University Medical Center Groningen


Appendix 2. Programme of site visit Planning Site Visit Master BMT 1 November

17:00 Reception Representative of the University Executive Board: Prof. F. Zwarts (rector magnificus) Representatives of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences: Prof. D.A. Wiersma (Dean), Prof. J.M. Koolhaas (Vice-Dean of Education), Dr. H. Hanson (Director of School of Natural Sciences & Technology), Prof. H. Löhner (Course Director in Physics), Representatives of the Faculty of Medical Sciences: Prof. S. Poppema (Dean), Prof. R.P. Zwierstra (Vice-Dean in Education), Prof. L.F.M.H. de Leij (Vice-Dean in Research), Representatives of the Life Sciences Educational Institute: Prof. J.P. Franke (Director of School of Life Sciences), Prof. D. Hoekstra (Course Director of Life Science & Technology), Prof. H. Duifhuis (Course Director for Master's programme in Biomedical Engineering). All teachers, alumni and students.

2 November

09:00 Preparatory meeting

• Task and working methods of an assessment committe • Independence of the committee • Installation of the committee • Discussion and definition of domain-specific reference framework • Preparation for site visit

12:00 Lunch 12:45 Representatives of the two responsible faculties Prof. D.A. Wiersma, Prof. S. Poppema, Prof. H. Duifhuis, Prof. G.J. Verkerke 13:15 Representatives of site visit report

Prof. H. Duifhuis, Prof. G.J. Verkerke, Dr. T.R. Koiter, Dr. A.M. van Trigt

13:45 Students Klaas Hilverda, Bart Crielaard, Rolf Langius, Paul Plasman, Riandini Soelendar, Yanurita Hapsari


14:45 Teaching staff

Dr. T.G. van Kooten, Dr. J.M. Hoogduin, Dr. A.T.M. Willemsen, Prof. H.C. van der Mei, Prof. G.J. Verkerke, Dr. H. Meertens, Dr. M.J.W. Greuter.

15:30 Students, Study Program Committee Tom Schotkamp, Marten Koetsier, Hildebrand Dijkstra.

16:00 Teachers, Study Program Committee Prof. G.J. Verkerke (Chairman), Dr. P.F. van Hutten (Secretary), Dr. T.R. Koiter

16:30 Tour of the teaching facilities 16:45 Tour of the biomaterials research labs 17:10 Tour of the instrumentation & imaging research labs 3 November

09:00 Preparatory meeting 09:30 Board of Examiners

Prof. H.C. van der Mei, Prof. H. Duifhuis, Dr. T.R. Koiter 10:00 Alumni

Chris Lanting, Isabel C. Saldarriaga Fernandez, Marten Koetsier, Hildebrand Dijkstra, Jaap Groen, Eric Groenewold

10:30 Open podium

11:00 Preliminary results Representatives of the two faculties: Prof. D.A. Wiersma, Prof. S. Poppema Representatives of School of Life Sciences: Prof. J.P. Franke, Prof. D. Hoekstra. Representatives of Site Visit report: Prof. H. Duifhuis, Prof. G.J. Verkerke, Dr. T.R. Koiter.

12:00 Lunch 13:00 Preparatory meeting 14:00 Presentation of preliminary results Everyone is invited. 14:30 Reception Everyone is invited.


2. The Bachelor and Master programme Biomedical Engineering offered by the University of Twente

Administrative data

Bachelor programme: Name: Biomedical Engineering CROHO number: 56226 Level: Bachelor Orientation: Academic Study load: 180 EC Grade: Bachelor of Science Variants: Full-time Location: Enschede Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007 Master programme: Name: Biomedical Engineering CROHO number: 66226 Level: Master Orientation: Academic Study load: 120 EC Grade: Master of Science Variants: Full-time Location: Enschede Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007 2.0. Structure and organization of the faculty The University of Twente (UT) currently comprises five faculties: Business, Public Administration and Technology (BBT), Engineering Technology (CTW), Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science (EWI), Behavioural Sciences (GW), Science and Technology (TNW). The Bachelor and Master Biomedical Engineering (BME) programmes fall under the responsibility of the Faculty of Science and Technology. From a historic point of view, the various research groups participating in the BME programme were associated with the former Faculties of Mechanical Engineering (WB), Electrical Engineering (EL), Chemical Engineering (CT) and Applied Physics (TN). Both CT and TN have joined the Faculty of Science and Technology, EL joined the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, and WB joined the Faculty of Engineering Technology. Other groups that are not part of TNW also contribute considerably to the BME programme, like some groups within BBT and GW. Various BME research groups of other faculties participating in the Institute for Biomedical Technology (BMTI) also contribute substantially to the BME education programmes. The BME Steering Committee, consisting of the professors


responsible for BME groups contributing to the BME programme, advises the Dean, and the BME Programme Director supervises the programme. Being part of several faculties can potentially reduce the smooth functioning of the teachers and programme. BME management need to be able to influence the hiring of new personnel and career path availability. A certain amount of control of personnel management and developments in this area is considered necessary in the future. The BME Programme Director is positioned under the Dean. The Programme Director stated during the site visit that ‘informal influence is adequate’. Decisions are taken by the Director, but the Dean has the final say and responsibility. Faculties and research institutes are organized in a matrix structure. The influence of the deans and scientific directors is said to be equal within the university management team. The directors of research institutes that are linked to the faculty are also involved in decisions about new staff. 2.1. Introduction Bachelor-Master structure and phasing out of the old one-tier

programme: current situation. Criterion: The deconstruction of the old one-tier programme doesn’t cause problems for the students. The one-tier programme is not a subject of the assessment. An “old-style” programme did not precede the BME Bachelor's and Master's programmes in UT. After a preparation phase, the first students entered the BME Bachelor's programme in 2001. It was taught in Dutch. In 2004, the first group of students completed the Bachelor's programme of 180 EC, divided evenly over three years. The two-year BME Master's programme also started in 2004. At the end of the current academic year 2005-2006, the first Masters of Science in BME graduated. The BME education programme has been developed further and improved every year since the original proposal was submitted in 1999. In the early stages of the Bachelor’s programme, emphasis was put on the development of the curriculum. Since 2004, the Bachelor’s programme has been consolidating. Currently, the Master programme is in its final stage of development. This programme will be consolidated in the near future. The challenge during the phases of development was to create a homogenous BME programme and not just a patchwork of parts of the various disciplines. 2.2. Assessment protocol 2.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree course F1: Domain-specific requirements The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the requirements made to a degree course in the relevant domain (field of study/discipline and/or professional practice) by colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad and the professional practice.


UT defined the final qualifications for an integral BME programme of 5 years before starting the programme. The original objectives and qualifications were adapted into the Bachelor/Master programmes. Recently, as part of the self-evaluation process, UT compared the objectives and qualifications with the newly defined Criteria for Bachelor and Master curricula4. These criteria were helpful to provide a better basis for the objectives and qualifications of the current curriculum and philosophy. The members of the Educational Committee (OC) whom the Review Committee met stated that it is clear that the objectives were formulated before the study programmes were established. They further confirmed that the programmes are regularly evaluated and updated. The Committee approves of the sequence in which the BME programmes were developed, starting with the formulation of objectives before creating the programmes. BME is an engineering discipline focused on integrating engineering skills and knowledge and those of the human life sciences at an academic level. BME education includes basic general engineering requirements and a thorough understanding of the life sciences. The main objectives of the Bachelor programme at UT are aimed at: 1. understanding the basics of skills required in the field of BME; 2. knowledge and skills for doing research in BME; 3. basic skills for designing a biomedical product or process; 4. knowledge of a scientific approach; 5. develop intellectual skills; 6. able to co-operate and communicate with others in and outside BME; 7. awareness of the medical and social context. The main objectives of the Master programme are for students to: 1. specialize in a specific field of BME; 2. generate the knowledge and skills for doing research; 3. learn engineering design; 4. demonstrate knowledge of the scientific method; 5. demonstrate intellectual skills; 6. cooperate and communicate with specialists in the chosen track and other stakeholders; 7. integrate insights in the medical and social context into his or her scientific work. The Committee finds that these objectives comply with national and international academic and professional requirements as stated in the domain-specific frame of reference. The Committee has noticed that UT is following other international developments in BME. Some attempts have been made to harmonize with European BME programmes: EAMBES-BIOMEDEA tries to align the ongoing process of accreditation of BME programmes. In addition, EUR-ACE, the European Accreditation of Engineers, is preparing

4 Meijers, A., Overveld, C. van, Perret, J., 2005, Criteria for Academic Bachelor and Master BME curricula


evaluation standards for engineering programmes. However, no applicable BME standards for a Bachelor or Master programme have been formulated yet. In the USA, the criteria for accreditation of Bachelor-level Bioengineering programmes are described by the American Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Another strong influence comes from the Whitaker Foundation that supported the development of BME curricula throughout the USA. According to ABET “the structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the programme. The programme must demonstrate that graduates have: an understanding of biology and physiology, and the capability to apply advanced mathematics (including differential equations and statistics), science, and engineering to solve the problems at the interface of engineering and biology; the ability to make measurements on and interpret data from living systems, addressing the problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems.” The Whitaker Foundation also gave a definition of BME: BME is a discipline that advances knowledge in engineering, biology and medicine, and improves human health through cross-disciplinary activities that integrate the engineering sciences with the biomedical sciences and clinical practice. It includes: 1. The acquisition of new knowledge and understanding of living systems through the

innovative and substantive application of experimental and analytical techniques based on the engineering sciences.

2. The development of new devices, algorithms, processes and systems that advance biology and medicine and improve medical practice and health care delivery.

The 7 objectives of the BME Bachelor stated above have been elaborated into expected learning outcomes (final qualifications) for this programme: 1. The BME Bachelor graduate is familiar with the basics of existing scientific knowledge

and has some skills to increase and develop this through study; 2. The BME Bachelor graduate can, under supervision of a senior researcher, contribute to

increasing scientific knowledge. 3. The BME Bachelor graduate is familiar with the steps of the design process and is able to

carry them out in a simple situation. 4. The BME Bachelor graduate has a systematic approach characterized by the use of

theories, models and coherent interpretations. 5. The BME Bachelor graduate possesses basic intellectual skills such as reasoning,

reflecting and forming judgements. 6. The BME Bachelor graduate is able to co-operate and communicate with others in and

outside BME. 7. The BME Bachelor graduate is aware that beliefs and methods have origins and that

decisions have social consequences in time. Students with various technological Bachelor degrees can enter the BME Master's programme. The programme does not intend to achieve the same specific final qualifications for each individual. It aims at achieving an academic Master's level in a specific area of BME which is considered feasible given a certain Bachelor's degree and a matching BME Master track.


The Master graduate is more specialized than the Bachelor graduate is. The main objectives for the Master's programme described above have been elaborated as learning outcomes (final qualifications) as follows: 1. The BME Master graduate is familiar with existing scientific knowledge in a specific BME

field of expertise, and is able to increase and develop this through study 2. The BME Master graduate is able to acquire new scientific knowledge through research.

For this purpose, research means: the development of new knowledge and new insights in a purposeful and methodical way.

3. As well as carrying out research, some BME Master graduates will also carry out design work. Especially in the Human Function Technology specialization, this is an important aspect. Design plays a less important role in the Molecular, Cellular and Tissue Engineering track. Designing is defined here as a synthetic activity aimed at the realization of new or modified artifacts or systems with the intention of creating value in accordance with predefined requirements and desires (e.g. mobility, health).

4. The BME Master graduate takes a systematic approach characterized by the development and use of theories, models and coherent interpretations, exercises a critical attitude, and has insight into the nature of biomedical sciences and technology.

5. The BME Master graduate has skills in reasoning, reflecting, and forming a judgement. These are skills which are learned, or sharpened, in the context of the chosen area of the BME discipline, and which are generically applicable from then on.

6. The BME Master graduate is able to work with and for others. This requires not only adequate interaction, a sense of responsibility, and leadership, but also good communication with colleagues and other stakeholders. He is also able to participate in a scientific or public debate in Dutch or English.

7. Life sciences and technology are not isolated, and always have a temporal and social context. Beliefs and methods have their origins; decisions have social consequences in time. A BME Master graduate is aware of this, and has the ability to integrate these insights into his or her scientific work.

The Committee finds that the final qualifications (‘learning outcomes’) match the objectives of the BME programme. During the period of the development and implementation of the BME curriculum, the agreement about the specific requirements for BME evolved at an international level. This resulted in a set of domain-specific requirements accepted by RUG, TU/e and UT. The domain-specific reference document agreed by the universities indicates that they accepted a common ground for their Bachelor's curricula (UT and TU/e). The domain-specific reference document as agreed by Eindhoven, Twente and Groningen indicates the common ground for their Master's curricula. The original objectives of the BME programme were discussed at the IEEE BME meeting in Chicago in 1999 and at the BME Education Summit in Washington in 2000. UT is aware of the requirements of professional practice and actively follows the labour market on BME. A useful source of information for this purpose proved to be Willems & Van den Wildenberg who have done investigations into the labour market (The employment perspective of the biomedical engineer, 1999). They determined that graduates can be employed in health care, education, industry, rehabilitation centres, small medical technology companies


and laboratories, as well as health and/or medical insurance companies, by the government or by suppliers of medical equipment and services. The Committee finds that the final requirements comply with domain-specific references for BME. The Committee is impressed by the strong vision behind the content and direction of the programmes. The Committee concludes that the correspondence between the final qualifications of the degree course and the domain-specific requirements exceeds the criteria for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Good Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good F2: Level The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the qualifications of a Bachelor or a Master.

In the self-evaluation report of UT, the intended learning outcomes (final qualifications) of the Bachelor's programme have been adequately related to the Dublin descriptors (see Appendix 3). Also, the intended learning outcomes of the Master's programme have been adequately related to the Dublin descriptors in the self-evaluation report (Appendix 3). The Committee finds that the correspondence between the final objectives of the degree course and the Dublin descriptors for the Bachelor/Master degree level fulfils the criteria for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F3: Orientation The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the following descriptions of a Bachelor and a Master at universities: • The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international academic practice




The Bachelor programme is primarily oriented to preparing for going on to the BME Master's programme. The achievement of the final qualifications for the BME Bachelor's degree provides the graduate with the academic qualifications to enter not only the BME Master's programme at UT, but also several other Master's programmes at UT and other universities, like:


• BME at TU/e, TUD and RUG; • Engineering, Industrial Organization & Management, TUD; • Life Science and Technology, TUD; • Management of Technology, TUD; • Medical Engineering, TU/e; • Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, UT. Furthermore, the Bachelor graduate has access to a number of other Master's programmes of the three technical universities in the Netherlands once a maximum of 30 EC ‘deficiency’ is overcome. The broad academic programme of the BME Bachelor does not prepare the student for a specific job or occupation, but graduates have been prepared to find their way in society and they can specialize through on-the-job training. They can tackle and solve problems at a junior level, which makes them suitable for a wide range of jobs. However, the job possibilities of Bachelor graduates are not listed explicitly. In the BSc programme academic skills are primarily being developed through project learning. This type of learning aims at the application of acquired knowledge, understanding and skills, and involves integration of the various sub-disciplines and expert knowledge. Typical of this approach is that the problem is taken as the point of departure. The assignment is open-ended and of a complex nature. Learning to cooperate, to produce a paper, to develop communicative skills and to work thematically plays a central role. Students in the BME Bachelor's programme learn how to do research adequately in practical lab settings and multidisciplinary projects. The development of academic skills in the Master's programme is aimed at formulating research questions and conducting research autonomously, as well as communicating and cooperating in a multidisciplinary environment. These are the core target competencies. Independent and active learning is the most important part of the educational process. The lecturer facilitates and supervises this process. The didactic philosophies and methods of working are not dictated by convention, but appear to be chosen consciously. To that end, both theoretical and practical work forms are linked as much as possible. Finally, in the Master's graduation project, the acquired knowledge and skills are fused. During this project, the supervisor coaches the student in a 'Master/apprentice' type of situation. The Master's programme is primarily oriented at achieving an academic level in a specific area of BME. It prepares students for entering the labour market, to enrol in a postgraduate education programme or for entering a PhD trajectory. The job prospects of the BME Master graduate were investigated by Willems and Van den Wildenberg and studied within UT before the implementation of the Bachelor-Master structure. Their study predicted that biomedical engineers could be employed by the private sector, the health care sector and in other areas. For manufacturing companies (mostly producers of medical devices) and trading enterprises, the following jobs are possible: product manager, sales/relations manager and product developer. Within consultancy, graduates can take up the role of BME experts. In commercial health care, it is assumed that a demand will arise for telecom services such as tele-diagnostics, tele-therapy and tele-monitoring in order to


provide health care at a distance. Because these types of services are relatively new, BME Master graduates can be expected to make an important contribution to their development. Within health care, potential positions for the biomedical engineer are clinical physicist, clinical chemist, medical device engineer and clinical engineer. Because of the increasing application of complex medical equipment, the demand for a new kind of staff position can arise. In this position, the biomedical engineer will act as a link between instrumentation technicians and medical specialists. Other relevant sectors include the government, medical insurance companies and research institutes. Within medical insurance companies and the government, quality assessment, safety and evaluation of new biomedical techniques provide a potential job market for biomedical engineers. Within research institutes, the Master graduate will do research in areas like e.g. biomaterials, tissue engineering and information technology for diagnostic, therapeutic and image-processing equipment. Another possibility is to enroll in the postgraduate degree programmes for clinical physicist or clinical chemist. In order to do so, the student must comply with specific entry requirements. Being awarded a BME Master's degree provides the graduate with the academic qualifications to enter a BME PhD programme. The Committee recognizes that the requirements for the possibility of filling these various jobs were built into the BME programme. The objectives of the Bachelor programme, as described in Facet 1, are found to cover adequately the general academic qualifications which have been described by the UT as follows:

General academic qualifications Bachelor objective

an analytical approach to problem-solving; 1, 5 ability to submit an argument in the exact sciences or humanities to critical appraisal; 4, 5 analytical and critical way of thinking and ability to apply logical reasoning; 2, 4, 5 ability to independently follow current scientific developments; 1, 4, 7 openness to inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary cooperation; 6 ability to transpose academic knowledge and expertise into social, professional and economic contexts 3 academically appropriate communicative skills 6 reflection on one’s own style of thought and working methods and readiness to take the necessary corrective action; 7 acquaintance with the standards of academic criticism; 2, 4, 5 awareness of the ethical, normative and social consequences of developments in science and technology 7 The objectives of the Master's programme, as described under Facet 1, adequately cover general academic qualifications that have been described by UT as follows:


General academic qualifications: Master objective

an analytical approach to problem-solving; 1, 5 ability to submit an argument in the exact sciences or humanities to critical appraisal;

4, 5

analytical and critical way of thinking and ability to apply logical reasoning; 2, 4, 5

ability to independently follow current scientific developments; 1, 4, 7

openness to inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary cooperation; 6 ability to transpose academic knowledge and expertise into social, professional and economic contexts

3

academically appropriate communication skills 6 reflection on one’s own style of thought and working methods and readiness to take the necessary corrective action;

7

acquaintance with the standards of academic criticism; 2, 4, 5 awareness of the ethical, normative and social consequences of developments in science and technology

7

The committee finds that the end objectives of the Master's degree course fulfil the criteria as required for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Aims and objectives’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Aims and objectives’ is Satisfactory 2.2.2. Programme F4: Requirements for university degree courses: The programme meets the following criteria applicable to a degree programme at a University (WO): • The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the relevant disciplines; • The programme follows the developments in the relevant academic discipline(s), as it is demonstrated that it



BME-oriented research at UT is concentrated within the BMTI, the institute of UT where research activities in the medical/biomedical field are brought together. The biomedical groups from the faculties of EWI, CTW and TNW are part of this Institute. In total, the BMTI employs more than 100 researchers including some 40 PhD students. BMTI manages the IBME (the Institute for BME in which the BMTI participates, together with divisions of Delft University of Technology, Leiden University and Radboud University Nijmegen). The research conducted at the BMTI is an important basis for the BME Master's programme because the employees are both BME lecturers and researchers. IBME focuses on four main themes:


• Biomaterials & Artificial Organs; • Tissue Engineering with Cellular & Molecular Aspects; • Biomechatronics & Rehabilitation Technology; • Non-invasive and Minimally Invasive Technology. Bachelor and Master students are required to become acquainted with the research being done at the University. All lecturers conduct research, and they include their knowledge and experience in their courses. Master projects are embedded in larger research programmes. The teaching and learning appears to interact adequately with the latest scientific developments. Design courses in the Master programme are research oriented. Students are required to understand scientific papers and how to create and write them. Master's theses usually aim at original scientific results and products that can be published in the scientific literature. A colloquium series is offered in the second year of the Bachelor programme in which presentations are given by professionals working in the area of Biomedical Engineering. The colloquia are also accessible to students of higher years. Students are asked to reflect on the information received and to use this to make choices in their programmes for Bachelor and Master specialization. At the moment, the Bachelor programme pays little attention to orientation on the labour market. In general, Bachelor graduates show little interest in starting a professional career. They tend to focus on a Master programme, which is also common in other Bachelor programmes. In 2005 an advisory board of external human resource (recruitment) officers was installed that will advise the BME staff about the relation between the curriculum and the labour market (or potential one). Together with the BME section of the Royal Dutch Society of Engineers (KIVI-NIRIA), the labour market is being explored. This has resulted in a symposium on the BME labour market organized in March 2006. The symposium was attended by 200 students and 14 potential employers. Student societies were said to have taken an active role in the organization of this symposium. In March 2007 another symposium will be organized with potential employers. Research groups are in general in touch with companies like Philips and Siemens as well as smaller local ‘start-up' companies. Most of these regional companies were initiated by alumni of the old BME specializations. Along with governmental funding of education and research, commercial funding of BME research is taking place as well. An important link to companies is achieved through internships, projects and assignments. In general, more contacts with hospitals than with companies are integrated into the programmes, mainly via part-time professor appointments and having hospital staff as guest lecturers. However, it is becoming more and more popular for students to do their internship in companies. Students remain interested in academic science, especially academic hospitals.


This should be accounted for by a better linkage to the practical medical world. Guest lectures by hospital staff are considered not enough to maintain this link. BME is an engineering programme. The engineering aspects of the programmes require attention. BME is a dynamic and interdisciplinary field. Therefore it is important to maintain the right balance among engineering, chemistry, mathematics and biology. Thus, programmes frequently need to review how their requirements match the current state of the field and ensure that they have sufficient and appropriate engineering content. The field of BME is still relatively new around the world, and especially in Europe and the Netherlands. The job market for Master graduates is still developing, and the BME programmes have a responsibility to adjust to this development. The Committee notes that the BME staff continue to focus on the job market and that interesting activities are organized to relate new events to the BME programme. The Committee finds that the programme fulfils the accreditation requirements for a university Bachelor/Master degree course. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F5: Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme • The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orientation, and with


formulated.

The BME Bachelor programme of 180 EC is offered exclusively as a full-time programme. In the first two years, all courses are compulsory. The third year consists predominantly of courses related to the chosen orientation, supplemented with two compulsory courses. The student chooses one out of three orientations (= limited specialization). In the third year only 10 EC are used for compulsory courses for all students. The students have to choose one of three orientations for 30 EC: Molecular, Cellular and Tissue Engineering; Human Function Technology; or Health Care Technology. The orientation year is concluded with an individual Bachelor assignment of 20 EC. In 2004, the two-year Master programme of 120 EC started for the first time. Both years consist of 40 scheduled weeks divided over two semesters of 30 EC each. Courses are offered in Dutch. If desired, the courses are also taught in English. Books and other study material are mostly written in English. A student has to choose a Master track that consists of compulsory courses, external traineeship, elective courses/projects and a graduation project. Some study materials are not intended for engineers, but mainly developed as a general introduction. Therefore, the engineering content in the Bachelor programme is not as strong as it could be. Also, more emphasis could be given to design. An introduction to the field of Biology in BME is being developed. This is highly appreciated by the Committee. The lab content of the courses is adequate, although more practical work could already be started in the Bachelor.


The Bachelor programme covers a wide range of areas in the field of BME. As a consequence, it is not possible for students to study specific subjects in depth. The Bachelor does, however, give a good idea of possible tracks to follow within the BME Master programme. It needs to check and where necessary correct the balance between breadth and depth within the Bachelor programme. The Committee considers it useful to increase the number of medical courses, perhaps as electives. Statistics are an elective in the Master programme. The Committee recommends that statistics should be incorporated into the Bachelor programme as well. There may be a problem with balancing elective and compulsory courses in the Master programme. It is suggested to evaluate and where necessary improve this situation. The professors appear to exert a strong influence on the content of the (individual) programmes of Master students and the Programme Committee less influence in this respect. The Master is organized individually. Students largely choose their own courses (also combinations and order). In the Master study guide, rules are given of how to select elective courses given a chosen track. Courses are chosen with the help of a coordinator. There are only 3 ‘real’ free courses left to choose. Elective courses cannot be seen as mandatory, but some are ‘highly recommended’ and thus cannot qualify as an elective. The actual situation is that students present a proposal, and the Chairperson of the research group makes the choice about which courses students have to take. This is done ideally before starting the Master, but also possible at the beginning. Attention is paid to tissue engineering in the ‘core’ of the Bachelor, but there is no specific course for Bachelor students. Design courses in the Master last a semester and comprise some practical assignments (like designing aids for people who have problems walking). However, it is considered necessary to pay more attention to tissue engineering in the Master programme. The BME staff appears to be aware of this necessity. With regard to tissue engineering, it happens to present a challenge for the staff to balance generality with depth. The background to this discussion is that tissue engineering involves chemistry and also relies heavily on mechanics and cell biology. Such an interdisciplinary area can be quite challenging for students. Students have to go to Amsterdam for anatomy dissection. It is suggested to seek a better solution for students to achieve knowledge in this field e.g. in the recently realized new building. In general, the content and structure are effective in achieving the final qualifications. The field of BME is evolving in UT, as are the courses and programmes. The content of the programmes is good, and it seems the courses are well designed for BME, although some courses in the Bachelor programme could be more challenging. The Committee finds that the relationship between the programme objectives and its curriculum content fulfils the criteria for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory


F6: Coherence of the programme Students follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents.

The Bachelor programme is largely composed of compulsory courses during the first and second year. Specialization starts in the third year to ensure the achievement of an international Master level by those students who take the opportunity to continue their specialization in the BME Master programme. The third year is seen as a ‘pre Master’. Students are already choosing a specific direction for the Master in that phase. Students can, however, switch between a specific BME Bachelor orientation and their BME Master specialization without study delay. Coherence of the study programme must be achieved in the Master course selection. This is the result of the contribution of the graduation professor. The themes and work forms aim to deepen and increase the student's BME expertise in a specific area. Students appear to be self-confident and aware of what they want. The Bachelor and Master together are seen by students more as one degree than as two. Only one of the Bachelor students interviewed considered doing another Master than BME. The Committee finds that the division between Bachelor and Master looks artificial, as in reality it is one programme. The continuity between the BME Bachelor and Master programmes appears to be guaranteed. Coherence of the programmes receives adequate attention in the QA processes. There is a good (clear and complete) vision underlying the structure of the programmes. The Committee concludes that the coherence in the contents of the programme fulfils the criteria for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F7: Study load The programme can be successfully completed within the set time, as certain programme-related factors that may be an impediment to study progress are removed as much as possible.

In 2004, Dutch universities abolished the trimester division in favour of the quarterly division of the academic year. Serious attempts have been made to divide the study load evenly over the total programme. Each year comprises 60 EC divided over four quartiles of 15 EC. A quartile consists of a 10-week period (of which the last two weeks are reserved for exams) and mostly involves three courses of 5 EC each. A semester contains two quartiles, together 30 EC. Some courses last the entire semester. These courses are examined at the end of the quartile or semester, whenever the course ends. Sometimes during the first and third quartiles, courses are examined for diagnostic reasons to provide students with timely feedback. In this way, students are able to re-adjust their way of studying before the final examination. Interviewed Bachelor students estimate their study load to be 40-45, 30, 30, 40 and 25-40 hours, respectively. They find that the study load is quite well distributed over the programme. Contact hours are distributed evenly over the weeks. The study load is usually


spread with the aid of 'Project Education', in which examinations take place at shorter intervals and not only at the end. Interviewed students of the OC estimate the study load per week as 35 and 30-35 hours. Estimates of hours spent per week on the final Bachelor assignment are in general higher. In the Master programme the study load each year equals 60 EC. Most courses comprise 5 EC in study load and one quartile in time. Each quartile typically contains three of these courses, resulting in a uniform study timetable for the students. Enquiries are used to check if this system functions properly for all students. For lecturers, the scheduled study load is the starting point for determining the number of lectures, the amount of course material to be prepared for these lectures, the number of laboratory courses and the amount of time required to prepare for the examination. In a number of courses, assignments are handed out in order to make it possible for students to balance their study load themselves. The Master students that met with the Review Committee estimate their study load as approximately 40 hours a week or somewhere between 30 and 40 hours. The second year of the Master was said to take in general longer due to the thesis and internship. All students interviewed hold down jobs in addition to their studies. Students are stimulated by the University to participate in extracurricular activities which can actually add to the load to complete the degree. The members of the OC stated in the interview that the study load is more balanced ‘these days’ than when the programme was first developed. Many students appear to have difficulties with courses related to mathematics. The goal is to realize a passing rate of 70%, but this hasn’t been achieved yet. The staff is working on improving these teaching methods. For example, for statistics a better working method has already been found, which appears to be less difficult for students to understand, and hence may result in a higher passing rate in the future. The Committee appreciates this improvement and recommends following up its level of success. The Committee has the impression that the workload during the Bachelor is not completely filled, and there is space for an increase in content. It is recommend to fill this space with in-depth studies. The Committee finds that with regard to the Master, the planned study load appears to correspond well to the actual study load and is distributed uniformly over the programme. The Committee finds that the programmes can be completed within the given time because the actual study load is adequate, it is distributed evenly over the programme, and there are no unnecessary obstacles that hinder study. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good


F8: Intake The structure and contents of the programme are in line with the qualifications of the students that embark on the degree course: • Bachelor’s degree at a University (WO): VWO (pre-university education), propaedeutic certificate from a University of

Professional Education (HBO) or similar qualifications, as demonstrated in the admission process. • Master’s degree at a University (WO): bachelor’s degree and possibly selection (on contents of the subject). Clear admission requirements for each group of enrolling students have been defined. Each student is checked for compliance with these requirements. Admission requirements are a high school diploma (VWO-certificate) and preliminary-certificate from a polytechnic (HBO). The Central Student Administration (CSA) allows for new students to start a Bachelor in BME. If a candidate does not meet the VWO or HBO admission requirements, he or she can still be granted admission if they hand in a special entrance examination declaration that shows that the candidates’ knowledge of physics and mathematics is at least comparable to that of the regular VWO-certified candidate from an accepted programme. In 2003, 90 students started on their BME Bachelor. Enrolment numbers went down in the academic year 2004/2005 to 57 and in 2005, 56 students enrolled in the BME Bachelor. In 2006, again a number of between 50 and 60 started the BME Bachelor programme. About 6 to 7 Bachelor students came from higher professional education/polytechnics (HBO). The BME staff finds it necessary to increase the student numbers to 75. There might be some competition with the Bachelor programmes of Technical Medicine and Advanced Technology. Technical Medicine is more clinically oriented than BME (it is not an engineering programme). The Committee hopes that the reaction to the decrease in student numbers will not negatively affect the quality. Intake procedures cannot be influenced much, but the area from which students come could be enlarged, especially Germany. One German student has started the Bachelor programme so far. The staff realizes that the programme could be interesting for German students. The Bachelor programme, however, is taught in Dutch, and the intention is to continue doing so. German students from the border area are thought to be able to understand Dutch after following a few short courses. The university organizes Dutch languages summer courses for potential German. Some German students already learned Dutch at their Gymnasium. The BME Bachelor programme is still rather new and does not appear to be well known among potential students. It is considered the right time to put more effort into PR, as the programme is ‘ready’. Admission requirements for the Master have been formulated for each group of enrolling students. In view of the initial phase of the BME Master, these are still experimental rules that will be adjusted if they turn out to be insufficient in practice. BME Bachelor graduates of UT and TU/e as well as graduates with the specialization BME from the Life Sciences Bachelor programme of RUG will be admitted without restriction. An admission committee will decide on behalf of the Board of Examiners about the admission of all other students (non-regular students). Members of the admission committee are: the Director of BME educational programmes, the study advisor and a member of the Board of Examiners of BME who is an expert in the field of study of the candidate. Master students come mainly from the Bachelor programme at UT. One enrolled student graduated in a different Bachelor than BME, and had to take half a year of extra courses to fill


in the gap. These courses were selected in agreement with the responsible professor of the graduation research group. As they do not need to finish their Bachelor before registering for and starting the Master programme, the number of enrolled students in the Master is not entirely clear. Students can start on Master courses before their Bachelor projects are finished. They are allowed to start with Master courses when they have finished the Bachelor assignment and have a maximum of 2-3 courses open. The results of the Master courses will only be validated when the Bachelor is finished. Officially, the Examination Committee has to give approval. The Master will be taught in English from 2007 as the university aims to attract a wide range of foreign students. The campus of UT is considered to be in a good position to attract many foreign students, especially from Germany. Efforts will have to be made to actually attract foreign students. The Committee concludes that the requirements for entry and the checks on meeting these requirements are carried out well. Students with an average VWO grade of 6 or lower face serious problems, but a significant proportion of the students with average VWO grades of 6.5 are successful. The current level of mathematics in high school graduates appears to be decreasing. The staff is dealing with this situation by taking more time at the beginning of the Bachelor for lecturing on fundamental mathematical concepts while maintaining a focus on the use of this knowledge in BME applications. The UT offers additional mathematic courses in the first year. Students usually have various backgrounds when they come from high school. Both students with and without finishing exams in biology are allowed entrance to the BME Bachelor. This can endanger their success in BME at UT. The Committee suggests checking whether biology should be included in the examination of high school students applying for entrance. A flexible transition is created from the BME Bachelor programme into the Master. It remains to be seen whether the level of students entering the Master who have not finished the Bachelor yet is adequate. The Committee concludes that students receive an adequate and realistic picture of the BME programmes and career perspectives. Attention should, however, be paid to the necessity of possessing specific knowledge like mathematics and biology and the level of this knowledge. The Committee finds that the relationship between the entrance requirements and the structure and contents of the programme fulfils the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory


F9: Duration The degree course complies with formal requirements regarding the size of the curriculum: • Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule. • Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.

The BME Bachelor degree programme is offered as a full-time programme and consists of a total of 180 EC, evenly distributed over three years. The degree programme is concluded with an individual Bachelor assignment (20 EC). The first study year is the propaedeutic year (60 EC) which is concluded by an examination. The BME Master programme is offered as a full-time programme of 120 EC, evenly distributed over two years. As stated before (in Facet 7), it is recommended to fill in the available space in the first two years of the Bachelor. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F10: Coordination of structure and contents of the degree course The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives. The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept.

The main purpose of BME education is the academic, professional and social development of the student. Development is regarded as the increase of knowledge, understanding, skills and attitude. The education stimulates, promotes, facilitates and supervises this development. The focus is on solving problems in the field of BME. The choice of didactical methods appears in general to be up to the teachers. Teachers interviewed during the site visit mentioned that they largely decide themselves which didactical approach to use in their courses. It seems that an interesting variety of different approaches is employed. In working groups different forms are used that invite students to be quite active. Self-study in the first year of the Bachelor programme is estimated by the University as half of the 1680 hours, in the second year self-study increases to 975 hours, and in the third year the number decreases to 630. In the first year of the Master, 724 hours are planned for self-study and in the second year 618 of 1680. Some more practical courses are considered to be desirable though the Committee recognizes that their organization can be difficult with regard to facilities as this could be at the expense of theoretical courses. The fist year consists mainly of lectures, projects and laboratory practicals, but there is a group project with a timespan of half a year as well. A committee consisting of the professor, another member of the research group (e.g. supervisor) and preferably someone from another group assesses the Master thesis. The Bachelor theses are assessed in much the same way.


Evaluation results of the Master internships are given by the members of the research group and by the ‘daily’ supervisors within the company or hospital and university. Some committees appear to consist of as many as 5 people. The evaluation includes a presentation in front of a full audience. The internship usually starts at the end of the first year of the Master or at the beginning of the second year. The internship was originally planned at the beginning of the first year, but this was changed due to practical problems with the faculties and students. Students are not allowed to do their internship after the thesis, yet sometimes students are advised to do it at the end of the Master programme. This seems to be a difficult situation that needs to be worked out further. There are no complaints from companies or hospitals on the planning of internship within the Master. About 60% of students do their internship abroad. The internship is considered by the students interviewed during the site visit as ‘a bit short’ (only 10 weeks). But in general they find them satisfactory. It sometimes appears to be difficult to accommodate an internship of 10 weeks. Companies generally prefer students to stay longer (e.g. half a year). The presence of an Internship Coordinator is perceived as positive. PhD students are only involved as assistants in courses, not as ‘real’ lecturers, nor are they considered responsible for grading. They are also involved in the daily supervision of theses, but never as responsible supervisors. PhD students supervise Master students, but professors have the final say.

The language of the teaching materials is to a certain extent still mainly in Dutch, but more and more English material is replacing them. These seem to be ‘growing pains’. It is not always clear what the purpose, structure and level of a Bachelor thesis should be. But it seems there are quite high expectations of these theses within the programme, coming from both staff and students, apparently much higher than the domain-specific reference document envisages. The Committee concludes that the teaching methods and the didactic concept correspond adequately with the aims and objectives of the programme. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F11: Assessment and examinations The system of assessments and examinations provides an effective indication whether the students have reached the learning targets of the course programme or its components.

The field of assessments and examinations is under development. In 2005 the Educational Service Department of UT (ITBE) conducted an investigation into the assessment practices and desired improvements thereof for the BME Bachelor and Master programmes.

The assessments primarily focus on the educational goals of programme parts and therefore mostly aim indirectly at the final programme qualifications. BME uses a variety of assessment forms (oral and written examinations, individual papers, group assignments and reports; multiple choice assessments happen not to be used often). The assessments match the


different types of educational goals, i.e. most importantly knowledge, attitude, insight and skills. Often grading is left to the expertise of individual teachers; use is made of ‘experience that teachers have in other educational courses’. Courses are often team taught by two teachers at same time and then grades are discussed. Recently, rules have been established for regular courses. The Committee approves of the steps taken to realize these aspects and recommends checking to see whether these aspects have resulted in the desired outcomes. For the grading of the thesis, a member of another research group is always involved. The consistency of assessment is examined in a number of different ways: • Newly appointed lecturers enrol in the lecturer training programme of UT in which

assessment is one of the programme components; • Lecturers frequently use peer contacts to discuss and assure the quality of assessments of

parts of the programme; • Oral examinations are frequently carried out jointly by two lecturers; • Assessors frequently use explicit lists of criteria or assessment regulations for the

assessment of (interim) examinations, projects and assignments; • Projects are regularly assessed by two tutors, and the composition of these couples of

tutor-assessors is being varied to improve the quality of assessments; • Occasionally, students take part in the assessment of projects. In those cases, criteria lists

are used, and the staff oversees the consistency of assessment; • Final project assignments are assessed by examination committees consisting of three

persons: the coach of the final project, the assignment supervisor (who is the final project lecturer, most often a full professor) and a third member from a different department or faculty than where the work was carried out. An external project client can be the fourth member of the committee but only in an advisory capacity.

The Committee judges the matter of consistency in assessing as positive. Assessment is organized with the aid of the Educational and Examination Regulations (OER). For example, the rules specify that students can minimally take two exams a year for each course. In some cases, exams can be taken 3 times a year. The publication and registration and exemptions of results is specified by the OER. Regulations for compensations and the appointment of examiners are not yet fully included in the OER, but this is under development. The Committee concludes that appropriate attention needs to be paid to this aspect. The Bachelor and Master programmes are each overseen by a Board of Examiners (BoE). The BoE consists of the Programme Director (Chairperson), the Bachelor Programme Coordinator and the lecturer members of the Bachelor and Master Coordination Committees, respectively. Since the Programme Director also acts as a lecturer within BME, the BoEs comply with legal requirements. Nevertheless, a different organization will have to be established to eliminate the potential conflict of interest between the functions of the Programme Director and the BoE Chairperson if one and the same person fills both of them. Since the summer 2006 this situation has changed.


The BoE has functioned since September 2006 and decides if candidates fulfil the requirements for graduation. They also judge requests from students to do courses outside the programme. The Board officially approves every programme, but if a student stays within the ‘format’, approval is given automatically despite the amount of free choice. It further approves exemptions and handles student complaints. The Committee finds that the BoE is functioning relatively well, but needs to further improve defining and playing its role. The Committee finds that the system of assessments and examinations fulfils the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Programme’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Programme’ is Satisfactory 2.2.3. Deployment of staff F12: Requirements for University The degree course meets the following criteria for the deployment of staff for a degree course at a University (WO): Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.

Approximately 5 full professors are involved in the Bachelor programme. About 20 to 25 professors take part in academic research, and about 15 research groups are involved with Master theses. A number of part-time professors come from clinical areas. They are mainly doing research and some teaching. Most teachers conduct research, and some also supervise PhDs. Supervising Master students is seen both as teaching (also in the lab) and as research supervision. From the start of the programme, courses are provided by researchers participating in officially recognized research programmes. These researchers contribute to the development of the field of BME. Scientists vital to the image of the field participate in the first two years of the Bachelor programme. Unfortunately, there are not as many female staff members compared to the proportion of female students. The Committee recommends undertaking action to increase the number of female staff. The committee considers the scientific and educational quality of Master staff as high. The Committee finds that the teaching is provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area and fulfils the requirements for accreditation for the Bachelor programme and exceeds the requirements for accreditation for the Master programme. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good


F13: Quantity of staff The staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards.

More than 100 people are involved in the BME programme. The employees work mostly at UT, in various faculties. The amount of time each of these staff members devotes to BME cannot be determined exactly. The exact number of student assistants is unknown as many courses in the Master programme are not given within the BME Department itself. Though many staff members involved in the programme come from different backgrounds, during the site visit the Committee experienced a shared vision on the programmes among the staff members. Based on the site visit and the evaluation results, the availability of staff members proves to be sufficient for the execution of their tasks. Also, the staf-to-student ratios as indicated in the self evaluation report are adequate. The Committee finds that the number of staff fulfils the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F14: Quality of staff The staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regards contents, didactics and organization of the course programme are achieved.

The Dean announced during the site visit that 3 new chairs will be added to the current staff who will participate in the BME Master. This will substantially increase the range of specialties and strength of the programme. They have a strong BME profile like Tissue Regeneration and Stem Cell Biology. Some part-time teachers come from hospitals. There are facilities in place to enhance the teachers' didactic skills, and these are actually being used by staff members. Didactic courses are mandatory for new teachers (throughout UT). ‘Older’ teaching staff can take these courses voluntarily. Most teachers have followed didactic courses and consider them useful. Courses for English fluency are available. As courses will be given in English increasingly often, it is recommended to pay appropriate attention to this aspect. PhD students are not involved in didactic training. Involving them to a limited extent could be good for them. It will give them experience in teaching and also further their understanding of the subject material. The Committee notes that the staff is very cooperative and easily accessible for students. With regard to the recruitment of personnel, the fact that BME is part of a large faculty can be problematic. The Programme Director participates in the selection committees of


professors and associate professors. The Programme Director stated during the site visit that ‘informal influence is adequate’. By doing so, potential problems are minimalized, yet the Committee suggests staying alert with regard to this aspect. The Committee concludes that the quality of staff exceeds the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Good Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good Assessment of Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ is Satisfactory for the Bachelor and the Master programme 2.2.4. Facilities and provisions F15: Material facilities The accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme.

BME has sufficient and adequate teaching accommodation for its student population. Lectures and tutorials are given in appropriately equipped rooms. Specially equipped laboratories of the Faculty of Science and Technology are used for laboratory courses; these rooms are shared with other educational programmes. Laboratory work is part of the Structure and Function of Cells and DNA Technology courses, and this is done at the laboratories of the Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences. The Anatomy and Physiology of Movements course is partly given in the dissecting room of the VU University in Amsterdam. Every year during the Biomedical Designing course, the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf is visited. A new faculty laboratory has been built recently. This laboratory will also be used by BME for various courses including cell biology. In the Master programme, laboratory work is done in the dedicated laboratories of the various research groups associated with the BMTI. From the summer of 2006, all BME research groups will be housed in one building. Students still have to travel to Amsterdam and Enschede in the first year as UT may not have any instructors for the anatomy courses. The facilities are considered by the Committee as good. Some of the old labs look a bit elementary, but are being modernised. The Virtual Learning Environment (Teletop) appears to be well used and functioning well. The Committee finds that the material facilities exceed the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Good Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good


F16: Student support and guidance The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students are adequate for the purpose of students’ progress. The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students meet the requirements of the students.

During the ten days preceding the start of the first academic year, new students are introduced to the University and to the BME programme. At the start of the Bachelor programme, every freshman is assigned a tutor who is a member of the BME scientific staff (mainly teachers). During the first year, this tutor monitors the student's progress and offers advice, possibly unsolicited. Every tutor has around 7-8 students. In subsequent years, this role is taken over by the BME Study Advisor who monitors students less intensively. After the first year, all students receive a non-binding study recommendation about continuing their study. This recommendation is preceded halfway through the first year by a preliminary recommendation. Tutoring is done by both teachers and students. Second-year Bachelor students are involved in tutoring. They receive training from the central level in UT. The Student Advisor has access to exam results as well. It is possible for the Student Advisor to follow the progress of students and to ask for their feedback when something seems to be not going as planned. The aim of tutoring is to reduce the dropout rate. Tutoring is focused on solving problems related to the study or otherwise. Tutors are there to assist in making the right choices, also when it means transferring to another programme or institute. During the interview the first-year students appeared to be satisfied with the tutoring system. They are positive about having a student tutor as well, as he or she may know some things that the teachers do not. A second-year student reported that he had had a teacher appointed to him as a tutor in the first year, but had only ever had 1 e-mail from him. A first-year student reported during the interview not to have heard from his teacher-tutor yet. Students appear only to be approached by their tutor if things are not going as planned. Furthermore, different tutor groups appear to have different approaches, and some are more active than others. A full-time Student Advisor has been appointed for all Bachelor and Master students. A special Traineeship Coordinator is responsible for keeping contact and advising students about traineeships/internships. Students with serious problems are usually asked to visit the Central Counsellors Office. For more general problems, there is a Student Counsellor available on the central level of UT as well. This Student Counsellor can be consulted on e.g. illnesses, group trainings (self-management, therapy groups, etc.), financial compensation, and various regulations (as for dyslectic students). Students generally seek the information they need themselves and appear to be well informed, especially with the aid of the study guide. Both the Bachelor and Master programmes have a study guide which provides students with the necessary information about the programme. In second and third years of the Bachelor programme, a tour of the various research groups is organized for students to get into contact with professors and researchers, in order to help them choose a specialization.


Some information material on tutoring has recently been updated and made available in English. Tutorship is generally perceived as good, but the tutors are recommended to become more proactive. The Committee finds that the student support and guidance fulfils the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ is Satisfactory for the Bachelor and the Master programme 2.2.5. Internal quality assurance F17: Evaluation of results The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.

The Quality Committee is established by the BME Programme Director. The Committee reports on all courses of a quartile (Bachelor, but recently also Master). Its main task is reporting; it has no power to make changes. Every quarter a meeting is organized with Bachelor students to evaluate the courses taken. The Committee also uses the course evaluations to write their report and produce items of attention for teachers. Teachers are asked to respond to the course questionnaires and to the outcomes of the panel talks. The Programme Director has the final say on improvements. The Quality Committee has taken over the evaluation work from the OC. This has been a recent development. There are 3 student members on the OC and 3 on the Educational Quality Committee. The Quality Committee consists of 7 members. Most of the interviews used for evaluation are done with students only. Occasionally, there are staff members present during interviews. Students on the Quality Committee function as student assistants and are supervised by staff members. The Quality Committee members estimate that the work takes a lot of time, but they feel that it has proved its worth. The Committee considers the evaluation methods used as satisfactory and the Quality Committee as fulfilling its tasks well. However, the Committee finds that the responsibility for quality assessment should largely be carried by the BME Programme Office. This is considered to be the appropriate place for this task.


The Committee finds that the evaluation of results fulfils the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F18: Measures to effect improvement The results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and that will contribute to reaching the targets.

In the quality manual the procedures describe who is responsible for doing an evaluation, who is responsible for drafting an evaluation report, which courses have to be discussed in the report, which committees have to discuss a report, and who has to take action. Core contents in evaluation reports are: • measuring data; • comparison with data from previous years; • relations between the data and the targets; • effects of previous measures; • problem analysis when the targets are not achieved; and • proposals for actions to meet the targets. Courses are said to be modified every year, based on feedback from students and from teachers. Changes are mainly made on the basis of student evaluations. The teachers' work is evaluated as well, and actions for improvement are undertaken when necessary. Improvements to be made in courses are communicated with the Programme Director, the research groups and the teachers.

The quality assurance system detects shortcomings in the educational programme on the course to curriculum level. It carries out tasks such as analyzing problems, reporting and proposing actions for improvement. The system is also responsible for checking the effect of measures previously taken.

Student complaints are taken very seriously, and proposed changes are made public . It was said during the site visit that after the OC advised on changes in structuring of the curricula, the schedule was improved. When new Master students appeared to have problems with the practical activities in the Master programme (Tissue Engineering track), this was improved in the Bachelor programme. The Committee notes that teachers are motivated and willing to make improvements in existing courses and to develop new courses. Several examples of improvements made were discussed in the self evaluation report. The Committee finds that the link between evaluations and implemented improvements exceeds the requirements for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Good Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good


F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Staff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are actively involved in the internal quality assurance.

The former Bachelor Committee and the Master Committee that developed the Bachelor and Master programmes focussed on the organization of feedback to staff groups when the programmes started up. This resulted in many discussions and a situation of continuous improvement of the BME programmes. Teachers were asked about their views during monthly meetings of all teachers. The Bachelor Committee and the Master Committee appear to have had heavy tasks in the beginning. The Steering Committee is a platform of professors and has an advisory function towards the Dean regarding the BME programme. This was an informal situation in the past, but has recently been formalised. An advisory group consisting of specialists from industry, hospitals, and other universities has a structural influence on the curriculum as well. The link with hospitals is different per specialization. The alumni prove to be a good source of contact with the professional field. They help out and give information with regard to expectations in the professional field. Interaction of the professional fields with the department tends to be informal and mainly connected to individual researchers. Apparently, there is no real involvement with education. There is no structured advisory board yet with people from the professional field. It is recommended by the Committee to discuss the curricula in a more structurally way with employees of companies and hospitals. The Programme Committee consists of 4 staff members and 4 students. The Chairperson is a member of staff. Students feel well represented by her. The Committee works on improvements of the courses and of programmes, and OER. Evaluations are used as a basis. Ideas in general come from the Board. The OC is asked for advice, but the OC sometimes takes initiatives as well. The Programme Director is usually present in meetings of the OC. It is noted that the staff and students have the best interests of the course in mind. They are strongly involved. Students feel they are being listened to. Alumni could be included in advising on the curriculum. All stakeholders appear to be actively involved in improving the programmes but in different ways. However, the monitoring of the programme seems to be done by too many committees, and their role is not always clear. It is recommended to let quality prevail over bureaucracy by simplifying tasks and responsibilities. The Committee finds that staff, alumni and the professional field are sufficiently involved in the internal quality assurance. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Good


Assessment of Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ is Satisfactory for the Bachelor and the Master programme 2.2.6. Results F20: Level that has been achieved The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements.

According to the professional field, most engineers lack a specific scope on BME; communication and project managing skills are in general lacking, too. These qualities are necessary as engineers have to interact with people with different expertise. In general, there is a need for engineers with the BME core competencies, and more well-rounded people. According to the teachers of Master students, the necessary laboratory skills and factual knowledge are less evident among the BME Bachelor graduates than e.g. among Applied Physics Bachelors. Yet the BME Bachelors are comparatively more practical and project oriented. Students are considered to demonstrate very good learning ability, adapting and finding their way in new complex problems while integrating and using their newly acquired knowledge.

The grades obtained by the Bachelor students for their graduation project generally range from 7 to 9. There is no overall view of the grading of BME Masters as not many have graduated yet. Bachelor students are usually advised periodically on their theses before finalizing them and are therefore able to implement the necessary improvements in their work. Students can usually take their time for improvements, since they are allowed to start a Master before graduating as a Bachelor. The Committee studied a total of 11 theses of both Bachelors and Masters, each member examining two or three individual theses. The Committee observed that the reports were all acceptable and well structured, though not all of them appeared to be of high quality. The Committee members would have given some of the theses a higher grade and one of them a lower grade. They considered all of them worth 7, 8 or 9 (not 6). The differences between grading results by BME and grading results by the Committee were deemed acceptable by the Committee. There appears to be a need for stricter evaluation of the topics of thesis projects. The Committee recommends that the topics to be strictly related to BME. Master projects are embedded in larger research programmes, resulting in a variety of different topics of a different nature. The quality of the assignments appeared to vary. Teachers stated that Master theses should be publishable. They motivate students to increase the quality of their work to this end. This is highly appreciated by the Committee.


Only a small number of Bachelor graduates (about 5) continued studying in another Master than BME. Regarding the employability of Bachelor students, it was said during the site visit that ‘they should not enter the job market yet. This is not habitual in the Netherlands, but they are given the opportunity.’ The possibility exists and if students want to, they can focus on this in their Bachelor thesis. However, students are strongly encouraged to do a Master, better another programme than BME than none at all. It is feared that they will be seen as a half-academic with ‘only’ a BSc. The issue is whether the BSc will provide sufficient depth for employment. Clearly, there is little experience with the BSc, so students need to consider the advantages and pitfalls of not obtaining a MSc degree. All graduates have moved to the Master programme and appear to have no problems with that. The Committee advises not focussing too much on the job market for Bachelor graduates for this reason. It seems that the actual market is somewhat different from the one for which the programme was designed. Students are prepared for functioning in companies as well, but the students seem to be especially interested in academic hospitals. There are, however, good prospects with regard to jobs in industry as well. The alumni interviewed found the Master programme well suited to providing a good basis and a good preparation for PhDs and jobs. The Bachelor was considered by the alumni as broad and general. Alumni have found employment within a hospital environment (5) rather than in the BME industry. It is expected that the majority of graduates will find employment in industry in the future. Most alumni found a job very quickly after or even before graduating. Many of the interviewed students would like to receive more training in medical physics. They need to be informed about the available career options and should be willing to consider PhD study at other universities since it appears that there are not many PhD positions available in Twente. The relationship between the targets of the course and the final qualifications of the graduates fulfils the criteria for accreditation. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F21: Success rates To measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses. The success rates meet these targets.

It has been reported that after one year 35% of the students have an average study delay of 4 months, after three years 50% has an average study delay of 8 months. Students reported largely private reasons for their study delay (for instance jobs, private circumstances, active in campus societies, organizing or participating in the BME foreign study tour). “Traditionally many Dutch students have jobs and grants that don’t give them the need to progress very quickly.” The study progress in the second and third year is above the target values, however,


and students tend to catch up. No statistics were available at the time of the site visit about the progress of Master students. It was, however, demonstrated to the Committee that study progress in the Master programme will most likely be satisfactory. Some students finish in 5 years, but most take 6 years and some, 7. Students graduate within the targets set by the University. The Committee concludes that the results are in line with the targets figures that are common in Dutch universities. Bachelor programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Master programme: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Results’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Results’ is Satisfactory for the Bachelor and the Master programme


Overview of the assessment by the committee Bachelor’s degree course Biomedical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment

F1 Domain-specific requirements Good F2 Level Satisfactory


+

F3 Orientation Satisfactory F4 Requirements for university degree courses Satisfactory F5 Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme Satisfactory F6 Coherence of the programme Satisfactory F7 Study load Satisfactory F8 Intake Satisfactory F9 Duration Satisfactory F10 Co-ordination of structure and contents of the degree course Satisfactory

2. Programme +

F11 Assessment and examinations Satisfactory F12 Requirements for university degree courses Satisfactory F13 Quantity of staff Satisfactory


+

F14 Quality of staff Good F15 Material facilities Good 4. Facilities and

provisions +

F16 Student support and guidance Satisfactory F17 Evaluation of results Satisfactory F18 Measures to effect improvement Good


+

F19 Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Satisfactory F20 Level that has been achieved Satisfactory 6. Results + F21 Results of teaching Satisfactory


Master’s degree course Biomedical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment



Satisfactory

F3 Orientation Satisfactory F4 Requirements for university degree courses Satisfactory F5 Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme Satisfactory F6 Coherence of the programme Satisfactory F7 Study load Good F8 Intake Satisfactory F9 Duration Satisfactory F10 Co-ordination of structure and contents of the degree course Satisfactory

2. Programme Satisfactory

F11 Assessment and examinations Satisfactory F12 Requirements for university degree courses Good F13 Quantity of staff Satisfactory


Satisfactory


provisions Satisfactory

F16 Student support and guidance Satisfactory F17 Evaluation of results Satisfactory F18 Measures to effect improvement Good


Satisfactory

F19 Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Good F20 Level that has been achieved Satisfactory 6. Results Satisfactory F21 Results of teaching Satisfactory


Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations BBT Faculty of Business, Public Administration and Technology BME Biomedical Engineering BMTI Biomedical Technological Institute of the University of Twente BoE Board of Examiners CT Chemical Engineering CTW Faculty of Engineering Technology ECTS European Credit Transfer System EL Electrical Engineering EWI Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science GW Faculty of Behavioral Sciences HBO Higher Professional Education/polytechnics IBME Institute for Biomedical Engineering (cooperation between Universities of

Twente, Nijmegen, Delft and Leiden) OC Educational Committee OER Educational and Examination Regulations QA Quality assurance RUG University of Groningen TN Applied Physics TNW Faculty of Science and Technology TU/e Eindhoven University of Technology UT University of Twente VWO pre-university education/high school WB Mechanical Engineering WO Research-oriented (university) education


Appendix 2. Programme for site visit

Preliminary Programme, Review Committee BME, University of Twente 6-7 November 2006

Location: Zuidhorst 5 November 19:00

Dinner for Review Committee and delegation from the TU Prof. W.H.M. Zijm, Prof. A. Bliek, Dr. J.A. van Alsté, Prof. J. Feijen, Dr. H.F.J.M. Koopman, Prof. P.H. Veltink, Prof. V.Subramaniam, Prof. C.A. van Blitterswijk

6 November

09:00-11:30 Preparatory meeting of the committee Discussion of the self-evaluation report, reviewing theses, reviewing other materials

11.30-12.30 Deans of Faculty, Programme Director, Self-Evaluation Report Committee Prof. A. Bliek, Dr. J.A. van Alsté, Prof. J.Feijen, Dr. B.H.L. Betlem

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.00 Students, Programme Committee (OC) S.T. Boerema, M.J. van Gendt, B. Koopman W.H.C. Spoorendonk, G. van de Wetering

14.00-14.30 Teachers, Programme Committee Dr. T.Heida, Prof. J.Feijen, Dr. D. van de Belt, Dr. C. Otto

14.30-15.00 Examination Committee + Educational Quality Committee Prof. J.F.J. Engbersen, Dr. J.S. Kanger, Dr. H.F.J.M. Koopman, Prof. W.L.C. Rutten, Dr. R.P.H. Kooyman, H.J. van den Hengel

15.00-15.15 Break

15.15-16.00 Study/student guidance T. van Dam, A. Folkers, C. Brinkers-van Dijken, Dr. G.M.J. Segers-Nolten, Dr. J.R .Buitenweg, E.E.G. Hekman, Rob Schoot Uiterkamp, Harmen Nauta, Monique Slijp, Marleen Ruiter

16.00-16.30 Alumni P. Kamp, S.E.Vaartjes, M.J. Mulder, C.L. Brouwer, J.W.A. Gutteling, Dr. E.E. Kunst, Jacqueline de Groot (ut alumnus ORTER)

16.30-17.45 Tour of the building BMTI & HORST

Parallel Open podium (on request)


19.00 Dinner for Review Committee

7 November

09:15–10:00 Bachelor students Jetty van Ginkel, Wieke van Vuuren, Marco Timmer, Tim Schwarte, L.T.G. de Leeuw, Dieuwke Loenen, Irene Arkesteijn, K.Schadenberg

10.00-10.45 Master students Sebastiaan van Rijn, Remco Benthem de Grave, Liesbeth Hartsuiker, J. van Schoonhoven, S.Sharif, C.Panneman, Laurens Bervoets, Joyce Doorn, Femke van den Hoek, Janine Jansen, Cathelijn Smulders

10.45-11.00 Break

11.00-11.45 Teachers, Bachelor A.W.J. van der Meer, Dr. P.K. Mandal, K.Gerrits, E.E.G. Hekman, Dr. F.H.C. de Jongh, Prof. W. Kruijer, Dr. J.R. Buitenweg, Dr. D.Van de Belt, Prof. C.H. Slump

11.45-12.30 Teachers, Master Prof. C.A. van Blitterswijk, Dr. P.J. Dijkstra, Dr. D. Stamatialis, Dr. W. Steenbergen, Dr. R.F.M. Kleissen, Prof. V.Subramaniam

12.30-13.30 Final meeting of Dean, Programme Director, Study Coordinator Prof. A. Bliek, Dr. J.A.van Alsté, Dr. B.H.L. Betlem

13.00-14.30 Lunch

14.30-16.00 Committee preparation of interim report

16.00-16.30 Oral report by the Chair of the committee – C101

16.30-17.00 Closing and reception


Appendix 3. Dublin descriptors Bachelor The Bachelor graduate is expected to: Dublin descriptor 1 - Knowledge and understanding • understand the fundamental knowledge of physics, mathematics technology, biology,

physiology and medicine (theories, methods, techniques) • understand the structure of engineering and life sciences, and the connections between

sub-fields • have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which truth-finding and the development

of theories and models take place in BME • have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which interpretations (texts, data,

problems, results) take place in BME • have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which experiments, gathering of data and

simulations take place in BME and its supporting disciplines • have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which decision-making takes place in

BME • be aware of both the presuppositions of the standard methods and their importance • be able (with supervision) to spot gaps in his/her own knowledge, and to revise and

extend knowledge through study • be inquisitive and have an attitude of lifelong learning • have a systematic approach characterized by the development and use of theories, models

and interpretations • have the knowledge and the skill to use models for research and design and assess their

value (‘model’ is understood broadly: from mathematical model to scale model) • be able to adapt models for his/her own use • have insight into the nature of life sciences and technology (purpose, methods,

differences and similarities between scientific fields, nature of laws, theories, explanations, role of the experiment, objectivity, etc.)

• have some insight into scientific practice (research system, relation with patients and other clients, publication system, importance of integrity, etc.)

• be able to document properly the results of research and design

Dublin descriptor 2 - Applying knowledge and understanding • be able to reformulate ill-structured biomedical research problems under supervision • be able to defend the new interpretation to involved parties • be observant, and have the creativity and the capacity to discover certain connections and

new viewpoints • be able to produce and execute a research plan (under supervision) • be able to work at different levels of abstraction • understand the importance of other disciplines (interdisciplinarity), especially those of the

basic engineering discipline and the life sciences • be aware of the changeability of the research process through external circumstances or

advancing insight • be able to assess research within BME on its usefulness


• be able (with supervision) to contribute to the development of scientific knowledge in one or more areas of the disciplines involved in BME

• be able to reformulate simple ill-structured design problems, to take account of the system boundaries and to be able to defend this new interpretation to the parties involved

• show some creativity and skill in synthesis with respect to design problems • be able (with supervision) to produce and execute a design plan • be able to work at different levels of abstraction including the system level • understand the importance of other disciplines (interdisciplinarity) and their contribution

to the design process • be aware of the changeability of the design process through external circumstances or

advancing insight • be able to integrate existing knowledge in a design • have the skill to evaluate design decisions in a systematic manner

Dublin descriptor 3 - Making judgements • be able to analyze and to discuss the social consequences (economical, social, cultural) of

new developments in relevant fields with colleagues and non-colleagues • be able to analyze and to discuss the ethical and the normative aspects of the

consequences and assumptions of scientific thinking and acting with colleagues and non-colleagues (in research, design and applications)

• have an eye for the different roles of BME professionals in society

Dublin descriptor 4 – Communication • be able to communicate in writing in Dutch about the results of learning, thinking and

decision-making with colleagues and non-colleagues including health care providers and patients

• be able to communicate verbally in Dutch about the results of learning, thinking and decision-making with colleagues and non-colleagues including health care providers and patients

• be able to follow debates about BME and the place of BME in society • be familiar with professional behaviour. This includes: drive, reliability, commitment,

accuracy, perseverance and independence • be able to perform project-based work: is pragmatic and has a sense of responsibility; is

able to deal with limited sources • be able to work within an interdisciplinary team of medical and engineering people • have insight into, and is able to deal with, team roles and social dynamics

Dublin descriptor 5 - Learning skills • be able (with supervision) to reflect critically on his or her own thinking, decision-making

and actions, and adjust them on the basis of this reflection • be able to reason logically within BME and beyond: both ‘why’ and ‘what if’ reasoning • be able to recognize modes of reasoning (induction, deduction, analogy, etc.) within BME • be able to ask probing questions, and have a critical yet constructive attitude towards

analyzing and solving simple problems in BME • be able to form a well-reasoned opinion in the case of incomplete or irrelevant data • be able to take a standpoint with regard to a scientific argument in BME


• possess basic numerical skills, and have an understanding of orders of magnitude Master The Master graduate is expected to: Dublin descriptor 1 - Knowledge and understanding • have a thorough mastery of a specific field of BME extending to the forefront of

knowledge (latest theories, methods, techniques and topical questions) • look actively for structure and connections with BME in the relevant fields of physics,

mathematics technology, biology, physiology and medicine • have knowledge of and skill in the way in which truth-finding and the development of

theories and models take place in a specific field of BME and to have the skill and the attitude to apply these methods independently in the context of more advanced ideas or applications

• have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which interpretations (texts, data, problems, results) take place in BME and to have the skill and the attitude to apply these methods independently in the context of more advanced ideas or applications

• have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which experiments, gathering of data and simulations take place in BME and its supporting disciplines and to have the skill and the attitude to apply these methods independently in the context of more advanced ideas or applications

• have knowledge of and some skill in the way in which decision-making takes place in BME and to have the skill and the attitude to apply these methods independently in the context of more advanced ideas or applications

• be able to reflect on standard methods and their presuppositions and to be able to question them; able to propose adjustments, and estimate their implications

• be able to spot gaps in his/her own knowledge independently, and to revise and extend knowledge through study

• be able to identify and take in relevant developments • be able to critically examine existing theories, models or interpretations in the area of his

or her BME Master track • be skilled in, and have affinity with, the use, development and validation of models and

be able to choose consciously between modeling techniques • have insight into the nature of life sciences and technology (purpose, methods,

differences and similarities between scientific fields, nature of laws, theories, explanations, role of the experiment, objectivity, etc.) and to have some knowledge of current debates about this

• have insight into scientific practice (research system, relation with clients, publication system, importance of integrity, etc. and knowledge of current debates about this

• be able to document and publish properly the results of research and design with a view to contributing to the development of knowledge in his or her field of BME and beyond it

Dublin descriptor 2 - Applying knowledge and understanding • be able to reformulate ill-structured biomedical research problems of a complex nature -

thereby also taking account of the system boundaries - and to be able to defend the new interpretation to involved parties


• be observant, and have the creativity and the capacity to discover certain connections and new viewpoints in apparently trivial matters and be able to put these viewpoints into practice for new applications

• be able to produce and execute a research plan independently • given the process stage of the research problem, choose the appropriate level of

abstraction • be able and have the attitude to draw upon other disciplines, where necessary, in his/her

own research • be able to deal with the changeability of the research process through external

circumstances or advancing insight and be able to control the process on the basis of this • be able to assess research within BME on its scientific value • be able to independently contribute to the development of scientific knowledge in one or

more areas of BME • be able to reformulate ill-structured biomedical design problems of a complex nature,

taking account of the system boundaries, and to be able to defend this new interpretation to the parties involved

• show creativity and skills in synthesis with respect to biomedical design problems • be able to produce and execute a design plan independently • given the process stage of the design problem, choose the appropriate level of abstraction • be able, and have the attitude to draw upon other disciplines, where necessary, in his/her

own design • be able to deal with the changeability of the design process through external

circumstances or advancing insight and steer the process on the basis of this • be able to formulate new research questions on the basis of a biomedical design problem • have the skill to take design decisions, and to justify and evaluate these in a systematic

manner Dublin descriptor 3 - Making judgements • understand relevant developments (internal and external) in the history of BME. This

includes the interaction between the internal developments (of ideas) and the external (social) developments. Can integrate aspects of this in scientific work

• be able to analyze and to discuss the social consequences (economical, social, cultural) of new developments in relevant fields with colleagues and non-colleagues. Can integrate aspects of this in scientific work

• be able to analyze the consequences of scientific thinking and acting on the environment and sustainable development. Can integrate aspects of this in scientific work

• be able to analyze and to discuss the ethical and the normative aspects of the consequences and assumptions of scientific thinking and acting with colleagues and non-colleagues (both in research and in design) and to integrate these ethical and normative aspects in scientific work

• choose a place in society as a professional person

Dublin descriptor 4 – Communication • be able to communicate in writing in English about research and solutions to problems

with colleagues, non-colleagues and other involved parties including health care providers and patients


• be able to communicate verbally about research and solutions to problems with colleagues, non-colleagues and other involved parties including health care providers and patients in English and in a second language

• be able to debate about both BME and the place of BME in society • be characterized by professional behaviour. This includes: drive, reliability, commitment,

accuracy, perseverance and independence • be able to perform project-based work for complex projects: be pragmatic and have a

sense of responsibility; be able to deal with limited sources and be able to deal with risks and to compromise

• be able to work within an interdisciplinary, highly diverse biomedical team • be able to assume the role of team leader

Dublin descriptor 5 - Learning skills • be able to reflect critically and independently on his/her own thinking, decision-making,

and actions and to adjust them on the basis of this reflection • be able to recognize fallacies • be able to recognize and apply modes of reasoning (induction, deduction, analogy, etc.)

within the field • be able to ask probing questions, and have a critical yet constructive attitude towards

analyzing and solving complex biomedical real-life problems in the field • be able to form a well-reasoned opinion in the case of incomplete or irrelevant data,

taking account of the way in which those data came into being • be able to take a standpoint with regard to a scientific argument in his or her area of

BME and able to assess its value critically • possess basic numerical skills, and have an understanding of orders of magnitude


3. The Bachelor and Master programme Biomedical Engineering and the Master programme Medical Engineering offered by the Technical University Eindhoven

Administrative data Bachelor programme: Name: Biomedical Engineering CROHO number: 56226 Level: Bachelor Orientation: Academic Study load: 180 EC Grade: Bachelor of Science Variants: Full-time and part5-time Location: Eindhoven Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007 Master programme: Name: Biomedical Engineering CROHO number: 66226 Level: Master Orientation: Academic Study load: 120 EC Grade: Master of Science Variants: Full-time and part-time6 Location: Eindhoven Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007 Master programme: Name: Medical Engineering CROHO number: 60344 Level: Master Orientation: Academic Study load: 120 EC Grade: Master of Science Variants: Full time Location: Eindhoven en Maastricht Expiry date of accreditation: 31-12-2007

5 No use has been made of possibilities for studying the Master part-time thus far 6 Ibid


3.0. Structure and organisation of the faculty In 1999, it was decided that BME would become a separate faculty to clarify its position between the other faculties of TU/e. Funding was done through the regular TU/e channels, with a contribution from the University of Maastricht (UM), laid down in a TU/e-UM contract at the level of the Executive Boards of the Universities. The BME programmes started off as a joint programme, but due to legal constraints the programme is now under the responsibility of TU/e. Government funding is offered to TU/e. Extra budget from the state is available for the medical component of BME. UM and the Academic Hospital Maastricht (azM) supply some of the courses. UM is mainly involved in the ME Master's programme and is represented on all relevant committees. The BME and ME Master’s programmes are separate programmes. The Faculty of Biomedical Engineering is now one of the nine faculties of TU/e and is fully responsible for its research and the Bachelor's and Master's programmes in Biomedical Engineering and the Master's programme in Medical Engineering. The faculty consists of seven research groups, clustered in three divisions and research programmes: • Biomechanics & Tissue Engineering (BMTE) • Molecular Bioengineering & Molecular Imaging (MBEMI) • Biomedical Imaging & Modelling (BIOMIM) The Director of Education has overall responsibility for the contents and execution of the education programme. He is supported by the Coordinators of the Bachelor's and Master's programmes. For a specific supervision of the Master's and PhD programmes, the Graduate School Biomedical Engineering Science and Technology Eindhoven (BEST/e) has been formed. The Education Committee of BEST/e is also responsible for the admission to the Master's programmes of students from other programmes than the BME Bachelor's programme of TU/e. BME is an independent faculty. The Committee considered this a very strong point and a strength for the programmes. The staff responsible for BME programme have a considerable influence on the recruitment and management of staff, curriculum, career path availability, etc. The Faculty Board takes the decisions. Support for BME by the central level of the university is apparent. UM is represented on the BME Faculty Board. 3.1. Introduction Bachelor-Master structure and phasing out of the old one-tier

programme: current situation. Criterion: The deconstruction of the old one tier programme doesn’t cause problems for the students. The one tier programme is not subject of assessment. The self-evaluation report describes that in the 1980s, almost all engineering education programmes of TU/e offered BME graduation topics. In the early 1990s a first step was made in shifting BME education towards the undergraduate level by the Department of


Mechanical Engineering via the programme Mechanical Medical Engineering. A free track was developed in this Department, with an average yearly intake of about 14 students. The creation of a separate BME programme started from the bottom-up. Faculty members involved in collaborative research between TU/e and UM decided to inquire about the status of BME education in the USA, where BME had developed into an important discipline. Beginning in 1996, eight universities in the USA with quite heterogeneous BME programmes were visited, as well as the accreditation agency ABET and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Several lessons were learned and conclusions drawn that guided the development of the curriculum and embedding of the TU/e BME programme. In September 1997, the engineering education programme Biomedical Engineering (Biomedische Technologie) started at TU/e in collaboration with UM. The initiation was inspired by the long-standing collaboration in biomedical research between the two universities, which resulted in a research-oriented education programme. This programme was structured with a Bachelor (Candidate Exam) and a Master (Engineering Exam) phase from the onset, but was still completed with the degree of Engineer in Biomedical Engineering. The new BME curriculum included almost all TU/e Biomedical Engineering activities related to physics and chemistry. In September 2002, the Bachelor-Master structure was formally adopted. A three-year Bachelor's degree in Biomedical Engineering (BME) was coupled to two different two-year Master's degrees: Biomedical Engineering (BME) and Medical Engineering (ME). The Faculty considers it essential for students to choose between ME and BME at the start of their Master’s programme. That way, hospitals and industry will be well aware of the differences in education between ME and BME graduates. However, both Masters are academic in nature and not professional. A ME Master’s degree has already been acknowledged as sufficient to enter the training programmes for Clinical Physicist or Clinical Chemist. The Committee observed that the division between Bachelor and Master is actually artificial. Students are expected to continue onto a Master’s, and most do so. The BME programmes show that they originate from the previous five-year course. As more students with another Bachelor's degree start taking the BME Master, it is recommended to create clarity about the transition between Bachelor and Master. The Committee notes that the Faculty is already addressing this development. 3.2. Assessment protocol 3.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree course F1: Domain-specific requirements The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the requirements made to a degree course in the relevant domain (field of study/discipline and/or professional practice) by colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad and the professional practice. The mission of the Department of Biomedical Engineering of TU/e as described in the self-evaluation report “is to provide high-quality Biomedical Engineering, scientific education and research. The Department provides a research and education environment of internationally


recognized quality and builds partnerships with the professional community (industries and healthcare) and other national and international departments. The objective is to introduce new and further uses of existing engineering principles and tools to unravel the pathophysiology of diseases and to enhance the diagnostics, intervention and treatment of diseases. Emphasis is placed on research in biomedical and biomolecular imaging, tissue engineering and computational modelling.” The three universities of technology have published a booklet containing general criteria7. The starting point of that document was the final report by the Accreditation Committee Higher Education, a list of Qualifications of Bachelor and Master in University Education of the VSNU (Association of Universities in the Netherlands), and a memorandum developed earlier by the Academic Education Platform (Academische Vorming) of TU/e concerning engineering design at an academic level. It is noted that in the national debate about academic education, little attention has been paid so far to design as an academic activity, even though this subject is of great importance to universities of technology. On the basis of the existing material and supplementary analyses, a number of learning target areas has subsequently been distinguished that contain cohesive criteria for academic education. Seven areas of competence characterise a university graduate. He or she: 1. is competent in one or more scientific disciplines. A university graduate is familiar with

existing scientific knowledge, skills, and attitude, and has the competence to increase and develop these through study;

2. is competent in doing research. A university graduate has the competence to acquire new scientific knowledge through research. For this purpose, research means discovering of new knowledge and new insights in a purposeful and methodical way;

3. is competent in designing. As well as carrying out research, many university graduates will also design. Designing is a synthetic activity aimed at the realisation of new or modified artefacts or systems with the intention of creating value in accordance with predefined requirements and desires (e.g. mobility, health);

4. has a scientific approach. A university graduate has a systematic approach marked by the development and use of theories, models or coherent interpretations, has a critical attitude, and has insight into the nature of science and technology;

5. possesses basic intellectual skills. A university graduate is competent in reasoning, reflecting, and forming a judgment. These are skills which are learned or sharpened in the context of a discipline, and which are generically applicable from then on;

6. is competent in co-operating and communicating. A university graduate has the competence of being able to work with and for others. This requires not only adequate interaction, a sense of responsibility, and leadership, but also good communication with colleagues and non-colleagues. He or she is also able to participate in a scientific or public debate;

7. takes account of the temporal and social context. Science and technology are not isolated, and always have a temporal and social context. Beliefs and methods have their origins; decisions have social consequences in time. A university graduate is aware of this, and has the competence to integrate these insights into his or her scientific work.

The preparation for the first BME curriculum resulted in the following principles that also guide the current Bachelor's and Master's programmes:

7 Meijers, A., Overveld, C. van, Perret, J., 2005, Criteria for Academic Bachelor and Master BME curricula


• In-depth research-oriented education programme in the engineering domain of the sciences;

• Physics and Chemistry form the base, with an important role for Mathematics and Computer Science;

• The interaction between simulation and experimentation is a core activity; • The use of two education entities: Courses and Design-Centred Learning (DCL). By employing these two teaching methods during the first three years, the programme aims to encourage individual professional skills founded on a lasting academic basis and, on the other hand, it aims to support the students in developing necessary skills such as problem-solving, working in a team, learning to communicate, etc. The objectives of the Bachelor's programme are to: • Provide an educational programme in science and engineering focused at the interface of

the engineering and life sciences; • Provide an educational programme with sufficient breadth to deliver knowledge in the

social sciences, the professional responsibilities of engineers, and skills in effective communication;

• Prepare students for the next stages of life with particular emphasis on preparation for advanced studies in engineering, the sciences, life sciences, or entry into the biomedical device and biotechnology industries.

The BME Master’s programme aims at educating engineers capable of devising and executing fundamental as well as applied research in the field of biomedical engineering. This study is based on integrating the engineering and life sciences. The teachers of the Master's programme informed the Committee during the site visit that BME is about the application of knowledge, not just about developing new knowledge. The aim of ME is to bridge the gap between issues related to the clinic and individual patients on the one hand and the engineer with his equipment and models on the other. It has to be noted, however, that a ME graduate is an engineer, not a clinician. The Committee observes that the objectives of the programmes comply with national and international academic and professional norms. Since no domain-specific requirements were available for BME in the Netherlands, the BME programmes of TU/e, University of Twente, and University of Groningen have developed domain-specific requirements for QANU. BME is considered an engineering discipline focused at the interface of the engineering and life sciences. BME education should include basic general engineering requirements - as for example indicated by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc (ABET) - and a thorough understanding of the life sciences. The Committee notes that TU/e fulfills national and international domain-specific requirements. The Committee concludes that there is a strong vision behind the programmes.


The Faculty clearly thought carefully about the aims and objectives for the programmes before the programmes were developed. Apparently, there was a lot of preparatory work; extensive studies were done before actually starting the programmes. The Committee finds that the correspondence between the final qualifications of the degree course and the domain-specific requirements exceeds the criteria for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F2: Level The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the qualifications of a Bachelor or a Master.

TU/e expects BME programmes to be able to demonstrate that their students have attained the shared Dublin descriptors. The Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula mentioned in Facet 1 are formally accepted by the NVAO (Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders) as a more expanded and relevant statement of the Dublin descriptors, which must be respected according to the QANU protocol. When graduating with an academic Bachelor in BME from TU/e, students are said to: 1. Have a broad technological-scientific basic knowledge and 2. Can apply this knowledge and understanding. They possess the general skills required to

carry out research and its applications and to pass on knowledge. 3. Can communicate and function in a team 4. Have the capability to reflect on relevant social, academic or ethical issues of BME. 5. Have developed learning skills necessary for continued academic (self) education. 6. Have developed design skills. As to the level of the final qualifications of the Master’s phase of BME, students are offered more depth within one of the specialization tracks of the BME programme. • Specialization in a branch of BME. • The selected courses, internships and graduation project provide the opportunity for the

student to acquire the specialist knowledge of a specific area of BME. Acquired knowledge is not only applicable to the specific field, but serves as a foundation that can be easily applied in many other domains.

• Working in a multidisciplinary team. • Independent scientific practice. • During the multidisciplinary project, internships and graduation project, students

participate in a multidisciplinary research team, including students (PhD) of other disciplines.

• Independence increases with progression through the course, culminating in relatively independent graduation research. Skills like modelling, experimenting and design are involved in a balanced manner.

• Experience with design. • Students gain their design experience in the internships and the graduation project.


• Awareness of ethical and socio-economic aspects of ME and societal responsibility as engineer.

• During the practical work, students will be exposed to the consequences of their work as an engineer and in the interaction with life sciences.

• The BME Master’s education aims at research and development. As to the level of the final qualifications of the ME Master’s programme, students are said to be offered: • more depth in one of the specializations of ME; • working in multidisciplinary team; • independent research; • a (clinical) designing experience; • interaction with clinicians and individual patients; • awareness of ethical and socio-economic aspects of ME and societal responsibility (as an

engineer). The Committee finds that the correspondence between the final objectives of the degree course and the Dublin Descriptors for the Master’s degree level fulfils the criteria for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F3: Orientation The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the following descriptions of a Bachelor and a Master at universities: • The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international academic practice




The three universities of technology in the Netherlands (UT, TU/e and TUD) have decided on the enrolment requirements of the various BME Master's programmes. The final qualifications of the BME Bachelor's programme match the entry requirements of the BME and ME Master's programmes in TU/e, but also of the BME Master's programmes in UT and TUD, Life Sciences & Technology (TUD), Management of Technology (TUD), Engineering, Industrial Organisation & Management (TUD) and Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society (UT). Experience shows that almost all BME Bachelor graduates will continue on to a Master's programme. There is no information available on Bachelors trying to find jobs in BME. According to the self-evaluation report, the Master in BME or ME has acquired an independent academic working and thinking level, which qualifies the graduate for an academic promotion (PhD) or career as researcher/developer in business and industry or a research institute. Graduates also qualify for application-oriented positions, for instance in a clinical environment.


The BME Master's programme is strongly research-oriented, while ME combines the research orientation with clinical components. Therefore, BME education almost completely takes place in a university environment, while ME education mainly takes place in a clinical environment. Both Master's programmes interact with relevant companies and international institutes. Quite a few BME graduates enter a PhD programme. The focus is to enlarge the working field for Masters. BME Master graduates either start working in research or in large companies (R&D) like Philips, Organon, DSM. Most of the ME graduates find employment in a clinical setting or on the interface between the clinical setting and companies. The Faculty staff has selected three areas in which they want to be active (BMTE, MBEMI and BIOMIM). This choice is based on the research strength within the University. Some areas are deliberately not included, like medical instrumentation and neuroengineering. The Faculty is trying to integrate as much research into education programmes as early as possible. The Committee observes that there is a clear philosophy about the Bachelor's and the Master's programmes. They are strongly research oriented, more than in engineering. The committee finds that the end objectives of the Master’s degree course fulfil the criteria as required for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Aims and objectives of the degree course’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Aims and objectives of the degree course’ is Satisfactory 3.2. Programme F4: Requirements for university degree courses: The programme meets the following criteria applicable to a degree programme at a University (WO): • The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the relevant disciplines; • The programme follows the developments in the relevant academic discipline(s), as it is demonstrated that it



As lecturers and instructors of basic knowledge, researchers include recent research results in their teaching. This happens in lectures as well as in the introduction to a DCL case.


At UM the clinical modules are all given by clinicians. The staff is involved in the clinical practice of medicine (as doctors) and research. BME Master students told the Committee during their visit that they lack experience with patients and a general clinical setting, like ME students do. Interviewed ME alumni stated that they missed having statistics in their Master; it was only taught in the Bachelor's programme. They considered this as not enough for functioning well in the medical field. Statistics appears to receive more attention in the Bachelor than in the Master. The Committee finds that attention to statistics in the Master's programme needs to be increased. The response on this aspect from staff members was that plans are being made to double the statistics courses in the new programme. The Committee appreciates this. Attention to clinical application is given in Skills labs. Attention to design is covered within the DCL (Bachelor). This concerns designing models for physiological ends. Alumni stated during the visit that more attention could be paid to developing practical skills related to design. They acknowledge, however, that this lack of attention depends on the specific Master track that is chosen. The Committee notes that there seems to be less awareness of design within the ME Master than within the BME Master. The staff appear to have no plans to focus more on design. The current emphasis lies mainly on research. Teachers of the Master's programmes stated during the site visit that design is often used at the start of courses and projects, and 95% of the work contains research. However, this does not mean that design is not a major issue according to the teachers. The first year of the Master focuses on design and the second year focuses mainly on research. Design is integrated in the internship. The thesis usually concerns scientific questions instead of design questions. The Committee would like to stress that in order to prepare students for their role in society, the applicability of their research is a necessary aspect. The Committee finds that design as an aspect of engineering is not about ‘design of gadgets’ but about students understanding the concept of design. Good textbooks are available to teach this. Students are considered to benefit highly from sufficient knowledge about the concept of design. The interviewed alumni stated during the site visit that they missed having programming in Matlab and that they could have used this knowledge for their theses. Research appears to be well integrated in the Bachelor's programme. Both the BME and ME Masters contain an extensive research element. The engineering component is considered good. The programmes are mainly research-oriented. The engineering content in the Bachelor's programme is not as strong as it could be. The Committee concludes at this time that the teaching and learning adequately cover the domain-specific and generic features of academic education. Attention should be paid to design and programming in Matlabs. Statistics in the ME Master could be improved as well. The Committee has learned that this last aspect is being addressed and will be improved.


In January 2007 a national BME conference will be held that is focused on BME research. Apparently, only researchers will be invited. The Committee feels that students should also be involved in activities like these. In this way they can be introduced and linked to the professional field. ME Master students stated during the Committee's visit that they interact quite a lot with patients. They usually visit them in the company of doctors. People in hospital are generally considered positive and open to students. The interviewed ME alumni stated that they appreciated the interaction with patients and doctors in the Master as well. They estimate that working in a hospital would be more difficult for BME than ME graduates. ME focuses on the implementation of practical possibilities in ‘real life’. Teachers of ME mentioned that there were a few examples of ‘failed’ student work which happened to be due to a lack of discussion with clinicians. The Committee notes that the linkage to the practical medical world has been arranged well through the cooperation with UM and the academic hospital in Maastricht, as well as with local hospitals. The ME Master is a new programme, and there is still some vagueness about the exact needs of doctors relating to ME graduates. It is considered necessary to pay attention to this and to create more awareness about the usefulness of the skills of graduates for the medical field. Industry is interested in applying design knowledge, but it appears that there is not enough attention paid to this within the Faculty and especially the Bachelor's programme. The Committee finds that the Bachelor programme fulfils the accreditation requirements for a university Bachelor degree and that the Master programmes both exceed the requirements for the Master degree course. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F5: Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme • The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orientation, and with


formulated.

The BME Master’s programme aims at educating students for a research and development-oriented career in the field of BME. The programme was constructed to accommodate several steps in the process towards independence: • Elective courses to improve the theoretical basis and deepen specific knowledge. • Multidisciplinary project to solve a multidisciplinary problem with students from other

(engineering) disciplines.


• Internships, where students work individually on a research-related topic. The internships are an introduction to and practise of collaboration in conducting research.

• The graduation project which concludes the education. It concerns a research assignment of considerable size that is executed by the student individually and with a large extent of independence. It is part of ongoing research and requires extensive collaboration with researchers.

The ME Master’s programme aims at educating students for a research and development-oriented career in the field of BME with applications in or close to clinical practice. It is a specialization of BME. The Committee notes that the educational system of the Bachelor's programme has many advantages (teamwork), but there appears to be a need for some additional knowledge in the fields of physics, statistics, signal analysis and imaging. Throughout the university minors will be introduced in the near future. TU/e decided to create a major/minor system to give students the opportunity to spend a number of EC outside their chosen field. The staff of the BME Faculty feels that the minor does not really have additional value for BME, but ‘we have to do it’. The BME Faculty aims to keep students within their field of expertise for the minor of 30 EC. The Faculty intends to use this minor to create more depth of knowledge. The Committee considers it an opportunity, however; this minor system can help to create more free choice for Bachelor students. The Committee recommends designing minors that fit the BME programmes and will also be open for students of other programmes. “They will have an advantage when they want to get into the BME Master, though direct access cannot be guaranteed.” Students of the ME track stated during the site visit that more specialized courses in BME could be useful. It would be difficult though to find space in the programme for this. Teachers of ME would like students to have some more basic knowledge in their ‘toolbox’, some more ‘hard core engineering skills’. Biological input in the programme is considered as very important by the Committee. It is important for the Faculty to keep this area intact on an adequate level in the programme. One of the minors will probably concern the biological field. The presence of biology in BME by creating the new track ‘chemical biology’ is highly appreciated by the Committee. Within the programme, biology courses are supplied by the UM. Bachelor students reported during the visit that they would like to see some courses on e.g. philosophy, sociology, and ethics. Social and ethical issues are integrated in Master's projects only. The Committee recommends the Faculty take this into consideration. The reason for creating two Masters instead of one is that the objectives of ME are quite different from those of BME. Some courses of BME and ME are the same, but projects and theses have different aims. Many ME projects take place in a clinical setting, even in the first year of the Master's course. Some alumni are doing a PhD in hospitals as well.


Interviewed Master students considered the final part of the Bachelors as somewhat easy. They feel there is space for more content and apparently miss having practical experience spaced throughout the Bachelor's course. All practical learning is placed at the end. Students start thinking about their specialization at end of the Bachelor's course. They discuss their programme at the beginning of the Master's course with a professor. In the Master’s programme students are allowed a lot of free choice, but the professor has to approve the final choice. Multidisciplinary projects in BME are generally organized in groups of 4 people and are research oriented. They are usually done with students from the BME Faculty only, although occasionally, students from other natural sciences take part. It happens rarely, even though the topics of the projects are supposed to be linked to other fields of expertise. The idea of creating multidisciplinary projects started as an interfaculty project. In other faculties this option is an elective, however, and this appears to be the main reason why mainly BME students are available for these projects. Students would find it interesting to do projects together with e.g. medical students. The students interviewed recognized that they can learn a lot from students from other disciplines, it is seen as useful for later when BME graduates have to work with people from other disciplines as well. Multidisciplinary projects are considered very positive by the Committee, but not as multidisciplinary as they could be. The term 'multidisciplinarity' promises more than it actually is at the moment. For example, creating a link to the Medical Faculty of UM could be very beneficial for both students of BME Faculty at TU/E and medical students of UM. Projects could become truly multidisciplinary. BME Master students have to do two internships. One can be done part-time (95% is done internally within the faculty), while the other one is usually full-time, often abroad. ME students do a clinical module instead of the BME project, and a second clinical module instead of the BME internship.

The Committee finds it impressive that many students go abroad for an ‘externship’. Students are motivated and guided by staff members to find their way to an interesting internship abroad. Forms have to be filled in, and the central level office helps with international issues. The Committee is convinced that ME is clearly a different Master than BME and not just a track of BME. The Committee is also convinced of the strength and potential of the ME Master. Both ME and BME are considered to be well developed programmes The approach of the Faculty to the issue of the ‘compulsory minor’ could be improved. The Committee feels that this new system is perceived as a threat, while it can also be an opportunity. It is possible to use it to create more possibilities for students for e.g. electives and in-depth study. The Committee finds that the relationship between the programme objectives and its curriculum content exceeds the criteria for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good


F6: Coherence of the programme Students follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents.

According to the self-evaluation report, the Director of Education regularly initiates consultation with lecturers of related courses to attune the contents. At the end of the third study year of the Bachelor's course, students are considered to have acquired the appropriate theoretical skills and have become acquainted with several lab practices. In the last trimester of the third year, students are submerged in lab practices that are closely related to research areas relevant for BME. A series of five compulsory Skills labs are offered on: • Optical Measurement Methods • Measurements in a Clinical/Biological Environment • Chemical Characterization of Matter • Characterization of Mechanical Properties of Materials • Computer Simulations Skills learned in Skills labs need to be employed in clinical modules. Interviewed students reported that a stronger connection between the individual Skills labs would be useful. Skills labs are seen by the Committee as very positive, though it would be better to spread them throughout the Bachelor's programme. In this way skills can be combined with content earlier. Especially the lab content of these courses could be organized earlier on in the Bachelor's programme and thus contribute more to other courses. The Faculty is already working on this. Four Skills labs will be divided into two parts each. Two will be part of a minor, and the other two part of a major. They will be integrated in a final project with space for individual grading. The BME and ME Master's programmes consist of many electives; they are not fixed programmes. The staff decided not to create many rules for organizing the Master's programme. It is a flexible programme suited to individual interests. ME Master students can do their clinical modules group work at the TU in Eindhoven (this depends on the group). The practical and course work have to be done at UM. Interviewed alumni stated that the first year of ME is a very full programme. They would have preferred to have more electives as the individual programmes are difficult to plan; e.g. some courses in Eindhoven and Maastricht are organized on the same day. Free choice appears to be limited in this way. Students can start their Master's course at any time, they do not need to have already finished their Bachelor's degree. This makes the programme flexible, but the transition between Bachelor and Master somewhat unclear.


The Committee finds that the coherence in the contents of the programme fulfils the criteria for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F7: Study load The programme can be successfully completed within the set time, as certain programme-related factors that may be an impediment to study progress are removed as much as possible.

The self-evaluation report of the BME Faculty provides the following information: The BME Bachelor’s degree is scheduled to last three years with 60 EC (ECTS credit points) in every year. The programme consists of compulsory courses during all three years, compulsory DCL cases in the first two years, and elective projects and five compulsory Skills labs in the third year. The programme consists of three years of scheduled activities of 42 weeks of at least 40 hours. Consequently, the duration of the whole programme is three years, with a programmed total student workload of 180 EC. Each EC represents about 28 hours of student workload. The total student workload for a course is 84 hours, consisting of 18 hours of lectures, 18 hours of guided self-tuition, and 48 hours for personal self-tuition and the exam. The DCL cases receive 4 EC. In a period of 5 weeks, the students work ten times for two hours in groups. The remainder is devoted to experiments, self-tuition and reporting of the results. The workload according to the Bachelor students interviewed is estimated between 25-35 and 40 hours week. This number tends to increase as exams approach. The self-evaluation report stated that the BME Master’s degree should take two years with 60 EC in each year. The first year programme consists of eight elective courses, a multidisciplinary project, and two internships. The second year comprises the graduation project, concluded with a Master’s thesis. The programme consists of two years of scheduled activities of 42 weeks of at least 40 hours. Consequently, the duration of the programme is two years with a programmed student workload of 120 EC, each EC representing 28 hours of student workload. Interviewed BME Master students estimated their workload in general to be 40 hours a week or more (in specific periods). The ME Master’s degree should take two years with 60 EC in each year. The first year programme consists of eight elective courses and two Clinical Modules and an internship. The second year comprises the graduation project, concluded with a Master’s thesis. The programme consists of two years of scheduled activities of 42 weeks of at least 40 hours. Consequently, the duration of the programme is two years with a programme student workload of 120 EC, each EC representing 28 hours of student workload. Courses consist of 18 hours of lectures and 66 hours for personal self-tuition and the exam. Clinical Modules receive 8 EC. Internships are rewarded with 15 EC and take 10 weeks. The Master’s thesis takes 40 weeks and yields 60 EC. Interviewed ME Master students estimated their work load in general as full-time, 40 hours a week.


For ME Master students clinical modules and group work can be done at the TU in Eindhoven (this depends on the group). The practical and course work have to be done at UM. Some courses are considered difficult by students, like molecular engineering and mathematics. Students are sometimes given the opportunity to do oral examinations or assignments when difficulties with these subjects get in the way of graduating. An internship of only one trimester is perceived by students as short; most students take longer to finish it. We recommended evaluating whether this can be altered. According to the students it is possible to finish the Master's degree in two years at 40 hours/week, but “if you want to get a grade higher than 7, you will need more time”. Master's theses often appear to take more time than planned. Master students felt that a Master's thesis can take up to a full year, although it is planned for ‘just’ 42 weeks. This can be a cause for delay. Students appear in general to be very motivated to make the best of their thesis. Therefore, there are actually not many complaints about delays. Teachers are working on better ways to motivate students. A new plan has been introduced: ‘the BME science class’. The Master's programmes can be done in two years' time, but not with all options. Many students who still have to finish the Bachelor's programme have difficulty with realizing this. Also, for other reasons it appears to be difficult to finish in two years. Students tend to lose time when they go abroad for an internship because they miss courses that are spread throughout the year. The penalty paid for delay is a potential lowering of the yield (graduation rate). This will not be a problem for Dutch students, but for international students it is. A clear-cut two-year programme is likely to make life easier for them. ME teachers have recognised and discussed the planning problem many times with students. They find that choices have to be made, and not everything can be offered at the desired times. One solution could be to establish a clearer period for the internship during the student academic progression. However, that could in turn cause the problem that students might have to wait another year before they can start the internship. Even with more coordination, some obstacles still remain in the Master's programmes. The course work and internship appear to conflict: scheduling problems exist (especially in ME). This may especially become a problem for the coherence of the programme with an increasing number of international students, since they tend to be less ‘flexible’ than Dutch students in terms of study time and duration. The Committee notes that, except for issues of timing, there is a good match between the courses. There are no complaints from students, and no further obstacles observed. The Committee observes that students appear to be working hard. This in itself is a compliment to the staff and the faculty as a whole.


The Committee finds that the programme can be completed within the given time because the actual study load is adequate, it is distributed equally over the programme, and there are no unnecessary obstacles that hinder study. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F8: Intake The structure and contents of the programme are in line with the qualifications of the students that embark on the degree course: • Bachelor’s degree at a University (WO): VWO (pre-university education), propaedeutic certificate from a University of

Professional Education (HBO) or similar qualifications, as demonstrated in the admission process. • Master’s degree at a University (WO): bachelor’s degree and possibly selection (on contents of the subject). The best pre-university education (VWO) to enter the BME Bachelor’s programme considered by the BME Faculty is the track Science & Technology (N&T; Nature en Technology), since this includes the necessary mathematics, physics and chemistry. Also, the track Science & Health (N&H; Nature & Health) qualifies for entrance to BME education, since the Faculty staff felt that the presence of biology in this package compensates for the smaller amount of physics. Many students actually combine the two tracks. In recent years, the didactic methods in VWO have gradually changed. When evaluating the results of certain courses and cases, the BME faculty concluded that the level of especially VWO mathematical skills was lower. Given this, a special linking module for mathematical skills is offered in the first trimester. In the renovation of the curriculum special attention will be given to this aspect in order to improve the connection between VWO and our BME programme. A recent Quick Scan by the TU/e Student Service Centre indicates that BME students feel that the connection between VWO and BME could be better. The staff estimates that this is because many lack biology in their VWO education. This survey also indicates that BME students experience the study load as “average heavy”, which appears to be similar to the experience of students of other TU/e programmes. The total number of enrolled students on December 1st, both Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes included:

2004 2003 2002 2001 Bachelor BME and BME 5-year 372 412 405 344 There is a sharp distinction between Bachelor and Master, but a flexible transition as well. When students come from other Bachelor's programmes, some flexibility exists, but less than for students who graduated as a BME Bachelor from TU/e. The Bachelor diploma has to be finished before the second year of the Master's programme (in special cases exceptions are allowed), e.g. one of the interviewed students will soon start his Master's programme, although he still has 18 credits to finish of the Bachelor's programme. A pre-Masters is a prerequisite for students coming from HBO (higher professional education), and this takes a full year. Students mainly come from Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Fontys Hogeschool) for a ME Master's programme. TU/e is collaborating with Fontys to work on a minor that will make the transition for these students easier. The BME Faculty usually includes some Bachelor students from TU Delft as well.


Two years ago the first foreign students entered the programme. Now there are around 10 students per year coming from abroad. The selection for foreign students is quite strict: only 10 are selected from about 40 applicants. Foreign students are currently more interested in BME than ME. Partly this is due to language difficulties. Within ME it is obligatory to speak Dutch in order to be able to interact with patients. Courses in Dutch will probably be part of the pre-Master. TU/e has established contacts with two universities in China. A collaboration with the Northeastern University in Shenyang has resulted in guest lectures; two staff members of TU/e give courses in Shenyang in the Master's phase. The aim is to increase students’ knowledge to a higher level and to bring a limited number of Chinese students to Eindhoven for a BME Master. The admission programme consists of interviews in Shenyang. TU/e has also established a cooperation with the University of Zhejiang in Hangzhou. Foreign students are admitted to a ‘specific track of the Master’. Professors have to agree on the programme. The BESTe Education Committee is mainly involved in the selection of students (Master and PhD) from outside Eindhoven. Officially, it is an admission committee. It was especially set up for the PhD programme, but it is also involved in the Master's programme with regard to the admission of students from outside the programme. ME teachers reported during the site visit that quite a lot of non-BME Bachelor graduates started the ME Master, and they consider this as a very positive development. Some consideration should be given to a numerus clausus on ME according to the Committee because there do not appear to be sufficient resources to run a large programme. The optimal number of students is considered to be between 15 and 20 per year. There is a need for either more staff or fewer students. According to the Vice-Dean, however, a numerus clausus is not an option. Especially for ME this would create a problem since it is the only Master’s track offered by Dutch universities. Another reason for not imposing a numerus clausus concerns the future employment of ME graduates. The Committee senses that the job market for ME is even better than for BME and expects it to grow. According to the Committee a numerus clausus is indeed not advisable, but resources will have to be found to support a larger number of ME students before allowing them to enter the programme. It appears to be difficult to create an easy transition for students who enrol in the BME Bachelor's programme. The staff members wonder how to teach basic knowledge and skills and to keep the students motivated. It appears to be difficult at first for new Bachelor students to keep up with the speed of courses and assignments. University is considered much tougher than VWO. The staff has been working on filling the knowledge gap of first-year Bachelor students when they come from high school (VWO). A new mathematics programme and extra courses have been established to achieve this end. Reasons to choose TU/e mentioned during the site visit by Bachelor students were: it was expected, many appear to come from this region, and someone felt that ‘Eindhoven was more open’.


ME students spoke during the site visit of a fluent transition from the Bachelor's to the Master's programme. One former HBO student found the lengthening of his studies with the pre-Master lasting a full year quite a lot. Some new students expected the BME Bachelor programme to offer more biology courses. They soon learned, however, that it happens to be mainly engineering oriented with a strong focus on skills. In the Skills labs and some of the DCL tracks, Bachelor students get to know about differences and possibilities of the two Master's programmes. There is no evident internal competition between BME and ME for students; ME seems to attract a totally different group of students. The Committee judges that prospective students are well informed The students the Committee met were self-confident and aware of what they want. They appeared to feel connected to the field and the development of their education, even after graduation. TU/e does not attract many students from other Bachelor's programmes yet. The Committee recommends considering this a challenge. TU/e is considered to be in a good position to attract many international students as well. This is not yet fully exploited, and the Committee recommends investigating this possibility further. The Committee finds that the relationship between the entrance requirements and the structure and contents of the programme fulfils the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F9: Duration The degree course complies with formal requirements regarding the size of the curriculum: • Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule. • Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.

The Bachelor's programme consists of 180 EC and the two Master's programmes (BME and ME) of 120 EC each. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory


F10: Coordination of structure and contents of the degree course The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives. The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept.

The didactic concept for BME is summarized by the BME Faculty as follows: • acquisition of knowledge and development of skills require different teaching methods; • offering methods to apply recently acquired knowledge in a variety of ways; • integrating engineering and science with life sciences; • integrating education and research. The Bachelor education is provided as courses (60%) or as design-centred learning (DCL; 40%), including lab practicals. DCL consists of cases and training sessions and aims at the application and integration of engineering, sciences and the life sciences as well as at acquiring skills through working in groups, communication, ethical awareness, etc. DCL was first adapted for mechanical engineering in the 1980s. Nowadays it has been adopted by BME. There appears to be general satisfaction with this educational concept among staff and students. Students learn to design a solution for a specific problem. Interviewed teachers stress that the goal of DCL is not so much aimed at creating the right solutions, but more at the process of learning itself, on how to approach and solve problems. In the third year interdisciplinary projects are studied in groups of 4 students. In these projects, the emphasis is laid on the result. The Bachelor students interviewed confirmed that DCL offers interesting programmes, and some prefer them to taking courses. Students are challenged to use all the knowledge that they have gathered to work on the cases. It was also said, however, that there are too many cases to work on and that this can get somewhat ‘boring’. The work on every case takes 5 weeks; some students would prefer to work on cases for longer. The Bachelor's programme is concluded with Skills labs for individual students or groups of two students. In the BME and ME Master's programmes, students work individually. They select elective courses that suit their field of specialization in accordance with their thesis mentor. Furthermore, they do internships (preferably one outside the University and if possible abroad) and their thesis work. TU/e makes use of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Studyweb which appears to be accessible and well used by the students. The language used in the Bachelor's programme is Dutch. Master courses are given in English, unless the audience consists exclusively of Dutch students. The teaching material for the BME Bachelor's and Master's programmes is all in English. ME students confirmed that courses are given in English when foreign students are present, though the didactic information offered is not always presented in English. Teachers stated that part of the ME clinical modules are and remain in Dutch. Foreign students have to speak Dutch as students will meet with patients in hospitals. Staff members are considering giving a few more courses in English. The self-evaluation reports on this as follows:


Distribution of Bachelor student’s educational activity in hours over the three years:

Lectures Guided self-tuition Self-tuition Reporting Total Year 1 216 336 1056 72 1680 Year 2 216 336 1056 72 1680 Year 3 144 324 1104 108 1680 Total 576 996 3216 252 5040 For the BME and ME Master's programmes this relationship between contact hours, self-study and other study activities differs per track and per student with regard to the available electives, thesis and internship. No statistics are available. Before starting the Master's programme, students discuss internship possibilities with the Graduation Coordinator. Internships are arranged and managed by the students themselves, but they do get help from the professors. Internships are usually found via professors who also help with setting up the individual Master's programme. There is a list of previous successful internships available. Actually finding an external internship depends on the professor's contacts or the student. No clear list of internship possibilities is available for the programme as a whole. Assessing the way an internship is fulfilled is left largely to the hosting institute and its supervisor according to ME teachers. ME internships are generally done in hospitals, usually not in Maastricht but elsewhere in the Netherlands or abroad. There is no central point of coordination on internships. The Committee feels that this could provide additional value for internships with companies. There are internships in industry in the Netherlands, but it seems not as many as could be desired. The organisation of the internship is perceived by the Committee as very positive. The Committee recommends evaluating the necessity of a coordinator for internships. Especially with growing student numbers, a coordinator can be useful. Generally, PhD students look after the Master students during the thesis work. BME Master students informed the Committee during the visit that there is a supervisor available who is generally reported to every week. Supervision of ME theses is jointly done by staff members from UM and TU/e. Assessment of the content of the thesis projects is left to the responsibility of the full professors. The Committee concludes that there is no clear didactic concept for the Master's thesis available. The Committee observes that the topics are not always strictly related to BME. It is recommended to build in some mechanisms to make sure all projects are within the field of BME. The Committee considers the Bachelor's programme to have a good didactic concept. The teaching methods are judged as good.


The Committee finds that the teaching methods and the didactic concept correspond to the aims and objectives of the programme. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F11: Assessment and examinations The system of assessments and examinations provides an effective indication whether the students have reached the learning targets of the course programme or its components.

The examination programme is described in the Education and Examinations Regulations (OER) and the Rules and Guidelines. The OER defines the study components with concomitant numbers of ECT, the form of examinations, the order in which they are taken, resits, right of perusal, entrance qualifications, etc. In the Rules and Guidelines the rules of execution are described: assessment of grades (0-10), rules about results, fraud, etc. For courses in the Bachelor's programme, the traditional written exam is widely used. In general, the written exams are based on open-ended problems. In a growing number the use of a notebook with some specific software programme is necessary. Generally, a team of up to three teachers do the grading. The end products of DCL are evaluated in various ways: a short written report, an oral presentation, a measurement report, a research proposal, a notebook document in mathematics, an extended abstract in English, a poster or a presentation and written report in the format of a publication. In the final grade not only the quality of the end product is graded (by the Case Coordinator), but also the personal performance as a professional and the attitude (by the tutor). Peer review is undertaken by fellow students and is part of this evaluation of the accomplishments of individuals. Peer reviews only take place in DCL. In order to provide students with more feedback, the Committee notes that attention could be paid to individual aspects of the final grading of the Bachelor students. The elective courses in the Master's programme are evaluated by written exams or assignments. Grades are given by the responsible teacher. Grades of internships are awarded by the responsible staff member in consultation with the responsible full professor. If an internship was done abroad, the presentation is given at both the receiving institute and the BME mentor’s lab; the grade of the report of the foreign mentor is usually accepted by the graduation professor. The final products of the graduation project are a written report, a poster and a presentation. The BME Master’s thesis is initially judged by the responsible BME professor and his co-workers. If the thesis is considered to be of appropriate quality, the thesis is submitted to a Thesis Committee, consisting of the responsible full professor, the associate (assistant) professor who mentored the student on a daily basis, and at least two other faculty members, one of them being from another division. Subsequently, the public Master’s seminar is given before the Thesis Committee. Acknowledging that a graduation professor is an expert in the field implies that he is in principle responsible for the level of the grades. The presence of a colleague from another division provides the necessary general BME view. The Clinical Modules of the ME Master’s are evaluated through written reports of assignments, presentations, etc. Grades are given by the responsible clinical teacher.


To explore whether the exams and educational aims are attuned, students are regularly requested to indicate whether the exam reflected the contents, aims and level of the course. This information is used to improve various ways of examining. The way of assessing is related to the phase of the study: In the first years of the Bachelor's programme, the accent is on testing the acquired knowledge. At a later stage in the Bachelor's and the Master's programmes, it is on demonstrating the use of acquired knowledge in the context of various problems. The Master's thesis is evaluated by a committee with a professor from another division along with the professor from the affiliated research group. Assessment happens only afterwards, the choice of project is not assessed. The Review Committee finds that there is a good system of grading theses. The relationship between the end qualifications and the objectives of the courses is sometimes said to be checked by the examinations, but it is not clear to the Committee how this works. The DCL programme is considered by the Committee as strong, though there are some weaknesses, e.g. students can keep a low profile if they choose to. This appears to be compensated through peer reviews. Students receive points from other group members with the necessary feedback. The peers give grades that are worth half of the final grade. Both grades from student tutor have to be sufficient. Peer reviewing is considered difficult by students, but they find it a good experience. It is seen by teachers as a way to stimulate or even to force contributions from students on other student’s work. It is considered an important form of evaluation as students may see things that teachers do not. They tend to give useful feedback to their fellow students. All students receive training and information on the standards for grading. There are two sorts of training: group evaluation/feedback and peer review training. Each trimester the pass rates of all exams are presented to the Director of Education, the Student Counsellor and the Quality Control Functionary. The pass percentages are analysed and compared with preceding years and other relevant courses. The responsibilities of the Examination Committee mentioned in the self-evaluation report are the following: • Changing the standard study package of students; • Deciding on a request to deviate from certain regulations; • Deciding on waiving of a certain course; • Determining examination results; • Maintaining order in examinations and preventing fraud; • Setting the exam schedule; • Monitoring the quality of examinations (standards) based on data collected; • Approving students' course selection in the Master phase. The Examination Committee also takes care of special needs for students with disabilities. The Committee appears to not be involved in the assessments of courses and theses.


The Examination Committee meets monthly and has regular meetings with Education Committee. There appears to be no overlap between the Examination Committee and BESTe. It is considered worthwhile to keep them separated. As to graduating, the Examination Committee checks the fulfilment of requirements regarding Bachelor's and Master's degrees. The Examination Committee considers the grades of all (elective) courses completed, of the internship and the Master’s thesis, and checks the number of credit points acquired. If all requirements are fulfilled, the student will receive a Master’s diploma. The Review Committee notes that different forms of examination are used and concludes that the Examination Committee works well. The Committee finds that the system of assessments and examinations fulfils the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Programme’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Programme’ is Satisfactory 3.2.3. Deployment of staff F12: Requirements for University The degree course meets the following criteria for the deployment of staff for a degree course at a University (WO): Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.

The faculty's basic philosophy is that education and research should be closely related. Therefore, all scientific personnel of the Faculty have a dual appointment: they participate in the Bachelor's and Master's programmes and in the Faculty's research programmes. According to the self-evaluation report, staff members of research programmes of the three divisions are internationally recognised for their original scientific work. All scientific staff are members of a national research school. A high degree of heterogeneity in the background of the staff is reflected in the number of research schools in which they work: • Engineering Mechanics, Materials Technology (MaTe), Polymer Technologies

Netherlands (PTN), Eindhoven Polymer Laboratories (EPL), Burgers Centre, Dutch Institute of Systems and Control (DISC), Inter-University Research Institute on Communication Technology Basic Research and Applications (COBRA) at TU/e;

• Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM) and NUTRIM Nutrition and Toxicology Institute Maastricht (NUTRIM) at UM;

• Advanced School for Computing and Imaging, Delft (ASCI) at TUD. The Faculty expects that in the near future a convergence of the research will take place which will lead to the founding of a specific BME Research School.


BME researchers, engineers, medical physicists and clinical specialists constitute the teaching staff, ensuring not only the relationship between research and teaching, but also that teaching covers the cutting edge of research and health care. At the time of the assessment, the Faculty employed 7 full professors and 6 associate professors. A research group is built around each full professor. Research divisions and research groups have appointed part-time professors to increase the breadth of their expertise. The Committee considers the level of staff as high and values the various specializations. It is recommended, however, to increase the level of cooperation between the different BME programmes in the Netherlands. An exchange of staff as guest lecturers can be beneficial to the various programmes.

All teachers are doing research. Some teachers are involved in both the Bachelor's and Master's programmes. Students come into contact with role models right from the start of their studies. The Committee finds that paying more attention to the application of design would be considered valuable. The Committee recommends that the Faculty further elaborate the meaning of design in the field of BME and make alterations to the programmes to incorporate design more explicitly. See also Facet 4. The Committee finds that the teaching is provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area and exceeds the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F13: Quantity of staff The staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards.

At the time of writing the self-evaluation report, 127 staff members were working within the Faculty, including 63 PhD students and 14 post-docs. This number is equivalent to 107.9 fte. The work of staff (excluding PhDs and post-docs, although they do support staff in the education process, especially in the third years during the projects and Skills labs and as tutors of cases) is divided between education, research and managerial tasks with a ratio of 40%/40%/20%, which results in a staff availability for education of 12.3 fte for the Bachelor's and Master's programmes together. Mentorship of Master's theses is considered a research activity, but when this is taken into consideration as well, the total fte staff available for the study programmes was 19.6 fte in 2004/2005. With a student population in that academic year of 439, the student:staff ration was 22.4. With regard to ME, a clinical BME department has been established at the Academic Hospital in Maastricht (azM) that comprises relevant personnel for ME education: physicists and biophysicists, clinical physicists and other engineers, among them also medical engineers. Staff members of UM, for instance of the Department of Biophysics, may be added to the


BME group. Together with clinicians, they will form the teaching staff for the ME Master’s programme. They will have their own research work within one of the divisions of BME or within one of the research institutes of UM. All staff appear to be able to devote enough time to research and stated that teaching never becomes a burden. However, a potential hazard looms due to the growing number of students. As Philips and DSM are increasing their activities in BME, a considerable amount of research funding will probably become available for this field. Employability is likely to increase as well. Student numbers are increasing, while the quantity of staff and facilities is not growing proportionately. The current workload for staff is high due to new developments. More staff is needed to maintain the quality of research and education. According to ME teachers the staff group in Maastricht is quite small, but needs to grow in the near future as well. Currently, the inflow of students has increased to 25 this year (2006), a few more than in recent years. The Faculty is aware of this situation and has made plans. The plans aim at: • creating a new research group for ME (joint Maastricht-Eindhoven); • creating a new chair in Chemical Biology; • hiring 5-10 new staff members in the coming years. The Faculty has received support for these plans from the University Executive Board (CvB). Finances have already been allocated. The Committee considers it a good thing that the interest in BME within TU/e is increasing. Early investments are needed to allow for the growth to happen. The establishment of a new direction in Chemical Biology and the creation of a research group in Maastricht are signs of investments and show that the University and Faculty are actively involved in handling the new developments. The Committee highly appreciates these initiatives. The Committee concludes that the number of staff fulfils the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory F14: Quality of staff The staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regards contents, didactics and organization of the course programme are achieved.

In the selection procedure for the core positions, the didactic abilities of the various candidates were explicitly evaluated. This was stressed by the fact that the Director of Education always participated in the recruiting process. For full and associate professors the appointment procedure follows an almost similar track. Interviewed ME alumni appreciate the openness of the teaching staff and the possibilities that are created to solve problems.


Teachers estimate that they have sufficient contact with students to guide them through their programmes and feel that they are available for them when needed. The Committee considers the range of available specialisms within the Faculty as adequate. Staff members are evaluated annually. This is done at various levels: the professor of the group is responsible for the evaluation of his staff members. The evaluation reports are sent to the Dean who examines these reports together with the responsible group professor. Also, evaluation of individual full professors is done by the Dean. The performance of the separate research groups is evaluated by the Dean with regard to research and management and together with the Director of Education with regard to the educational accomplishments of the group. Evaluation data such as judgements of courses and lecturers are part of the personal evaluations of staff members. Concerning didactical training, there are courses available on the university level, for PhD students as well. The staff is encouraged to take this training, but it is not mandatory. One teacher remarked during the site visit: “I have worked for 20 years in this university, and I have never taken a course on teaching.” However, teachers and PhDs (tutors) involved in DCL take compulsory didactical courses. Recently, a rule has been established that every new teacher needs to take compulsory didactical courses. Teachers are being evaluated in course evaluations. Students are satisfied with their teachers' teaching skills. A foreign teacher took the initiative to take a didactical course with the support of her group. Apparently, no attention is paid to English language teaching even though part of the PhD training courses concern writing and doing presentations in English. It is recommended that this aspect receive the appropriate attention. The Committee notes that the staff is in general very cooperative, and students are very enthusiastic. The scientific and educational quality of the Bachelor and Master staff is considered high in general. The staff is felt to be very aware of quality assurance, they are eager to learn from feedback. The Committee finds that the quality of staff exceeds the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good


Assessment of Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Deployment of Staff’ is Satisfactory 3.2.4. Facilities and provisions F15: Material facilities The accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme.

TU/e has various central facilities for educational purposes, chiefly consisting of lecture, examination and instruction rooms (auditorium) and library facilities. The BME Faculty shares a building with a lecture hall, several self-tuition, project and DCL meeting rooms, laboratories, etc. with the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. The lecture hall is mainly used for lectures of the first and second year of the Bachelor's programme. General educational facilities include a Simulation and Experimenting Lab (SEL), developed especially for DCL. It consists of 160 workplaces (including 60 graphic work stations and 20 notebook workspots) where students can independently set up experiments and conduct simulations. Some staff members of the BME Faculty and their laboratories are located in the buildings of the Departments of Applied Physics and Chemical Engineering & Chemistry where they have office space and research facilities. Five specific BME Engineering Skills lab facilities are available (mentioned in Facet 5). The more advanced BME projects and Skills labs, as well as the projects and thesis work, take place in the research labs. ME Master’s education mainly takes place in the azM. BME has facilities for staff and a secretariat in azM: 3 rooms of 25 m2 for professors, consultation, individual mentoring and secretariat with a central print/fax/photocopy facility. BME, azM, and the UM Medical School are in the process of bringing together all staff members with an engineering or physics background in a clinical BME department that will have its own facilities. This will increase the visibility and manageability of the ME programme in Maastricht. For working with specific advanced simulation and design software that cannot be used/is not available on students’ laptops, a Simulation and Designing Lab (SOL) is available within the Faculty, consisting of 120 workplaces and 60 PC stations. On the level of TU/e, proper access to IT facilities and an optimal use of IT in education is supported through a ‘notebook regulation’ which enables students to buy a state-of-the-art laptop, including full maintenance and support by TU/e and all necessary software for a highly subsidised price. The faculty ‘advises’ students to obtain a laptop, but in reality students cannot do without one. There appear not always to be enough computers available although they are essential in certain courses (Matlab and in some Master's courses). Laptops are used to write reports and for programming/simulations. They are also necessary within the Skills labs. The further they progress in the programme, the more the students depend on a laptop.


The Committee finds that good facilities are available for Skills labs: great technical equipment. With the mentioned growth of student intake, it is possible that the facilities will not suffice and resource shortages will arise. This needs to be addressed. The Committee finds that the material facilities exceed the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F16: Student support and guidance The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students are adequate for the purpose of students’ progress. The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students meet the requirements of the students.

Bachelor students are regularly informed about their progress: the Academic Office communicates the results of written exams to the students within 10 working days from the day of examination. Students are regularly informed about their individual and group progress: during DCL cases by tutors, during projects by Project Coordinators and in Skills labs by trainers. Grades of DCL cases, projects and Skills labs are given at the end of the period. During the Master’s phase, students receive information about passing and grades of elective courses and clinical modules (ME) within 15 working days after the examination. Grades of multidisciplinary projects (BME), internships and Master’s theses are given at the end of the discussions regarding the students’ presentations. An overview of all grades and the accumulated EC is available to students on Studyweb. Student monitoring is performed by the Student Counsellor. The Student Counsellor is a functionary of BME who monitors the study progress of all Bachelor students. At the start of the second trimester of the first year, he invites those students who are performing below expectation for an interview to discuss their progress and find the reasons for the underachievement. At the end of the first year, he sends a written report to all students with a recommendation about continuation or cessation of their study. If the student counsellor feels that the student has made a wrong choice with BME, he will suggest alternative education options. If students are confronted with a delay in their study progress, they may approach the Student Counsellor for an adapted study plan, adapted examination, extra facilities, etc. If necessary, the Student Counsellor will refer the student to specialists, such as for instance a student psychologist. In the third year, students receive information about the various Master tracks and specializations. The input comes partly from the mentors. Students use this information in selecting those projects that they feel will be advantageous for their track or to prepare them for a track. The counsellor's advice is not binding. Mentors are involved in the Bachelor's programme. One tutor interviewed mentioned that in 2006 a reintroduction of tutoring by older students had taken place. It happens to depend on the person if this works out well or not. Some student tutors were introduced last year in DCL. This apparently works well, as students can closely relate to other students.


The Committee perceives the tutorship as good. Students meet their mentor at the entrance on the first day. Attention is paid in the Bachelor to the continuation in the Master. It is recommended, however, to re-enforce mentorship at the beginning of the ME Master. Some students indicated that they were overwhelmed by the number of disciplines. Master students tend to get somewhat lost between various disciplines. It seems that additional supervision and advice are needed. Also, a better coordination on tutoring is considered necessary. It is now mainly in the hands of the different specializations. The Committee concludes that the student support and guidance fulfil the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Facilities and Provisions’ is Satisfactory 3.2.5. Internal quality assurance F17: Evaluation of results The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.

The Quality Control functionary monitors the evaluation cycle of the courses and curricula. S/he is responsible for data collection, analysis and dissemination. The various educational elements are regularly and systematically assessed via student course evaluations. Questionnaires are used to uncover the students' opinions. Each programme part is evaluated at least once every three years. Web-based evaluation forms are used (via e-mail). The response to the electronic surveys is 70-90%. The projects in the Bachelor's programme are evaluated each year, but randomly due to the large number of different projects. An important feature of the internal quality assurance in the Bachelor's programme is the weekly feedback from the DCL working groups on specific cases. Representatives of these DCL groups meet with the Case Coordinator and the Bachelor Programme Coordinator and discuss progress and potential problems. In the same meetings, attention is paid to the quality of the lecturers and other activities. Feedback from these meetings goes to the Director of Education and the relevant instructors. In the Master's programmes the students have an individual programme, which makes weekly evaluations impossible. In the Master's phase, the quality of the internships and thesis work are monitored by the staff members.


The advisory group for the Educational Director, consisting of a few teachers, sometimes discuss the connection between the contents of various courses and bring about improvements where necessary. Evaluation of programmes is also done in the periodical meetings of teachers. Informal feedback of students is used to improve the programmes as well. Starting a year ago, BME and ME graduates are interviewed about the education they received with the aid of exit surveys. ME alumni stated during the visit that exit interviews after graduation only recently appeared for ME. They did not miss them, however, as “there were already enough evaluations”. Every course is evaluated regularly. The results of evaluations were until recently discussed within the OC, but nowadays this happens within another committee (apparently an unofficial committee that deals with day-to-day problems). Overall, the members of the Review Committee felt that fewer committees would be better. The Committee notes that students feel they are being listened to and that good evaluation methods are in place on all levels. The Committee finds that the evaluation of results exceeds the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F18: Measures to effect improvement The results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and that will contribute to reaching the targets.

All evaluations are submitted to the Director of Education, and the measures to be taken require his approval. He initiates changes and renewal of the BME and ME curricula. The student course evaluation forms are processed by the Quality Control functionary and discussed with relevant staff members, the Bachelor Programme Coordinator, the Graduate School BEST/e Coordinator (if applicable) and the Director of Education. The conclusions and measures taken are reported to the Study Programme Committee. Feedback is provided by the lecturer about the measures taken to improve the quality of education. Some courses have been altered based on students' comments to the OC, e.g. because of overlap some courses were changed that originated from the electrical engineering faculty. Also, longer case studies in DCL were a consequence of students’ requests. ME students reported that some changes have already been made in the curriculum after the end-of-year evaluation. Acts for improvements are documented by the Quality Control functionary in writing and in measurable terms. S/he writes a report of each of all evaluation meetings with emphasis on actions for improvement for the following academic year.


About 3 months before the education unit starts, the responsible instructor reports in writing to the Bachelor Coordinator about how the points of improvement have been implemented. Interviewed alumni stated that many difficulties within the ME track were improved during the next year. ME was at first very broad, there were many different topics, and only the thesis allowed some depth to be created. Now, however, there is more free choice established which gives space for more in-depth study and contacts with professors. The Committee notes that development of the curriculum is taken seriously and very improvement driven. The Committee finds that the link between evaluations and implemented improvements exceeds the requirements for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Good BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field Staff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are actively involved in the internal quality assurance.

Besides students and staff, alumni and employers are also approached about the contents of BME education. Collaboration and exchange with workers in the field occur through projects. Input from the professional field is also obtained via the External Advisory Board. The Advisory Board meets twice a year. Representatives from Philips, Organon and hospitals are present (there is currently one vacancy). The new curriculum will be discussed in this board as well as new advances in research and national developments. With regard to the Bachelor's programme, an advisory committee (consisting of teachers) makes recommendations to the Educational Committee on the OER, courses that have been evaluated and new plans for the curriculum. There are separate Bachelor and Master committees to advise the Educational Committee. This is seen as overlap, and discussions are taking place aiming at combining them into one committee (‘cross-fertilisation’). The Student Counsellor has a meeting with the Education Officer of the student association every two weeks. The student member on the Faculty Board has an advisory role and can give feedback on programmes from fellow students to Board members. Several times during the year, breakfast meetings are organised at the TU/e level in different faculties. These meetings focus on the professional field and appear to be quite successful. However, no students are present. Alumni have organised themselves into an association (part of KIVI). Alumni stated during the visit that the Faculty maintains good contact with them. It is still a relatively small group, and people tend to know each other well. They are regularly invited to talk to students. They


“wonder how this will be organized in a few years' time when there will be many more graduates”. The OC focuses on long-term issues like working on a new curriculum (major-minor, the transition from trimester to semester). There appear to be some links and interactions with other BME schools at different universities. An exchange of students is considered useful for the students especially for the transition between Bachelor's and Master's programmes. The Committee notes that staff and management listen to the students and generally take them seriously. The standing committees appear to be functioning well, though it is recommended to reduce their number where possible. The Committee wants to suggest having alumni sit on the Advisory Board. Alumni are informally involved in the Faculty now, and it is considered useful to formalize this involvement. Membership of this Board can structure the way in which they make recommendations about the curriculum. The fact that the curriculum is discussed with companies and academic hospitals is considered a strong point. The Committee finds that staff, alumni and the professional field are sufficiently involved in the internal quality assurance. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory Assessment of Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ is Satisfactory 3.2.6. Results F20: Level that has been achieved The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements.

There is no Bachelor's thesis. Some students indicated that they missed this and reported that they desire a more individual project at the end. (DCL is graded in a combination of group and personal performance.) They find that the Bachelor's programme proves to be very interesting, but they miss an exact individual assessment which would create a clear final ending of the course; it could be combined with Skills labs. Students apparently want to have an individual grade instead of a group grade. Among staff the general idea is that it would be too specialised. In the new plans for the curricula, a suggestion has already been presented to link the Skills labs somewhat to the minor and make the assessment more individual. The


Committee recommends elaborating further on this or seeking other opportunities (see also Facet 6). The Committee notes that design and statistics are not strongly emphasized in the final qualifications of Bachelor graduates and recommends improving this situation. According to the ME alumni C++ (name of a computer language) and Matlab would be useful, they appear to miss that in their work. The Committee recommends paying attention to this as well. According to teachers of Master's programmes, the criterion for a Master thesis is that it has to be publishable. The focus is on the problems to be solved. This is highly appreciated by the Committee. The Committee studied 10 theses in total. The impression gained was that the quality differs, though all of them were considered good theses. In general, the grading was considered in line with expectations (the members would have given three of the theses a slightly lower grade). A few theses were publishable according to the Committee. As to the Master's thesis, the Committee finds that a good approach is used though the engineering component seems to be a bit weak. Master's projects are embedded in larger research programmes, resulting in a variety of different topics of a different nature. Quality control of the project topics is advised (also recommended in Facet 10). The Committee largely approved the grading. The Committee concludes that the content and level of the graduation projects are in line with the degree. The assumption and current practice is that all Bachelor graduates will continue on to a BME or ME Master. The Bachelor graduate is not considered employable. The Committee advises not putting too much energy into encouraging the job market for Bachelor graduates. The job market for Master's graduates needs continuous support from all BME schools together. The job market still needs to be created, and this is expected to involve a long process (as it was in the USA). The market (including hospitals) does not appear yet to really understand what a BME graduate does and needs to receive proper information. Staff members stated during the visit, “We hire the best students ourselves as staff. It took a long time before they actually entered the job market.” Almost all students do their Master's degree in Eindhoven, as a continuation of their education in BME. Some students have considered doing a Master's elsewhere, but none has ‘taken the jump’ yet. BME and ME graduates can continue with further education as a medical physicist (two years) or clinical physicist (four years). In practice, this step has only been taken by ME graduates.


In the past only about 5% of BME graduates started working in hospitals. Of ME graduates at this moment, 95% found employment in hospitals, generally as PhDs and clinical physicists. The alumni interviewed experienced that it was not difficult to find a job, even though the field appears to be relatively unknown. The relationship between the targets of the course and the final qualifications of the graduates fulfils the criteria for accreditation. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Good ME Master: the score for this Facet is Good F21: Success rates To measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses. The success rates meet these targets.

Bachelor: Most courses have a success rate for passing of about 70%. Two courses have a success rate of less than 60% after the second examination, which is thought to be due to the transition from high school to university. On average, students acquire about 44 (out of 60) EC per year during the Bachelor’s phase. In the fall of 2000, the first cohort of 44 students started with the ‘old’ Engineers study (BME Master’s programme). They were at various stages of completion of their Bachelor’s programme. This makes it virtually impossible to assess the duration of the Master’s phase for cohorts. By July 2005, 99 students (49 female, 50 male) had graduated. Information about the career of 72 of 99 alumni is available. A position as PhD student has been acquired by 75% of them. In the fall of 2002, the first cohort of 15 students started the ME programme. They were at various stages of completion of their Bachelor’s programme. Therefore, it appears not to be realistic to set any targets for the average duration of the Master’s programme. In September 2004, 5 students of the first cohort had graduated. By the end of 2006, 10 students had obtained a Master’s degree in ME. Four have a PhD student position with azM (3) or UM (1), 2 work in a hospital, while 1 is taking the abbreviated medical training at Summa in Utrecht. The whereabouts of the 3 others are not known. One goal of the mentor system is to reduce the number of dropouts (about 33%). It was not known at the time of the site visit how much this has improved. There is a general pressure from politicians and the Ministry of Education on universities to reduce dropout rates, improve results and raise quality standards. The Committee acknowledges the difficulty of assessing this aspect and is satisfied with the statistics provided concerning the results thus far. The Committee finds that the results are in line with target figures that are common in Dutch universities. BME Bachelor: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory BME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory ME Master: the score for this Facet is Satisfactory


Assessment of Subject ‘Results’ The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Results’ is Satisfactory


Overview of the assessment by the committee Bachelor’s degree course Biomedical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment



+

F3 Orientation Satisfactory

F4 Requirements for university degree courses

Satisfactory

F5 Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme

Good

F6 Coherence of the programme Satisfactory F7 Study load Good F8 Intake Satisfactory F9 Duration Satisfactory F10 Co-ordination of structure and contents of the degree course

Good

2. Programme +

F11 Assessment and examinations Satisfactory F12 Requirements for university degree courses

Good

F13 Quantity of staff Satisfactory


+


provisions +

F16 Student support and guidance Good F17 Evaluation of results Good F18 Measures to effect improvement Good


+

F19 Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field

Satisfactory

F20 Level that has been achieved Satisfactory 6. Results + F21 Results of teaching Satisfactory


Master’s degree course Biomedical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment



+



Good


Good


Satisfactory

2. Programme +


Good



+


provisions +

F16 Student support and guidance Satisfactory F17 Evaluation of results Good F18 Measures to effect improvement Good


+


Satisfactory

F20 Level that has been achieved Good 6. Results + F21 Results of teaching Satisfactory


Master’s degree course Medical Engineering Subject Assessment Facet Assessment



+



Good


Good


Satisfactory

2. Programme +


Good



+


provisions +

F16 Student support and guidance Satisfactory F17 Evaluation of results Good F18 Measures to effect improvement Good


+


Satisfactory

F20 Level that has been achieved Good 6. Results + F21 Results of teaching Satisfactory


Appendix 1. List of abbreviations ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. ASCI Advanced School for Computing and Imaging, Delft azM Academical Hospital in Maastricht BEST/e Graduate School Biomedical Engineering Sciences & Technology Eindhoven BIOMIM Biomedical Imaging & Modelling BME Biomedical Engineering (Master's programme) BMT Biomedical Engineering (‘Biomedische Technologie’ - Bachelor's programme) BMTE Biomechanics & Tissue Engineering CARIM Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht COBRA Inter-University Research Institute on Communication Technology Basic

Research and Applications CvB University Executive Board DCL Design-Centred Learning DISC Dutch Institute of Systems and Control EC European Credit ECTS European Credit Transfer System EPL Eindhoven Polymer Laboratories HBO higher professional education KIVI Royal Institute of Engineers MaTe Materials Technology MBEMI Molecular Bioengineering & Molecular Imaging MDP Multidisciplinary Projects ME Medical Engineering NUTRIM Nutrition and Toxicology Institute Maastricht NVAO Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders OC programme committee / opleidingscommissie OER Education and Examinations Regulations PTN Polymer Technologies Netherlands QANU Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities SEL Simulation and Experimenting Lab SOL Simulation and Designing Lab TU/e Technical University Eindhoven UM University of Maastricht VSNU Association of Universities in the Netherlands VWO high school education (pre-university education)


Appendix 2. Programme for Review Committee Biomedical Engineering, TU/e, 8-10 November 2006

Location: CIC BMT WH 1.03 8 November 9.00 – 09.30 09.30–12.00

Welcome of Review Committee by the Board Tour through Tissue Engineering Lab (by Maria Stekelenburg) and Biomodelling and Imaging Lab (by Peter Hilbers). Preparatory meeting of the Committee Discussion of the self-evaluation report, reviewing theses, reviewing other materials

12.00-13.00 Deans of Faculty, Programme Director, Self-Evaluation Report Committee Prof. Frank Baaijens (Dean) Mr. Rob Debey (Managing Director) Dr. Marcel van Genderen (Director of Education) Prof. Peter Hilbers (Vice-Dean) Prof. Mark Post (Vice-Dean from Maastricht) Nicole Hijnen (student member, Department Board) Prof. Dick Slaaf (self-evaluation report)

13.00-14.00 Lunch UC – Zaal C

14.00-14.30 Students Programme Committee (OC) Steffie Peters Remi Verhoeven Miriam Lagemaat Lucie Postma Esra van Dam Lieke Cox Hanneke Gelderblom Evelinda Baerends René Besseling (Study Association)

14.30-15.00 Teachers Programme Committee (OC) Prof. Peter Hilbers, chair OC Bachelor (absent) Prof. Frans van de Vosse, chair OC Master (absent) Dr. Jos Broers (absent) Dr. Cees Oomens Dr. Bert van Rietbergen (absent) Dr. Gustav Strijkers Dr. Nico Kuijpers Dr. Marcel van Genderen

15.00-15.45 Students, BME Bachelor's programme Esra van Dam Job van der Loo Anneloes Oude-Vrielink


Elise Huisman Rik van Roekel Ellen Klein

15.45-16.00 Break

16.00-16.45 Teachers, BME Bachelor's programme Dr. Marcel van Genderen Dr. Cees Oomens Dr. Marc van Zandvoort Dr. Rob Hermans (Case Coordinator) Dr. Koen Pieterse (Skills lab)

16.45-17.30 Open podium (on request)

19.00 Dinner for Review Committee and delegation from TU/e (still to be decided) Prof. Dick Slaaf Mr. Rob Debey Dr. Marcel van Genderen Prof. Peter Hilbers Prof. Mark Post Nicole Hijnen

9 November 9:30–10:00 Study/student guidance & Educational Quality Committee

Drs. Koos Blankestijn Mariken Althuizen Dr. Yvonne Lammerts Dr. Marcel van Genderen

10.00-10.45 Students, BME Master's programme Anna CatherinaVerkaik Christiaan Tiemann Renate Boekhoven Henk-Joost Crooymans Mattheus van Driel (absent) TA Kelder (absent) RGPM Van Stiphout (absent) MPA Sanders (absent) (more names will be added)

10.45-11.30 Teachers, BME Master's programme Dr. Rene van Donckelaar Prof. Frans Gerritsen Dr. Maarten Merkx Prof. Klaas Nicolay Prof. Bart ter Haar Romeny Dr. Anna Vilanova


11.30-12.15 Students, ME Master's programme

Marloes Damen Dennis Koehn (more names will be added)

12.15-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.15 Teachers, ME Master's programme Dr. Marielle Bosboom Prof. Frans van de Vosse Prof. Guid Oei Dr. Jos Reulen (more names will be added)

14.15-15.00 Examination Committee & Education Committee, BEST/e Prof. Klaas Nicolay (chair) Prof. Bart ter Haar Romeny Dr. Maarten Merkx Dr. Jacques Huyghe (absent) Koos Blankestijn Prof. Dick Slaaf (BEST/e Education Committee)

15.00-15.15 Break

15.15-16.00 Alumni Marcel van ‘t Veer Lambert Speelman Alina van der Giessen Suzanne Dams Esther Martens Peter Spijker

16.00-17.30 Tour of the buildings

19.00 Dinner for Committee

10 November 09:30–10:30 Final meeting with Dean, Programme Director, Study Coordinator

Prof. Frank Baaijens Mr. Rob Debey Dr. Marcel van Genderen Prof. Dick Slaaf Prof. Peter Hilbers Nicole Hijnen

10.30-12.00 Committee preparation of interim report


12.00-13.00 Lunch

13.00-13.30 Oral report by the Chair of the committee

13.30 Closing and drinks


APPENDICES


Appendix A: Curricula vitae of the Committee members Prof. dr. ir. A.F.W. van der Steen Ton van der Steen received his MSc degree in Applied Physics at the Technical University in Delft in 1989 and his PhD in Medical Sciences in 1994 at the University of Nijmegen. From 1994 to 1996 he was a senior scientist at the Laboratory for Experimental Echocardiography of the Thoraxcentre and since 1997 he is the head of this laboratory. Current research interests are in vulnerable plaque detection, intravascular ultrasound, ultrasound contrast agents and transducer design for special applications, including transesophegeal, three-dimensional and harmonic imaging. He is project leader of a national program on vulnerable plaque visualisation (ICIN32) and was appointed the 2000 NWO PIONIER Technical Sciences for Vulnerable Plaque Detection. In 2000 he was appointed Associate Professor at the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Erasmus University Rotterdam and in 2002 Professor in Biomedical Engineering in Cardiology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands. He is the treasurer of the Dutch Foundation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (DFUGB), the president of the section Ultrasound Techniques of this society and the Dutch representative at the Board of Directors of the European Federation Societies in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB). He is a member of the scientific committee and/or local organisation of the semi-annual scientific meetings of the DFUGB, the IEEE Ultrasonics symposiums, the EFSUMB, Ultrasonics International, World Conference of Ultrasonics, Acoustical Imaging and the International Conferences on Ultrasound Biomicroscanning. Prof. dr. G.A. Truskey George Truskey serves as Professor and Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Duke University. He is the Chair of AIMBE's Academic Council, which includes representatives of the vast majority of the 110 U.S. universities offering educational programs at the graduate or undergraduate level that merge biological and engineering sciences. He has been an AIMBE Fellow since 1999. Dr. Truskey has been a member of the Duke faculty since 1987. He became Chair of Duke's Department of Biomedical Engineering in 2003. While a Professor in the department, he had served as interim chair in 2000-2002. From 1985 until 1987, Dr. Truskey was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Tufts University. During the same period, he was a Research Fellow in Experimental Pathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital of Harvard Medical School. Among other honors, he was a Whitaker Health Sciences Predoctoral Fellow at M.I.T., 1982-1984 and won the Parenteral Drug Association's award for Outstanding Scientific Paper in the Journal of Parenteral Science and Technology in 1987 and Dr. Truskey is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (where he is a Fellow), the American Chemical Society, the Biomedical Engineering Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His research interests include the mechanisms of atherogenesis, cell adhesion, and cell biomechanics. Dr. Truskey holds a B.S.E. in Bioengineering, magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania and both an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prof. dr. P.G. Katona Peter Katona received his BS degree in electrical engineering at the University of Michigan in 1960, and his MS and ScD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962 and 1965, respectively. He was on the faculty of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University from 1969 to 1991, and served as chairman of his department


from 1980 to 1988. During 1989-91 he was Program Director for Biomedical Engineering and Aiding the Disabled at the National Science Foundation. In 1991, Dr. Katona joined The Whitaker Foundation as Vice President for Biomedical Engineering. His responsibility was to design and administer grant programs that would enhance and establish educational programs in biomedical engineering at US universities. In July 2000, he was appointed President and CEO, a position he held until the Foundation’s closing in June 2006. He was appointed Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at George Mason University in September 2006. Dr. Katona is the author of over 50 scientific papers on the control of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. He is also the author of several papers on biomedical engineering as a profession. He served as president of the Biomedical Engineering Society in 1984-85, and is now a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), and the cardiovascular section of the American Physiological Society. He served on numerous advisory committees of academic, government, and private organizations. Dr. Katona is the recipient of a Distinguished Service Award from the Biomedical Engineering Society in 2005, and the Pierre Galletti Award from AIMBE in 2006. Prof. dr. ir. P.A. Wieringa Peter Wieringa obtained his MSc at the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) in 1980. He obtained his PhD at TU Delft on an investigation into blood and oxygen distribution in a capillary network model of the heart muscle, in 1985. From 1987 to 1991 he was a fellow of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences and in 1988 he received an International Fogarty Fellowhsip (NIH). From 1988 till 1990 he was trained in microvascular research at the University of Virginia. He continued this research at the TU Delft and the University of Amsterdam. In 1991 he became associate professor at the TU Delft in man-machine systems and studied human supervisory behaviour and reliability of complex systems, including medical. In December of 2000 he became professor and head of the Man-Machine Systems group. W. Beerepoot Wouter Beerepoot studies Biomechatronics at the Delft University of Technical (TU Delft). At the moment he is writing his master thesis on the modelling of the eye muscles using a 3D finite element techniques. In 2003-2005 he was a student-assistant at the department of Marketing & Communication of the faculty of Mechanical Engineering.


Appendix B: Domain-specific reference frame

Domain Specific Reference document for Dutch academic Biomedical Engineering programmes

Formulated fall 2005 Introduction In support of the upcoming audits of Dutch academic Biomedical Engineering programmes by QANU, the following universities cooperated in developing a Domain Specific Frame of Reference:

• Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) • University of Groningen (RUG) • University of Twente (UT).

This document consists of three sections:

• A – Domain specific requirements for level and orientation of graduates; • B – Domain specific requirements of the B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes • C – Description of derivation process of sections A and B.

This Domain Specific Frame of Reference has been authorized by the Deans of the respective Faculties that host the BME programmes: Dean of TU/e department of Biomedische Technologie (Biomedical Engineering), Prof. dr. ir. F.P.T. Baaijens

Dean of RUG faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Prof. dr. D.A. Wiersma

Dean of UT faculty of Science and Technology, Prof. dr. ir. A. Bliek

(date) (signature) A. Domain specific requirements for level and orientation of graduates Biomedical Engineering (BME) is an engineering discipline focused at the interface of engineering and life sciences. BME education should include basic general engineering requirements (as for example indicated by ABET) and a thorough understanding of life sciences. BME programmes must demonstrate that their students attain, according to the shared Dublin descriptors: Knowledge and understanding:

a. Knowledge of the basic disciplines mathematics, sciences, and engineering (mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering and applied physics) to be applied in the field of Biomedical Engineering in a broader sense; i.e. including directly adjacent fields.

b. Knowledge and understanding of concepts of physiology, (cell-) biology, anatomy, biochemistry, pharmacology and pathology as applicable in the field of Biomedical Engineering.

Applying knowledge and understanding: c. The capability to apply and integrate advanced mathematics, sciences, and engineering to

model and solve complex biomedical problems (see also d).


Making judgements: d. An ability to conduct scientific research in areas of biomedical engineering and technology

that are relevant to the advancement of knowledge and insight into fundamental and applied aspects of health and disease.

An ability to make measurements on and interpret data from living systems, addressing problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems.

An ability to translate a clinical or health-relevant problem or question into an experiment, system, component, or process (design) to meet desired needs and, governed by scientific research or modelling, to advise in issues like clinical research in biomedical engineering, diagnosis and therapy.

Communication: e. A capability to bridge the gap between fundamental and applied research in biomedical

engineering and medical (life) sciences by: Demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in written and verbal form, and Collaboration in a multidisciplinary setting, which may include clinicians, other

healthcare workers and industrialists alike. f. An awareness of potential societal and ethical implications of scientific research in Biomedical

Engineering and, in this context, an ability to critically evaluate the effects of his/her research.

Learning skills:

g. An ability to develop new concepts within the field of BME. h. An ability to study international scientific research. i. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.

B. Domain specific requirements of the B.Sc. (Cycle 1) and M.Sc. (Cycle 2) programmes

The Bachelor’s programme focuses on general knowledge, based on advanced textbooks and including some aspects informed by knowledge of the forefront of their BME specialisation, basic skills and solving recognizable problems. The Master’s programme focuses on deepening theoretical knowledge in one or more specific parts of Biomedical Engineering and provides ample experience in setting up, executing and reporting research and design. It leads to an attitude of scientific involvement.

B.Sc. students acquire Knowledge and understanding in:

a. Basic beta disciplines: mathematics, sciences, and engineering (mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering and applied physics) to be applied in the field of Biomedical Engineering in a broader sense; i.e. including directly adjacent fields.

b. Life sciences: physiology, (cell-) biology, anatomy, biochemistry, pharmacology and pathology as applicable in the field of Biomedical Engineering.


B.Sc. students learn to Apply knowledge and understanding:

c. Of mathematics, sciences and engineering to model and solve simple biomedical problems.

Make judgements: d. Involving the making of measurements on and the interpretation of simple data from living

systems, addressing the problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems at a basic level.

e. Involving the ability to translate simple clinical or health-relevant problems or questions into an experiment, system, component, or process to meet desired needs and, governed by scientific research or modelling, to advise in issues like clinical research in biomedical engineering, diagnosis and therapy.

f. By demonstrating an awareness of potential societal and ethical implications of scientific research in Biomedical Engineering and, in this context, an ability to critically evaluate the effects of his/her research.

Communicate: g. By bridging the gap between fundamental and applied research in biomedical engineering and

medical (life) sciences by: Demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in Dutch in written and verbal

form, and Collaboration in a multidisciplinary setting.

B.Sc. students acquire

Learning skills: h. As demonstrated in their recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong

learning at the BSc+ level with a high level of autonomy. M.Sc. students acquire

Knowledge and understanding:

a. Of in depth biomedical engineering, in a coherent set of specialties, that builds on the basic knowledge acquired in the Bachelor’s phase, and that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing or applying ideas in this specialisation.

M.Sc. students learn to

Apply knowledge and understanding:

b. In order to apply and integrate advanced mathematics, sciences and engineering knowledge as well as specialized knowledge to model and solve complex biomedical problems in new and unfamiliar environments.


Making judgements: c. In an ability to conduct scientific research in areas of biomedical engineering and technology

that are relevant to the advancement of knowledge and insight into fundamental and applied aspects of health and disease.

An ability to make measurements on and interpret complex data from living systems, addressing the complex problems associated with the interaction between living and non-living materials and systems, and the ability to successfully recognize and address new problems in this field.

An ability to translate a complex, not well-defined, clinical or health-relevant problem or question into an experiment, system, component, or process to meet desired needs and, governed by scientific research or modelling, to advise in issues like clinical research in biomedical engineering, diagnosis and therapy.

Communicate: d. With a capability to bridge the gap between complex fundamental and applied research in

biomedical engineering and medical (life) sciences by Demonstrating the ability to communicate effectively in written and verbal form in

Dutch and English, by underpinning knowledge and rationale (restricted scope) to specialist and non-specialist audiences alike, and

Collaboration in a multidisciplinary setting, which may include clinicians, other healthcare workers and industrialists alike.

e. An awareness of potential societal and ethical implications of scientific research in Biomedical Engineering and, in this context, an ability to critically evaluate the effects of the research carried out under his/her responsibility.

Learning skills f. An ability to study international scientific research. g. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning at MSc+ level in a

manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.

C. Description of derivation process of sections A and B

The BME programmes of the three universities have been started as a consequence of ongoing specialisations in BME at various engineering departments in each of the universities. The need was felt for independent BME programmes. Each of the BME programmes is based on a survey of various BME programmes in the world. The Domain specific requirements have been formulated by taking into account our mutual aims and requirements and experiences from other sources. Recently, representatives of the 3 programmes have been active in international discussions on BME education and accreditation (Europe: the BIOMEDEA project [project leaders: Joachim Nagel, Stuttgart, Dick Slaaf, Eindhoven, and Jan Wojcicki, Warsaw] under the auspices of EAMBES, the European Alliance of Biomedical Engineering and Science; USA: Whitaker BEES I (2000) and BEES II (2005) summit on BME education and accreditation in Lansdowne, Virginia, where the TU/e and UT represented their BME programmes.


The derivation process included the following steps:

• Comparison with standards derived by the academic BME community o Netherlands: compilation of the aims of the 3 BME programmes, which were based on

international surveys (see below). In-line with basic requirements of engineering programmes such as Mechanical Engineering, Applied Physics, etc.

o Europe European BME programmes did not serve as reference, since no fully integrated

Bachelor/Master’s programmes were available at the time. EAMBES

• IFMBE White paper on harmonisation and accreditation of European BME programmes,

• BIOMEDEA conferences, papers and discussions o USA

The IFMBE-White paper Whitaker Foundation:

• Information on website

• First and second BEES summit and personal contacts from:

• Duke University, Durham

• Marquette University, Milwaukee

• Northwestern, Evanston

• University of Illinois, Chicago

• Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland

• Rensselaer Polytechnic institute, Troy

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston

• University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

• Drexel University, Philadelphia

• Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

• University of Utah, Salt Lake City

• Comparison with standards of independent bodies o NL: BME degree programme standards were not available. KIVI, the Dutch engineering

alumni association has recently set up a BME branch, but standards for BME still have to be prepared.

o Europe EAMBES-BIOMEDEA: The process of harmonisation of accreditation is

ongoing. We are actively participating. EURACE: the European Accreditation of Engineers is active in preparing

evaluation standards of engineering programmes in Europe. The process is rather similar to that of QANU. However, no BME standards have been formulated. BME TU/e has been invited to participate.

o USA ABET: Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology. ABET has general

engineering standards and specific standards for BME.


• Field of employment o NL: no representation yet. Each programme has its own External Advisory Board or is

setting it up. We used their input. The BME-branch of the Royal Institute of Engineers (KIVI/NIRIA) is active in the field of employment. It is interesting to note that the BME student societies SvBMT Protagoras (TU/e), S.V. Melior Vita (RUG) and Paradoks (UT) are actively seeking contacts with the field of employment.

o Europe: no formal organisation available. o USA: BMES, lead society for BME in ABET. BMES formulates the specific BMES

standards for ABET. Contributor on behalf of TU/e Department Biomedische Technologie (Biomedical Engineering), Prof. Dr. D.W. Slaaf

Contributor on behalf of RUG Master’s Programme for Biomedical Engineering, Prof. dr. ir. H. Duifhuis.

Contributor on behalf of UT Faculty of TNW, Dr. ir. J.A. van Alsté

(date) (signature)


biomedical engineering - nvao tue wo... · the qanu review committee biomedical engineering has...

Documents