the abcs of preparing for abet - engineering in medicine and

Approximately 50 new undergraduate biomedicalengineering (BME) programs have been createdwithin the past few years. Much of the impetus forthis increase in new BME undergraduate programs

at universities and colleges across the United States has beenthe funding support provided by The Whitaker Foundation.Another impetus is the driving force of industry. According tothe U.S. Department of Labor, employment of biomedical en-gineers is expected to increase faster than the average for alloccupations through 2010 [1]. Combined with excellentgrowth potential, B.S. degree candidates in BME are receiv-ing starting offers averaging US$47,850 a year, and M.S. de-gree candidates are averaging US$62,600 a year. Still anotherdriving force is the interest in the field by incoming freshman.An additional fortuitous turn of events is that an aging “babyboomer” population needs sophisticated healthcare that, inturn, increases the necessity for better medical devices andsystems designed by biomedical engineers [1].

For an undergraduate BME degree program to gain ac-creditation, it must pass a thorough evaluation by the Accredi-tation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET).Currently, 24 of the 98 programs listed at www.whitaker.orgare accredited by ABET. ABET is the organization responsi-ble for monitoring, evaluating, and certifying the quality ofengineering, engineering technology, and engineering-relatededucation in the United States.

After almost a decade of effort, a new program review pro-cess, originally called “Engineering Criteria 2000” (EC2000),was developed. EC2000 initiated a change from a prescriptiveevaluation to one based on program-defined missions and ob-jectives with an emphasis on outcomes. This has been goodand bad news for existing BME programs that have had to re-invent their ABET procedures [2]-[3] and for new BME pro-grams seeking accreditation for the first time. For new BMEprograms, this process has been both difficult and confusingand has resulted in a number of new programs not success-fully gaining accreditation during their first visit. Between1998 and 2000, programs could seek accreditation under theold, more prescriptive criteria or under the evolving, out-comes-based criteria called EC2000. In 2001, all programsseeking accreditation were required to utilize the new criteria,which since that time have been known simply as theengineering criteria (EC).

This article provides guidance on planning, implementing,and accrediting BME programs. New programs are generallynot as well connected to a previous infrastructure and an infor-mation database needed for the review process. Existing pro-grams usually have a mindset and history for doing thepre-EC2000 preparation, which can also cause significantproblems. Each author is a fully trained ABET evaluator andoffers insights gained from experience on how to achieve asuccessful conclusion without providing any details about anyprograms visited. It should be noted that parts of this articleare from presentations at ASEE meetings [2]-[3]. Since theABET criteria provide only a minimum set of requirements,BME programs should not use this as a target but rather settheir goals higher by including state-of–the-art and real-worldexperiences that enrich the curriculum [4]. In general, a help-ful strategy when preparing for a visit is to review each crite-rion and provide material that addresses each. Materialsshould clearly address the educational objectives and programoutcomes, evaluate the assessment process, and demonstratehow assessment is used to improve the courses and theprogram. Wherever possible, documentation should beconsistent across programs at a university.

ABETABET, Inc. is recognized by the U.S. Government as the ac-creditation organization for college and university programsin applied sciences, computing, engineering, and technology.Thirty-one professional and technical societies form theABET federation, which has existed for over 70 years. Thereare over 2,500 programs that are accredited nationwide at over550 institutions. ABET, like engineering programs, definesgoals and objectives for accreditation, assesses the process,and continually issues improvements. Its vision is: “ABETwill provide world leadership to assure quality and stimulateinnovation in engineering, technology and applied science ed-ucation.” The relatively new accreditation criteria for engi-neering programs, commonly referred to as EC, include manyof the past requirements and also includes the practice of con-tinuous improvement with input from constituencies, processfocus, and outcome and assessment linked to objectives. Theoverall emphasis is to set the minimum knowledge level forentry into the engineering profession. The evaluation is basedon student, faculty, facilities, institutional support, and finan-

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE 0739-5175/03/$17.00©2003IEEE JULY/AUGUST 2003

BME

Educ

atio

n The ABCs ofPreparing for ABETAccreditation Issues for Biomedical EngineeringPrograms Undergoing the “Engineering Criteria”Review Process

JOHN ENDERLE,JOHN GASSERT,SUSAN BLANCHARD, PAUL KING,DAVID BEASLEY, PAUL HALE JR.,AND DAYNE ALDRIDGE

122

1997 MASTER SERIES

cial resources linked to the program. Information about ABETEC and definitions are available at http://www.abet.org.

The Change in CriteriaEC has created some degree of anxiety and anguish amongthose involved in the accreditation process. This apprehensionwas likely due to the association that EC has with assessment.Lyle Feisel related assessment to the five stages of grief de-scribed by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book On Death andDying [5]. In that book, Dr. Kubler-Ross identifies five stagesa person undergoes upon learning of his or her impendingdeath. Those stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression,and acceptance. Feisel added a sixth stage, “enthusiastic in-volvement.” The literature appears to emphasize the assess-ment aspects of EC, probably because it is perceived as arelatively new trend in engineering education.

Aldridge and Benefield describe how ABET’s EngineeringAccreditation Commission (EAC) evaluators using the “old cri-teria” looked at details such as faculty members’ qualifications,curriculum details, and adequacy of the laboratory facilities [6].They also describe how EC takes a broader approach, focusingon both resources and processes, and propose two feedback sys-tems: educational objectives and learning outcomes. They alsopoint out that the program must demonstrate a commitment tocontinuous improvement. However, Aldridge and Benefield’semphasis is on assessment.

The ABET BME Program RequirementsThe ABET BME program criteria have been substantiallysimplified in EC to the following.

CurriculumThe structure of the curriculum must provide bothbreadth and depth across the range of engineeringtopics implied by the title of the program.The program must demonstrate that graduates have:an understanding of biology and physiology, and thecapability to apply advanced mathematics (includingdifferential equations and statistics), science, and en-gineering to solve the problems at the interface of en-gineering and biology; the ability to makemeasurements on and interpret data from livingsystems, addressing the problems associatedwith the interaction between living and non-liv-ing materials and systems.

A common approach that is used to meet this re-quirement is that a BME program includes a course inbiology, a course in physiology, and a course in statis-tics. However, this is not the only approach; a pro-gram must simply demonstrate that students have anunderstanding of these topics, for example, throughcombination courses or other multitopic offerings.Mathematics up through differential equations mustbe required. Also, there must be a required laboratorycourse (either as a separate course or part of a lectureand laboratory course) that involves taking measure-ments and interpreting data, perhaps related to physi-ological models and/or statistical analysis.Knowledge of biomaterials-cellular-tissue engineer-ing is essential to solve problems at the interface ofengineering and biology as well as the interaction be-

tween living and nonliving systems. This can be easily accom-plished with a course in biomaterials and tissue engineering.If a program does not include a biology course in the curricu-lum, evidence needs to be provided to show that all students inthe program received the required biology background equiv-alent to a regular course taught in biology. Biology can betaught in a series of BME courses such as engineering biologyand physiological modeling. Similar issues also relate tophysiology and statistics.

While current ABET program requirements do not containthe previously more prescriptive criteria on faculty size, in re-ality, those elements are still there but have been made moreflexible according to the program’s mission and objectivesand its ability to provide both breadth and depth.

As with all accredited engineering programs, BME pro-grams must also meet the following curriculum elements:➤ Mathematics and Basic Science—1 year (e.g., 32 credit

hours in a 128 credit hour program)➤ Engineering Topics—1 ½ years (e.g., 48 credit hours in a

128 credit hour program)➤ General Education—this component complements the

technical content of the curriculum and is consistent withthe program and institution objectives

➤ A culminating major design experience (senior year).

Continuous Improvement, Educational Objectives,Program OutcomesFigure 1 illustrates the process of continuous improvement,an essential component for a successful program visit. Eachinstitution and program is required to define its mission andeducational objectives to meet the needs of its constituents, al-lowing for program differentiation from institution to institu-tion. Constituency participation must be clearly demonstratedin continuous improvement.

Educational objectives describe the expected accomplish-ments of graduates a few years after graduation. Educationalobjectives are written, approved, and publicized for externalconstituencies such as prospective students and their parents,graduate programs, medical and dental schools, and employ-ers. Educational objectives should be consistent with the

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003 123

EducationalObjectives

InstitutionalMission

MeasurablePerformance

CriteriaProgram

Outcomes

Assessand

Evaluate

Feedback forContinuous

ImprovementConstituents Program Learning

Practices/Strategies

Assessment:Collection and Analysisof Evidence and Data

Evaluation:Interpretation of

Evidence and Data

Fig. 1. Assessment for continuous improvement. This illustration is based onan ABET training diagram.

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003124

mission statement and be measurable with a process in placeto review and update. Educational objectives may be writtenas expectations for all graduates to accomplish and/or as onesthat a group of the graduates are expected to accomplish (i.e.,graduates in a particular track, say premed, that are tied tomedical schools).

Many BME programs have difficulty expressing educa-tional objectives in publicized materials as visits to someBME Web sites reveal. Some may use an expression such as

To provide students with a foundation in science, mathematicsand engineering.

This type of statement does not describe the expected accom-plishments of graduates a few years after graduation. Rather,an educational objective could be written as

Our graduates will function at a technically competent levelin formulating and solving problems in biomedical engineer-ing.

or

Our graduates will have a thorough grounding in en-gineering fundamentals that prepares them for a suc-cessful career in biomedical engineering amid futuretechnological changes.

Program outcomes describe what all students are expectedto know, do, or think by graduation. Program outcomes mustembrace Criterion 3 (a)–(k) and the BME program require-ments. The achievement of program outcomes should preparestudents for the achievement of educational objectives. Manyprograms have developed intentional strategies so that pro-gram outcomes may be achieved as well as educational objec-tives. Program outcomes need not be limited to thosespecified in the ABET criteria. Additional outcomes may bedefined to allow for programs to distinguish themselves. Keepin mind that demonstration of the achievement of a program’soutcomes should, by necessity, also demonstrate achievementof Criterion 3 (a)–(k) and BME program requirements. A pro-gram’s unique outcomes must be linked to the educational ob-jectives to complete the continuous improvement loop, andboth educational objectives and program outcomes should bemeasurable. For instance, a program outcome could be

Biomedical engineering students will acquire theability to apply fundamental principles in the areas

of biochemical engineering, bioinstrumentation,biomaterials, biomechanics and bioinformatics.

A strategy for achieving this outcome would be for all stu-dents to take a carefully chosen common core of BMEcourses. This example program outcome is easily linked to ei-ther of the example educational objectives. It also embracesCriterion 3(a) and (e) and some of the BME programrequirements.

A program must evaluate whether graduates are meetingthe educational objectives using assessment processes to im-prove the program and demonstrate whether students areachieving the program outcomes before graduation. Throughtime, continuous improvement allows a program to demon-strate that graduates have achieved desired outcomes by mea-suring outcomes related to objectives and using these resultsto further develop and improve the curriculum through inputfrom constituents. A program must collect data and documentthe process used to demonstrate that objectives and outcomesare being achieved. An example used at ABET VisitorTraining Sessions to describe these terms is:➤ Objective: Graduates will be able to communicate with

people throughout the world.➤ Outcome: Students must be able to speak 12 languages

before graduation.➤ Assessment: Students can speak only 10 languages. A

new process is being put in place to increase the numberof spoken languages by students.

The next step in continuous improvement is to adopt learn-ing practices and strategies. Assessment and evaluation mustbe an integral part of the development of learning practicesand strategies including the selection of assessment meth-ods/tools, who does the assessment, what will be done withthe data, and who makes decisions about what to improve.

Continuous improvement is by nature iterative, meaningthat a program does not need to wait until the “loop has beenclosed” in order to act on evidence/data for adjustment of out-comes statements, performance criteria, or selection of as-sessment tools, for example.

Assessment and EvaluationEC includes the practice of regular assessment studies andcontinuous improvement with input from the constituencies,process focus, and outcome and assessment linked to objec-tives. This is one of the major changes involved in the new cri-teria and one that causes the most anxiety among programsbeing evaluated. It should be noted that successful implemen-tation of assessment and continuous improvement are not

EC includes the practice of regular

assessment studies and continuous

improvement with input from the

constituencies, process focus, and outcome

and assessment linked to objectives.

done right before an ABET visit but must be a regular and on-going part of the operation of the program. It is hoped that thisprocess will encourage new and innovative approaches to en-gineering education and its assessment. Under EC, programsdefine the mission and objectives to meet the needs of the stu-dents, industry, and other important constituents. Objectivesare tied to outcomes that are supported via assessment mea-sures. The assessment process is one that improves the qualityof the program (curriculum) through measurement and en-sures that students achieve program outcomes before certifi-cation for graduation. Assessment is a faculty activity thatshould result in change such as adoption of new textbooks,teaching techniques, and laboratory procedures/experiments.It is not the responsibility of the program evaluator to discoverthe fruits of assessment; it is the responsibility of theprogram’s faculty to demonstrate how assessment has beenapplied to further development and improvement.

Assessment and continuous improvement require a plan ofaction. To demonstrate that graduates have achieved desiredoutcomes, some programs use student portfolios, collectingstudent work from the freshman year to the senior year using aWWW-based approach. This tool is useful in demonstratingthat outcomes have been achieved. Another mechanism is touse national exams, such as the Fundamentals of Engineering(FE) exam; this exam also allows for comparison amonginstitutions.

Some programs use an exit interview for all graduatingstudents to provide important program feedback for assess-ment. This interview is in addition to course evaluations thatare important metrics for a faculty member and course im-provement. Course evaluations, however, are not adequate forassessment as faculty other than the course instructor and oth-ers (e.g., industrial clients helping assess senior design pro-jects) need to be involved. To be an effective courseassessment tool, the faculty should develop and use an assess-ment survey instrument in courses tied to program outcomesand Criterion 3 (a)-(k). After administering the assessment in-strument, the faculty then need to review the survey resultsand implement changes, if necessary, to complete the continu-ous improvement process. However, it is important to keep inmind that surveys of students provide indirect measures ofstudent learning. Good students tend to underestimate theirabilities whereas poor students tend to overestimate theirknowledge. Indirect measures can provide useful informationabout student perceptions whereas direct measures provideinformation about actual student learning.

Some programs use specific test questions from a series ofrequired courses as direct measures to assess accomplishment

of program outcomes and Criterion 3 (a)-(k) by students in theprogram. To use this evaluation process, the faculty (note, notjust the course instructor) must develop and evaluate the re-sults and implement curriculum changes, if needed, based onthe evaluation. For evaluation, some programs have tried touse student GPA or the fact that students have passed coursesassociated with program outcomes. Grades by themselves arenot adequate for evaluation purposes since a student can passa course, but not demonstrate that program outcomes associ-ated with the course have been achieved (i.e., the student canfail the program outcomes part of the course and yet still passthe course).

Alumni surveys that document professional accomplish-ments and career development are a useful tool that can becarried out over a period of years (say two and five years aftergraduation). Employer, graduate school, medical and dentalschool surveys, and placement of graduates are other impor-tant metrics of performance.

Continuous improvement of the program is the ongoing re-sponsibility of the faculty. This is evident by faculty meetingswith this topic as the major theme or periodic faculty retreats.Creating a working advisory board from industry and formerstudents is also another mechanism to provide feedback.Overall, it is the program’s responsibility to demonstrate thatassessment and continuous improvement have occurred in aclear and direct manner. It is a mistake to provide the evaluatorwith reams of data that have not been analyzed and used to de-termine whether it is necessary to make changes in theprogram.

Preparation for an ABET VisitThere are many sources that describe how an engineering pro-gram should approach assessment. McGourty, Sebastian, andSwart describe a five-step feedback process that can be used todevelop an assessment program [7]. McGourty also suggeststhat an educational institution is a dynamic system and thatsuccessful integration of assessment and continuous improve-ment require a systems approach [8]. Awoniyi suggests theuse of a template approach where a department creates filesand the documents to fill it. He goes on to describe varioustemplates and their relationship to assessment [9]. Olds andMiller develop a “project evaluation matrix” [10]. The matrixincludes research questions, performance criteria, implemen-tation strategies, assessment and evaluation methods,timeline, and audience.

Many authors describe tools that can be used to do assess-ment. Owen, Scales, and Leonard describe a database for pro-gram outcomes [11]. Panitz is one of many who describe the


While there is much more flexibility in EC

to incorporate local desires, the program still

must meet basic minimum requirements for

all engineering programs and

applicable program criteria.


use of student portfolios [12]. Johnson discusses techniquesthat can be used to create surveys [13]. Blanchard andMcCord describe how a single team-based written project canbe used to address multiple objectives and outcomes [14].This approach can help reduce faculty workload whenassessing the program.

Although assessment and continuous improvement aresignificant aspects in the accreditation process, they are notthe only components. There is still the challenging task of pre-paring for the actual accreditation visit. Avers points out that“a discrete event approach to preparation for EC accreditationwill not lead to satisfactory results” [15]. In the past, it was notuncommon to prepare for accreditation and then forget aboutit. Under EC, the emphasis is on continuous improvement.Avers also makes the point that assessment is the responsibil-ity of the faculty, not the ABET program evaluator. He sug-gests using process diagrams, avoiding attempts tooverwhelm the visitor, and providing a clear path for thevisitor [15].

The next section provides suggestions in the form of ques-tions that should be easily answered by the program afterreading the self-study report that is prepared for the accredita-tion visit. The questions are arranged according to the ABETEC [16] and should supplement the information requested bythe “EC Self-Study Questionnaire” [17].

Self-Study ReportThe self-study report is written with input from the entire fac-ulty of a BME program as a response to the criteria for accred-iting engineering programs [16]. The self-study report, basedon the “Self-Study Questionnaire” [17], is expected to be aqualitative assessment of the strengths and limitations of theprogram, including the achievement of institutional and pro-gram objectives and should involve broad and appropriateconstituent groups in its preparation and process. The institu-tion determines how it will conduct its self-study, and the ac-crediting body specifies the items to be addressed in thereport, i.e., this “Self-Study Questionnaire.”

The self-study report is not prepared by one person in avacuum but must include the input from the faculty and stu-dents—an essential component of EC. Before EC, it was pos-sible for a single person to prepare the self-study report andfor the site visit to be successful. This is no longer true. Usu-ally, a self-study report prepared by a single faculty memberresults in an unsuccessful site visit as both faculty and stu-dents are uninvolved in the process. Many new and even exist-ing programs believe that one person writing the self-study inthe fourth or fifth year is sufficient for a successful ABET ex-perience. This mechanism of preparing for an ABET visit nolonger works with EC.

A mistake that the faculty of some programs make is to be-lieve that EC 2000 allows you to be whatever you want to be.While there is much more flexibility in EC to incorporate lo-cal desires, the program still must meet basic minimum re-quirements for all engineering programs and applicableprogram criteria. Some programs have tried to define verynonengineering topics as engineering topics. Some examplesinclude using math courses and computer programmingcourses as engineering science courses. Others have stated aneducational objective or program outcome and then not dem-onstrated in the self-study report that the objective or outcomehas been achieved (e.g., “we will be very biologically capa-

ble” and not demonstrably incorporating biology into the pro-gram). Since the onus is now on the program to define itselfwithin the ABET requirements to prove that they are, indeed,following the self-defined program objectives/outcomes andproducing graduates who meet the outcomes expected byABET Criterion 3 (a)–(k), there is the necessity for a muchgreater buy in from industry and other constituents on whatthe program is, how it is run, and how it is assessed and modi-fied by the faculty. While a program is not required to use theexpressions “educational objectives” or “program outcomes”in the self-study report, the program should define its own ter-minology (e.g., goals) in light of these expressions.

Actions to Correct Previous ShortcomingsAfter initial accreditation, the next self-study report must ad-dress the shortcomings identified by the EAC during the pre-vious general review and any interim reviews. It is importantto list the shortcomings and describe what actions have beentaken to address each shortcoming. The evaluator will defi-nitely investigate whether each of the shortcomings has con-tinued and worsened. If any have worsened, a “concern”might well be elevated to a “weakness” or a “weakness”elevated to a “deficiency.”

EAC CriteriaThe remainder of this section presents each of the EC criteriaalong with a number of proposed questions. Those who pre-pare the self-study report should answer these questions. Thequestions listed are intended to provide a starting point thatshould provoke further discussion and questions among pro-gram faculty and students. Keep in mind that these questionsare in addition to the input requested in the “Self-StudyQuestionnaire” [17].

Criterion 1. StudentsThe institution must evaluate, advise, and monitor students todetermine its success in meeting program objectives.➤ Are there written procedures for advising students in

each of the programs?➤ Do the procedures include information as to how, when,

and to what extent the students are advised?➤ Is there a clearly defined procedure for evaluating trans-

fer credit?➤ Is there a clear procedure available for a student to check

academic progress?➤ Is there a faculty member who monitors progress of stu-

dents in the program?During a visit, a program evaluator will meet with students

and ask probing questions. If the students have problems,think of the impression their answers will have on the visitor.The following questions could be asked of students:

Questions for lower division students in the major:➤ What are the educational objectives and program out-

comes?➤ Do you know what you are expected (program outcomes)

to know upon graduation?➤ Are course objectives (educational outcomes) clearly de-

fined?➤ Are you receiving appropriate academic advising?➤ Are faculty readily available?➤ Do you have adequate access to computer facilities?

➤ Are the faculty involved in advising and/or monitoringyour academic progress?

➤ What were you told about placement after graduation?

Questions for upper division students:➤ What are the educational objectives and program out-

comes?➤ Do you know what you are expected (program outcomes)

to know upon graduation?➤ Are course objectives (program outcomes) clearly de-

fined?➤ Did you and are you receiving appropriate academic ad-

vising?➤ Are faculty readily available?➤ How are the labs? Is equipment available?➤ How are the computer facilities?➤ Do you have adequate access to computer facilities?➤ Are the faculty involved in advising and/or monitoring

your academic progress?➤ What are your placement prospects after graduation?

Criterion 2. Program Educational ObjectivesEach engineering program for which an institution seeks ac-creditation or reaccredidation must have in place:

(a) detailed published educational objectives that are consis-tent with the mission of the institution and these criteria.➤ Are program educational objectives easy to find in uni-

versity literature?➤ Is the university’s mission statement easy to find?➤ Are the educational objectives for the program consistent

with the mission of the university and do you explainhow they are consistent?

(b) a process based on the needs of the program’s various con-stituencies in which the objectives are determined and period-ically evaluated.➤ Are there minutes from curriculum committee meetings?➤ Are there documents that show any resulting changes?➤ Is there a definition of your constituencies?➤ Were your constituencies involved in defining and re-

viewing your objectives?➤ Is the process overburdensome?

(c) a curriculum and processes that ensure the achievement ofthese objectives.➤ Are there clear statements as to what the students will be

able to do?➤ Are there processes to measure achievement of the grad-

uates of the program?➤ What mechanism or process exists to help faculty teach

what is expected in the curriculum (course description,course coordinator, course outcomes, sequenceoutcomes)?

(d) a system of ongoing evaluation that demonstrates achieve-ment of these objectives and uses the results to improve the ef-fectiveness of the program.➤ Are there copies of the processes, results of the measure-

ments, and examples of how they are being used to im-prove the program curriculum?

➤ Have the results of the surveys and descriptions of howthe results are or will be used for continuous improve-ment been included in the self-study report?

➤ Is it clear that survey results have been used for curricu-lum improvements to better meet the objectives and out-comes?

Criterion 3. Program Outcomes and AssessmentProgram evaluators have been told that it is the university’s re-sponsibility to demonstrate that the program is achieving itsobjectives and that the students are meeting the defined out-comes. In the past, student work was arranged by course withexamples of high, average, and low. Due to time constraints,this arrangement will not allow an evaluator to verify that stu-dents are achieving defined outcomes, that program objec-tives have been met, or that a process for improvement is inplace.➤ Are materials arranged by objective and outcome?➤ Are the processes used to measure achievement of each

objective and outcome and the processes for improve-ment clearly defined and included with the materials?

➤ Have course objectives and associated student outcomesbeen developed for all courses and have they been in-clude in all course syllabi?

➤ Is there a linkage between the measurement tools that areused to demonstrate that graduates have met (a) through(k) and the outcomes that are defined for the programs?

Criterion 4. Professional ComponentThe professional component requirement states that “studentsmust be prepared for engineering practice through the curric-ulum culminating in a major design experience based on theknowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and in-corporating engineering standards and realistic constraintsthat include most of the following considerations: economic;environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical;health and safety; social; and political.”➤ Do you show that there are multidisciplinary teams in a

major design experience? A multidisciplinary studentteam is formed by intention and not by accident. It shouldbe made up of a variety of student backgrounds, perhapsfrom different tracks in a program. If multidisciplinaryteams are not used in the major design experience, thenevidence of multidisciplinary teams must be apparentelsewhere in the program.

➤ Does the curriculum meet or exceed the minimum re-quirement for engineering topics?

➤ Have the relationships among the professional compo-nents and the program goals been established?

➤ Does the professional component address appropriatestandards and reasonable constraints?

➤ Is industry involved in the program by way of lecturesand contributions in advisory boards?

➤ Do the students support either the IEEE EMBS society orhave a BMES chapter?

Major Design Experience. Engineering design is usually acourse or series of courses that bring together concepts andprinciples that students learn in their field of study; it involvesthe integration and extension of material learned in their ma-jor toward a specific project. Design is an iterative, decision-making process involving problem solving for large-scale,



open-ended, complex, and sometimes ill-defined systems. Itis not a course substitute for the deficiencies that exist in a pro-gram’s curriculum. The emphasis of design is not on learningnew material. Typically, there are no required textbooks forthe design course, although having a textbook for the courseallows for more thorough treatment. (Seehttp://vubme.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/King/textbook.htm for sev-eral suggestions.) Most often, the student is exposed to sys-tem-wide synthesis and analysis, critique, and evaluation forthe first time and applies previously learned material to meet astated objective.

Under the professional component of Criterion 4, studentsmust be prepared for engineering practice throughcoursework incorporating economic, environmental,sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health and safety,social, and political engineering standards and realistic con-straints. Many BME programs include a senior year designcourse that covers these topics and may also include: workingon teams, design process, planning and scheduling(timelines), technical report writing, proposal writing, patentsearches, oral presentations, FDA regulations, liability, theimpact of economic constraints, and marketing.

One strategy for design is to use a yearlong design experi-ence of two three-credit-hour courses. The first design courseintroduces students to the topics mentioned in the previousparagraphs. Further, each student in the first design course➤ selects a project➤ drafts specifications➤ prepares a project proposal➤ selects an optimal solution and carries out a feasibility

study➤ specifies components, conducts a cost analysis, and cre-

ates a timeline➤ creates a paper design with extensive modeling and com-

puter analysis.The second design course requires students to implement

their design by completing a working model of the final prod-uct. Prototype testing of the paper design typically requiresmodifications to meet specifications. These modifications un-dergo proof of design using commercial software programscommonly used in industry. Each student in the course➤ constructs and tests a prototype using modular compo-

nents as appropriate➤ conducts system integration and testing➤ assembles the final product and field-tests the device➤ writes a final project report➤ presents an oral report using PowerPoint or presents a

poster session.According to Criterion 3(d), each student in the program

must show an ability to function on a multidisciplinary team.

An ideal way to implement this requirement is to requiremultidisciplinary team projects in design. A multidisciplinaryteam project for BME programs is most easily accomplishedvia a project in which a student from each subspecialty is in-cluded on the team (e.g., biomechanics, biochemical,bioinstrumentation, biomaterial, biocomputing, etc.).

A unique option for BME design projects is the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) program on design projects to aidpersons with disabilities [18]. This program combines the ac-ademic requirement of a design experience with enhanced ed-ucational opportunities for students and improved quality oflife for disabled individuals. Students and university facultyprovide, through their normal ABET-accredited senior designclass, engineering time to design and build a device or soft-ware for a person with disabilities, and the NSF providesfunds, competitively awarded, for supplies, equipment, andfabrication costs for the design projects. Projects aredescribed in an annual publication funded by the NSF (e.g.,[19]).

Research Projects and Design Projects. To satisfy Criterion4, students are expected to engage in a culminating major de-sign experience. Note carefully that this is not a research pro-ject. Also note that this is a culminating, senior-year coursebased on accumulated math, science, and engineering coursesand not merely on overall completed credit hours and not a de-sign course in the junior year or earlier. Programs that substi-tute the capstone senior-year design with a senior yearresearch project or a junior-year design course risk losing ornot achieving accreditation. This may be viewed as a defi-ciency in the program. A single deficiency in the program re-sults in a “show cause” (SC) outcome for existing programsand a “not to accredit” (NA) for new programs. This action in-dicates that the program is not in full compliance. An on-sitevisit is required after an SC for existing programs to evaluatethe actions taken by the institution to remove the deficiencies.This action has a typical duration of one year. If a programdoes not correct the deficiency after one year, then an existingprogram is given an NA outcome. This action indicates that aprogram has deficiencies such that the program is in contin-ued noncompliance. The NA action is usually taken only afteran SC evaluation or the evaluation of a new, unaccredited pro-gram. Accreditation is generally not extended as a result ofthis action.

Criterion 5. Faculty➤ Does the age of the faculty create a question about the

program’s ability to continue?➤ If it does, is there a plan to assure program continuation?➤ Are there sufficient faculty to conduct the program?

Certainly, the role of and use of mission,

objectives, outcomes, assessment, and

continuous improvement are new to the

accreditation process in ABET’s EC.

➤ Are the program’s faculty qualified to teach the subjectsthey are assigned to teach?

➤ Are the faculty active professionally?➤ Do the faculty have competencies to cover the taught ma-

terials?

Criterion 6. Facilities➤ Is there a strategic plan for the university?➤ Is there a strategic plan for laboratory improvements?➤ Are laboratories and laboratory equipment in need of

modernization?➤ If statements are made in the self-study, ask students and

faculty it they agree with them. The program visitor willattempt to ascertain if the statements are correct and rele-vant to the accreditation.

➤ Are the facilities safe? Lack of laboratory safety planscan result in negative consequences.

Criterion 7. Institutional Support and FinancialResourcesIf statements are made about strong university support of theprogram in the self-study report, make sure that faculty andstudents agree with them. Examples of statements mayinclude:➤ The college of engineering provides the engineering pro-

grams with considerable financial support for recruitingquality faculty and students.

➤ There is steady and dependable support offered for theprogram offered.

➤ A lack of faculty or staff sufficient to offer the program ormanage growth in the program is often the result of aproblem with Institutional Support and FinancialResources.

➤ Dilapidated or unsafe facilities also point to Criterion 7.

If statements are made, ask students and faculty it they agreewith them. Again, the visitor will ask for elaboration.

Criterion 8. Program Criteria➤ Have graduates demonstrated that they have an under-

standing of the program specific required topics?➤ Do program educational outcomes address the program

specific requirements?➤ Does each program’s objectives include the additional

outcomes necessary to meet this criterion.

Final QuestionsTest the results of the preparation for the visit by placing your-self in the role of the program evaluator. Ask program facultyquestions such as:➤ What do you think of the assessment process?➤ Have you been involved in developing the educational

objectives?➤ Have you been involved in developing the program out-

comes?➤ Has the curriculum changed as a result of assessment?➤ Is there a process for curricular change?➤ Are you involved in curriculum advising for students?➤ Are you involved in any mentoring?➤ What is the placement rate of your graduates in:➤ Graduate school?➤ Employment?➤ Professional school?

If general statements about the program or the university aremade in the self-study report, ask the faculty if they agree withthe statements.

The Program Visit ProcessThe program evaluator actually begins preparing for the sitevisit well before the actual visit by reviewing the self-study re-port provided by the program. The program evaluator typi-cally spends a few days thoroughly reviewing the informationin the self-study report and completes the Program Reportforms on the Curriculum Analysis, Transcript Analysis, Pro-gram Audit Form, and Faculty Analysis well before makingthe site visit. The purpose of this analysis is to identify areasthat need further study during the visit. Unlike evaluationpractices in the past, ABET now supports and encourages theprogram evaluators to contact the designated program prior to


Fig. 2. Photograph of the materials provided to the programevaluator at Vanderbilt University. Notice clearly labeled ma-terial at the top of the bookcase related to a-k. Material in thelower part of the bookcase relates to course materials.


arriving on campus when there arequestions concerning the self-studyreport, materials on the Web, or otherinformation that is missing orconfusing.

The visit typically begins on Day0 (Sunday) when the ABET evalua-tor team assembles. The team thentravels on-campus to make an initialinspection of the course materialsand documentation related to theprogram. The program evaluator re-views the course material against thecriteria: Are the students achievingdefined outcomes? Are program ob-jectives being met? Is there a processfor continuous quality improve-ment? Evidence that the criteria aresatisfied is the responsibility of theprogram; it must be easily recog-nized and fully documented. Unlessthis information is clearly labeled(for example, see Figure 2, compiledby the BME Program at VanderbiltUniversity), it is extremely difficultfor the program evaluator to confirmthat the criteria have been met. ForCriterion 3, one method is to organize material by course titleand also separately by objective and outcome. Figure 3 showsa Web site created to assist the program evaluator. For Crite-rion 4, each of the items previously mentioned must be clearlyidentified. The program evaluator has only a few hours to re-view these materials, so every effort needs to be made by theprogram to make it as straightforward as possible. Once again,it is the program’s responsibility to prove to the program eval-uator that all criteria are satisfied; it is not the program evalua-tor’s responsibility to have to hunt to find evidence or to doany analysis to form conclusions.

During the evening of Day 0, the team assembles for din-ner and reviews the previsit evaluations for each of the pro-grams. Each program evaluator provides previsit forms to theteam chair and discusses any difficulties encountered. Prob-lems are usually discussed among the team members to assistprogram evaluators in resolving complex problems.

On Day 1 (Monday), the team meets with the dean and thedean’s invited guests. This often includes department/pro-gram heads and associate deans. The dean presents an updateof the institution’s implementation of ABET’s EC, processesthat are common to all units, and key outcomes and continu-ous improvement efforts. The program evaluator then meetswith the program head to discuss educational objectives, in-volvement of constituencies, program-level processes, out-comes, and continuous improvement efforts. Throughout theday, the program evaluator meets with faculty and students todetermine key strengths and shortcomings of the program.During the luncheon, various officials and guests of the insti-tution are present to discuss the program and the institution.During the afternoon, the evaluators visit various supportunits on campus (e.g., the biology department, library, andcomputing center). The team then gathers for dinner that eve-ning to discuss an updated assessment of the programs, as-sessments from support areas, and any issues arising from the

visit. Later in the evening, the program evaluator prepares adraft exit interview program statement. This statement ad-dresses each of the first eight criteria, documenting deficien-cies, weaknesses, concerns, and strengths. Suggestions forimprovement are usually provided in this report. Also de-scribed are the evaluator’s findings concerning evaluation andassessment processes in place for the unit and the use ofprocesses to improve the effectiveness of the program.

At the beginning of Day 2 (Tuesday), the team providescopies of the first draft of the exit interview program statementto the team chair. The program evaluator inspects classrooms,laboratories, and offices to assess the adequacy of allocatedspace, furnishings, and equipment available to students, faculty,and support staff (this activity is sometimes accomplished onDay 0). The program evaluator completes meetings with re-maining institutional representatives. The draft exit interviewprogram statement is revised based on any new findings, andthen the program evaluator debriefs the program head. In thismeeting, the evaluator clarifies any issues and describes pro-gram strengths and shortcomings. The ABET team reassem-bles for a private lunch and informally shares program findings.Each of the exit interview program statements is finalized. Theprogram evaluator provides the team chair with a copy of theexit interview program statement and program report at theconclusion of the luncheon. The ABET team then gathers andconducts an exit interview with the institution president or des-ignated stand-in and his or her guests.

ConclusionSir Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “One’s mind, oncestretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimension.”Is EC a new idea? To the engineering community it is rela-tively new, and it has likely stretched the minds of many an en-gineering educator. That is apparent by the multitude ofpapers written on the topic over the past few years.

Fig. 3. This figure shows a Web site created by the BME program at Vanderbilt Universityto assist the program evaluator.

Will there be Feisel’s added sixth stage of grief, “enthusi-astic involvement?” That question is yet to be answered. How-ever, just as for engineering programs, ABET must definegoals and objectives for accreditation, assess the process, andcontinually improve. It appears that there is enthusiastic in-volvement by the members of ABET, and this will likely re-sult in continuous improvement in the accreditation process.As a result, preparing for and meeting ABET’s EC will likelybe a moving target. However, if the questions presented in thisarticle and those that evolve during the process can be an-swered after completing the self-study report, then the pro-gram evaluator and the program faculty will likely have anenjoyable and enlightening experience, and the minds of theprogram faculty and perhaps that of the program evaluatorwill never regain their original dimensions.

EC has had a tremendous impact on the way faculty viewthe accreditation process. Certainly, the role of and use of mis-sion, objectives, outcomes, assessment, and continuous im-provement are new to the accreditation process in ABET’sEC. This is true of all programs, however, and not just for bio-engineering. For bioengineering, there are fewer require-ments in EC than the previous criteria. This allows eachinstitution to fully develop the BME program based on theneeds of its constituents, such as local industries. As a result, agreater diversity and differentiation in programs will exist, of-fering students a greater selection in BME curricula across theUnited States.

John D. Enderle received the B.S., M.E.,and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engi-neering and the M.E. degree in electricalengineering from Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute, Troy, New York, in 1975, 1977,1980, and 1978, respectively. After com-pleting his Ph.D. studies, he became a se-nior staff member at PAR Technology

Corporation, Rome, New York, from 1979 to 1981. From1981-1994, Dr. Enderle was a faculty member in the Depart-ment of Electrical Engineering and coordinator for biomedi-cal engineering at North Dakota State University (NDSU),Fargo, North Dakota. Dr. Enderle joined the National Sci-ence Foundation as program director for Biomedical Engi-neering and Research Aiding Persons with DisabilitiesProgram from January 1994 through June 1995. In January1995, he joined the faculty of the University of Connecticut(UConn) as professor and head of the Electrical and SystemsEngineering Department. In June 1997, he became the direc-tor for the Biomedical Engineering Program at UConn. Dr.Enderle is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Elec-tronics Engineers (IEEE), the current editor-in-chief ofIEEE EMB Magazine, a past-president of the IEEE Engi-neering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS), EMBSconference chair for the 22nd Annual International Confer-ence of the IEEE EMBS and World Congress on MedicalPhysics and Biomedical Engineering in 2000, Fellow of theAmerican Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering(AIMBE), an ABET program evaluator for bioengineeringprograms, a member of the American Society for Engineer-ing Education and biomedical engineering division chair for2005, and a senior member of the BME Society. Enderle waselected as a member of the Connecticut Academy of Scienceand Engineering in 2003, with membership limited to 200

persons. He has also been a teaching Fellow at the Universityof Connecticut since 1998. His research interests includemodeling physiological systems, system identification, sig-nal processing, and control theory.

John Gassert obtained his M.S. degree inelectrical engineering in 1974 and hisPh.D. in biomedical engineering in 1995,both from Marquette University. Gassert isa Senior Member of the IEEE and anABET EAC program evaluator for bio-medical engineering and electrical engi-neering. In 1989 he joined the faculty at the

Milwaukee School of Engineering and is currently a professorand vice chairman of the Electrical Engineering and Com-puter Science Department. He has developed and taughtcourses at both the graduate and undergraduate level in bio-medical engineering, medical informatics, perfusion, electri-cal engineering, computer engineering, and electricalengineering technology. Prior to arriving at MSOE, Gassertspent 17 years in industry as a design engineer, a clinical engi-neer, and a consultant.

Susan M. Blanchard received her A.B. inbiology from Oberlin College in 1968 andher M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biomedicalengineering from Duke University in 1980and 1982, respectively. She is currently aprofessor in the Department of BiomedicalEngineering and the Department of Bio-logical and Agricultural Engineering at

North Carolina State University, a Senior Member of the Bio-medical Engineering Society, and a Fellow of AIMBE and theIEEE. She was president of the IEEE EMBS in 1996 and re-ceived the society’s Service Award in 1998. She coauthoredIntroduction to Biomedical Engineering (Academic Press,2000) with John D. Enderle and Joseph D. Bronzino.

Paul H. King is an associate professor ofbiomedical engineering and mechanicalengineering at Vanderbilt University. Hereceived his B.S. and M.S. in engineeringscience from the Case Institute of Technol-ogy, Cleveland, Ohio in 1963 and 1965, re-spectively, and his Ph.D. in mechanicalengineering from Vanderbilt University,

Nashville, Tennessee in 1968. He is a licensed professionalengineer. His primary teaching responsibility at Vanderbilt isthe capstone design course.

David B. Beasley received his B.S. andM.S. degrees in agricultural and biologi-cal engineering from Mississippi StateUniversity in 1971 and 1973, respectively.He received his Ph.D. in agricultural engi-neering from Purdue University in 1977.Dr. Beasley’s Ph.D. work at Purdue in-volved quantifying the impacts of land use

and management on water quality in the Great Lakes basin.The ANSWERS water quality model was a direct result ofhis doctoral work. Today, that model continues to be usedaround the world.



Dr. Beasley became a member of the faculty at the Univer-sity of Arkansas from 1977 to 1978 and at Purdue Universityfrom 1978 to 1988. From 1988-1991, Dr. Beasley was thehead of the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-ment at the University of Georgia’s Coastal Plain ExperimentStation in Tifton. From November, 1991 through June, 1999he served as head of the biological and agricultural engineer-ing department at NC State. Dr. Beasley is a professor of bio-logical and agricultural engineering at North Carolina StateUniversity in Raleigh, North Carolina. He is a registered pro-fessional engineer. He is listed in Who’s Who in Science andEngineering and Who’s Who in the South and Southwest.

Dr. Beasley was an ABET evaluator for eight years andserved as ASAE’s liaison with the National Council of Exam-iners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) for two years.He has been a member of the Engineering AccreditationCommission (EAC) of ABET since 2002. Dr. Beasley has in-ternational experience in Australia, Moldova, Ukraine, Rus-sia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Trinidad, Canada, and SouthKorea. Currently, he represents NC State University in inter-national programs in the environmental area and is directly in-volved in exchanges with Rostock University in Germany andthe Agrarian State University of Moldova.

Paul N. Hale, Jr. is a professor of biomedi-cal engineering and the associate dean forexternal programs at Louisiana Tech Uni-versity in Ruston, Louisiana. His academictraining is in industrial engineering (hu-man engineering) and he has been active inbiomedical engineering since themid-1970s. Dr. Hale was the department

head of biomedical engineering at Louisiana Tech from 1987through 1996, and director of the Center for Biomedical Engi-neering and Rehabilitation Science from 1985 through 1998.

Dr. Hale has been involved in biomedical engineering pro-gram accreditation activities since 1990, when he was namedan ABET program evaluator for bioengineering programs. Heis a member of the IEEE/Committee on Engineering Accredi-tation Activities and has chaired the Education Committee ofthe IEEE/Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. He isactive in the IEEE, BMES, and the American Society for En-gineering Education (ASEE). Dr. Hale is a Fellow of theAmerican Institute for Medical and Biological Engineeringand a Fellow of the American Society for EngineeringEducation.

M. Dayne Aldridge received B.S. in electri-cal engineering from West Virginia Univer-sity and his Ph.D. in electrical engineeringfrom the University of Virginia. Dr. Aldridgewas a member of the electrical engineeringfaculty at West Virginia University from1968 until 1984. While at West Virginia Uni-versity he founded the WVU Energy Re-

search Center in 1978 and was director until 1984. Dr. Aldridgewas at Auburn University from 1984 to 1999. While at Auburnhe was professor of Electrical Engineering. He served as associ-ate dean for research of the College of Engineering prior to 1989.In 1989 he became founding director of the Thomas Walter Cen-ter for Technology Management and was appointed as theThomas Walter Eminent Scholar in Technology Management in

1994. He served in both capacities until 1999. In 1999 Dr.Aldridge became dean of the School of Engineering at MercerUniversity.

Dr. Aldridge is a Fellow of IEEE, ASEE, and ABET and isa registered professional engineer. He is a past president of theIEEE Industry Applications Society. He was coprincipal in-vestigator of the ABET Regional Faculty Workshops thatwere funded by the National Science Foundation, industry,and ABET. He received the IEEE Educational ActivitiesBoard Meritorious Achievement Award in Accreditation Ac-tivities in November 2002. Dr. Aldridge has served the Engi-neering Accreditation Commission of ABET in severalcapacities, including chair, and presently serves as adjunctaccreditation director for engineering.

Address for Correspondence: Dr. John D. Enderle, ProgramDirector for Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecti-cut, Room 223 B, 260 Glenbrook Road, Storrs, CT06269-2247 USA. Phone: +1 860 486 5521. Fax: +1 860 4862500. E-mail: [email protected].

References[1] Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2002-2003 ed., U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis-tics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, 2003. Avail-able: http://www.bls.gov/oco/.[2] J.D. Enderle, “ABET Criteria 2000 and Biomedical Engineering; Some InitialEvaluator Impressions,” in Proc. ASEE Annual Conf. Exposition, St. Louis, MO,June 18-21, 2000.[3] J.D. Gassert, “A View From Both Sides of ABET Criteria 2000; The Reviewedand the Reviewers,” in Proc. ASEE Annu. Conf. Exposition, St. Louis, MO, June18-21, 2000.[4] J.D. Enderle, K.M. Ropella, D.M. Kelso, and B. Hallowell, “Ensuring that Bio-medical Engineers are Ready for the Real World,” IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., vol.21, pp. 59-66, 2002.[5] L. Feisel, “Accepting the Challenge,” in How Do You Measure Success? Design-ing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.:ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp. 65-66.[6] M.D. Aldridge and L.D. Benefield, “Assessing a Specific Program,” in How DoYou Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing EngineeringEducation. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp. 27-34.[7] J. McGourty, C. Sebastian, and W. Swart, “Developing a Comprehensive Assess-ment for Engineering Education,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 355-361, Oct.1998.[8] J. McGourty, “Four Strategies to Integrate Assessment into the Engineering Edu-cation Environment,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 391-395, 1999.[9] S.A. Awoniyi, “A Template for Organizing Efforts to Satisfy ABET EC2000 Re-quirements,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 449-453, 1999.[10] B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, “Assessing a Course or Project,” in How Do YouMeasure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Educa-tion. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp. 35-43.[11] C. Owen, K. Scales, and M. Leonard, “Preparing for accreditation review underABET engineering criteria 2000: Creating a database of outcome indicators for a va-riety of engineering programs,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 255-259, July 1999.[12] B. Panitz, “Student portfolios,” in How Do You Measure Success? DesigningEffective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEEProfessional Books, 1998, pp. 49-56.[13] V.R. Johnson, “Survey questionnaires,” in How Do You Measure Success? De-signing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington,D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp. 57-63.[14] S.M. Blanchard and M.G. McCord, “Use of a single team-based written projectto address multiple objectives and outcomes for a biomedical engineering program,”in Proc. ASEE Annu. Conf. Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 22-26, 2003.[15] C.D. Avers, “Criteria 2000: Lessons learned,” The Interface (Joint newsletter ofthe IEEE Education Society and the ASEE Electrical and Computer Engineering Di-vision), no. 2, Aug. 1999.[16] Engineering Criteria: Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Accred-itation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET), Baltimore, MD, Nov. 2, 2002.Available: http://www.abet.org.[17] Engineering Criteria: EAC 2003-04 Self-study Questionnaire, AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Baltimore, MD, Aug. 7, 2002.Available: http://www.abet.org.[18] J.D. Enderle, “An overview on the National Science Foundation Program on Se-nior Design Projects to Aid Persons With Disabilities,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 15,no. 4, pp. 288-297, 1999.[19] J.D. Enderle and B. Hallowell, Eds., National Science Foundation 2001 Engi-neering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities. Mansfield Center,CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc., 2002. Available: http://nsf-pad.bme.uconn.edu.

the abcs of preparing for abet - engineering in medicine and

Documents