KEENzine5

POSITION PRESENTATION: REBUTTAL: RESPONSE: POSITION SUMMARY: CON 5-MINUTE 3-MINUTE 2-MINUTE 2-MINUTE That these usually diligent students were considering sabotaging their grades indicated how far outside of their comfort zones was this seemingly innocuous assignment. Little did they know that I was equally outside of my comfort zone in my eleventh year of teaching this course. How did we get to this point? After attending an engaging week of KEEN activities targeting faculty at Marquette University, I was interested in incorporating entrepreneurially minded learning (EML) activities into this senior-level class. Biocomputing Design Lab 2 is the second semester of the capstone course for biomedical engineering students specializing in biocomputing. The course covers a rigorous syllabus of software engineering and algorithm design topics, including weekly programming labs and projects. EML activities seemed to be an excellent addition to the didactic course materials to help students think about the broader impact of software engineering in the field of biomedical engineering. In the first week of class, students were presented with the following information to motivate the EML activities that would be incorporated into the semester, “Radiologists provide approximately $1,000 of value to the health care system for each hour that they work. Diagnostic radiologists spend the majority of their day interacting with software tools. Therefore, new software tools that increase a radiologist’s efficiency, reduce errors, and improve job satisfaction will greatly reduce overall healthcare costs.” In the first six weeks of the class, in addition to the existing programming assignments, students shared and discussed news stories related to the topic of radiology software and the business of radiology through an online discussion forum. The students gained important domain knowledge and discussed interesting new developments such as virtual reality, clinical decision support, and hackers demanding ransom from hospitals. The six-week discussion phase culminated with a field trip to the radiology department at the Medical College of Wisconsin where students observed the software systems in use and were able to discuss software issues with radiologists. After gaining knowledge and perspective through the online discussion and field trip, I wanted the students to think more critically about the tradeoffs between value and risk when developing software for the healthcare field. The debate assignment asked students to “explore a software tool that has been developed (and FDA approved) to potentially improve patient outcomes and radiology workflow – Computer-Aided Detection for mammography. However, this software tool also has unintended negative consequences. You will debate the question of whether a radiology department should purchase and implement a CAD software tool for mammography.” The students were randomly assigned into teams arguing for or against CAD. The assignment asked students to prepare presentations to support their arguments. The debate structure was specified as outlined below: t was the day before the scheduled Biocomputing Design Lab Debate and the students were considering a mutiny. Four weeks prior they had been assigned to a team advocating either for or against the use of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) software for mammography. And now, with one day remaining in their preparation, the students were organizing to collectively skip the assignment and accept a zero for their grades. PRO 5-MINUTE 3-MINUTE 2-MINUTE 2-MINUTE 5-MINUTE WORK PERIOD 3-MINUTE WORK PERIOD 1-MINUTE WORK PERIOD 5