A hands-on learning module was implemented at Marquette University in 2012 to teach biomedical engineering students about basic manufacturing processes, lean manufacturing principles, and design for manufacturability. It incorporates active and student-centered learning as part of in-class assembly line simulations. Since then, it has evolved from three class periods to five. The module begins with two classroom presentations on manufacturing operations and electronics design, assembly, and testing. Students then participate in an in-class assembly line simulation exercise where they build and test an actual product per written work instructions. They reflect on this experience, and suggest design and process changes to improve the assembly line process and quality, save time, and reduce cost and waste. At the end of the module students implement their suggested design and process improvements and repeat the exercise to determine the impact of their improvements. They learn of the importance of Design for Manufacturability, well-written work instructions, process design, and designing a product not only for the end user, but also for the assemblers and inspectors. Details of the module, and its implementation and assessment are presented along with student feedback and faculty observations.

Engineers and industrial designers have different approaches to problem solving. Both place heavy emphasis on identification of customer needs, manufacturing methods, and prototyping. Industrial designers focus on aesthetics, ergonomics, ease of use, manufacturing methods, and the user's experience. They tend to be more visual and more concerned with the interaction between users and products. Engineers focus on functionality, performance requirements, analytical modeling, and design verification and validation. They tend to be more analytical and more concerned with the design of internal components and product performance. Engineers and industrial designers often work together on project teams in industry. Collaboration between the two groups on senior capstone design projects can teach each to respect and value the unique contributions each brings to the project team, result in improved design solutions, and help prepare students for future collaboration in industry. Student feedback and lessons learned by faculty and students from a ten-year collaboration between engineering and industrial design students from Marquette University and the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design, respectively, are presented. Students learned to communicate with people in other disciplines, appreciate the complementary skills of each discipline, and value different approaches to problem solving.

Immersion experiences for undergraduate students in biomedical engineering are key contributors to their ability to identify medical needs. Despite this, as few as 25% of surveyed programs report providing such opportunities. Since 2010 when the National Institute of Health began its R25 grant mechanism to support curricular development toward team-based design, several institutions have established programs for immersion experiences, which provide precedent for their implementation. Published results from such immersion experiences highlight successes in structure and changes in student perspectives after these experiences. As more institutions expand their biomedical engineering curriculum with new immersion-focused programs, it is important to learn from these precedents while also considering opportunities to improve. For newly funded groups that are developing and implementing programs, they may find improved success by strategic use of unique partnerships. However, these partnerships may not be immediately evident to program organizers. Our objective is to discuss two institutions that recently established programs for immersion experience. In the comparison of our two immersion programs, we found five overlapping core features that include: immersion partner collaboration, team-based immersion experiences, needs-finding emphasis, team-based engineering design experiences, and immersion assessment and evaluation. Both programs developed collaborative partnerships with nearby medical schools. Additionally, one program partnered with a community resource (i.e., Human Development Institute). Despite nuanced program differences, we found that students at both programs self-reported increased knowledge or confidence in aspects of the design process (e.g., identifying and refining user needs, concept generation). Our results also highlight student gains unique to their programs - UK students self-reported gains on disability topics and IUPUI students self-reported gains on socioeconomic awareness. In summary, immersion partner collaboration, or partnership, surfaced as a core feature for both programs, and students in both immersion programs endorsed enhanced knowledge or confidence in engineering design.