Models of Mobile Hands-On STEM Education

Hands-on activities can improve student understanding of STEM topics dramatically, and laboratories are the most common implementation of hands-on learning. However, most experiments are performed in dedicated laboratories, which may be costly and inaccessible to students, and the labs may not be timely with respect to when students learn the associated theoretical concepts. Mobile hands-on labs are ones that use equipment that is affordable and portable, so that students can own the equipment and do the labs anywhere anytime. This paper presents three models of implementation of mobile hands-on education: a limited number of small, in-class labs given in lecture-based courses; full-scale labs done on student-owned equipment; and studio classes. These models were all implemented in Electrical and Computer Engineering programs, though the modules are also used in K-12 outreach activities

Ieee Access Special Section Editorial: Innovations In Electrical And Computer Engineering Education

The past two decades have seen significant advances in learning-related technologies, with the attendant recognition (and expectation) of their impact on the higher education system. Many new teaching methods can now be employed and their efficacy and scalability studied. In parallel, the demand for Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) education continues to grow world-wide, as an increasing world population seeks educational opportunities. There is now a growing acknowledgement that technical education must be complemented with skills for professional success such as design, leadership, communication, understanding historical and contemporary social contexts, lifelong learning, creativity, entrepreneurship, and teamwork. It is also widely accepted that solving today\u27s major challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach. The time is ripe for large-scale experimentation and adoption of possibly revolutionary changes in ECE education

Models of Adoption and Best Practices for Mobile Hands-On Learning in Electrical Engineering

Pedagogical practices in electrical engineering education have been shifting away from teacher-centered learning during the past decade. An innovation that has enabled the adoption of inquiry-based and problem-based learning into the curriculum using experimentation coupled with simulation and analysis has been the development of portable oscilloscopes and other instruments that rely on tablet or laptop computers to perform some of the data processing and to act as the display. Faculty members at six institutions of higher learning have incorporated hands-on experimental activities into existing courses and/or developed new courses that take advantage of these new tools. Assessment data collected by these faculty members have demonstrated that the change towards student-centered learning facilitated by portable electronics increased student interest in electrical engineering, built student confidence in their ability to design circuits and systems, and supported the development of a deeper understanding of the theories that the students investigate or apply in the hands-on activities. A summary of the challenges that are faced in the different implementation models and a discussion of best practices are presented

Three Minute Thesis (3MT) 2021

Presented online April 9, 2021, 3:00 p.m.-4:40 p.m.Since 2015, Tech’s version of this international competition, which started at The University of Queensland, Australia, has provided graduate students with an opportunity to hone their professional skills and win prize money to help further their research efforts. The competition challenges students to explain their research in three minutes in a way that anyone can understand.Hosts (Members of Georgia Institute of Technology): Jeff Garbers, Enterprise Innovation Institute, Venture Lab; Bonnie H. Ferri, Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Development; James Black, Assistant Director of Strategic Initiatives and Grad Life, Office of Graduate Studies; and Leslie Sharp, Dean of the Library.Judges: Ashley Bush, Director, Communications and Employee Engagement, Southwire Company, LLC; Duffie Dixon, Owner, Duffie Dixon Media; Charles Edwards, Coaching Practice Lead, Jackson Spalding; Dene Sheheane, President, Georgia Tech Alumni Association; and Brian Yablunosky, Senior Manager, Digital Channels, Global Communications VMWare.Participant and PhD Division Winner ($2000 Travel Grant): Saad Javaid, Materials Science and Engineering; Advisor: Christopher Muhlstein; TITLE: “Ultra Vision and Time Manipulation: Technology Inspired Superpowers for Studying Cracks”.Participant: Hohyun Lee, Mechanical Engineering; Advisor: Costas Arvanitis; TITLE: “Minimally Invasive Targeted Drug Delivery in the Brain Enhanced by Closed-Loop Focused Ultrasound Control”.Participant: Hangmo Li, Materials Science and Engineering; Advisor: Natalie Stingelin; TITLE: “Plastics That Can Conduct Electricity: How Can They Impact Our Life?”Participant and PhD Division, 3rd Place ($1000 Travel Grant) AND People’s Choice Award (500 Travel Grant): Megan McSweeney, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering; Advisor: Mark Styczynski; TITLE: “AptaTrigger: A Novel Biosensor Platform for Point-of-Care Diagnostics”.Participant: Mohammad S. E Sendi, Biomedical Engineering; Advisors: Babak Mahmoudi & Robert E. Gross; TITLE: “Personalized Deep Brain Stimulation: A Window of Hope for Depression”.Participant: Yifeng Shi, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering; Advisor: Younan Xia; TITLE: “Shape-Controlled Pd Nanocrystals: Surface Science and Catalytic Applications”.Participant: Andrew Tricker, Chemical Engineering; Advisor: Carsten Sievers; TITLE: “Cracking the Case of Sustainable Fertilizzers: Ambient Ammonia Synthesis via Mechanocatalysis”.Participant: Jelly Vanderwoude, Biological Sciences; Advisor: Stephen Diggle; TITLE: “Discovering Novel Genetic Markers of Antibiotic Resistant in Cystic Fibrosis Lung Infection of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa”.Participant: Young Hee Yoon, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering; Advisor: Ryan P. Lively; TITLE: “Understanding and Controlling Co-Transport of Water and Organic Solvents in Microporous Carbon Molecular Sieve (CMS) Membranes”.Participant and PhD Division, Runner Up (1500 Travel Grant): Muhammad Saad Zia, Electrical and Computer Engineering; Advisors: Mary Ann Weitnauer & Douglas M. Blough; TITLE: “Mitigating Beam Alignment Errors in Millimeter-Wave Communications to Go Beyond 5G”.Participant and Master’s Division: Winner ($1000 Travel Grant): Clara Glassman, Medical Physics; Advisors: Lisa Krishnamurthy & C. K. Wang; TITLE: “Creating the Google Maps of Brain-Behavior Relationships: A New Look at Post Stroke MRIs”.Runtime: 54:33 minutesFor the first time, the final round of Georgia Tech’s annual Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition will be held virtually. Ten Ph.D. students and one master’s student (who was awarded first place in the master’s category and will be competing for the People’s Choice Award) made the cut to participate in the finals

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research