BME Milestone Form

This form has been depreciated. This link will take you to the new version of this form that includes current students: https://gatech.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7NSCYhGTx4Mxhky
If you are unable to find you student name, please use above link.

This BME Graduate Program Milestone Evaluation Form should be submitted by faculty committee members shortly after a student has completed their Graduate Milestone presentation.

To begin, please provide your information as the Evaluator and select the student's level (MS or PhD) to be taken to the appropriate rubric. Note that Criterion 4 is NOT required at the PhD level for the Qualifying Exam only. If applicable, Criterion 4 will be automatically skipped.

Once submitted, you should receive a confirmation at the email address you provided. If you have any questions about this form, please contact GradAO@bme.gatech.edu for assistance.

Thank you!
BME Grad AO

Evaluator Full Name:

Evaluator Primary Affiliation:
For other, please indicate your university/organization/hospital (examples: "CHOA" or "Northside Hospital" or "PKU")

Georgia Tech
Emory
Other

Evaluator Email:

Student Level

MS
PhD

MS Student

PhD Student

MS Milestone Type:

Special Project
Thesis

Student Milestone Presentation Date:
If this is for a MS special project, please enter the date of this evaluation

PhD Milestone:

Qualifying Exam
Thesis Proposal
Thesis Defense

Criterion 1: Applies a breadth & depth of advanced biological knowledge at the graduate level towards solving bioengineering problems

Exceptional
Consistently provides detailed answers on bio-mechanism without prompting
Able to explain the biological aspects of the problem with deep insight
Able to explain the biological system at the functional/structural/factual level
Very Good
Proficient
Provides details but with some prompting
Demonstrates insight, but needs prompting to demonstrate deep insight
Able to explain the biological system at the structural/factual level
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Fails to articulate simple concepts in cell/tissue or physiology
Unable to explain how bio events inform design
Unable to explain a biological system at its functional level
Knows biological facts but can’t apply at engineering/quantitative level

Criterion 2: Applies a breadth & depth of advanced engineering skills and knowledge towards solving bioengineering problems

Exceptional
Consistently provides details of approach to problem without prompting
Able to explain engineering principles as relevant to the biological problem
Demonstrated the ability to gain insight into a biological problem using engineering principles
Very Good
Proficient
Offers an approach but with some prompting
Offers some general detail of engineering knowledge
Able to identify engineering principles but not necessarily to solve a biological problem
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Unable to see relationship between engineering and biological formulations of a problem
Unable to solve basic engineering problems
Knows techniques but not how to use them

Criterion 3: Integrates advanced biological and engineering concepts in solving complex biomedical problems

Exceptional
Consistently demonstrates awareness of how biology drives answers and checks that answers accurately reflect biological problem
Able to develop and explain an experimental design
Able to use new material to solve a problem on his/her feet
Very Good
Proficient
Able to explain biological phenomena in engineering terminology
Offers a design but unable to clearly explain it, some information irrelevant
Slow to incorporate new material into the problem
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Unable to deal with or incorporate new information
Unable to demonstrate an understanding of the connections between an engineering and biological formulation of a problem

Criterion 4: Demonstrates an ability to read, analyze, and synthesize literature

Exceptional
Routinely recognizes whether experimental approaches are rationally designed toward addressing hypotheses
Easily identifies errors & limitations
Able to interpret results objectively, consistently differentiates objective interpretation from conjecture & speculation
Regularly places body of work in larger contexts, typically integrates knowledge from multiple sources toward student’s own approach & the field at large
Very Good
Proficient
Often analyzes research critically
Mostly able to recognize errors & limitations
Needs some assistance in making objective interpretations of data; occasionally recognizes conjecture and speculation
Shows some ability to place work in a larger context; occasionally able to integrate knowledge from other sources toward own work or field at large
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Demonstrates general trust in all published literature
Cannot detect a study's limitations and errors
Unable to place body of work into the big picture; difficulty integrating knowledge from multiple sources toward his/her own work or the field at large

Criterion 5: Utilizes a logical approach in the design, implementation, and evaluation of a research strategy to solve a complex biomedical problem

Exceptional
Able to clearly articulate rationale in defense of a claim without prompting
Very Good
Proficient
Gives a partial chain of logic
Needs prompting to translate technical terminology into easily understandable terms
Demonstrates understanding of rationale but needs prompting to apply
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Unfocused responses
Makes vague statements with no clear tie to question
Unable to defend statements

Criterion 6: Effectively and efficiently communicates ideas in an organized manner to both engineers and scientists, as well as expert and novice audiences

Exceptional
Develops a chain of logic that is transparent & easy to follow
Offers only relevant, targeted information
Engages committee in the clarification process
Able to restate question in own words
Easily uses technical terminology and concepts to make points
Able to explain technical information in lay terminology
Very Good
Proficient
Offers a chain of logic but it is not particularly transparent or easy to follow
Offers mostly targeted, relevant information
Is aware of technical terminology but has difficulty connecting it to explanations
Needs Improvement
Remedial
Rambles and sidesteps the question
Unable to make list of clear goals and questions
Responds to different question than asked

Evaluation Comments
Note: These comments WILL be shared with the student. Please enter the feedback exactly as you would like it to appear to the student.

Is there anything else about this presentation or assessment that you would like to share with the Academic Office?
Note: These comments WILL NOT be shared with the student; internal office use only.