Teaching Associate Professor and Associate Head of Undergraduate Programs University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois, United States
Introduction:: Across higher education in general there has been an increased emphasis on creating inclusive classroom experiences for students. However, these efforts have largely been focused on traditional lecture-based courses [1]. While some of the evidence-based practices of these initiatives apply to laboratory-based courses, there are several unique situations in these courses that would benefit from a different approach [2]. For example, lab-based courses generally have longer in-class periods that require extended focus; use unique tools, equipment and software; and are required to complete activities that are very different from traditional homework. Also, students interact with their peers and instructional staff in very different ways during a laboratory course. Laboratory courses are an essential part of STEM education, therefore, if we aim to have a diverse group of students succeed in biomedical engineering, then we also need for them to be included and active participants in all aspects of their education.
Materials and Methods:: Two existing instruments to evaluate inclusive course design [3], [4] were used in a biomedical instrumentation laboratory course at a large public university in the Midwest. Specific course designs that aligned with exemplary ratings [4] were noted. Then a list of known barriers was created from teaching the course for multiple semesters and by reviewing a list of actions to create accessible physics labs [2]. These two lists were compared to identify gaps in existing frameworks.
Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: Results & Discussion From the existing instruments categories such as content, instructor, academic belonging, and transparency could be applied to laboratory courses, and specific course practices were identified. However, other categories including community, assessments, policies, critically engaging difference, structured interactions, and flexibility in the existing instruments overlook details specific to a laboratory and the biomedical engineering discipline. For example, varying assessment methods, timing of laboratory experiments, and flexibility in modality may not be possible for laboratory courses. Additionally, several gaps were also identified that were specific to laboratory courses and likely not intended use of the original instrument. These categories include physical spaces, safety protocols, and tools, equipment, software, and other supplies used in the course. Examples in these categories include the height of lab benches, location of equipment and supplies, manuals for equipment, and markings on supplies.
Conclusions & Future Work This study has identified a list of barriers that may be overlooked in a biomedical instrumentation laboratory course evaluated by one of these existing instruments. Based on this information and additional activities to identify other barriers an updated instrument will be created to more wholistically evaluate laboratory courses.
Acknowledgements (Optional): : This project is supported by the IDEA Institute and the IBM-Illinois Discovery Accelerator Institute (IIDAI).
References (Optional): : [1] T. M. Addy, D. Dube, K. A. Mitchell, and M. E. SoRelle, What inclusive instructors do: principles and practices for excellence in college teaching, First edition. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC., 2021.
[2] D. R. Dounas-Frazer et al., “Increase Investment in Accessible Physics Labs: A Call to Action for the Physics Education Community,” American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, Committee on Laboratories Accessible Physics Labs Task Force Report, Jul. 2021. Accessed: Feb. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/organization/upload/white_paper_on_accessible_labs_endorsed.pdf
