Incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion content into bioengineering curricula: a program-level approach

Introduction: Bioengineering and biomedical engineering are interdisciplinary technical fields that apply engineering principles toward the betterment of human health. Bioengineering intersects principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) through technical and interpersonal content topics such as inclusive design, bioethics, and inclusive professionalism.

While DEI topics have historically been absent from engineering curricula and accreditation standards, recent changes in ABET criteria reflect the importance of educating students in these topics. In 2019, ABET added DEI-relevant student learning outcomes including the ability to create inclusive environments and recognize ethical and professional responsibilities while taking global, economic, environmental, and social contexts into consideration. Pilot criteria established by ABET in 2023 expand on these requirements by including a curricular professional educational component that “promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion awareness for career success”. Additionally, the pilot criteria call for faculty to “demonstrate awareness and abilities appropriate to providing an equitable and inclusive environment for its students, and knowledge of appropriate institutional policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

A variety of approaches could be used to address these new ABET criteria, but incorporating DEI into curricula can be difficult for a variety of reasons, such as instructors’ lack of adequate pedagogical training and prior exposure to DEI topics during their education as well as an ongoing need for instructor training and support. Unique from previously published studies that examine an individual course or a small subset of courses to teach DEI content, this work presents a framework and lessons learned on a program-scale.

Materials and

Methods: Toward educating DEI-competent bioengineers, meeting evolving ABET requirements, and addressing established challenges in adding DEI content, we supported and collaborated with instructors, cataloged DEI content in departmental curricula, and assessed student feedback and effectiveness of curricular DEI content. Throughout the academic year, instructors were provided with a “DEI planning worksheet” that contained wide-ranging examples of DEI curricular incorporation and were offered individualized assistance in creating and/or implementing DEI content. The worksheet also contained strategies of additional ways to address DEI in courses, including inclusive pedagogical approaches. Departmental curricular DEI content was cataloged by surveying instructors pre- and post-term. At the end of the academic year, undergraduate juniors and seniors were surveyed about their program experience, including perceptions of departmental inclusiveness and development of DEI skills and/or knowledge. During the academic year, a subset of DEI curricular interventions was additionally assessed by measuring student DEI knowledge demonstrated in assignments and exams.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: Over the 61 total courses offered in the academic year, 74% of instructors provided a pre-term response and/or a post-term response. Of responding instructors, 91% described at least one specific, substantial improvement to the DEI curricular content in their pre- and/or post-term responses.

From the responding instructors who described at least one specific curricular incorporation of diversity, equity, and inclusion content, we grouped the bioengineering-related DEI content into five DEI competency categories: bioethics, inclusive design, inclusive scholarship, inclusive professionalism, and systemic inequality. Based on curricular improvements reported by instructors, the DEI content was categorized per course and cataloged for the bioengineering undergraduate curricula (Figure 1). Courses incorporated content that included on average approximately 2.5 competencies.

One example of a specific incorporation and assessment includes adding systemic inequality content into an undergraduate, core “failure analysis and human physiology” course. A single slide on disparities in heart failure was added to the introductory lecture on cardiac pump function. To assess student learning on this topic via a homework assignment, students were asked to describe social inequities and how they lead to racial disparities in heart failure outcomes and burden. After reviewing the added lecture slide on structural racism and healthcare, students were able to provide substantive, partial answers, but only 13 out of 64 students (20.3%) provided a complete example without missing a key connection between structural racism and a specific social inequity. Personalized feedback was provided to each student by the teaching assistant. Students were asked this question again on the exam and 42 out of 65 students (64.6%) were able to describe a specific example of how structural racism leads to racial disparities in heart failure burden/outcomes without missing any key components. This improvement demonstrates promise that minor curricular changes (in this case, one lecture slide and one homework question) paired with formative feedback can be effective and impactful. In particular, as this course was lecture-based, enrolled 65 students, and had pre-existing technical curricular requirements that made it challenging to add additional content, we propose this intervention model may be translatable to many engineering courses with similar formats and constraints.

Acknowledgements (Optional): We would like to acknowledge the students and instructors who engaged with us and provided feedback, as this work would not have been possible without them. We would also like to acknowledge the fellowships and training grants that funded many of the authors as we conducted this work (National Institutes of Health HL147462, HL007093, HL151017, and EB001650 and the Thomas J. and Barbara D. Cable Endowed Fellowship in Bioengineering).