Equity in Biomedical Engineering Education: Assessing the Impact of a Clinical Immersion Course on Historically Marginalized Groups

Introduction: Within the undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum, needs identification and solution development are two important skills learned by students. While these skills are usually taught through traditional methods, clinical immersion experiences allow students greater independence and control over their learning. We have created a Clinical Observations and Needs-Finding course that serves as a pre-requisite to the Senior Design capstone courses. The development of the course itself is not entirely novel, however, due to variations in location and resources, it is difficult to create a “one size fits all” approach and to evaluate the success of such a course. To ensure that we are providing the utmost quality of education to all students, it is important to evaluate the efficacy of this course. Within the field of biomedical engineering, particularly within any given university, there are demographics that are not representative of the general population. Historically marginalized groups may experience disparate learning conditions, leading to a less-than-optimal educational experience. This study intends to evaluate the efficacy and success of a clinically immersive course, with an emphasis on shining a light on any discrepancies felt by students of historically marginalized groups.

Materials and

Methods: To evaluate the efficacy of the course, junior-level undergraduate students taking the course and participating in the study completed a Qualtrics survey during the first and final weeks of the course. The first iteration of the survey served to collect baseline data for each student, and the second iteration served as a comparison. The survey consisted of demographic questions, Likert-scale questions, and open-response questions that aimed to evaluate how well the course addresses its own objectives. The Likert-scale questions were generally sorted into three categories: self-efficacy, connections value creation and curiosity, and general interest. This study consisted of a sample size of 75 junior-level, undergraduate, biomedical engineering students. Once the response window was closed, the data was exported to Microsoft Excel where it was manually sorted into different categories on the basis of self-identified race, ethnicity, gender, age, and first-generation status. The students were categorized according to their self-reported responses to the demographic questions. Figures were then generated to visually represent any discrepancies between the responses of historically marginalized groups and non-historically marginalized groups. To analyze the open-response questions, NVivo, a qualitative data analysis computer software, was used. NVivo is growing in popularity as a researcher’s tool, as it greatly reduces researcher bias when analyzing qualitative data. It is a multifunctional tool that can be used to analyze papers, interviews, and surveys, through means such as thematic and sentiment analysis. For the purpose of this project, NVivo was used to perform a sentiment analysis on the open-response questions.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: The separation of data into historically marginalized groups (HMG) and non-historically marginalized groups (NHMG) occurred within each category: race, ethnicity, gender, and first-generation status. On the basis of race, HMG includes black, American Indian/ Alaskan Native, and other, while NHMG includes white and Asian. For ethnicity, Hispanics are considered historically marginalized while non-Hispanics are not. As for gender, females are historically marginalized and males are not. First-generation college students are also categorized as historically marginalized.

The results of this study indicate that there are differences between the results of HMG and NHMG. Overall, average confidence levels for both groups increased after completion of the course, indicating a positive effect of the course on students. While it is encouraging that both HMG and NHMG are experiencing a positive shift in their responses, it is important to note the differences between both groups’ pre-course responses. Across all three questions, the pre-course responses from HMG lack “strongly agree” responses compared to their dominant counterparts. This indicates that although these students are succeeding in the course at growing in confidence and technical skills, they are entering the course at a disadvantaged place. Furthermore, this is evidence of the fact that our students are facing barriers prior to entering the course. These challenges are pervasive in our society and may be hindering historically marginalized students from reaching their fullest potential in educational settings. Addressing pre-existing inequalities and barriers is the first step in fostering a learning environment that is welcoming and inclusive to all. Dismantling systematic inequalities is a task that reaches beyond the scope of the Clinical Observations and Needs Finding course, but must be recognized. Future research could explore additional methods for targeting the barriers HMG face, in order to create a more equitable program. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the course while shedding light on any discrepancies in the experiences of historically marginalized groups and their dominant counterparts within the curriculum. This is a longitudinal study that will continue to track the efficiency of the course and its impact on different demographical groups.

Acknowledgements (Optional): This research has been supported by the University of Arkansas Honors College.