MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390366879 · doi:10.56433/jpaap.v11i3.581

Students’ perspectives and experiences with equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in online and in-person undergraduate science laboratory courses

2023· article· en· W4390366879 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Equity (law)Diversity (politics)Ethnic groupHigher educationPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusive education strengthens the capacity of academic systems and addresses the needs of all learners. Although colleges and universities are embracing diversity and introducing inclusive principles into higher education policies and practices, there is scarcity in research exploring undergraduate university students’ participation and engagement in science laboratories, especially among underrepresented and equity-deserving groups. Accordingly, this study explores students’ perspectives on undergraduate laboratory courses and investigates best practices for creating equitable and accessible laboratory environments, both in-person and online. This study addresses the following research questions: 1) How accessible are online and in-person undergraduate laboratory courses to students? 2) What equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) barriers exist in laboratory courses? and 3) What support structures are recommended to ensure inclusion of all students in laboratory courses? A mixed methods design was employed to gather data using an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with 58 students in undergraduate laboratory science courses from diverse cultural, ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds at a Canadian university. Findings highlight that students considered online labs to be flexible, convenient, self-paced, relaxed, and inclusive with respect to aspects involving physical disabilities and language barriers. In-person labs were deemed fast-paced, yet valuable for technical skills and inclusive considering elements pertaining to collaboration, academic support, and communication with peers and faculty members. Students highlighted the following as common inclusion barriers in both online and in-person delivery formats: accessibility (physical and language), financial, and stereotypical barriers. Recommendations for improving lab accessibility were also included. This research has significant implications for the design of laboratory courses and other experiential learning environments in higher education, particularly considering recent transitions and modifications in education. This paper will discuss implications related to the following sub-themes in the special issue: instructors’ professional development, digital education, and quality enhancement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it