Integrating Universal Design and Accessibility into Bioengineering Curriculum

Alyssa Taylor

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Publication Date: August 23, 2022
Start Date: June 26, 2022
End Date: June 29, 2022
Conference Session: Biomedical Engineering Division: Integrating Design Across the BioE/BME Curriculum
Page Count: 23
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--40409
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/40409
Download Count: 388

Paper Authors

biography

Alyssa Taylor University of Washington

visit author page

Associate Teaching Professor in Bioengineering with a decade of teaching experience across introductory, lab, and senior design courses. Interested in topics such as curriculum innovation (e.g., universal design and accessibility), inclusive teaching strategies, incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion-related course content, technical communication, and accreditation best practices.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Defined as the design of products and environments to be useable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design, universal design (UD) and its associated principles [1] offer a framework for teaching students how to design products for a diverse set of users. Despite the importance of preparing students to design inclusive products which are accessible to individuals with a broad range of abilities, these topics are not commonly addressed in engineering curricula. Our aim is to make teaching UD and accessibility to undergraduates more manageable by documenting our experience integrating a series of activities into existing bioengineering courses.

We first considered how to effectively integrate this topic into capstone given constraints such as time, other curriculum requirements, and student expectations for a focus on their own projects. We chose an approach that involved an introductory lecture on disability, accessibility, and UD from a local expert, follow-up individual reflection, and a team-based assignment that required students to apply UD concepts to their capstone projects. Based on the success and feedback from seniors regarding the module, we next added a UD module to an Introduction to Bioengineering Problem Solving course. Our multi-faceted approach included an overview lesson, student panel of individuals identifying as having disabilities, reflection activity, and group-based design challenge.

We assessed student experience in our intervention primarily through surveys and reflection-based assignments. Student self-reported data were obtained via pre- and post-surveys and examined aspects such as: 1) perceived value of the UD topic to their bioengineering education, 2) impact of class activities on their appreciation for the benefits and challenges of UD, and 3) effectiveness of the UD module in preparing them to consider UD during the design process. Additional supporting data were provided by changes in how students defined UD before and after our intervention and excerpts from student reflections.

Pre- and post-survey data indicated significant positive changes in student perceptions regarding UD and its importance after our intervention. For example, after the UD module, both capstone cohorts provided significantly stronger agreement ratings that UD was a relevant consideration for their design project. Students in the introductory course indicated a significantly stronger agreement before the module that only a small number of Americans benefit from UD and UD primarily helps individuals with disabilities, as compared to after the module.

Seniors reported through 5-point Likert scale ratings that the class exercises helped foster a greater sense of professional responsibility to engage in inclusive design (4.5 +/- 0.67). Students also reported feeling more prepared to consider UD during the design process in the future (4.6 +/- 0.51) and greatly valued the inclusion of this topic in the bioengineering curriculum (4.8 +/- 0.45). Introductory class students reported similarly positive ratings. Overall, students reported our novel initiatives helped them develop UD skills and increased their appreciation for considering these concepts in engineering design and professional practice.

Citation
Format

Taylor, A. (2022, August), Integrating Universal Design and Accessibility into Bioengineering Curriculum Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--40409

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Defined as the design of products and environments to be useable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design, universal design (UD) and its associated principles [1] offer a framework for teaching students how to design products for a diverse set of users. Despite the importance of preparing students to design inclusive products which are accessible to individuals with a broad range of abilities, these topics are not commonly addressed in engineering curricula. Our aim is to make teaching UD and accessibility to undergraduates more manageable by documenting our experience integrating a series of activities into existing bioengineering courses. 

We first considered how to effectively integrate this topic into capstone given constraints such as time, other curriculum requirements, and student expectations for a focus on their own projects. We chose an approach that involved an introductory lecture on disability, accessibility, and UD from a local expert, follow-up individual reflection, and a team-based assignment that required students to apply UD concepts to their capstone projects. Based on the success and feedback from seniors regarding the module, we next added a UD module to an Introduction to Bioengineering Problem Solving course. Our multi-faceted approach included an overview lesson, student panel of individuals identifying as having disabilities, reflection activity, and group-based design challenge.  

We assessed student experience in our intervention primarily through surveys and reflection-based assignments. Student self-reported data were obtained via pre- and post-surveys and examined aspects such as: 1) perceived value of the UD topic to their bioengineering education, 2) impact of class activities on their appreciation for the benefits and challenges of UD, and 3) effectiveness of the UD module in preparing them to consider UD during the design process. Additional supporting data were provided by changes in how students defined UD before and after our intervention and excerpts from student reflections. 

Pre- and post-survey data indicated significant positive changes in student perceptions regarding UD and its importance after our intervention. For example, after the UD module, both capstone cohorts provided significantly stronger agreement ratings that UD was a relevant consideration for their design project. Students in the introductory course indicated a significantly stronger agreement before the module that only a small number of Americans benefit from UD and UD primarily helps individuals with disabilities, as compared to after the module. 

Seniors reported through 5-point Likert scale ratings that the class exercises helped foster a greater sense of professional responsibility to engage in inclusive design (4.5 +/- 0.67). Students also reported feeling more prepared to consider UD during the design process in the future (4.6 +/- 0.51) and greatly valued the inclusion of this topic in the bioengineering curriculum (4.8 +/- 0.45). Introductory class students reported similarly positive ratings. Overall, students reported our novel initiatives helped them develop UD skills and increased their appreciation for considering these concepts in engineering design and professional practice. 

AU  - Alyssa Taylor
CY  - Minneapolis, MN
DA  - 2022/08/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Integrating Universal Design and Accessibility into Bioengineering Curriculum
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/40409
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--40409
ER  -