Perspectives from Undergraduate Life Sciences Faculty: Are We Equipped to Effectively Accommodate Students With Disabilities in Our Classrooms?

Higher education has evolved in ways that may increase the challenges life science faculty face in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. Guided by Expectancy-Value Theory, we interviewed 34 life sciences faculty instructors from institutions nationwide to explore faculty motivation to create disability-inclusive educational experiences. We found that faculty in our sample perceive that providing most standard accommodations is a manageable but often challenging task. Further, faculty in our sample feel that improving accommodations necessitates additional support from their institutions. Most faculty had high attainment value for providing accommodations, in that they strongly believed that supporting students with disabilities is the fair and right thing to do. However, faculty did not perceive much utility value or intrinsic value in their task of providing accommodations, and most reported that providing accommodations can be a substantial burden on faculty. These findings imply that current approaches to providing inclusive educational experiences for students with disabilities rely primarily on the personal belief that providing accommodations is the right thing to do, which likely results in a flawed and inequitable system given that not all faculty equally share this conviction.

New Online Accommodations Are Not Enough: The Mismatch between Student Needs and Supports Given for Students with Disabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nearly all universities transitioning their in-person courses to online instruction. Recent work from our research team conducted in Spring 2020 established that the immediate transition to online learning presented novel challenges for students with disabilities: students were unable to access previously established accommodations and there was a lack of information from Disability Resource Centers (DRCs) about adapting accommodations to online environments. In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which these issues still were present 1 year later. In Spring 2021, we conducted a survey of 114 students with disabilities who were registered with the DRC and taking online science courses at a public research-intensive institution. We used our previous interviews with students to develop closed- and open-ended questions to assess the extent to which students with disabilities were being properly accommodated in their courses, document any new accommodations they were using, and elicit any recommendations they had for improving their experiences in online science courses. We used logistic regression to analyze the closed-ended data and inductive coding to analyze the open-ended data. We found that more than half of students with disabilities reported not being properly accommodated, and this was more likely to be reported by students who experienced new challenges related to online learning. When students were asked what accommodations they would have wanted, students often described accommodations that were being offered to some students but were not universally implemented. This study summarizes recommendations for making online science learning environments more inclusive for students with disabilities.

Students with Disabilities in Life Science Undergraduate Research Experiences: Challenges and Opportunities.

Individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in postsecondary science education and in science careers, yet few studies have explored why this may be. A primary predictor of student persistence in science is participating in undergraduate research. However, it is unclear to what extent students with disabilities are participating in research and what the experiences of these students in research are. To address this gap in the literature, in study 1, we conducted a national survey of more than 1200 undergraduate researchers to determine the percent of students with disabilities participating in undergraduate research in the life sciences. We found that 12% of undergraduate researchers we surveyed self-identified as having a disability, which indicates that students with disabilities are likely underrepresented in undergraduate research. In study 2, we conducted semistructured interviews with 20 undergraduate researchers with disabilities. We identified unique challenges experienced by students with disabilities in undergraduate research, as well as some possible solutions to these challenges. Further, we found that students with disabilities perceived that they provide unique contributions to the research community. This work provides a foundation for creating undergraduate research experiences that are more accessible and inclusive for students with disabilities.

The Living Spine Model: A Biomimetic Surgical Training and Education Tool.

BACKGROUND: The Living Spine Model (LSM) is a three-dimensionally printed, surgical training platform developed by neurosurgical residents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the face and content validity of this model as a training tool for open posterior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Six surgeons with varying experience were asked to complete L3-5 pedicle screw fixation and L3-4 laminectomy on an LSM. Face validity was measured using a questionnaire, and content validity was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX) tests. Student's t-test was used to compare NASA TLX responses between junior and senior residents and to compare responses for live surgery vs simulated surgery on the LSM. RESULTS: Junior residents took the longest time to complete the procedure, followed by senior residents and the attending surgeon (136.5, 98.3, and 84 min, respectively). The junior residents placed fewer successful pedicle screws (7/12) than senior residents and attending surgeon (18/18). All tested components of the model had excellent face validity, with scores ranging from 60% to 97%. Content validity testing demonstrated that the LSMs created overall workloads and specific types of work like live operating conditions. CONCLUSION: The overall validity testing of the LSM demonstrates the high-potential utility of this model as a surgical education and testing platform for open posterior lumbar procedures. The LSM has great potential as an adjunct to surgical education, and it may become an increasingly important component of surgical resident curricula in the future.

Evaluation of a Novel Surgical Skills Training Course: Are Cadavers Still the Gold Standard for Surgical Skills Training?

BACKGROUND: An increasing body of literature describing use of high-fidelity surgical training models is challenging long-held dogma that cadavers provide the best medium for postgraduate surgical skills training. The purpose of this study was to describe a surgical skills course comprising entirely synthetic training models developed by resident and attending neurosurgeons and to evaluate their perceptions of the overall usefulness of this course and its usefulness compared with cadaveric courses. METHODS: Ten high-fidelity neurosurgical training models were developed. A neurosurgical skills course for residents was structured to include 7 spinal and 3 cranial learning stations, each with its own model and assigned attending expert. Resident and attending neurosurgeons were asked to complete surveys on their overall impressions of the course and models and on workload comparisons between models and real cases. Student t tests were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Survey responses were collected from 9 of 16 participating residents (56.3%) and 3 of 10 attending neurosurgeons (30.0%). Both groups believed that the course was very helpful overall to resident education. Respondents furthermore believed that the course was more helpful overall than cadaveric courses. Task load index testing showed no significant workload difference between models and real cases (P ≥ 0.17), except in temporal demand (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Resident and attending neurosurgeons subjectively believe that high-fidelity synthetic models were superior to cadavers as a surgical skills teaching platform. This study raises the question of whether cadavers should remain the gold standard for surgical skills courses. Expanded use of these teaching models and further study are warranted.