Exploring Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Large-Scale Practical Laboratory Sessions

Research Paper Recommended citation: Rosado Hau, N., & Plumb, S. (2025). Exploring Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Large-Scale Practical Laboratory Sessions. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631681. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. EXPLORING OF EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN LARGE-SCALE PRACTICAL LABORATORY SESSIONS N. Rosado-Hau a,1, S. Plumb b, a, Multidisciplinary Engineering Education, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 0000-0002-5663-1616 b, Educational Development Services, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 0009-0002-3369-7652. Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching Keywords: Diversity in STEM education, Inclusion in Higher Education, Large-Scale Laboratory Sessions, Inclusive Pedagogical Practices ABSTRACT Laboratories play a vital role in engineering education. However, to promote equitable and effective learning experiences, it is important to create environments that meet the needs of a diverse student population. Lab sessions often present challenges for promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). These challenges can stem from standardized equipment design, diverse student demographics, and the large class sizes. This investigation explores how students perceive EDI in large laboratory sessions. A survey using the Linkert scale was administered during 17 “Flow Measurement” lab sessions, each attended by up to 80 students. The response rate was 8.6%. Most students reported positive experiences regarding equipment accessibility, though 5% noted difficulty performing the experiment, highlighting that average height was insufficient to do so comfortably. In terms of inclusion during teamwork, 2.5% reported not feeling included. Notably, 30% of participants identified themselves as part of groups that may face inclusivity challenges. The results highlight the diversity within our student groups and the need to improve the physical accessibility of laboratory equipment. Future research will explore the most effective ways to design experiments that ensure all students have equal opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills in a comfortable and inclusive environment. 1 Corresponding Author N. Rosado Hau [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Developing and applying STEM skills is key to driving economic growth. To make sure the next generation of workers is prepared, more students need to be encouraged to pursue careers in STEM. However, it is also essential to address diversity and inclusion, such as increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in this area (HC, 2018). From 2010 to 2020, the demand for engineering courses in the United Kingdom increased, showing a 21% rise in acceptances. During the same period, the acceptance rate for women went up by 49%, and the number of 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds entering these courses rose by 79% (Department for Education, 2021). Engineering cohorts reaching up to 240 students have created significant challenges for laboratory-based teaching. Since practical skills are a core component of engineering education, laboratories must accommodate these large groups, increasing the pressure on physical resources and timetable coordination (Gibbins & Perkin, 2013). The challenges associated with large class sizes have been investigated by several authors. For instance, the effectiveness of large lectures was examined from both lecturer and student perspectives by Yelkepiere et al. (2012). Students expressed that large class sizes make it difficult for lecturers to give attention to struggling students or provide remedial support. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Guidelines offer strategies for addressing diverse learning needs; however, implementing these principles into practice remains particularly challenging in large classroom settings. In laboratory-based engineering courses, the need for specialized equipment and the high cost of operation often requires students to work in groups (Davies, 2008), increasing then the complexity of the learning experienced. Practical sessions have been identified as key to developing in students the specific skills that industry demands. The Royal Academy of Engineering has highlighted the importance of addressing diversity and inclusion to create safe learning spaces that meet the diverse needs of students and teachers. Such environments, where students feel a sense of belonging, are essential for supporting the development of their professional skills (Peters, 2018). Some studies on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in engineering laboratories have explored gender inequality and group dynamics in physics lab sessions with 19 to 25 students (Dew, 2014). In addition, Marshall et al. (2013) discussed strategies to improve cultural inclusivity in laboratory settings. The Fluid Engineering Teaching Lab at Diamond in the University of Sheffield attends to about 2,400 students per year. To accommodate this number, the sessions often include up to 80 students. At the same time, the fluid lab operates most of its experiments on 20 hydraulic benches that are 1.1 meters high, with the experimental setups often sitting even higher when placed on the benches. The motivation for this study emerged from a practical observation in the lab, namely that comfortably operating the experiments appeared to require a minimum height of approximately 1.75 meters. Considering that the average height in the UK is around 1.78 meters for men and 1.62 meters for women, this raised questions about whether the lab setup might disadvantage some population of students. To the best knowledge of the present author, this study is the first to investigate student perceptions of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in an engineering laboratory that accommodates a large number of students per session. EDI involves providing equal opportunities for all students to succeed and promoting equitable learning experiences. Thus, in this study, the physical dimensions of the laboratory equipment are assessed alongside student perspectives on inclusivity while working in groups of four students during the practical sessions. 2 METHODOLOGY To assess the perceptions of the students regarding the physical accessibility of our laboratory equipment and the inclusivity of team-based work, a survey was conducted across 17 sessions. The survey was voluntary and a QR code was displayed in the last 15 min of each session. These sessions were part of an introductory lab that all engineering students are required to attend. Each practical session included up to 80 students. The following sections provide more details about the survey, the experiment, and the equipment involved. 2.1 The survey The survey included three Likert-scale questions, one optional demographic question, and one open-ended question, as outlined below. These questions were administrated trough a Google form by the end of each session. 1. Students were asked to rate their overall experience with the experiment, from very poor to excellent, considering factors such as the accessibility of the equipment, comfort of dimensions, and the amount of physical effort required. 2. Students rated the overall process of the experiment, again from very poor (Very inconvenient) to excellent (Straightforward without any inconvenience). Here, "inconvenience" refers to issues such as unclear instructions, difficult-toread measurements, or a confusing colour display app. 3. Students were asked to rate their experience working in a team, from largely excluded (very negative) to very valued and included (very positive). 4. The optional demographic question asked students if they identify themselves with any of the following groups: female, non-binary, physically disabled, neurodivergent, or English not being their first language. 5. Finally, an open-ended question invited students to share suggestions for improving the learning experience and accessibility. 2.2 The equipment and Experiment The experimental activity consisted of understanding uncertainty in measurements using four different devices to measure flow rate. The equipment setup (shown in Figure 1) included a hydraulic bench with dimensions of 1400 mm in length, 760 mm in width, and 1100 mm in height. An open-circuit, recirculating water system was positioned on top of this bench. The circuit contained a digital sensor, an orifice plate, and a rotameter. The orifice plate was connected to piezometers, which are transparent vertical tubes marked with a millimetre scale. These tubes extended to a maximum height of 600 mm, bringing the total height of the setup to 1800 mm. Students worked in teams of four. As part of the activity, they were required to connect orifice plate tubes to the piezometers, remove air bubbles, and record measurements. To ensure accuracy, they needed to align their eye level with the water level in the piezometers when taking readings. This was followed by reading the rotameter, which involved observing the top edge of a floating ball. Measurements were also taken from a digital sensor, with values displayed on a small screen. In addition, students used a measuring tank to collect water and timed the process using their smartphones. The experimental procedure was provided through written instructions and a video that included both the written guidance and visual demonstrations of the operating steps. In the final stage of the lab session, students entered their data into a MATLAB application, which processed the information and allow them to analyse the results. Students who were unable to attend in person had access to an online version of the activity, complete with detailed guidelines. Staff support was provided at a ratio of one member of staff per sixteen students. The graduate teaching assistance (GTAs) were PhD students with engineering backgrounds, representing a diverse range of cultures and nationalities. Fig. 1 Experimental set up and hydrulic bench 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Out of 925 students, a total of 80 responded to the survey, providing quantitative data through Likert scale questions as well as qualitative insights from open-ended responses. 3.1 Accessibility of Laboratory Equipment The results of the first question revealed that most students rated accessibility favourably, with 97.5 per cent indicating that it was "Good" or "Excellent", and only 2.5 per cent reporting it as "Fair" or "Poor". This suggests that accessibility is not perceived as an issue by the majority (see Figure 1). However, this percentage may not fully reflect the number of students who physically struggle with the equipment. Based on visual inspection and regular interaction with students, the present author observed that the equipment appears to be more comfortable for individuals taller than approximately 1.75 metres. Despite these observations, no formal complaints had been submitted prior to the survey. Responses to the open-ended questions, on the other hand, revealed that the size of the equipment can be a barrier to completing the experiment. One student commented, "issues reading the Venturi because I am shorter (although I am considered slightly above average height for a woman, 5'6"). This aligns with the earlier observations before the study. Given that the average male and female height in the United Kingdom is approximately 1.76 metres and 1.62 metres respectively (NHS England, 2022), the expected number of students reporting negative experiences related to accessibility was higher than what was found. These findings highlight the importance of having detailed information about student demographics to improve both our facilities and our teaching. However, two important challenges must be acknowledged: the need to protect personal data and ensure privacy, and the cost of equipment. Purchasing many standardised units is often more economical, whereas adjusting equipment to accommodate a range of physical needs can represent a financial challenge. 3.2 Clarity and Ease of Performing the Experiment The results regarding the clarity and ease of performing the experiment indicate that 55% of students found the activity straightforward and free from inconvenience, rating it as "Excellent". Meanwhile, 40% reported minor inconveniences and rated the experiment as "Good". A smaller group, representing 5%, experienced some difficulties and rated it as "Fair" (see Figure 2). This distribution suggests that, although most students found the experiment manageable, there remains room for improvement, particularly in the clarity of instructions and the labelling of equipment as found in some comments. In addition, some students expressed that they would have benefited from more time to repeat the experiment, which would have allowed them to build greater confidence in the procedures. While most students completed the session within the scheduled time, a few reported being rushed, particularly when adjusting the piezometers and taking precise measurements. These comments highlight the importance of incorporating flexibility into laboratory scheduling to better support a diverse range of learners. 3.3 Teamwork and Inclusion The third question explored how included students felt within their assigned teams. A total of 70 % of students reported feeling very valued, included, and happy, rating their experience as "Very Positive". Another 27.5% felt included and comfortable, rating it as "Positive". However, 1.25 % of students reported feeling somewhat included but occasionally excluded or uncomfortable, rating it as "Neutral". An additional 1.25 % reported feeling excluded and uncomfortable, rating the experience as "Negative" (see Figure 3). These results suggest that, despite the large session size (around 80 students), working in groups of four proved to be an effective arrangement in terms of inclusivity. However, strategies should be implemented to ensure that no student feels isolated or excluded, as such experiences may negatively affect their equal opportunity to develop essential engineering skills. Students who reported feeling excluded often cited issues related to group dynamics, particularly in teams where one or more individuals dominated the distribution of tasks. This finding aligns with existing literature on teamwork challenges in educational settings. To address this, staff should receive training on how to support effective teamwork, helping to mitigate these dynamics and promote a more balanced and inclusive distribution of responsibilities. Fig.2 Distribution of responses on equipment accessibility Fig. 3 Distribution of responses on experiment clarity and ease Fig. 4 Responses on inclusion within a team 3.4 Demographics and Inclusivity The responses to the demographic question revealed that 30% of students identified as belonging to groups that are more likely to face inclusivity challenges. Specifically, 18.75% identified as female, 5% as non-native English speakers, 2.5% as neurodivergent, 2.5% as both female and neurodivergent, and 1.25 % as both female and non-native English speakers. Based on the responses to the inclusivity question, most of these groups of students reported positive experiences of inclusion when working in teams. The finding that nearly a third of students belong to groups commonly associated with inclusivity challenges is significant for identifying those who may require additional support. This may include considerations related to physical accessibility, cognitive accommodations, or adjustments to instructional language. Given that a substantial proportion of the student population falls into these categories, it is essential to prioritise targeted interventions that respond to their specific needs. 4 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the feelings and perceptions of students regarding accessibility in a laboratory designed to accommodate up to 80 individuals. Although some aspects of accessibility, such as the dimensions of the equipment, appeared, through observation, to present potential barriers for some students, no formal complaints had been raised prior to this study. However, the findings confirm the existence of physical limitations within the current setup that must be addressed. These issues highlight the importance of ensuring that all students have equal opportunities to complete laboratory activities and provide a basis for future equipment acquisitions or the design of experiments that take physical demographic characteristics into account. A second key finding indicates that most students attending these large sessions appear to feel comfortable and included when working in teams of up to four students per workstation. However, further efforts are needed to create a more inclusive environment in which all students feel supported and welcome. A third important finding relates to the demographic composition of the student group. The data show that physical accessibility is not the only challenge present in these laboratory settings. They also indicate the need to monitor more closely those groups who may face broader issues related to inclusivity. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of conducting systematic observations to support the ongoing improvement of the learning environment. Overall, this study has provided meaningful data and a foundation for improving the facilities. These improvements should include the redesign of experiments to offer equal opportunities for all students, as well as the implementation of training for teaching staff to enhance awareness of the diversity within the student population and how to support teams effectively when specific challenges arise. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AI language assistance (ChatGPT) was used to support grammar correction and sentence refinement. All research content, data interpretation, and ideas are entirely original. REFERENCES EngineeringUK. (2024). Graduate outcomes – engineering and technology. Retrieved from https://www.engineeringuk.com/media/toafef4d/hesa-graduateoutcomes-engineering-and-technology-fv-engineeringuk-mar-24.pdf Davies, C. (2008). Learning and teaching in laboratories. Loughborough University. Department for Education. (2021, February 9). More young people are taking STEM subjects than ever before. The Education Hub. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/more-young-people-are-taking-stemsubjects-than-ever-before/ Dew, M., Hunt, E., Perera, V., Perry, J., Ponti, G., & Loveridge, A. (2024). Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20(1), 010121. Gibbins, L., & Perkin, G. (2013). Laboratories for the 21st century in STEM higher education: A compendium of current UK practice and an insight into future directions for laboratory-based teaching and learning. Centre for Engineering and Design Education, Loughborough University House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. (2018). Delivering STEM skills for the economy (HC 691). UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/691/691.pdf Marshall, A. G., Vue, Z., Beasley, H. K., Neikirk, K., Stephens, D., Wanjalla, C. N., ... & Hinton, A. (2023). Diversity, equity and inclusion in the laboratory: Strategies to enhance inclusive laboratory culture. Molecular cell, 83(21), 3766-3772. NHS England. (2022). Health Survey for England, 2021: Part 4 - Trends. Retrieved from https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-surveyfor-england/2021/part-4-trends Peters, J. (2018). Designing Inclusion into engineering education: A fresh, practical look at how diversity impacts on engineering and strategies for change. Royal Academy of Engineering. Rashid, M., Tasadduq, I. A., Zia, Y. I., Al-Turkistany, M., & Rashid, S. (2012, July). Evaluation of engineering laboratories. In International Conference on Education and e-Learning Innovations (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Yelkpieri, D., Namale, M., Esia-Donkoh, K., & Ofosu-Dwamena, E. (2012). Effects of Large Class Size on Effective Teaching and Learning at the Winneba Campus of the UEW (University of Education, Winneba), Ghana. Online Submission.