Content Coverage as a Persistent Exclusionary Practice: Investigating Perspectives of Health Professionals on the Influence of Undergraduate Coursework.

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Brie Tripp, Sherri Cozzens, Catherine Hrycyk, Kimberly D Tanner, Jeffrey N Schinske
{"title":"Content Coverage as a Persistent Exclusionary Practice: Investigating Perspectives of Health Professionals on the Influence of Undergraduate Coursework.","authors":"Brie Tripp, Sherri Cozzens, Catherine Hrycyk, Kimberly D Tanner, Jeffrey N Schinske","doi":"10.1187/cbe.23-05-0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>STEM undergraduates navigate lengthy sequences of prerequisite courses covering volumes of science content. Given that these courses may contribute to attrition and equity gaps in STEM, research is needed to test the assumption that prerequisite content benefits students in their future studies and careers. We investigated the relevance of prerequisite course content for students' careers through semistructured interviews with practicing nurses regarding their undergraduate anatomy and physiology (A&P) courses. Nurses reported that A&P content does not align with the skills and knowledge needed in the nursing profession. Interviewees averaged 39% on a brief A&P assessment, suggesting A&P prerequisites failed to impart a high degree of long-term A&P knowledge among nurses. Further, practicing nurses perceived overcommitment to A&P content coverage as an exclusionary practice that eliminates capable individuals from the prenursing pathway. These findings challenge assumptions surrounding the justification for prerequisite course content and raise questions of whether content expectations actively exclude individuals from STEM or healthcare careers. We aspire for this study to stimulate conversation and research about the goals of prerequisite content, who is best positioned to articulate prerequisite content objectives, and the influence of content coverage on equity and justice in undergraduate STEM education.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"23 1","pages":"ar5"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-05-0074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

STEM undergraduates navigate lengthy sequences of prerequisite courses covering volumes of science content. Given that these courses may contribute to attrition and equity gaps in STEM, research is needed to test the assumption that prerequisite content benefits students in their future studies and careers. We investigated the relevance of prerequisite course content for students' careers through semistructured interviews with practicing nurses regarding their undergraduate anatomy and physiology (A&P) courses. Nurses reported that A&P content does not align with the skills and knowledge needed in the nursing profession. Interviewees averaged 39% on a brief A&P assessment, suggesting A&P prerequisites failed to impart a high degree of long-term A&P knowledge among nurses. Further, practicing nurses perceived overcommitment to A&P content coverage as an exclusionary practice that eliminates capable individuals from the prenursing pathway. These findings challenge assumptions surrounding the justification for prerequisite course content and raise questions of whether content expectations actively exclude individuals from STEM or healthcare careers. We aspire for this study to stimulate conversation and research about the goals of prerequisite content, who is best positioned to articulate prerequisite content objectives, and the influence of content coverage on equity and justice in undergraduate STEM education.

内容覆盖是一种持续的排斥性做法:调查卫生专业人员对本科课程影响的看法。
科学、技术和工程学专业的本科生需要学习涵盖大量科学内容的冗长的先修课程。鉴于这些课程可能会造成 STEM 的自然减员和公平差距,因此需要开展研究来检验先修课程内容是否有利于学生未来的学习和职业的假设。我们通过对执业护士进行有关本科解剖生理学(A&P)课程的半结构式访谈,调查了先修课程内容与学生职业生涯的相关性。护士们表示,A&P 内容与护理专业所需的技能和知识并不一致。受访者在简短的 A&P 评估中的平均得分率为 39%,这表明 A&P 先修课程未能向护士传授大量长期的 A&P 知识。此外,执业护士认为,对 A&P 内容覆盖面的过度承诺是一种排斥性做法,会将有能力的人排除在护理预科课程之外。这些研究结果对有关先修课程内容合理性的假设提出了质疑,并提出了对课程内容的期望是否会主动将个人排除在 STEM 或医疗保健职业之外的问题。我们希望通过这项研究,就先修课程内容的目标、谁最适合阐明先修课程内容的目标,以及先修课程内容对本科 STEM 教育中的公平与公正的影响等问题展开讨论和研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信