From an instructor’s viewpoint, laboratory instruction is more than fulfilling required technical training. It serves as the basis for developing scientific competency and students’ professional identity, and ensuring patients are safe. The question we need to be asking is whether laboratory spaces facilitate or hinder meaningful learning opportunities.
In biomedical education, we use teaching in the lab to bridge knowledge and action. Students learn how to act appropriately with specimens, apply biosafety practices, make accurate measurements and interpret results in a clinical or research context.
- Prevent overstimulation and support autistic students in the laboratory
- Inspire the next generation of bioengineering lab technicians
- Support medical students to form their identity as doctors
Laboratory education is also different from lecture-based education because it provides us with a way of seeing competence. We see the student’s technique, judgement and ability to follow safety protocols and to respond appropriately to outcomes they didn’t anticipate. Based on these observations, we can determine whether a student is ready to go into research, deliver healthcare or work in an industrial position, where any errors can have grave consequences.
Because of this, laboratory-based education is critical to medical and biomedical curricula. But many teaching laboratories have not been constructed and designed for educational inclusiveness. As educators, we should also reflect on whether the physical environment we are using to teach supports the competencies we are attempting to create.
The ‘standard’ laboratory
Educational laboratories for training students often mirror the physical set-up of research labs, with fixed benches, uniform equipment arrangements and strictly timed practical exams. They also make it easier for instructors to create assessments, which appear to be objective and reproducible.
However, the predictability associated with these structures can sometimes create a false sense of reliability and dependability because of the biases they create.
Many of the traditional labs were designed with assumptions about how students interact physically and cognitively with lab environments, including: the ability to stand for long periods of time; the ability to maintain appropriate fine motor movement under time pressure; the ability to manipulate lab instruments and objects with physical ease. These assumptions are seldom intentional and are simply built into the design of traditional labs but can have significant impact on how well (or poorly) students perform, regardless of their level of scientific knowledge.
During assessment, we have to consider: are we truly assessing their ability to be scientists or are we assessing their ability to be physically competent in an inflexible environment?
Clarifying what we intend to assess
Competency in the fields of biochemistry or biomedical science comes from two main areas: intellectual and procedural. Both types of competence involve analytical reasoning, accurate use of methods, safe handling of materials and thoughtfully interpreting data. They also both require precision, ethics and methodical techniques.
But what isn’t a requirement for competency is extended physical endurance, identical reach in all directions or fast manual dexterity, beyond what is necessary for safe practice.
When lab-based assessments emphasise completion within a specified time frame or reward speed at the expense of accuracy, we risk measuring factors that are tangential to what a person needs to demonstrate professional readiness. Environmental discomfort or physical fatigue should not disproportionately influence a student’s ability to understand or interpret results of chromatography, calculate enzyme kinetics or follow biosafety procedures.
Safety, standardisation and accessibility are complementary goals
One of the most common reasons for fixed lab design is safety. The standardisation of the design minimises variability, so we can consistently monitor potential hazards.
Safety and accessibility, although often perceived as competing priorities, depend on the ability to anticipate the variability of individual users so that design does not have to rely on the user’s adaptation. Effective safety systems are created to cater for variability across the height, strength, physical abilities and cognitive ability or style between users. Inclusive lab design improves risk management.
In the eyes of the educator, inclusive design does not mean that you are lowering your expectations for students. In fact, you are creating environments that allow students to be successful in demonstrating their competence, without any barriers.
Refining laboratory design and assessment
We’re not saying that redefining what qualifies as a standard means dismantling previously established frameworks. But it does require refinement.
New laboratories can use adjustable benches and modular arrangements, as well as clearly delineated safety zones. This fulfils the range of needs of lab users while ensuring full compliance with biosafety regulations. Existing labs should be able to integrate accessibility into regular safety audits, rather than seeing it as an independent factor.
On a pedagogical level, you can change assessment practices to reflect these refinements. Adjust rubrics to place more emphasis on being accurate, demonstrating reasoning, exhibiting integrity in processes and adhering to safety procedures than on working quickly. Give students opportunities to internalise the lab procedures, through structured pre-lab simulations and guided practice sessions prior to their high-stakes assessments. Clear criteria can help reinforce that completing the procedure accurately and using sound judgement is of far greater value than completing the procedure quickly.
None of these refinements will weaken the academic integrity of lab assessments. They will, in fact, strengthen it. By focusing assessment on demonstrating true scientific competence, we will enhance the credibility of our training programmes.
Broader educational responsibility
Biomedical graduates need to be prepared to work with many different people and provide care in changing professional situations. Adaptability and the ability to make rational decisions are all-important. So it’s inconsistent to maintain educational settings that demand uniformity.
From the perspective of an educator, rethinking the design of lab spaces means more than simply providing accommodation for all students – it is also about aligning with pedagogy. You are ensuring that what the student is being asked to demonstrate, their competence, represents the competencies you wish to develop in the student: precision, ethical sensitivity, analytical thought and safe practice.
Continuous and conscious improvement
Unlike many other fields, higher education does not have static, fixed standards for lab instruction. In fact, standards are in a state of constant change as new scientific evidence, safety procedures and curricular changes occur. As we use the scientific method to develop new materials for use in a lab, we should also regularly conduct critical evaluations of the lab conditions in which we teach.
Questioning longstanding traditions does not mean rejecting them but reflects the qualities of scientific logic and reasoning. This shows our commitment as educators to explore our assumptions, refine systems and strive to increase the degree of fairness, accuracy and ethical standards in education.
By enhancing lab instruction, we are not merely enhancing the physical aspects of the space; we’re also reinforcing our responsibility as educators to produce competent, capable and ethical biomedical professionals.
Mohamed Hussein is assistant professor of biochemistry and Yusra Idrees is an undergraduate student, both at Dubai Medical University.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment