#3 Reducing the Attainment Gap within Biomechanics/Sports & Exercise Science

9/28/2022 1:45 am

By Dr. Erica Bell

As an American citizen, when we talk about diversity initiatives, we often only think about it in terms of what we see within the US. It’s rare that we pay attention to what is going on in other countries and how they may be addressing some of the same issues. You would think that would be a more common occurrence, as there are plenty of strategies and initiatives out there that are being implemented that can give valuable insight and ideas on how to successfully implement initiatives without having to completely reinvent the wheel.

Thankfully, this blog is being written for the International Women in Biomechanics audience, so we can look outside the US for some inspo. During the NACOB 2022 meeting, Dr. Andrew Mitchell and Dr. Romanda Dillon presented on the topic of “Reducing the Attainment Gap within Biomechanics/Sports & Exercise Science” to share what is being done in the UK to address some systemic barriers.

What is the attainment gap?

In terms of higher education, Dr. Mitchell defines the attainment gap as the “difference in ‘higher degrees’ (First or 2:1 classification) awarded to groups of university students, despite having the same entry grades (AKA the Awarding Gap)”. In the UK, white students on average received higher awards than students from all other ethnic groups. Sounds pretty familiar to those of us in the US too. The White to Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) gap was 9.9% in 2019-20. Much of this is driven by gaps in the awarding of first-class degrees (10.3%), with 38.9% of white students earning first-class degrees compared to only 28.6% of BAME students. While this data is not specific to biomechanics/sports & exercise science degrees, it clearly illustrates the large-scale problem.

These same issues are well-documented within the US, particularly in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. Black individuals make up roughly 13% of the US population, yet Black students earned only 9% of science and 4% of engineering bachelor’s degrees compared to a total of 56% by White students in 2016. Moreover, only 39.8% of Black students complete a 4-year degree within 6 years compared to 64.3% of White students. Such a gap at the undergraduate level persists well into advanced career stages, with only 11% of Black students enrolled in science and engineering programs, and Black individuals making up only 5.2% of tenured faculty at bachelor-degree-granting schools, which significantly impacts representation in higher education.

Delving back into the UK attainment gap data, the most significant differences in attainment are found by ethnic backgrounds. Check out the graphic below. Each of the ethnic backgrounds presented are less likely to receive a first-class degree at UK universities than white students:

Implications

The biggest thing we need to understand about the attainment gap is that it is a SYSTEMIC issue! It lies at the core of an institution and the policies/programs in place that continue to contribute to this gap, which means that just telling students to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” or “work hard and you’ll succeed” isn’t enough. Despite having the same grades, BAME students are not competing on a level playing field. Many graduate-level jobs and post-graduate courses (and related bursaries/scholarships) in the UK have a first or 2:1 classification as a minimum entry requirement. This means that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic graduates are less likely:

• To be able to benefit from these opportunities

• To progress to graduate study

• To move into higher education as a career

This in turn decreases representation at higher levels of education and thus, continues the cycle. Support in the forms of intentional and sustainable initiative, programs, and policies are needed to reduce the attainment gap and promote success and progress of non-white students, in the UK, the US, and beyond.

So, what changes can we make?

There are multiple areas that can be targeted in order to bring about change. Those areas include:

• Representation of BAME students

• Pedagogy when working with students from BAME backgrounds

• Curriculum Reform across universities and within faculty

• Student Experience – working with students to make changes

• Assessment: Marking process and context

Much of what Dr. Mitchell presented targeted what seems to be a low-hanging fruit. In other words, this is something you can be doing at an individual level, in your own classroom, without needing to wait for the development and implementation of institutional policies to catch up. Making changes to the marking (or grading) process can happen ASAP with just one action item: mark and grade assessments anonymously where possible.

In the US, we have some catching up to do, but in the UK, marking and grading assessments anonymously where possible is a standard policy. Types of assessments that work well with anonymous marking/grading include:

• Laboratory reports

• Literature reviews

• Meta-analyses & systematic reviews

• In-class tests and formal exams

• Group assignments

And yes, we know there are some types of assessments that this type of anonymous grading will NOT work for (I was hoping I didn’t need to go there, but I will for the sake of transparency). Types of assessments NOT suited for anonymous marking/grading include:

• Oral presentations

• Practical exams

• Dissertations and research projects

• Placement portfolios

How do we implement this?

Thanks to living in the 21st century and with the many technological advancements we use on a daily basis, it’s easier than ever to implement these changes. You can easily set up anonymous marking/grading with virtual learning environment (VLE) systems such as:

• Canvas

• Moodle

• Blackboard

• Brightspace

Luckily, most of us have already heard of or currently use one of these systems, so it’s just a matter of setting it up to incorporate this anonymous marking/grading system. Use the links provided above to access instructions on how to set up anonymous/blind grading for each VLE system.

Why is it important?

I really hope you didn’t ask why…but it was in the presentation, so I’ll make sure to explain. Although I am sure you should be able to identify at least a few obvious benefits without the provided cheat sheet below, here are a few benefits to get your list started:

• Removes risk of unconscious bias and favoritism

• Increases trust and relationship between academics and students

• Reduces the number of students challenging grades (Hallelujah! Stay out of my inbox!)

• Improves unit/module/class/course evaluations from students

Is the attainment gap still growing?

Between 2018-19 and 2019-20, the UK saw the largest decrease in the awarding gap, with a fall of 3.4% compared to the average fall of 0.3% in previous years. However, this should be interpreted with caution, as it is unclear if this signals a new trend (AKA we have to wait for the latest data to find out if the trend holds). Also, you know, there was that whole Coronavirus pandemic that hit the planet in 2020 and stuck around for the over 2 years. Navigating through this time required significant adaptations to assessment practices and we’re not sure yet what implications these modifications will have had on the attainment gap. However, the pandemic should not serve as an excuse to put initiatives to reduce the attainment gap on hold, but rather should make the process more efficient and tangible than ever. These sentiments are reflected in this short article.

So, what are the next steps?

Simply put, there needs to be a change in focus; a huge underlying theme of all diversity, equity, and inclusion work if we’re being honest. Traditionally, the narrative of the attainment gap focuses on students’ underachievement or lack of attainment, whereas it should focus on the institutional culture, curriculum, and pedagogy. Consider these for thought:

• Action needs to focus on institutional barriers and inequalities, rather than ‘improving’ or ‘fixing’ the students (Can I get an amen!?). This should be obvious, but you would be surprised how many times initiatives miss this mark.

• Initiatives will take time to have significant impact, so institutions will need to be patient and commit to long-term resourcing (AKA make a plan and stick to it!)

• Students must be at the center of any actions taken. They should be partners in addressing the gap and involved in the discussions. After all, they are the ones these programs/policies are being developed for. They know what they need, it’s on the institution (and us as professors, PIs, etc.) to figure out how to meet their needs. Check out this recent article by Wong et al. that highlights student perceptions of the ethnicity degree awarding gap, as well as five recommendations to address this gap, as suggested by students, for policy and practice.

• Make a start by adopting blind marking and grading (AKA the easiest thing you can implement, like yesterday)

So, moral of the story, institutions have a long way to go in terms of developing and implementing intentional and sustainable initiatives, programs, and policies to address this attainment gap. The focus needs to be on changing the institutional culture, curriculum, and pedagogy. Students’ experiences matter, their voices should be heard, and their needs considered when developing these initiatives, programs, and policies. Institutional initiatives will take time to really make tangible progress and impact, so in the meantime, do what you can at an individual level to meet some of these needs and change the culture now.

Author: Dr. Erica Bell