An official website of the United States government
Engineering undergraduates often mention hands-on laboratory courses as the most exciting learning experience in college. At the same time, they frequently point out that lab report writing is one of the most difficult tasks. Indeed, writing requires an extensive time investment for students, from developing ideas to proofreading before submission. Although engineering educators and writing educators offer impactful instructions in academic writing, engineering undergraduates seem to struggle when they are assigned to write in their major classes. This paper aims to investigate the areas of writing competencies where students improve or struggle in lower-division engineering laboratory courses. We collected and analyzed lab report samples from sixty-four students (n = 64) in a total of seven sophomore-level civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering courses at three different universities, consisting of a polytechnic university, a liberal art-focused private university, and a branch campus of research-one land grant university in the academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The analysis results from the lab sample assessment, using nine lab report writing outcomes, indicate that 30% or 19 out of 64 students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level; however, 70% or 45 out of 64 of students did not receive satisfactory grades in their early lab reports. These students are classified as the “needs improvement” group. The 45 students in the needs improvement group struggled with all nine outcomes; most notably, they had the lowest average scores in outcomes 5 (lab data interpretation), 6 (productive conclusions), and 7 (development of ideas), which often require evaluation and synthesis in Bloom’s Taxonomy. This group of students’ later lab report samples were assessed to investigate areas of change over the lab course periods. Lab instructions positively impacted students’ writing, showing marginally improved average scores in all nine outcomes. The largest improvement was observed in lab data interpretation, followed by lab data analysis and lab data presentation. Even with the improvement in their late labs, the engineering undergraduates in the needs improvement group still struggle with addressing technical audience expectations, lab data interpretation, effective conclusion writing, and idea development, even with instructions and productive feedback from the lab instructors and/or teaching assistants.
more »
« less
The Status of Laboratory Education Focusing on Laboratory Report Assignment and Assessment in the Engineering Programs of a 4-Year Institution
Engineering undergraduate programs offer a variety of laboratory courses that aim to give students hands-on experience with engineering practices while also assigning lab report writing that builds communication skills within their major. This study aims to investigate how engineering programs of a branch campus in a land-grant research university offer writing education in undergraduate lab courses. Among numerous electrical engineering and mechanical engineering course offerings at the university, nine undergraduate engineering lab courses were chosen for this study. To begin, the purpose, content, environment, and grading contribution of the chosen labs were surveyed. Then, the materials provided to students in relation to lab report assignment were investigated using nine lab report writing outcomes defined in earlier studies. Finally, the provided evaluation criteria of the lab reports were studied using the same nine outcomes. The lab report writing outcomes used in the study include 1) address technical audience expectations, 2) present experimental processes, 3) illustrate lab data using appropriate graphic/table forms, 4) analyze lab data, 5) interpret lab data, 6) provide an effective conclusion, 7) develop ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns, 8) demonstrate appropriate genre conventions, and 9) establish control of conventions for a technical audience. We concluded that, regardless of major or program level, the primary purpose and contents of the course materials were usually categorized as educational and experimental, respectively. The secondary purpose and contents were predominantly developmental and analytical. Additionally, we found that most courses explicitly addressed outcomes related to report organization, data presentation/analysis/interpretation, and writing conventions. However, the outcome related to developing ideas using effective reasoning and productive patterns was not proven to have been explicitly covered in any of the courses studied. Finally, we found that though many of the courses studied had explicitly addressed these outcomes, fewer courses directly assessed the nine outcomes. It can be interpreted that engineering students might struggle with the inconsistency between the assignment and the assessment in lab report writing.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1915644
- PAR ID:
- 10422009
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN.
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Engineering undergraduate lab sections are often instructed by undergraduate or graduate teaching assistants (U/GTAs), who also grade lab reports and provide feedback. Although U/GTAs contribute extensively to the assessment of lab reports, their perspectives and understanding of writing pedagogy are largely unknown. U/GTAs are primarily trained as writers in engineering; however, they are often novices in writing knowledge and its pedagogy. The electrical engineering and mechanical engineering programs of Washington State University Vancouver have conducted professional development workshops for the U/GTAs (n=6) who instruct engineering lab courses and/or grade lab reports. The goal of the workshops was to enhance the U/GTAs’ knowledge of writing and lab report evaluation to support and improve engineering undergraduate students’ lab report writing. The workshop contents consisted of 1) lab instructors’ expectations, 2) the fundamentals of lab report writing (rhetorical features of lab reports), and 3) productive feedbacks. The workshops were offered to six U/GTAs from five courses (two sophomore, two junior, and one senior electrical engineering lab courses). In order to identify the overall effectiveness of the workshops, we conducted the survey and focus group with the U/GTAs to investigate their writing background, their understanding of audience awareness, their perspectives and understanding of writing instruction, and their lab report evaluation processes. We also collected the graded lab reports to investigate feedback comments. This paper discusses the U/GTAs’ perspectives and their practices of writing pedagogies in the lab courses. The knowledge generated from this study has provided a direction for refining the professional development workshops for U/GTAs in the present and future.more » « less
-
Engineering undergraduate lab sections are often instructed by undergraduate or graduate teaching assistants (U/GTAs), who also grade lab reports and provide feedback. Although U/GTAs contribute extensively to the assessment of lab reports, their perspectives and understanding of writing pedagogy are largely unknown. U/GTAs are primarily trained as writers in engineering; however, they are often novices in writing knowledge and its pedagogy. The electrical engineering and mechanical engineering programs of Washington State University Vancouver have conducted professional development workshops for the U/GTAs (n=6) who instruct engineering lab courses and/or grade lab reports. The goal of the workshops was to enhance the U/GTAs’ knowledge of writing and lab report evaluation to support and improve engineering undergraduate students’ lab report writing. The workshop contents consisted of 1) lab instructors’ expectations, 2) the fundamentals of lab report writing (rhetorical features of lab reports), and 3) productive feedbacks. The workshops were offered to six U/GTAs from five courses (two sophomore, two junior, and one senior electrical engineering lab courses). In order to identify the overall effectiveness of the workshops, we conducted the survey and focus group with the U/GTAs to investigate their writing background, their understanding of audience awareness, their perspectives and understanding of writing instruction, and their lab report evaluation processes. We also collected the graded lab reports to investigate feedback comments. This paper discusses the U/GTAs’ perspectives and their practices of writing pedagogies in the lab courses. The knowledge generated from this study has provided a direction for refining the professional development workshops for U/GTAs in the present and future.more » « less
-
This study focuses on the effectiveness of learning transfer-focused or transfer-focused lab report writing instructional modules on engineering undergraduates’ lab report writing in entry-level engineering laboratory courses. The modules are novel due to their shared language to describe and reinforce foundational writing terms used by the writing faculty and are ready for immediate use by engineering lab instructors. Three different universities, consisting of a polytechnical university, a liberal arts-anchored private university, and a branch campus of a research-one land grant university, participated. Student lab report samples from six various sophomore-level engineering courses were collected. For the control group, none of the participating lab instructors accessed the transfer-focused modules (academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021); sixty-four control group lab report samples were collected (n = 64). In the academic year 2021-2022, the lab instructors had access to the transfer-focused modules via the web to be encouraged to update their lab instructions; the experimental group lab report samples were collected from forty-two students (n = 42). Using defined writing outcomes, a panel of engineering lab instructors assessed the participating students’ early (one of the first reports in the class) and late lab reports (written near the end of the course). The lab report assessment analysis indicates that only 30% of the control group students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level, while 60% of the experimental group students reached a satisfactory level in their early labs. For both early and late lab reports, the experimental group students outperformed most outcomes over the control group. The notably improved outcomes were related to audience awareness, data presentation, data analysis, and data interpretation. The transfer-focused lab report writing pedagogy enhanced engineering undergraduates’ ability to engage in critical thinking practices, including analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of their lab data/products. Additionally, students appeared to improve their awareness of a technical audience, expecting engineering language, styles, and conventions commonly shared by writers in engineering.more » « less
-
This study focuses on the effectiveness of learning transfer-focused or transfer-focused lab report writing instructional modules on engineering undergraduates’ lab report writing in entry-level engineering laboratory courses. The modules are novel due to their shared language to describe and reinforce foundational writing terms used by the writing faculty and are ready for immediate use by engineering lab instructors. Three different universities, consisting of a polytechnical university, a liberal arts-anchored private university, and a branch campus of a research-one land grant university, participated. Student lab report samples from six various sophomore-level engineering courses were collected. For the control group, none of the participating lab instructors accessed the transfer-focused modules (academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021); sixty-four control group lab report samples were collected (n = 64). In the academic year 2021-2022, the lab instructors had access to the transfer-focused modules via the web to be encouraged to update their lab instructions; the experimental group lab report samples were collected from forty-two students (n = 42). Using defined writing outcomes, a panel of engineering lab instructors assessed the participating students’ early (one of the first reports in the class) and late lab reports (written near the end of the course). The lab report assessment analysis indicates that only 30% of the control group students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level, while 60% of the experimental group students reached a satisfactory level in their early labs. For both early and late lab reports, the experimental group students outperformed most outcomes over the control group. The notably improved outcomes were related to audience awareness, data presentation, data analysis, and data interpretation. The transfer-focused lab report writing pedagogy enhanced engineering undergraduates’ ability to engage in critical thinking practices, including analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of their lab data/products. Additionally, students appeared to improve their awareness of a technical audience, expecting engineering language, styles, and conventions commonly shared by writers in engineering.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
