We use qualitative methods to investigate students’ engagement in an upper-division laboratory. Laboratory activities are recognized as key curricular elements in engineering education. These activities have traditionally been delivered in person, but new laboratory modalities (such as virtual laboratories) have been gaining popularity, boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how laboratory modality influences student learning is important to be able to design and implement effective laboratories. While some educators have investigated if virtual laboratories can replace their analogous physical laboratory counterparts, others have looked at using virtual laboratories in combination with physical laboratories. Taking this latter approach, they argue the two modes have different affordances and therefore could be complementary - meaning that each mode may lend itself to more effectively engaging students in certain productive practices. We have previously reported on the development of two environmental engineering laboratories, one physical and one virtual. Both laboratories address the topic of jar testing, an important process in drinking water treatment, with the design of each mode being based on that mode's affordances. These laboratories were implemented in an upper-level chemical engineering course. Twelve students split into four groups consented to be audio and video recorded during their time in the laboratory and have the work they turn in collected, with most also volunteering to be interviewed about their experiences. A first pass of this data has been completed in which we viewed learning from the lens of participation in disciplinary practice. We applied the theory of engineering epistemic practices, which are the socially organized and interactionally accomplished ways engineers develop, justify, and communicate ideas when completing engineering work. Transcripts of the laboratory observations were coded to identify students’ engagement with specific epistemic practices, which were categorized as either conceptual, material, or social. These codes were then counted and cross-validated with interview responses to draw conclusions about how student's engagement differed in each mode. This prior research has indicated that students engage with each design using different epistemic practices. While the first pass analysis showed differences in counts of epistemic practices between modes, it provided limited insight into how and why the epistemic practices are elicited and coordinated among students. In this paper, we extend the discourse analysis by illustrating our developing methodology for a second pass analysis of the video recordings. We seek to develop a thick description by identifying how particular epistemic practices fit together temporally and serve to promote or hinder students’ progress. Engagement in epistemic practices does not happen in a vacuum and instead happens contextually, influenced by students' previous engagement and the laboratory environment and their social and academic history. This analysis allows a deeper understanding of how students engage in engineering practice while completing laboratories, knowledge that can be applied to enhance engineering physical and virtual laboratory instruction and design. Additionally, this work contributes to the methodological conversation of ways to use interaction analyses to extract understanding from a rich set of qualitative data.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 24, 2025
Complementary affordances of virtual and physical laboratories for developing engineering epistemic practices
Professional engineering demands more than the ability to proficiently carry out engineering calculations. Engineers need to approach problems with a holistic view, make decisions based on evidence, collaborate effectively in teams, and learn from setbacks. Laboratory work plays a crucial role in shaping the professional development of university engineering students, as it enables them to cultivate these essential practices. A successful laboratory task design should provide students opportunities to develop these practices but also needs to adhere to the constraints of the educational environment. In this project, we explore how both virtual (simulation-based) and physical (hands-on) laboratories, based on the same real-world engineering process, prepare students for their future careers. Specifically, we seek to determine whether the virtual and physical laboratory modes foster different yet complementary epistemic practices. Epistemic practices refer to the ways in which group members propose, communicate, justify, assess, and validate knowledge claims in a socially organized and interactionally accomplished manner. To accomplish these objectives, we are conducting a microgenetic analysis of student teams engaging in both the virtual and physical versions of the same laboratory exercise, the Jar Test for Drinking Water Treatment. Jar testing is a standard laboratory procedure used by design engineers and water treatment plant operators to optimize the physical and chemical conditions for the effective removal of particulate contaminants from water through coagulation, flocculation, and settling. The central hypothesis guiding this research is that physical laboratories emphasize social and material epistemic practices, while virtual laboratories highlight social and conceptual epistemic practices. The goal is to gain transferable knowledge about how the laboratory format and instructional design influence students' engagement in epistemic practices. To date we have developed physical and virtual versions of the Jar Test laboratory, each built around the affordances of their respective modes. We have completed two rounds of data collection resulting in data from 21 students (7 groups of 3). The primary data sources have included video recordings and researcher observations of the teams during the laboratory work, semi-structured stimulated recall interviews with students and laboratory instructors, and student work products. Using discourse analysis methods within a sociocultural framework, we are addressing the following research questions: 1. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a physical mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 2. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a virtual mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 3. How do students in each laboratory mode respond to being “stuck”? Do students’ views on the iterative nature of science/engineering and their tolerance for mistakes depend on the instructional design afforded by the laboratory mode? While this study focuses on a process specific to environmental engineering, its findings have the potential to positively impact teaching and learning practices across all engineering and science disciplines that rely on laboratory investigations in their curriculum.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2204885
- PAR ID:
- 10528156
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ASEE annual conference exposition
- ISSN:
- 2153-5965
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Portland, OR
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Laboratory activities are central to undergraduate student learning in science and engineering. With advancements in computer technology, many laboratory activities have shifted from providing students experiments in a physical mode to providing them in a virtual mode. Further, physical and virtual modes can be combined to address a single topic, as the modes have complementary affordances. In this paper, we report on the design and implementation of a physical and virtual laboratory on the topic of jar testing, a common process for drinking water treatment. The assignment for each laboratory mode was designed to leverage the mode’s affordances. Correspondingly, we hypothesized each would elicit a different subset of engineering epistemic practices. In a naturalistic, qualitative study design based on laboratory mode (physical or virtual) and laboratory order (virtual first or physical first), we collected process, product, and reflection data of students’ laboratory activity. Taking an orientation that learning is participation in valued disciplinary practice, data were coded and used to characterize how students engaged with each laboratory mode. Results showed that the virtual laboratory elicited more conceptual epistemic practices and the physical laboratory more material epistemic practices, aligning with the affordances of each mode. When students completed the laboratory in the virtual mode first, students demonstrated greater engagement in epistemic practices and more positive perceptions of their learning experience in the virtual mode than when they completed the physical mode first. In contrast, engagement in the physical mode was mostly unaffected by the laboratory order.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract In engineering design, engineers must be able to think creatively, effectively toggling between divergent thinking (developing multiple novel ideas) and convergent thinking (pursuing an appropriate idea using engineering analyses). However, creative thinking is not emphasized in many undergraduate engineering programs. In this empirical study, we analyze the divergent thinking of teams working on a virtual laboratory project. Fifteen student teams' solution paths–as represented by Model Maps–were analyzed to characterize and compare the various elements of divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The solution paths of these teams were compared in two physical laboratory projects and to experts completing the same virtual laboratory project. We found that students demonstrated more divergent thinking in the virtual laboratory project than in the physical laboratory projects; yet, divergent thinking and quality of solution did not correlate. There was little difference between measured elements of divergent thinking between student teams and experts.
-
Abstract Reformed science curricula provide opportunities for students to engage with authentic science practices. However, teacher implementation of such curricula requires teachers to consider their role in the classroom, including realigning instructional decisions with the epistemic aims of science. Guiding newcomers in science can take place in settings ranging from the classroom to the undergraduate research laboratory. We suggest thinking about the potential intersections of guiding students across these contexts is important. We describe the Classroom‐Research‐Mentoring (CRM) Framework as a novel lens for examining science practice‐based instruction. We present a comparative case study of two teachers as they instruct undergraduate students in a model‐based inquiry laboratory. We analyzed stimulated‐recall episodes uncovering how these teachers interacted with their students and the rationale behind their instructional choices. Through the application of the CRM Framework, we revealed ways teachers can have instructional goals that align with those of a research mentor. For example, our teachers had the goals of “creating an inclusive environment open to student ideas,” “acknowledging students as scientists,” and “focusing students on skills and ideas needed to solve biological problems.” We suggest three functions of research mentoring that translate across the classroom and research laboratory settings: (1) build a shared understanding of epistemic aims, (2) support learners in the productive use of science practices, and (3) motivate learner engagement in science practices.more » « less
-
In physical sciences and engineering research, the study of virtual labs (VL) has generally focused on case studies about their implementation into classrooms or engineering design process and elements. However, few (if any) studies have assessed the viability of using conventional course evaluation instruments (originally designed for traditional in-person classroom environments), to evaluate virtual lab classes. This article presents a preliminary set of results from a study that examines and compares engineering undergraduate students’ evaluations of a capstone mechanical and aerospace engineering laboratory course taught in two different environments: in-person and remotely (virtual/online environment). The instrument used in both cases was the conventional course evaluation instrument that was quantitative and designed using a Likert scale. The aim of this study is to understand how this instrument captures or does not capture the students’ perceptions of their learning of course content in virtual and in-person learning environments. The second aim of this study is to explore students’ perceptions of the effectiveness and acceptance of virtual learning tools and environments applied in engineering laboratory classes. A total of 226 undergraduate students participated in this convergent mixed method study within a mechanical and aerospace engineering department at a research-1 institute in the northeastern region of the United States. Our initial analyses of the students’ course evaluations indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the perceived teaching effectiveness of the course. However, statistically significant differences were found between the course final grades between students who participated in the in-person lab juxtapose to those who engaged in the virtual laboratory environment. In addition, qualitative results suggest that students’ perceptions of the value of in-person and virtual labs vary depending on prior engineering experiences. These results suggest that there is room for improvement in conventional course evaluation instruments of senior capstone engineering education laboratories that take place either in-person or virtually.more » « less
