Search for: All records

Transfer of learning theory explains how learners can apply their previously acquired knowledge and skills in a new situation or context. In the context of writing transfer and lab report writing, first-year writing courses can act as one kind of previous learning experience or as a transfer source, and lower-division engineering labs can be the new situation or the transfer target. This preliminary study investigates how engineering students’ prior writing experience affects their lab report writing in lower-division introductory engineering labs. This study uses two distinct sites of first-year writing-intensive courses: one rhetorically-focused and one literature/philosophy-focused. We collected student samples (n = 9) from three universities offering these two distinct sites and approaches. We compared the content, outcomes, and writing expectations of the first-year writing-intensive courses offered by the three schools. Next, we conducted a rhetorical analysis of research papers collected from the writing-intensive course samples to identify each site's writing knowledge and skills. The same analysis was applied to the student’s first lab reports collected from the introductory engineering lab courses. We then compared the writing knowledge and skills between the first-year writing-intensive course samples and the engineering lab report samples to investigate how learning transfer occurred in the student writing at these three different sites. The criteria used to conduct the rhetorical analysis of writing samples focuses on writing outcomes most relevant to engineering lab report writing (relating to audience awareness, organizational structures, presentation/analysis/interpretation of lab data, use of primary and secondary sources, and document style design). We identify the prior writing knowledge and skills of the two distinct first-year writing-intensive course sites by investigating obvious points of productive transfer. This study provides a better understanding of how undergraduates use writing knowledge and skills earned from varying first-year writing-intensive contexts when writing their engineering labs. 

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.