Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

Laboratory reports are a genre of writing that students are exposed to early in their engineering curriculum. Varied student writing preparation ensures that students need differentiated support in laboratory writing to achieve learning outcomes. Supported by the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education initiative, researchers at three institutions have developed a series of scaffolded laboratory writing modules related to different components of a laboratory report. The module contents were informed by prior research into student performance in laboratory report writing in multiple engineering disciplines and with varied writing preparation. The modules provide definitions and guidance for novice report writers and instructor support for developing assignments and rubrics for laboratory reports. The scaffolded modules treat elements of a laboratory report at fundamental, intermediate, and advanced levels. Fundamental modules include audience expectations, lab report organization and conventions, simple statistics, and data presentation in tables and graphs. Intermediate modules address primary and secondary sources of data, trendlines, summary and conclusion writing, and referencing secondary sources. Advanced modules address logical appeals and encourage student writers to consider error analysis and error propagation. This paper describes the structure and content of the modules as well as the process used to develop them. Initial assessments by instructors as module users are presented. Other publicly available writing-support resources are catalogued to demonstrate the novelty and value of the lab report writing modules 

This study aims to identify the linguistic feature characteristics of multiple writing assignments completed by engineering undergraduates, including entry-level engineering laboratory reports and writing produced in non-engineering courses. We used Biber’s multidimensional analysis (MDA) method as the analysis tool for the student writing artifacts. MDA is a corpus-analysis methodology that utilizes language processing software to analyze text by parts of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc.). MDA typically identifies six “dimensions” of linguistic features that a text may perform in, and each dimension is rated along a continuum. The dimensions used in this study include Dimension 1: Informational vs involved, Dimension 3: Context dependence, Dimension 4: Overt persuasion, and Dimension 5: Abstract vs. non-abstract information. In AY 2019-2020, total of 97 student artifacts (N = 97) were collected. For this analysis, we grouped documents into similar assignment genres: research-papers (n = 45), technical reports and analyses (n = 7) and engineering laboratory reports (n = 35), with individual engineering students represented at least once in the laboratory report and once in another category. Findings showed that engineering lab reports are highly informational, minimally-persuasive, and used deferred elaboration. Students’ research papers in academic writing courses, conversely, were highly involved, highly persuasive, and featured more immediate elaboration on claims and data. The analyses above indicate that students are generally performing as expected in lab report writing in entry-level engineering lab classes, and that this performance is markedly different from their earlier academic writing courses, such as first-year-composition (FYC) and technical communication/writing, indicating that students are not merely “writing like engineers” from their first day at college. However, similarities in context dependence suggest that engineering students must still learn to modulate their languages in writing dramatically depending on the writing assignment. While some students show little growth from one context to another, others are able to change their register or other linguistic/structural features to meet the needs of their audience. 

Engineering undergraduates are exposed to a variety of writing curricula, such as first-year-composition courses, in their early program of study; however, they have difficulties meeting the expectations of writing in early engineering courses. On the other hand, instructors in entry-level engineering lab courses struggle to instruct lab report writing due to a wide range of student background in writing. When using the lens of learning transfer theories, which describe the processes and the effective extent to which past experiences affect learning and performance in a new situation, we can classify engineering students in three writing transfer modes: 1) concurrent transfer, which occurs when a rhetorically-focused technical writing class is taken concurrently or prior to engineering labs in the major; 2) vertical transfer, which occurs when a rhetorically-focused general education writing class is taken prior to engineering labs in the major; and 3) absent transfer, which occurs when no rhetorically-focused writing class exists (rather literature-focused) or writing-intensive courses are not required in the general education curriculum. This study aims to investigate how the engineering sophomore’s past writing experience affects their engineering lab report writing. Lab reports from four sophomore engineering courses (1 civil, 2 electrical, 1 general engineering) across three institutions collected for analysis consisted of two sets: the sample sets in early labs (for example, Lab 1) and in later labs (for example, the last lab) of the courses. A total of 46 reports (22 early and 24 later) were collected from 22 engineering sophomores during AY2019-2020. Four engineering faculty (1 civil, 1 electrical, and 2 mechanical engineering) developed a rubric based on lab report writing student outcomes, which are aligned with the existing outcomes such as ABET outcomes and the student outcomes from the Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA). Data collected via early-later lab reports show that student outcomes related to writing conventions were scored high regardless of the transfer modes. The largest variations among three transfer modes were found in the student outcomes related to lab data presentation, analysis, and interpretation. In these outcomes, the concurrent transfer students had relatively high scores for both early and later reports, while the vertical transfer students improved their scores from relatively low in early reports to high in later reports. This research results show that the area of writing knowledge that has been most influenced by their writing curricula prior to sophomore engineering lab courses is disciplinary meaning-making through presenting, analyzing, and interpreting lab data for the technical audience.