Board 216: Areas of Improvement and Difficulty with Lab Report Writing in the Lower-Division Engineering Laboratory Courses across Three Universities

Dave Kim; Franny Howes

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 15
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--42636
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/42636
Download Count: 200

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Dave Kim Washington State University, Vancouver

visit author page

Dr. Dave Kim is Professor and Mechanical Engineering Program Coordinator in the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. His teaching and research have been in the areas of engineering materials, fracture mechanics, and manufacturing processes. In particular, he has been very active in pedagogical research in the area of writing pedagogy in engineering laboratory courses. Dr. Kim and his collaborators attracted close to $1M in research grants to study writing transfer of engineering undergraduates. For technical research, he has a long-standing involvement in research concerned with the manufacturing of advanced composite materials (CFRP/titanium stack, GFRP, nanocomposites, etc.) for marine and aerospace applications. His recent research efforts have also included the fatigue behavior of manufactured products, with a focus on fatigue strength improvement of aerospace, automotive, and rail structures. He has been the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed papers in these areas.

visit author page

biography

Franny Howes Oregon Institute of Technology

visit author page

Franny Howes is chair of the Department of Communication at Oregon Tech and also serves as an associate professor.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

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.

Citation
Format

Kim, D., & Howes, F. (2023, June), Board 216: Areas of Improvement and Difficulty with Lab Report Writing in the Lower-Division Engineering Laboratory Courses across Three Universities Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42636

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - 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. 
AU  - Dave Kim
AU  - Franny Howes
CY  - Baltimore , Maryland
DA  - 2023/06/25
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Board 216: Areas of Improvement and Difficulty with Lab Report Writing in the Lower-Division Engineering Laboratory Courses across Three Universities
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/42636
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--42636
ER  -