Using Learning through Writing Pedagogy to Improve Laboratory Learning Outcomes

Learning through Writing has been a popular and successful pedagogical advance applied across undergraduate curricula and disciplines. The goal of Learning through Writing is twofold: to improve writing through the addition of informal and formal writing opportunities in a course, and to improve learning through creative and effective writing assignments. The author received training in Learning through Writing techniques in a series of five daylong workshops offered at his university. As part of a broader education quality improvement campaign, a program of results reporting and outcomes assessment were put in place, including post-workshop coaching and assistance to faculty to adopt the techniques in a course of choice. The author targeted an undergraduate electric power and machines laboratory to assimilate Learning through Writing techniques and utilized the post-workshop guidance opportunities to help create an effective experience for students. This paper provides a brief summary of Learning through Writing pedagogy objectives, methods, and outcomes from the learning methods literature. Samples of reported objectives and classroom experiences and outcomes in undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (STEM) curricula are given. This paper presents also the author’s strategy, planning, applications, and results using Learning through Writing in the chosen laboratory. Lessons learned and continuous improvement objectives and activities are described. Introduction Learning through Writing (LtW) has become a popular and successful pedagogical advance applied across undergraduate curricula and disciplines, including engineering curricula, as noted in many articles in the Journal of Engineering and other education theory and practicum publications -13. The goal of LtW is twofold: to improve student writing skills through the addition of informal and formal writing opportunities specific to a discipline, and to improve learning in that discipline through creative and effective writing assignments. An overarching goal, of course, is to improve student preparation for successful communication skills in his/her chosen profession. LtW evolved from the ubiquitous pedagogies under the titles Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID). Theories of learning in a discipline via writing have been developed through years of experimentation with WAC and WID, resulting in a wide range of suggested techniques for use in LtW programs. It was not the author’s intent to add to the literature of theories of learning in LtW or to report comparative benefits on the use of LtW. The author’s sole intent was to observe and measure P ge 2.14.2 improvement in student writing in the discipline, and record student responses to the effects on their learning, through the implementation of LtW pedagogy in a laboratory course. This paper reports results in student writing improvement, and records, with comment, student selfevaluation of the LtW experience and its effects on their writing and learning in the discipline. Background and Motivation The motivation and impetus for the writing initiative described in this paper came from the Old Dominion University's (ODU) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). As described on the university web site, the intention of the QEP is to improve upper-division undergraduate students' disciplinary writing, i.e., that writing that demonstrates a reasoning process supported by research and reflection on a problem, topic, or issue. Two faculty development and engagement initiatives were initiated: Writing as a critical skill that goes beyond demonstrating proficiency with the mechanics and structure of writing per se, and writing as a means to communicate what has been learned. Skill in writing is demonstrated by six student learning outcomes of the ODU QEP: 1. Clearly state a focused problem, question, or topic appropriate for the purpose of the task 2. Identify relevant knowledge and credible sources 3. Synthesize information and multiple viewpoints related to the problem, question, or topic 4. Apply appropriate research methods or theoretical framework to the problem, question, or topic 5. Formulate conclusions that are logically tied to inquiry findings and consider applications, limitations, and implications, and 6. Reflect on or evaluate what was learned. Toward improving these outcomes through LtW, ODU implemented two faculty initiatives: (1) Faculty Workshops designed to teach faculty the techniques identified as the best practices to teach and assess writing, and (2) Action Projects designed to encourage academic programs to develop and implement best practices to improve writing. The author attended the first ODU QEP LtW workshop consisting of five day-long sessions. The purposes of the workshops were: • To explore connections between writing and learning • To develop assignments that help students achieve course objectives • To develop strategies for managing written work • To explore pedagogies that promote learning • To strengthen teaching and learning communities • To contribute to the ODU QEP Faculty developed Action Plans to implement aspects of LtW in select courses, report findings, and results to the QEP lead team, and to use the experience to continue to improve student writing and learning in their disciplines. P ge 2.14.3 Approach The author chose to implement aspects of LtW in an undergraduate electric power and machines laboratory course, EET365W, required for a 4-year Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, for which he was the instructor and that he had taught for several years. The course had been designated already a ‘W’ course in the University’s General Education program requirements, met by the predominant grade weight (greater than 50% of the course grade) of formal and informal lab report evaluations. The General Education requirements for a ‘W’, i.e., writing intensive, course at Old Dominion University are shown in Appendix 1. Whereas formal term papers, independent research reports, and other suggested best practices in LtW do not apply well in a laboratory course, the author selected to implement so-called lowstakes writing assignments on a weekly basis. The following sections describe the assignments, their evaluation and scoring, outcomes, and results based on assignment scores and student exit surveys. EET365W laboratory meets weekly for approximately 3-hour lab practicum sessions. Students receive all lab instructions via an on-line course management site so that they can read, print, and prepare for each lab in advance. Lab topics usually lag classroom lecture topics by about two weeks so that students have had lecture, homework assignments, and graded homework feedback all in preparation for the lab experience. The author has implemented a ‘role rotation’ method in this lab such that each week lab teams of three rotate critical responsibilities – lab circuit and equipment preparation, lab instrumentation and data recording, and lab analysis and reporting. The author’s experience with this approach finds that it encourages focused study by each student each week, and offers increased visibility and improved evaluation of specific student skills, among other benefits to the instructor and advantages for the student. The author referred to published lists of suggested low-stakes writing assignments for writing prompt ideas. Appendix 2 provides one example list of low-stakes writing assignment prompts for implementation in an LtW strategy of improved writing and learning outcomes in a discipline. Not all of the published techniques apply to a laboratory course environment, but the author used all that were appropriate to provide variety and nuance to the series of low-stakes writing assignments and to improve the six QED learning outcomes. Implementation The author created low-stakes writing prompts weekly based on the nature of the lab that week and suggested formats, such as those shown in Appendix 2. Some of the assignments were given at the beginning of the lab when students were given 15 minutes to complete the assignment. If any student needed more time, they were encouraged to complete or edit their writing so long as it was submitted before the end of the lab period. Many assignments were designed as so-called ‘ticket out’ assignments, writing that students would undertake and submit after the lab experiment was completed. By experience the author knew which labs historically were P ge 2.14.4 completed in well under the three hours lab session period, and the ‘ticket out’ format was assigned on such weeks. Appendix 3 provides a list of the low-stakes writing assignments, including the QEP LtW targeted learning outcomes, created by the author for the laboratory course. In the first several lab sessions students were instructed repeatedly on the purpose and scoring of the LtW assignments. The information was provided in the course syllabus also. To be effective, the assignments required some weight (providing some external motivation to improve) but not too much weight (limiting internal grade anxiety or evaluation apprehension in the creative writing process). The average low stakes writing score was weighed only 10% of the course grade, as shown in Table 1. Students reported that 10% was a fair and preferred weight (see student survey responses below). Table 1. Course Grade Components and Weights Component Weight (%) Laboratory Preparation or Data Gathering Role 30 Formal and Informal Lab Reports 50 Other Written Assignments (LtW) 10 Peer-assessed Team Skills 10 The prompts were introduced approximately weekly using an overhead projection and verbal instruction. The purpose of the low-stakes writing exercise was repeated: to help the student improve his or her technical writing skills and to improve learning of lectureand laboratorybased knowledge. Each submitted assignment was scored, i.e., m