Engineering Students’ Writing Perceptions Impact Their Conceptual Learning

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> Technical writing is a critical professional skill for engineers, but engineering students often perceive writing as less important. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Research suggests feedback, revision, and reflective writing support conceptual learning. However, just as student beliefs about intelligence impact engagement and learning outcomes, beliefs about writing may likewise affect how valuable writing is to learning. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. Do student beliefs—expressed in reflections—depict writing as a learning process or as a deterministic artifact? 2. To what extent do these expressed beliefs explain variance in their conceptual learning in a chemical engineering laboratory course? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research methodology:</b> A design-based research study was conducted in three semesters of an upper division chemical engineering laboratory course to jointly study the use of feedback, revision, and reflection, and to develop contextualized theory about the relationships between these and students’ conceptual learning. Students’ writing was analyzed qualitatively. Regression modelling explained variance in scores of students’ conceptual understanding. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> We found that students who elaborated on errors and corrections scored significantly lower on conceptual understanding in their final submission, while students who described writing as an ongoing process scored significantly higher on conceptual understanding in their final reports. We found a similar trend for students who completed a second cycle, and especially that a focus on perfecting a written artifact corresponded to lesser gains. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusions:</b> Our findings lend support for assisting engineering students to approach writing as a developmental and learning process and for engaging them in multiple rounds of feedback, revision, and reflection across their programs of study.