Breaking Away from the Traditional Lab Report: A Technical Email as a Writing Assignment in an Engineering Laboratory Course

Main Article Content

Matthew Rhudy

Abstract

Engineering laboratory courses often contain laboratory reports as writing assignments to be used as an assessment and grading tool for the course. While laboratory report writing is a useful skill, this article discusses an assignment which was used as an alternative to a traditional laboratory report within a dynamic systems laboratory course. This writing assignment is framed within the context of a hypothetical scenario involving a supervisor requesting a laboratory experiment to compare the effectiveness of two different designs for controlling the speed of a gearbox unit. Performance goals are specified by the ``customer'' so that students have a reference with which to frame their responses. Despite the shortened length of the writing assignment, students are forced to apply critical thinking and use evidence from their experiments to answer the posed question with a clear conclusion.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.

Carrithers, D., & Bean, J. C. (2008). Using a client memo to assess critical thinking of finance majors. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 71(1), 10–26. http://doi.org/10.1177/1080569907312859

Christiansen, M. (1990). The importance of revision in writing composition. The Education Digest, 56(2), 70.

Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 56–75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003

Enns, C., Cho, M., & Karimidorabati, S. (2014). Using writing as a learning tool in engineering courses. Teaching Innovation Projects, 4(2).

Ernst, E. W. (1983). A new role for the undergraduate engineering laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 26(2), 49–51. http://doi.org/10.1109/TE.1983.4321598

Facione, P. A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test–College level. Technical report #1. Experimental validation and content validity. (p. 21). California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.

Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x

Jones, A. A., & Freeman, T. E. (2003). Imitation, copying, and the use of models: Report writing in an introductory physics course. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(3), 168–184. http://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2003.816790

Kryder, L. G. (1999). Mentors, models and clients: Using the professional engineering community to identify and teach engineering genres. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), 3–11. http://doi.org/10.1109/47.749362

Riemer, M. J. (2007). Communication skills for the 21 st century engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 89–100.

Taylor, S. S. (2006). Assessment in client-based technical writing classes: Evolution of teacher and client standards. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(2), 111–139. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1502_1

Troy, C., Jesiek, B. K., Boyd, J., Buswell, N. T., & Essig, R. R. (2016). Writing to learn engineering: Identifying effective techniques for the integration of written communication into engineering classes and curricula (NSF RIGEE project). In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Walker, K. (1999). Using genre theory to teach students engineering lab report writing: A collaborative approach. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), 12–19. http://doi.org/10.1109/47.749363