The extent to which writing can be used to promote learning from laboratory activities has received limited attention in engineering contexts in South Africa. In this study the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach and aspects of academic literacies approach were used to develop laboratory report writing among first year mechanical engineering students. The intervention utilised a modified report writing template for engineering practical sessions which focused on argumentation, conceptual understanding, critical thinking and language literacies. Quantitative and qualitative data were generated via pre-post-analysis of the modified practical report template, Cornell Critical Thinking Test, questionnaires, as well as focus group interviews with students; and individual interviews with staff, on their perceptions of the SWH. The sample (n=56 matched pairs) was divided into three groups through convenience sampling. Group 1 (n=15) utilised an online intervention, Group 2 (n=20) utilised a paper-based intervention and Group 3 (n=21) utilised a standard paper-based laboratory report template. Statistically significant differences with large effect sizes were obtained between group scores from pre- to post-tests in terms of argumentation and language. No differences between the pre-post-test changes in terms of group conceptual scores (n= 91) were found and there was a drop in scores from pre- to post-test in terms of critical thinking (n= 56). Overall, the data indicates that the SWH approach improved students‟ argumentation and language literacies with large effect sizes. Focus group interviews revealed that students believed that the SWH approach made them “think deeper” and that they preferred the intervention (SWH) over the traditional approach. The apparent unawareness of the academics concerned in terms of argument-based inquiry provides a possible answer for their use of assessment strategies focused only on concepts. Focus group interviews revealed that students believed that the SWH approach made them “think deeper” and that they preferred the intervention (SWH) over the traditional approach. The apparent unawareness of the academics concerned in terms of argument-based inquiry provides a possible answer for their use of assessment strategies focused only on concepts.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:20386 |
| Date | January 2015 |
| Creators | Papu, Kholisa Zizipho |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Education |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, MEd |
| Format | ix, 182 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds