Draft Developing a Laboratory Course with the Objective of Improved Writing Skills

Needssome pictures of the laboratory with students working.Can we do some word analysis between old and new reports? Look for descriptive verbs versus persuasive verbs?

by

Terry A. Ring1, Sarah Read2 and Kelley Hayward2

2Center for Engineering Leadership and1Chemical Engineering University of Utah50 S. Central Campus Drive, MEB 3290Salt Lake City, UT 84112

AbstractTo be Written

IntroductionChemical engineering departments are doing their best to produce technology

leaders. The dilemma is how do we do this and maintain the rigor of a chemical engineering education? One of the most clearly recognized leadership skills is communication both written and oral communication. Interpersonal skills are much lower in importance and analytical skills are at the very bottom of the list of skills needed for technology leaders. Certainly we can do more to improve the written and oral communication skills of our graduates to help them lead the organizations that they join after graduation. This correlation of communication skills and corporate advancement is clearly elucidated in Putt’s 2nd law of communication1, “the purpose of communication is to advance the communicator.” So to produce technology leaders we must focus on communication. In addition the ABET outcomes and assessment criterion (g), an ability to communicate effectively, is required for program accreditation.

There have been concerted efforts to improving the writing of chemical engineers over the years. Ideas like peer editing, journal writing and writing of instructions and

1 A. Putt, “Putt’s Law and the Successful Technocrat,” Exposition Press, Smithtown, NY, 1981.

writing about web searches for chemical engineering jobs and companies have been suggested2,3,4,5,6 as well as more nuts and bolts approaches7,8.

Written communication skills can be measured by Bloom’s taxonomy. Benjamin Bloom created this taxonomy for categorizing level of abstraction that commonly occur in educational settings9. The taxonomy provides a useful structure in which to categorize writing, since the words used in students’ writing reflect their thought processes. Lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy are knowledge, comprehension and application while higher levels are analysis, synthesis and evaluation. In writing laboratory reports, the ones which simply report on what was done without much analysis fall into the lower level of Bloom’s taxonomy. Laboratory reports that analyze data and compare and contrast various types of data providing an evaluation at the end fall into the higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy and therefore provide exercises for more sophisticated communication. This article describes a laboratory course which was designed to have all the written reports focus on the higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy. In addition we argue that enhanced written communication skills can best be taught in a rigorous analytical course in chemical engineering.

Historical OverviewThe traditional course where chemical engineering students get hands on

experience with analytical instruments is the physical chemistry laboratory taught by the chemistry department. We have had mixed results with this laboratory course over the years finding it to be more of a canned experience than desired. We were looking for our students to be able to develop an analytical method not simply put a sample in an instrument and push the go button, to tear equipment apart to implement different columns or sample cells and to diagnose equipment problems in addition to data interpretation. Dealing with the university politics was a David versus Goliath experience as it always is at a state university with a medical school. But with a clear mission to improve analytical method development skills of our students, we were successful in establishing our own instrumental analysis course. The next problem was space for the laboratory which was solved by a reorganization of department controlled labs. Filling the laboratory with equipment was accomplished with surplus research equipment initially and then with new purchases as funds were made available. The list of equipment is given in Table 1. A photo of the students working in the laboratory to

2 Sharp, J. E., Olds, B. M., Miller, R.L. and Dyrud, M.A., “Four Effective Writing Strategies for Engineering Classes,” Journal of Engineering Education, 53-57, January 1999.3 Ludlow, D.K. and Schulz, K.H., “Writing Across the Chemical Engineering Curriculum at the University of North Dakota,” J. Eng. Ed. 83,161-65(1994).4 Newell, J.A., Ludlow, D.K. and Sternberg, S.P.K., “Development of Oral and Written Communication Skills Across an Integrated Laboratory Sequence,” Chem. Eng. Ed. 31, 116 (19997).5 Pettit, K.R. and Alkire, R.C, “Integrating Communications Training into Laboratory and Design Courses,” Chem. Eng. Ed. 27, 188 (1993).6 Dorman, W.W., “Engineering Better Writers: Why and How Engineers Can Teach Writing,” Eng. Ed. 75 656, (1998).7 Friedly, J. C. “Top Ten Ways to Improve Technical Writing,” Chemical Engineering Education, p 54-59, Winter 2004.8 Bly, R.W., “Avoid These Technical Writing Mistakes,” Chem. Eng. Progr., p. 107, June (1998).9 Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of educational objectives., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright (c) 1984 by Pearson Education.

analyze gas chromatographic data is shown in Figure 1. We started the instrumental analysis course as an elective course and then made it a required course for chemical engineers both in the form of a standard physical chemistry lab. Due to the elective nature of the first course, we organized the laboratory course such that all students were operating the same equipment at the same time after they had had a lecture on its operating principles. The students were then required to write a report of their analytical results for a common material typically available commercially; motor oil, cat food, energy drink, etc. In most cases, we had multiple pieces of surplus research equipment giving each student group access to its own piece of equipment. With those analysis techniques in which we had few pieces of surplus equipment we were pressing for more examples stressing our budget beyond its limits. As we moved to a required course, this approach could no longer be maintained so a reorganization of the laboratory was necessary simply to accommodate the much larger student numbers. The new format rotated the students groups around the equipment and the lectures were not correlated with the analytical principle lectures. The laboratory work and it reporting procedures were not changed, however. With this reorganization the lecture format stayed the same albeit uncorrelated with the laboratory work. This made it necessary to develop elaborate standard operating procedures for all laboratory equipment.

The writing performed in this laboratory in the elective course format and the first incantation as a required course was formulaic in nature. The writing objectives of these courses remained the same “Produce professional quality memo reports on analytical activities suitable for industry.” A short memo report was required for each laboratory report. No writing guide book was used for these classes except an article by J. Friedly10 which is a highly condensed version of a style guide. An example memo report was written by the faculty member in charge and used even though several technical style books11,12,13 could have been used.

Over 10’s of years the department has had criticism of the writing and communication skills of its graduates from the industry where our graduates are employed in various capacities and from its alumni. I am sure that we are not alone as various surveys show this to be a national problem not one specific to the University of Utah. We have attempted to do things in our curriculum and this course was one of the places where things were attempted. But the big changes occurred when the College of Engineering got involved in increasing the writing and communications skills of all of its graduates. In fall 2003, the Center for Engineering Leadership, a part of the CLEAR (Communication, Leadership, Ethics, And Research) program, was established in the College of Engineering at the University of Utah by a generous $1.1 million grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, as well as funding from the Colleges of Engineering and Humanities. This program is an interdisciplinary endeavor whereby members of the College of Humanities collaborate with members of the College of Engineering to enhance undergraduate engineering education to improve the communication abilities of engineering undergraduates, including speaking, writing, and

10 Friedly, J. C. “Top Ten Ways to Improve Technical Writing,” Chemical Engineering Education, p 54-59,Winter 2004.11 Rubens, P., ed. Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Stule, “ 2nd. Ed. Routledge, New ork, Ny (2001).12Blake, G. and Bly, R.W., : The elements of Technical Writing,” Longman, New York, NY (1993). 13 Dodd, J.S., ed., “The ACS Style Guide,” 2nd ed. American Chemical Society, Washington DC (1972).

interpersonal skill development. Communication instructors offer consulting services, engage in curriculum (re)development, lead class discussions and activities, and work one-on-one with students to enhance their communication competence and provide feedback on communication experiences. Within this program the chemical engineering faculty was the first to benefit from a better understanding of what improved writing skills were meant to be. We learned that there are three basic types of writing; descriptive, comparative and persuasive. As a result we developed a set of communication objectives for writing activities, see Table 2, which are basically 1) descriptive writing (write to learn)-our focus during the first three years and 2) the higher order writing skills of comparative and persuasive writing (write to communicate)-our focus during the senior year. Our challenge was to develop courses in the senior year that focused on these higher order writing skills corresponding to Bloom’s taxonomy levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Lab in the First IncantationThe elective course version of the instrumental analysis course had the following

attributes: 1) Introductory lecture on laboratory safety. 2) Two hours per week of lectures on analytical methods, data analysis, statistical

treatment of data. Eight hours per week of laboratory work developing analytical methods gathering data. The laboratory work was closely coupled to the lecture material.

3) Every 2 weeks a memo report of the results of an analytical method is created by the students for a grade. This report is a 2-4 page memo report that simply reported the results of the laboratory work.

4) The role of the instructor was to disseminate information about how to do the lab work and to evaluate the reports.

The required course that supplanted the elective course had all the same attributes. The only difference was that the lectures and laboratory work were decoupled. Student groups of 3 rotated around to different experiments on a two week cycle and wrote their reports but may or may not have seen lecture materials on the analytical methods they were doing their lab work on given the order with which they did their experiments and the order in which the lectures were given. The biweekly 2-3 page memo report was almost exclusively descriptive writing. An hour of lecture was devoted to reviewing the sample memo report and instructing students as to how to write such a report.

Lab Designed for Writing at a Higher LevelLike all courses under redevelopment there are certain aspects of the old course

that are targeted for change and other constraints that force it to be similar in some aspects. The characteristics of the old elective course that needed redevelopment was the use of equipment since the larger student numbers just could not cope. No new equipment was purchased so that was a constant. What changed was the organizational flow of the lab. The student groups operated multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously. This required that all the equipment be operational all the time which was a C-change from only needing several examples of one piece of equipment operational during a given 2 week period. As a result more lab technician time was required to deal with the larger student numbers. This lab organization requires the lab

technician, teaching assistant and instructor to be able to answer questions on all the equipment at any time which has taken some getting use to. Given the nature of the old lab with multiple examples of the various types of equipment, we were able to get rid of older, less computer-friendly versions of the equipment and focus all our technician attention and limited budget on a few pieces of equipment making them more reliable. In this reorganized state the instrumental analysis course has the following attributes:

1) Introductory lecture on laboratory safety. 2) No lecture - Ten hours per week of laboratory work developing analytical

methods gathering data. The laboratory work is planned by the student groups of 3 students by reviewing previous courses, (general chemistry and physical chemistry primarily), the text book and information on the web for information about analytical techniques. The work plan is scrutinized by the instructor in a 20 minute “oral exam” for instrument operating principles, calibration procedures, run conditions, data analysis methodology, error analysis and health and safety aspects of their work. Errors are corrected before the groups starts work or as the work is progressing.

3) Every 2 weeks a memo report of the results of two analytical methods is created by the students for a grade. This report is a 4-6 page report written like a short technical paper describing the laboratory results for both analytical methods and then comparing and analyzing the results reported as to their accuracy and precision and finally evaluating which is the best.

4) The role of the instructor is that of coach. The instructor also grades the reports.

In addition, the focus of the laboratory was changed significantly due to the focus on higher order writing skills. From the start of the reorganization, we worked with the CLEAR staff to create lecture materials that focus on higher order writing skills, specifically comparative and persuasive writing. In addition, CLEAR staff reviews a draft copy of the report and comments on the arguments made by the students before the report is rewritten and turned in for a grade. With this new organization, the types of laboratory assignments were changed to be ones where the focus was on a comparison of analytical methods used to measure the same unknown and to argue the case for which is the more accurate assessment of the property of the unknown under investigation. A list of these experiments is given in Table 3. As a result, two types of equipment are used in the two week period requiring two analytical methods to be developed simultaneously. The reports compare and contrast these two analytical methods and argue for one of the methods over the other. Such an assignment enhances the focus of this laboratory work on calibration accuracy and on statistical analysis of the data which must be described in the report. As a result the reports are longer typically 4-6 pages, do more sophisticated analysis and provide a forum for repeated practicing of higher order writing skills.

Observations on the Writing Focused LabThe results of this experience are just coming in but they are significantly

encouraging. This new course is much more focused on student learning than its predecessor. The students are better prepared for the laboratory work they are about to do since they have reviewed the material themselves. They typically get tripped up on more advanced concepts than previously. The students are working with more sophisticated problems in their reports, i.e. comparison of two results vs just describing

what happened with one analysis and as a result are pushed to more sophisticated thought processes and statistical analysis.

Writing started poorly, as was expected, but improved significantly with each reporting period. Most all of class provided good quality reports by the 4th (last) report. Descriptive writing is very good in these reports, persuasive writing is reasonably well done. Some students provided truly excellent quality reports by the 4th report. In these reports persuasive writing is also very good.

Writing AnalysisFive reports written for this laboratory and 5 reports for the laboratory in the

earlier incantation have been analyzed using the verb list for each of the Bloom’s taxonomy levels given in Table 4. The results are shown in Figure 2. Here we clearly see that there is a higher percentage of the verbs used in the reports corresponding to those of the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy when the report is comparative and persuasive than when the report is descriptive. As a result we have succeeded in improving the writing skills of our students with this different approach to teaching this course.

A Word About GradingWhen this course is started the instructor explains that this course and for that

matter the complete senior year’s laboratory series is graded differently than previous lecture-homework based courses. In these courses we grade to the standards of industry. In addition all assignments have hard deadlines. The analysis done in the reports should be of the highest quality and all numbers reported should have error assessments done on them. When the work is not up to standard the grades given are very low. Feed back is given as to why the grade was low and what can be done in the next report to improve. The student initially typically receive scores from 30 to 60 percent and start to worry when the second and even the third lab report of 4 comes back with only a slightly better score. At this point they are concerned as to what letter grade they might get for the course and start to really engage with the instructor and CLEAR Staff in improving their writing. They start asking for and getting private consultation time with the instructor going over their old papers giving guidance on how to write better. As a result this rigid and harsh grading incentivizes the students to work on their writing and analysis skills. In addition it prepares them for the harsh reality of the industrial world they are about to join. This grading approach is part of the success of this course.

ConclusionsThis reorganization of the laboratory has been a success in content learning due to

the focus on comparative analytical methods. As a result the students are clearly able to see which analytical methods are better and which are easier to perform from the work load point of view.

RecommendationsWe strongly suggest that the role of coach and evaluator be decoupled. We have

two sections of this laboratory course and will swap grading assignments so that each instructor can be preserved as a coach and only a coach to the students that he has contact

with on a daily basis while being a grader for the reports authored by students in the other section. In this way, we can not be the bearer of bad news to the students every other week but let the other instructor do that. We can focus on being coach to our individual sections and be a more unbiased evaluator for the reports generated by the students in the other section. When the coach only focused teaching is coupled with the harsh industrial standards of grading, the students will more quickly use the coach to improve their analytical skills and their writing skills to ultimately improve their grade.

Tables and Figures

Table 1. List of Equipment Available in Instrumental Analysis Laboratory

Gas ChromatographsUV-vis SpectrometersInfrared SpectrometerAtomic Absorption SpectrometerDensitometersViscometersIndex of Refraction MeterspH metersTitration equipmentPrecipitation equipment BalancesSpecific Ion ElectrodesHigh Pressure Liquid Chromatographs

Table 2 Learning Objectives for Written Communication in ChE

Writing to learn, objectives to be met primarily in lecture-based, quantitative courses, up through the junior year1. Write clear, precise, quantitative descriptions of procedures, data, results, principles,

concepts, theories, and ideas. 2. Write comparisons that identify key similarities and differences between procedures,

data, results, principles, concepts, theories, and ideas.3. Write clear interpretations of results based on accepted scientific, statistical, and

engineering principles.4. Identify and summarize key ideas and critical points within a body of work.

Critically analyze these in writing.

Writing to communicate, objectives to be met primarily in design and lab-based courses, largely in the senior year5. Develop and write a clear technical story that shows a logical and persuasive

progression from the project objectives to the final project conclusions.6. Produce, as individuals and in teams, clean professional documents that follow an

assigned format.7. Choose a style and tone that are appropriate for the audience and purpose.8. Write with a clear understanding of the ethics of writing so that citations are

provided, data are not selectively chosen, and other viewpoints are acknowledged.

Table 3 Experiments for Instrumental Analysis Laboratory in New ConfigurationExperiment Equipment Used

Copper Ion Analysis# Specific Ion Electrode/AA

Epson Salt Analysis# TGA/PrecipitationViscometry# Brookfield

Viscometer/Capilary Viscometer

Liquid Density Analysis# Densitometer/Pyncnometer

Liquid Hydrocarbon Analysis# FTIR/GC

Potassium Permanganate Analysis#

AA/UV-Vis Spectrometer

Sugar Analysis# FTIR/HPLC

Water Content Analysis# TGA/Loss Weight

Hydrocarbon Gas Analysis# GC/FTIR

Table 4 Verb examples that represent intellectual activity on different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. From www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm

1. Knowledge: arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce, state.

2. Comprehension: classify, describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, recognize, report, restate, review, select, translate,

3. Application: apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write.

4. Analysis: analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test.

5. Synthesis: arrange, assemble, collect, compose, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write.

6. Evaluation: appraise, argue, assess, attach, choose compare, defend estimate, judge, predict, rate, core, select, support, value, evaluate.

When developing curriculum for your class, keep this list nearby. This will help you determine the level of response you are anticipating from your students.

KnowledgeCount, Define, Describe, Draw, Find, Identify, Label, List, Match, Name, Quote, Recall, Recite, Sequence, Tell, Write

ComprehensionConclude, Demonstrate, Discuss, Explain, Generalize, Identify, Illustrate, Interpret, Paraphrase, Predict, Report, Restate, Review, Summarize, Tell

ApplicationApply, Change, Choose, Compute, Dramatize, Interview, Prepare, Produce, Role-play, Select, Show, Transfer, Use

AnalysisAnalyze, Characterize, Classify, Compare, Contrast, Debate, Deduce, Diagram, Differentiate, Discriminate, Distinguish, Examine, Outline, Relate, Research, Separate,

SynthesisCompose, Construct, Create, Design, Develop, Integrate, Invent, Make, Organize, Perform, Plan, Produce, Propose, Rewrite

Evaluation Appraise, Argue, Assess, Choose, Conclude, Critic, Decide, Evaluate, Judge, Justify,

Predict, Prioritize, Prove, Rank, Rate, Select,

Figure 1 Students Analyzing Gas Chromatographic Peaks.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Knowledge

Comprehension

Application

Analysis

Synthesis

Evaluation

Bloom's Taxonomy Level

% o

f Tot

al V

erbs

Old

New

Figure 2 Percentage of total verbs in 5 student reports of the old (descriptive) type and new (persuasive) type.