Board 227: Complementary Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratories for Developing Engineering Epistemic Practices

Jeffrey A Nason; Samuel B Gavitte; Milo D. Koretsky

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 7
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/46796

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Jeffrey A Nason Oregon State University

visit author page

Jeff Nason is a professor of environmental engineering and associate head for graduate programs in the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University.

visit author page

biography

Samuel B Gavitte Tufts University

visit author page

A PhD student at Tufts University working with Dr. Milo Koretsky and Dr. Jeff Nason to research engineering epistemic practices in the context of virtual and physical lab activities.

visit author page

biography

Milo D. Koretsky Tufts University

visit author page

Milo Koretsky is the McDonnell Family Bridge Professor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering and in the Department of Education at Tufts University. He is co-Director of the Institute for Research on Learning and Instruction (IRLI). He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from UC San Diego and his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, all in chemical engineering.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Professional engineering demands more than the ability to proficiently carry out engineering calculations. Engineers need to approach problems with a holistic view, make decisions based on evidence, collaborate effectively in teams, and learn from setbacks. Laboratory work plays a crucial role in shaping the professional development of university engineering students, as it enables them to cultivate these essential practices. A successful laboratory task design should provide students opportunities to develop these practices but also needs to adhere to the constraints of the educational environment. In this project, we explore how both virtual (simulation-based) and physical (hands-on) laboratories, based on the same real-world engineering process, prepare students for their future careers. Specifically, we seek to determine whether the virtual and physical laboratory modes foster different yet complementary epistemic practices. Epistemic practices refer to the ways in which group members propose, communicate, justify, assess, and validate knowledge claims in a socially organized and interactionally accomplished manner. To accomplish these objectives, we are conducting a microgenetic analysis of student teams engaging in both the virtual and physical versions of the same laboratory exercise, the Jar Test for Drinking Water Treatment. Jar testing is a standard laboratory procedure used by design engineers and water treatment plant operators to optimize the physical and chemical conditions for the effective removal of particulate contaminants from water through coagulation, flocculation, and settling. The central hypothesis guiding this research is that physical laboratories emphasize social and material epistemic practices, while virtual laboratories highlight social and conceptual epistemic practices. The goal is to gain transferable knowledge about how the laboratory format and instructional design influence students' engagement in epistemic practices. To date we have developed physical and virtual versions of the Jar Test laboratory, each built around the affordances of their respective modes. We have completed two rounds of data collection resulting in data from 21 students (7 groups of 3). The primary data sources have included video recordings and researcher observations of the teams during the laboratory work, semi-structured stimulated recall interviews with students and laboratory instructors, and student work products. Using discourse analysis methods within a sociocultural framework, we are addressing the following research questions: 1. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a physical mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 2. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a virtual mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices? 3. How do students in each laboratory mode respond to being “stuck”? Do students’ views on the iterative nature of science/engineering and their tolerance for mistakes depend on the instructional design afforded by the laboratory mode? While this study focuses on a process specific to environmental engineering, its findings have the potential to positively impact teaching and learning practices across all engineering and science disciplines that rely on laboratory investigations in their curriculum.

Citation
Format

Nason, J. A., & Gavitte, S. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2024, June), Board 227: Complementary Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratories for Developing Engineering Epistemic Practices Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://strategy.asee.org/46796

TY - CPAPER
AB - Professional engineering demands more than the ability to proficiently carry out engineering calculations. Engineers need to approach problems with a holistic view, make decisions based on evidence, collaborate effectively in teams, and learn from setbacks. Laboratory work plays a crucial role in shaping the professional development of university engineering students, as it enables them to cultivate these essential practices. A successful laboratory task design should provide students opportunities to develop these practices but also needs to adhere to the constraints of the educational environment. In this project, we explore how both virtual (simulation-based) and physical (hands-on) laboratories, based on the same real-world engineering process, prepare students for their future careers. Specifically, we seek to determine whether the virtual and physical laboratory modes foster different yet complementary epistemic practices. Epistemic practices refer to the ways in which group members propose, communicate, justify, assess, and validate knowledge claims in a socially organized and interactionally accomplished manner.
To accomplish these objectives, we are conducting a microgenetic analysis of student teams engaging in both the virtual and physical versions of the same laboratory exercise, the Jar Test for Drinking Water Treatment. Jar testing is a standard laboratory procedure used by design engineers and water treatment plant operators to optimize the physical and chemical conditions for the effective removal of particulate contaminants from water through coagulation, flocculation, and settling. The central hypothesis guiding this research is that physical laboratories emphasize social and material epistemic practices, while virtual laboratories highlight social and conceptual epistemic practices. The goal is to gain transferable knowledge about how the laboratory format and instructional design influence students&#39; engagement in epistemic practices.
To date we have developed physical and virtual versions of the Jar Test laboratory, each built around the affordances of their respective modes. We have completed two rounds of data collection resulting in data from 21 students (7 groups of 3). The primary data sources have included video recordings and researcher observations of the teams during the laboratory work, semi-structured stimulated recall interviews with students and laboratory instructors, and student work products. Using discourse analysis methods within a sociocultural framework, we are addressing the following research questions:
1. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a physical mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices?
2. In what ways and to what extent does conducting an experiment in a virtual mode to develop a process recommendation influence students’ engineering epistemic practices?
3. How do students in each laboratory mode respond to being “stuck”? Do students’ views on the iterative nature of science/engineering and their tolerance for mistakes depend on the instructional design afforded by the laboratory mode?
While this study focuses on a process specific to environmental engineering, its findings have the potential to positively impact teaching and learning practices across all engineering and science disciplines that rely on laboratory investigations in their curriculum.

AU - Jeffrey A Nason
AU - Samuel B Gavitte
AU - Milo D. Koretsky
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Board 227: Complementary Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratories for Developing Engineering Epistemic Practices
UR - https://strategy.asee.org/46796
ER -