Comments on Lab Reports by Mechanical Engineering Teaching Assistants

Abstract

Many engineering undergraduates receive their first and perhaps most intensive exposure to engineering communication through writing lab reports in lab courses taught by graduate teaching assistants (TAs). Most of the TAs' teaching of writing happens through their comments on students' lab reports. Technical writing faculty need to be aware of TAs' response practices so they can build on or counteract that instruction as needed. This study examines the response practices of two TAs and the ways the practices shifted after the TAs began using a grading rubric. The analysis reveals distinct patterns in focus and mode, some reflecting best practices and some not. It also indicates encouraging changes after the TAs started using the grading rubric. The TAs' marginalia became more content focused and specific and, perhaps most important, less authoritative and more likely to reflect a coaching mode. The article concludes with implications for technical writing courses.

“I Really Don't Know What He Meant by That”: How Well Do Engineering Students Understand Teachers' Comments on Their Writing?

“…Studies that compare engineering teachers' comments to established best practices in the field of composition have typically found that engineering faculty members fall short (Patton, 2003;Taylor, 2007;Taylor & Patton, 2006). Notably, evaluations of the quality of writing faculty members' comments have often returned a similarly negative result (Cohen, 1991;Maylath, 1998), although some studies have shown that writing faculty focus more on substance and provide more explanations than faculty in other disciplines (Patchan, Charney, & Schunn, 2009;Smith, 2003aSmith, , 2003b.…”

Exploring Literature on How Instructor Feedback Impacts STEM Student Motivation

“…However, in one study published, graduate teaching assistants providing technical writing feedback to engineering students were found to be inconsistent in the amount of points deducted. They were not consistent in which answers were acceptable and unacceptable, overly specific at times, and had an authoritative tone that was not perceived positively by students [12]. There is no single best source of feedback, as different sources have different perspectives and levels of expertise/relatability to offer.…”

Why Industry Says That Engineering Graduates Have Poor Communication Skills: What the Literature Says

“…As in many laboratory classes, graduate teaching assistants do the actual grading, and Taylor shows that they are typically ill-trained and supervised. 20 However, Smith points out that technical faculty are consistently more effective than communication instructors at identifying technical errors in student reports. 21 Further complicating the authority problem, Cho explores the way people deliver communication feedback and the ways that students respond to it.…”