What does good engineering laboratory pedagogy look like?

There is extensive literature on pedagogy of science laboratories; highlighting good science laboratory engages learner at many levels (Lim 2016); to the meaningful assessment of student learning from science laboratories (Galloway and Bretz, 2015); student learning in the laboratory can be improved through doing and discussing the science in the laboratory, (Schussler, 2013); the recent HEA publication by Shallcross et al (2015) demonstrates digital laboratory manual with pre-laboratory activities significantly improves the academic performance of students and what they personally gain from the laboratory in practice . However, the definitive literature for engineering typically cites Dewey (1910) on how learners construct knowledge from laboratories. In the UK the Engineering Council define in the Accreditation of Higher Education Programme (AHEP), (The Engineering Council, 2014), and UK engineering accreditation institution also require all engineering degrees to have a significant amount of laboratory based learning. The aim of laboratory learning being to support student learning through practice, for example; "Appropriate laboratory work should be evident throughout the entire degree programme…provide the vehicle for exploring the relationship between conceptual models and real engineering systems…provide hands-on experience of the behaviour of materials and processes…" IMechE (2013) Feisel and Rosa (2005) identified that instructional laboratories should be designed to develop students' engineering knowledge, understanding and application abilities; they also identified the importance of the chronological relationship between laboratory and lecture for student knowledge synthesis. This paper will present the common observations and results of a project that has evaluated student learning in laboratory in the engineering laboratories of engineering and maths preparatory year of study. Also, provide evidence of any effective laboratory pedagogy practice that supports engineering student learning, and data that can be utilised by academics provide as guidance for designing and developing, and delivering engineering laboratories for all the engineering courses. The research method used during the project was quantitative and qualitative research methods. Students' learning in the engineering laboratory session has been evaluated to check their understanding of a theoretical topic from the corresponding lecture programme, associated practical learning and whether the laboratory provided the opportunity to place the theory into practice. The research methodologies employed quantitative techniques using MCQs to measure student learning post laboratory and qualitative using survey, Q&A, and a viva voce to assess the student learning. It should be noted none of these methods will form the summative assessment of the student knowledge for the module. However, the MCQ did provide formative assessment feedback to the students and in advertently support student learning for the formal student summative assessment; the laboratory write up. The initial results indicate the length of time of the lecture and whether lecture is pre or post lecture is critical to maximising student learning opportunity in the engineering laboratory. The paper will highlight the impact laboratories have on student learning and aims to inform the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) community on the best practice engineering laboratory design and timetabling to assist in maximising the learning opportunity for students. Dewey, John (1910) How we think. Heath and Company Publishers, D.C. The Engineering Council (2014) The Accreditation of Higher Education Programme UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence, Third Edition (AHEP), The Engineering Council, [on-line at] http://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/Accreditation%20of%20Higher%20Education%20Programmes%20third%20edition%20(1).pdf Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005) The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121-130. Galloway, K. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2015). Development of an assessment tool to measure students’ meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(7), 1149-1158. IMechE (2013). The Institution of Mechanical Engineers Academic Accreditation Guidelines, [on-line at] http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/tapd/acd001-annex-1-academic-accreditation-guidelines.doc?sfvrsn=4 Kolb, D. (1985) Learning styles inventory. The Power of the 2 2 Matrix, 267. Lim, K. F. (2016) Education: Improving laboratory learning. Chemistry in Australia, (Feb 2016), 36. Schussler, E. E., Bautista, N. U., Link-Pérez, M. A., Solomon, N. G., & Steinly, B. A. (2013) Instruction matters for nature of science understanding in college biology laboratories. BioScience, 63(5), 380-389. Shallcross, D. E., Slaughter, J. L., Harrison, T. G., & Norman, N. C.(2015) Innovative pedagogies series: A dynamic laboratory manual, Higher Education Academy