Due to Covid, the education system has shifted from in-person classes to online classes. A sudden change in the learning system has affected many students’ education. Lab report 1 Engineering students’ Interaction in online classes via google meet A case study During the COVID-19 by Ahn Tuan Pham and Lab report 2 A Comparative Study on Teaching Methodologies Applied in Engineering and Manufacturing Process Subjects during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 and 2021 by Oscar Lopex, Alfonso Gonzalez, Francisco J. Alvarez, and David Rodriguez both tackle effects of covid 19 on engineering students. Lab report 1 is about three types of interactions during online classes, learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-teacher. Based on the results, the most common interaction is learner-teacher with the interaction between students being low. This report analyzes engineering students’ interactions and how to improve them when studying on google meet. Lab report 2 focuses on comparing the academic success between face-to-face learning and synchronous/asynchronous learning. The results show that face-to-face learning has higher academic success and discusses why. This paper will analyze both book reports and compare and contrast them to see whether both book reports have the element of chapter 19.
To start off with, Title is a very important aspect and has to be very strong to catch readers. The title in Lab report 1, Engineering students’ Interaction in online classes via google meet: A case study During the COVID-19 is very clear and gives a proper image of what the report is about as the reader can understand that this is about online classes and how students were affected by it, Lab report 2’s title, “A Comparative Study on Teaching Methodologies Applied in Engineering and Manufacturing Process Subjects during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 and 2021” is also clear and gives an understanding of the report as it reveals that this study is an comparison between two studies. Titles themselves also help the authors reach their audience and fulfill their purpose. Both titles are effective as it fully allows the reader to understand the studies.
The second element is the Abstract. An abstract summarizes reports and each section in 1-2 sentences. Abstract in lab report 1 meets the criteria in chapter 19 as it talks about every section mentioned in the lab report in one or two sentences and gives a good summary of the information. For example, Lab report 1, states “The study aims to examine engineering students’ interaction via Google Meet, their satisfaction as well as suggestions for improving their interaction when studying on this platform, which was based on Moore’s interaction framework of learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-teacher interaction” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.1). This sentence helps sum up the aim of the study and its results. The abstract in lab report 2 was also written well. For example, it states, “When comparing the results, maintaining face-to-face teaching proved essential, as it contributes towards achieving better marks or maintaining the level. However, online methodologies also help as an additional tool to acquire other knowledge and specific skills in these technical engineering subjects, specifically those dealing with the manufacturing processes addressed in this study” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.1) this allows the readers to understand the discovery of this study. The abstracts also allowed the reader to trust the author and understand what occurred in the study.
The third element is Introductions. Introductions are used to tell the importance of the study. Lab report 1’s introduction is very strong as it has a review of previous research that is relevant to online learning. For example, countries such as France and Vietnamese are mentioned to show how their students are learning in google meet. The advantages and the disadvantages of online learning based on the previous studies are also mentioned (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.2). The information was just enough for readers to understand its significance and how it contributes to the study. In lab report 1, it states “1. To what extent do engineering students interact with the subject content, other students, and their teachers via Google Meet? 2. How do engineering students interact with the subject content, other students, and their teachers via Google Meet?” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.2). This makes the introduction stronger as questions that are to be discussed in the study are mentioned. In lab report 2, it states “The advancement of information and communication technology (ICT) has opened up a viable solution for university teaching in the uncertain environment of the COVID-19 pandemic” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.1). With this, it shows Lab report 2 had a strong start for the introduction. However, the introduction is very long which can discourage the readers from continuing. I had to read it many times before understanding the information. There were many details and background information that were not required which may distract the readers. Overall, Lab report 2 was written better but Lab report 1 has a stronger introduction.
The fourth element is Materials and Methods. Materials and Methods are used to convince readers that the approach was appropriate for the question and to present how the results are obtained. In lab report 1, it states “Students were invited to participate in an online survey, which was sent to them via Google Forms.” and “To ensure the questionnaire reliability, the collected data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 25). The result of Cronbach’s Alpha value was .831, which was considered reliable for research.)” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.5). This information helps explain how student experience on google meet was collected and ensures the data is reliable. Lab report 2, states “A “A bank of exam questions (see Table 5) was obtained from the teaching staff, classified into low, medium, and high difficulty questions. For the development of the exam in the first year, questions of low to medium difficulty were used; for the exam in the second year, questions of medium to high difficulty were proposed” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.7). This explains how the student’s knowledge during online and face-to-face learning was tested. To obtain data lab report 1 and lab report 2, both had similar ways of testing.
The fifth element is Results. Results contains a summary of the data and is used to support the claim in discussion section. Results in lab report 1 were very detailed. In Lab report 1, it states “. As a result, participants’ perceptions on types of interaction via Google Meet were at an above-average level. In addition, it is apparent that their perceptions on learner-instructor interaction (M=3.81, SD=0.94) were recorded slightly higher than other types of interaction. Noticeably, learner-learner interaction was perceived the lowest (M=3.54, SD=1.06). The results indicated that the interaction between students and teachers was slightly better than the other types when students attended their online classes via Google Meet” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.5). This shows evidence used from the data were very well mentioned and summarized. There was enough information mentioned for the reader to understand the results and look at data to see how it was done. Every aspect of the data was explained. After explaining the data, there was also additional information on different ways of interacting. At the end, a little paragraph was used to summarize the main points and usage data to answer the questions. The results also incorporated quotes from students that are a part of the data and explains their ways of learning. The results in Lab report 2 and discussions were put together. Even though it was difficult to understand, it was very well written. In lab report 2, it states “A lower success rate is observed in the 2020–2021 academic year (44.74%) due to the increased difficulty of the final test of the subject by selecting more difficult questions than in the previous year, as mentioned in the methodology section” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.9). The data showed some academic years had lower academic success and it was explained why. The data was summarized in a well manner. Finally, it would have been better to do the results and discussion separately like Lab report 1 but it still gets the idea across well.
Discussion is the sixth element. Discussion is used to interpret the results and show whether the hypothesis given was correct. The discussion in lab report 1 was much stronger than in lab report 2. In lab report 1, it states “ researchers discovered that students’ perceptions of their interaction via the platform of Google Meet were above average. The interaction between students, the subject content, and their teachers was a bit higher than student-student interaction.” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.9). This information explains the results and supports the hypothesis. Discussion of lab report 1 also mentioned the results of student suggestions and how the interactions were improved by it. Every point was supported with specific data. Discussion in lab report 2 was also good as it interpreted the results of the academic success results. In lab report 2, it states “The results tables show that more than half of the answers were correct, thanks to the face-to-face method in practically all cases” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.10). This shows the results are accurate and support the hypothesis. However, the Lab report 2 discussion was not as clear as lab report 1.
The 7th element is Conclusions. Conclusion in Lab report 1 was very strong as the findings were summarized in a few sentences. In lab report 1, it states “The findings of the study indicated that engineering students interacted positively in their online classes or courses via Google Meet. However, the level of interaction was just above average. Among three types of interaction, students’ interaction with their teachers was higher than their interaction with classmates and the subject content” (Ahn Tuan Pham, 2021, p.10). This sentence summarizes the study and its average. Finally, it also gives suggestions for improving student interaction. According to Technical Communication (chapter 19, pg.538), A conclusion should only be 1-2 paragraphs but the conclusion of lab report 2 was very long as it had 6 paragraphs. In lab report 2, it states “In the second year of this comparison, 11 of the 28 students tested passed the final test satisfactorily. There is a clear decrease in the success rate from 64.10% in the previous year to 40.74% due to an increase in the final test level, due to the added difficulty of the questions” (Oscar Lopex, 2021, p.13). Data and explanations of its findings were included as the author repeated the whole process and it cannot be considered a conclusion.
References are the last element in chapter 19. References are used to list references that were cited for the report. The references made in both lab reports by the authors were very well done as they cited every reference it used.
In conclusion, the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references are all elements of a lab report that is used to organize information. Lab report 1 and lab report 2 both used all eight elements of a lab report to create reports that may interest others. Lab report 1 concluded that due to covid students were not interacting as much with other each other. Lab report 2 concluded that face-to-face learning is more effective on students as they are able to understand, focus, and have higher scores. However, both lab reports were not able to fully achieve the eight elements but used their own nuances that helped them achieve the goal they desired. Lastly, every element is important in lab reports to convince the readers the importance of studies.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license.
