Abstract
<jats:p>Engineering laboratory pedagogy is often framed through binaries such as collaboration versus autonomy, structure versus flexibility, and in-person participation versus alternative modes of engagement. This exploratory mixed-methods study examines how these preferences coexist within individual students rather than treating them as mutually exclusive orientations. Data were drawn from an end-of-term self-reflection survey completed by 50 students in an undergraduate engineering laboratory course at a public university in the US. Closed-ended responses were analyzed through theoretically defined cross-classifications, descriptive comparisons, effect-size estimates, and exact tests, while open-ended responses were used to interpret the resulting preference configurations. The findings revealed substantial overlap among seemingly contradictory preferences. Among students who preferred structured, in-person laboratory sessions, 41.9% also expressed strong interest in greater spatial-temporal flexibility, while 46.5% rated temporal flexibility as highly important. Similarly, 51.1% of students who felt comfortable contributing in groups nevertheless perceived students who prefer working alone as disadvantaged. Students who frequently completed coursework outside standard hours were also especially likely to value temporal flexibility. These findings suggest that engineering students cannot be meaningfully divided into fixed categories of collaborative versus independent or traditional versus flexible learners. Instead, inclusive laboratory pedagogy may be better understood as a configurable learning ecology that preserves structure and social connection while providing meaningful autonomy, flexibility, and multiple pathways for participation.</jats:p>