Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The laboratory aims questionnaire—A new method for course improvement?

  • Reports
  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A simple method of diagnosing areas for course improvement in university science and engineering laboratory courses is described. A first year physics laboratory course is examined in terms of a set of aims. A questionnaire was used for staff and students to rate the importance of these aims in the cases (i) of each group's conception of what an ideal course in the subject should be, and (ii) each group's rating of the “traditional” and “non-traditional” components of the particular course under investigation. One means of identifying specific areas of improvement is out-lined. The potentialities of the technique are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Boud, D. J. and O'Connell, S. (1970). “Toward an educational technology of labora- tory work” Visual Education, December, pp. 11–13.

  • Chambers, R. G. (1963). “What use are practical physics classes?” Institute of Physics Bulletin 4, pp. 181–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. (1966). “The teaching of practical physics” in Brown, S. C. and Clarke, N. (eds) The Education of a Physicist. London; Oliver and Boyd, pp. 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, G. A. (1966). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivany, J. W. G. (1968). “Practical work in classrooms and laboratories” Teaching and Learning in the University, Bulletin No. 55 Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglak, H. (1955). “Measurement of laboratory achievement. Part III. Paper-pencil analogs of laboratory performance tests” American Journal of Physics 23.

  • Labovitz, S. (1970). “The assignment of numbers to rank order categories” American Sociological Review 35.3, pp. 515–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. S. (1970). “Research report: Projects or controlled assignments in the laboratory” Further Education, pp. 117–118.

  • Martin, D. G. (1969). “Ends and means in laboratory teaching” Bulletin of Mechanical Engineering Education 8.2, pp. 185–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzie, J. C. (1970). “The lost arts of experimental investigation” American Journal of Physics 38.9, pp. 1121–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1967). “The methodology of evaluation” in Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation American Educational Research Association Monograph on Curriculum Evaluation No. 1, Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturley, K. R. (1967). “Is laboratory work really necessary?” International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education5, pp. 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, C. N., Kruglak, H. and Trainor, L. E. H. (1951). “Laboratory performance tests at the University of Minnesota” American Journal of Physics 19, pp. 546–555.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Educational Technology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England

    D. J. Boud

Authors
  1. D. J. Boud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Aims are used in this context as descriptions of general declarations of intent as distinct from objectives which specify more detailed information about a course.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boud, D.J. The laboratory aims questionnaire—A new method for course improvement?. High Educ 2, 81–94 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162539

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162539

Keywords

Search

Navigation