Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering

Nikolic, S; Suesse, TF; Grundy, S; Haque, R; Lyden, S; Hassan, GM; Daniel, S; Belkina, M; Lal, S

Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering

Nikolic, S Suesse, TF Grundy, S Haque, R Lyden, S Hassan, GM Daniel, S

Belkina, M Lal, S

Permalink

Publisher:: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: European Journal of Engineering Education, 2023, ahead-of-print, (ahead-of-print)
Issue Date:: 2023-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (4.7 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Nikolic, S
dc.contributor.author	Suesse, TF
dc.contributor.author	Grundy, S
dc.contributor.author	Haque, R
dc.contributor.author	Lyden, S
dc.contributor.author	Hassan, GM
dc.contributor.author	Daniel, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-9713
dc.contributor.author	Belkina, M
dc.contributor.author	Lal, S
dc.date.accessioned	2024-03-12T06:19:12Z
dc.date.available	2024-03-12T06:19:12Z
dc.date.issued	2023-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	European Journal of Engineering Education, 2023, ahead-of-print, (ahead-of-print)
dc.identifier.issn	0304-3797
dc.identifier.issn	1469-5898
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176579
dc.description.abstract	The literature on laboratory objectives in engineering education research is scattered and inconsistent. Systematic literature reviews identified the need for better understanding. This paper ranks the laboratory learning objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains to improve scaffolding. It provides an opportunity for reflection, a pathway to confirm assessment alignment, and opens future research areas. To accomplish this, the Laboratory Learning Objectives Measurement (LLOM) instrument is used to survey 160 academics from around the world representing 18 engineering disciplines. The results suggest that the collective ranking order does represent a framework that can be used broadly. However, for greater alignment with consensus thinking, discipline rankings should be used. The cognitive domain was deemed the most important. These results provide the community’s opinion and may not necessarily be best practice, providing an opportunity for reflection.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	European Journal of Engineering Education
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/03043797.2023.2248042
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	09 Engineering, 13 Education
dc.subject.classification	39 Education
dc.subject.classification	40 Engineering
dc.title	Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	ahead-of-print
utslib.for	09 Engineering
utslib.for	13 Education
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Professional Practice and Leadership
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-03-12T06:19:11Z
pubs.issue	ahead-of-print
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	ahead-of-print
utslib.citation.issue	ahead-of-print

Abstract:

The literature on laboratory objectives in engineering education research is scattered and inconsistent. Systematic literature reviews identified the need for better understanding. This paper ranks the laboratory learning objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains to improve scaffolding. It provides an opportunity for reflection, a pathway to confirm assessment alignment, and opens future research areas. To accomplish this, the Laboratory Learning Objectives Measurement (LLOM) instrument is used to survey 160 academics from around the world representing 18 engineering disciplines. The results suggest that the collective ranking order does represent a framework that can be used broadly. However, for greater alignment with consensus thinking, discipline rankings should be used. The cognitive domain was deemed the most important. These results provide the community’s opinion and may not necessarily be best practice, providing an opportunity for reflection.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176579