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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of engineering education 2024-05, Vol.49 (3), p.454-473
Main Authors: Nikolic, Sasha, Suesse, Thomas F., Grundy, Sarah, Haque, Rezwanul, Lyden, Sarah, Hassan, Ghulam M., Daniel, Scott, Belkina, Marina, Lal, Sulakshana
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alignment
Best practice
Blooms taxonomy
engineering
Engineering education
laboratory
Learning
learning objectives
Literature reviews
Ranking
Scaffolding
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3
container_end_page 473
container_issue 3
container_start_page 454
container_title European journal of engineering education
container_volume 49
creator Nikolic, Sasha
Suesse, Thomas F.
Grundy, Sarah
Haque, Rezwanul
Lyden, Sarah
Hassan, Ghulam M.
Daniel, Scott
Belkina, Marina
Lal, Sulakshana
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/03043797.2023.2248042
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_03043797_2023_2248042</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3054733224</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMoWKuPIATcOvUkmUwyrpTiDQpudB0yadKmtklNppYufHdnrC7cuDrw8184H0LnBEYEJFwBg5KJWowoUDaitJRQ0gM0IGVVF1zW8hANek_Rm47RSc4LAEI55wP0OdFNTLqNaYeXVqfgwwzHZmFN6z9svsZJh7e_GtYmxZxxO7fYxFnwvXqJ13ln5nEVuyqswxRr5_YBPI0r7UPGW9_OfcA2zHywNnWtp-jI6WW2Zz93iF7v717Gj8Xk-eFpfDspDJO8Lag0piLNlIBrKitL4YSQkgjROEcrKGswJZWcaVJXFTdMyBoEGC0r0LKhlg3Rxb53neL7xuZWLeImhW5SMeClYKyj1rn43vX9X7JOrZNf6bRTBFRPWv2SVj1p9UO6y93scz64mFZ6G9Nyqlq9W8bkOn7GdzP_V3wBmBCHEg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3054733224</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering</title><source>Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection</source><creator>Nikolic, Sasha ; Suesse, Thomas F. ; Grundy, Sarah ; Haque, Rezwanul ; Lyden, Sarah ; Hassan, Ghulam M. ; Daniel, Scott ; Belkina, Marina ; Lal, Sulakshana</creator><creatorcontrib>Nikolic, Sasha ; Suesse, Thomas F. ; Grundy, Sarah ; Haque, Rezwanul ; Lyden, Sarah ; Hassan, Ghulam M. ; Daniel, Scott ; Belkina, Marina ; Lal, Sulakshana</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-3797</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-5898</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2023.2248042</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Alignment ; Best practice ; Blooms taxonomy ; engineering ; Engineering education ; laboratory ; Learning ; learning objectives ; Literature reviews ; Ranking ; Scaffolding</subject><ispartof>European journal of engineering education, 2024-05, Vol.49 (3), p.454-473</ispartof><rights>2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group 2023</rights><rights>2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3</cites><orcidid>0009-0006-2660-2845 ; 0000-0002-5364-6011 ; 0000-0002-8641-4479 ; 0000-0001-7892-1190 ; 0000-0002-6636-8807 ; 0009-0009-9018-7385 ; 0000-0002-7528-9713 ; 0000-0002-3305-9493 ; 0000-0003-4495-0166</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nikolic, Sasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suesse, Thomas F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grundy, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haque, Rezwanul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyden, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Ghulam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniel, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belkina, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lal, Sulakshana</creatorcontrib><title>Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering</title><title>European journal of engineering education</title><description>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.</description><subject>Alignment</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Blooms taxonomy</subject><subject>engineering</subject><subject>Engineering education</subject><subject>laboratory</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>learning objectives</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Ranking</subject><subject>Scaffolding</subject><issn>0304-3797</issn><issn>1469-5898</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMoWKuPIATcOvUkmUwyrpTiDQpudB0yadKmtklNppYufHdnrC7cuDrw8184H0LnBEYEJFwBg5KJWowoUDaitJRQ0gM0IGVVF1zW8hANek_Rm47RSc4LAEI55wP0OdFNTLqNaYeXVqfgwwzHZmFN6z9svsZJh7e_GtYmxZxxO7fYxFnwvXqJ13ln5nEVuyqswxRr5_YBPI0r7UPGW9_OfcA2zHywNnWtp-jI6WW2Zz93iF7v717Gj8Xk-eFpfDspDJO8Lag0piLNlIBrKitL4YSQkgjROEcrKGswJZWcaVJXFTdMyBoEGC0r0LKhlg3Rxb53neL7xuZWLeImhW5SMeClYKyj1rn43vX9X7JOrZNf6bRTBFRPWv2SVj1p9UO6y93scz64mFZ6G9Nyqlq9W8bkOn7GdzP_V3wBmBCHEg</recordid><startdate>20240503</startdate><enddate>20240503</enddate><creator>Nikolic, Sasha</creator><creator>Suesse, Thomas F.</creator><creator>Grundy, Sarah</creator><creator>Haque, Rezwanul</creator><creator>Lyden, Sarah</creator><creator>Hassan, Ghulam M.</creator><creator>Daniel, Scott</creator><creator>Belkina, Marina</creator><creator>Lal, Sulakshana</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2660-2845</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5364-6011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8641-4479</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7892-1190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6636-8807</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9018-7385</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-9713</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-9493</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4495-0166</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240503</creationdate><title>Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering</title><author>Nikolic, Sasha ; Suesse, Thomas F. ; Grundy, Sarah ; Haque, Rezwanul ; Lyden, Sarah ; Hassan, Ghulam M. ; Daniel, Scott ; Belkina, Marina ; Lal, Sulakshana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Alignment</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Blooms taxonomy</topic><topic>engineering</topic><topic>Engineering education</topic><topic>laboratory</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>learning objectives</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Ranking</topic><topic>Scaffolding</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nikolic, Sasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suesse, Thomas F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grundy, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haque, Rezwanul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyden, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Ghulam M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daniel, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belkina, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lal, Sulakshana</creatorcontrib><collection>Taylor &amp; Francis Open Access Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>European journal of engineering education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nikolic, Sasha</au><au>Suesse, Thomas F.</au><au>Grundy, Sarah</au><au>Haque, Rezwanul</au><au>Lyden, Sarah</au><au>Hassan, Ghulam M.</au><au>Daniel, Scott</au><au>Belkina, Marina</au><au>Lal, Sulakshana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering</atitle><jtitle>European journal of engineering education</jtitle><date>2024-05-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>454</spage><epage>473</epage><pages>454-473</pages><issn>0304-3797</issn><eissn>1469-5898</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/03043797.2023.2248042</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2660-2845</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5364-6011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8641-4479</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7892-1190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6636-8807</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9018-7385</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-9713</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-9493</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4495-0166</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0304-3797
ispartof European journal of engineering education, 2024-05, Vol.49 (3), p.454-473
issn 0304-3797
1469-5898
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_03043797_2023_2248042
source Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection
subjects Alignment
Best practice
Blooms taxonomy
engineering
Engineering education
laboratory
Learning
learning objectives
Literature reviews
Ranking
Scaffolding
title Laboratory learning objectives: ranking objectives across the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains within engineering
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T13%3A59%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Laboratory%20learning%20objectives:%20ranking%20objectives%20across%20the%20cognitive,%20psychomotor%20and%20affective%20domains%20within%20engineering&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20engineering%20education&rft.au=Nikolic,%20Sasha&rft.date=2024-05-03&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=454&rft.epage=473&rft.pages=454-473&rft.issn=0304-3797&rft.eissn=1469-5898&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/03043797.2023.2248042&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3054733224%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c385t-28cc61bd10fb6e847f7788177bff260490c42853a19665c3789070ca860a8b2e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3054733224&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true