This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

Download details:

IP Address: 130.127.238.233

This content was downloaded on 29/05/2014 at 03:59

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning during

undergraduate laboratory work

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

2009 Eur. J. Phys. 30 85

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/1/009)

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

IOP PUBLISHING EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS

Eur. J. Phys. 30 (2009) 85–96 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/1/009

The perceptions, views and opinions ofuniversity students about physicslearning during undergraduatelaboratory work

M Hanif1,3, P H Sneddon2, F M Al-Ahmadi1,4 and N Reid1

1 Centre for Science Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G3 6NH, UK2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK3 MCS, National University of Sciences and Technology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan4 Ministry of Education, PO Box 31525, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Received 15 July 2008, in final form 28 August 2008Published 17 November 2008Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/30/85

AbstractThe physics laboratory has long been a distinctive feature of physics education.It has been given a central role in the teaching and learning of physics atschool and undergraduate levels in universities. The literature indicates thatscience educators have suggested that there are academically rich benefits inthe learning and understanding of physics based on laboratory work. However,some educators have begun to raise serious and valid questions about theeffectiveness of the learning through laboratory work in science subjects andthe heavy cost for the establishment and maintenance of laboratories. Thisresearch paper provides perspectives on these issues through a brief reviewof the history, goals and objectives related to the physics undergraduatelaboratory. An empirical research study was conducted to determine theuniversity students’ perceptions, views and opinions with regard to physicslearning during undergraduate laboratory work. This involved 143 studentsfrom first and higher years and the evidence was gathered by survey and focusgroup interviews, the former using a variety of types of questions. The evidencefrom the students is positive and suggests that undergraduate physics laboratorywork may well be contributing towards the achievement of specific desirablegoals.

‘The physical laboratory system has now become quite universal. No universityin the world can now live unless it has a well-equipped laboratory.’

Lord Kelvin (1885)

0143-0807/09/010085+12$30.00 c© 2009 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 85

86 M Hanif et al

1. Introduction

A review of the literature relevant to undergraduate physics laboratory work clearly indicatesthat, since the very beginning of the 20th century, the emphasis on undergraduate laboratorywork has steadily become stronger. It is largely accepted to be an essential element in theteaching of physics. In the ‘European Curriculum Studies’ about physics in 1971, it was foundthat the United Kingdom is the only country in which laboratory work may take up as muchas 50% of the total time given to physics at school level (Halls 1972, cited in Gonzalez andGilbert 1980). During the international conference held at Oxford University on ‘the role ofthe laboratory in physics education’, experimental work was accepted by the participants as anessential element in physics teaching (Gonzalez and Gilbert 1980). Of course, laboratories areexpensive in terms of resources and the time spent by students and staff. Frequently, studentsmay feel that they have to focus on achieving ‘right’ answers rather than thinking deeply aboutwhat they are doing.

Of course, laboratories can illustrate what is taught in the lecture course but, inevitably,some areas of physics, such as quantum mechanics or relativity, are not easily opened tolaboratory work. This means that the experiments in the undergraduate laboratories are thosewhich can be conducted in the time available with relatively simple equipment. Any technicalskills which are taught may have limited value in subsequent work in that research andindustrial laboratories will often use equipment not available in undergraduate laboratories.On the positive side, it can be argued that laboratory experiences can make some physics muchmore real and can illustrate the way physics can gain answers which offer insights into thephysical world. Laboratories are expensive to run and, with declining resources, there is adanger that the time allocated to experimental work will be reduced.

The most fundamental question is how the undergraduates perceive their experiencesin laboratories. Is the time well spent? Do students see the experiences as valuable?What do the students gain? How do they see the experience as part of their total timein learning physics? This paper provides, firstly, an overview of the issues related to theundergraduate physics laboratory through a brief review of the history, goals and objectivesrelated to it. The aim of this was to specify some broadly agreed goals for laboratorywork in undergraduate physics. A study was undertaken in the Department of Physicsand Astronomy at the University of Glasgow to determine the undergraduate students’perceptions, views and opinions about physics learning during their laboratory work. Theoutcomes of their views, expressed through survey and interviews, were related to these agreedgoals.

2. Historical background of physics laboratory work

The 19th century saw the establishment and development of physics laboratories for studentsas well as for research purposes in all the main universities of all industrial countries. Beforethat, there were very few natural philosophy students and, for these students, the demonstrationlecture was extensively used as a pedagogical tool (Brown 1953). The first physics laboratoryin the United Kingdom was established in the University of Glasgow by the future Lord Kelvinin 1855 (Gooday 1990). This was formally recognized as part of the university in 1866 (Phillips1983). Subsequently, physics teaching laboratories were established in other universities ofthe United Kingdom. Kelvin’s undergraduate students were involved in experiments that wererelated to Kelvin’s own research and his undergraduate laboratory was very different when

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning 87

compared to modern laboratories. Nonetheless, he established the principle of ‘hands-on’experimental work for undergraduates.

Justus von Liebig established the first chemistry laboratory in the university of Giessenwhile the tradition of both research and student laboratories of modern times can be traced tothe work of Liebig in France (Phillips 1981). Physical laboratories were gradually introducedin German universities: that in Heidelberg was initiated in 1846 by Philip von Jolly (Phillips1981). The first academic institution to require laboratory work in the USA was MIT in 1869,where Pickering prepared the first physics laboratory manual, later published in 1869 (Reidand Shah 2007). The Jefferson Physical Laboratory at Harvard and the Sloan Laboratoryat Yale were established during the 1880s. In recent years, the experimental undergraduatelaboratory has been under some threat with the rising costs of staff and resources. In addition,the need for the development of goals such as presentation skills, computation skills and otherlearning activities has generated further time pressures, making it even more important to usethe limited time in the experimental laboratory as effectively as possible (see Carnduff andReid 2003).

3. Goals and objectives associated with the undergraduate physics laboratory

A literature survey on laboratory work reveals that many researchers have discussed theirrationale for laboratory work in higher education and presented various goals, aims andobjectives related to laboratory work (Nedelsky 1949, 1958, Read 1969, Menzie 1970,Boud 1973, Doran 1978, Boud et al 1980, Hellingman 1982, Hofstein and Lunetta 1982,Toothacker 1983, Kirschner and Meester 1988, Arons 1993 and Trumper 2003). Swainet al (1999) have looked at student attitudes to laboratory aims, comparing three verydifferent countries: Egypt, South Korea and the UK. Sharma et al (2008) looked at physicscourses in general to explore what the students had gained, with special reference to futurejobs.

Looking at the literature, it becomes clear that the stated laboratory objectives are eithergiven in such detail that they can only be used in specific laboratories of specific universitiesor presented in so general a way that they include almost everything one can imagine. TheAmerican Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT 1997), however, has published a list offive common goals for lab instructions which bring together earlier perspectives. These are asfollows:

(1) The art of experimentation: the lab should engage each student in significant experienceswith experimental processes.

(2) Experimental and analytical skills: the lab should help students develop a broad array ofbasic skills and tools of experimental physics and data analysis.

(3) Conceptual learning: the lab should help students master basic physics concepts.(4) Understanding basic knowledge of physics: the lab should help students understand the

role of direct observation in physics.(5) Developing collaborative learning skills: the lab should help students develop

collaborative learning.

While this set of five aims encompasses much that is generally acceptable, there isan implication that laboratories offer opportunities to develop that elusive range of skillssometimes described as scientific thinking. These have been analysed in detail by Al Ahmadi(2008) in the specific context of physics while Reid and Serumola (2006, 2007) have shownthat these skills are largely unattainable below the age of 16. Al Ahmadi (2008) offers some

88 M Hanif et al

evidence that they are being attained at senior school level and during an undergraduate degree.Perhaps, laboratory experiences can contribute to the development of such skills. Earlier workby Hegarty (1978) discussed levels of scientific enquiry in university laboratories, with theimplications for curriculum planning.

4. Experimental design and procedure

In order to find out how the students perceived their laboratory experience and what theymight be achieving, two approaches are possible. Either the students can be asked how theysee the laboratory experiences or an attempt can be made to measure what the laboratorieshave achieved. Given the nature of the five goals above, the latter approach is extremelydifficult. Therefore, the former approach was adopted. It has to be recognized, however, thatthe outcomes reflect what the students say, although steps were taken to test the validity oftheir expressed views. The views were gathered by using a short survey and then followingit up by sample interviews with students. The interviews allowed the results obtained fromthe survey to be compared with the views shared in an informal setting. One hundred andforty three students completed the survey. They were drawn mainly from year 1, with smallnumbers also from years 2 and 3. The first year student group contains quite a number whoare taking physics as part of a degree in another subject. In Scotland, students do not enter adepartment but they enter a Faculty and they take several courses in different subject areas allof which can lead to a degree in that subject. Thus, among the first year group, there will bestudents intending to take degrees in subjects such as chemistry, computing, mathematics andso on.

A survey form was designed, and this aimed to explore the five goals of the AAPT (1997).The survey involved five questions, each of which contained several items. While the fivequestions did not correspond to the five goals of the AAPT, the various items within thequestions covered the themes involved in the AAPT goals.

Question (1): Using the semantic differential format of Osgood et al (1957), students wereasked to reflect on their present university laboratory experiences by placingticks between eight adjectival pairs which might describe the situation.

Question (2): Fourteen questions in the familiar Likert format (1932) explored a diversity ofaspects of the laboratory experience.

Question (3): This aimed to examine the possible purposes of the laboratory experiences fromthe students’ perspectives. From a list of eight possible reasons, they were askedto select the three they thought most important.

Question (4): This group of questions was more open with students being asked to identify theexperiment from which they thought they had learnt most and then expand onreasons.

Question (5): Here they were placed in the position of being in charge of the laboratories andthey were asked what changes they would like to make.

5. Results and discussions

The responses of the students for each question were tabulated separately in a spreadsheet.Using SPSS software, frequencies and percentages were tabulated separately for year 1and other years. Where questions were open, the responses of students were grouped intocategories. The aim was to paint a picture of student perceptions and then check the accuracyof this picture by means of group interviews. For each question, the data in the tables are

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning 89

Table 1. Students’ opinions about their laboratory experiences in physics.

Question 1: What are your opinions about your presentuniversity laboratory experiences in physics

Statements Year (%) χ2 df p

Useful 1 7 32 32 10 13 6 9.6 3 <0.05

2/3 18 47 18 10 6 0Total 11 37 27 10 11 4

Helpful 1 6 28 26 23 12 5 7.4 2 <0.05

2/3 6 47 27 16 2 2Total 6 34 26 21 8 4

Understandable 1 1 12 35 30 14 9 10.8 2 < 0.01

2/3 4 31 43 12 10 0Total 2 18 38 24 13 6

Satisfying 1 0 15 25 19 26 16 9.2 2 < 0.05

2/3 6 29 35 8 18 2Total 2 20 28 15 23 11

Interesting 1 1 16 27 25 23 7 18.0 2 < 0.001

2/3 14 27 33 22 4 0Total 6 20 29 24 17 5

Well organized 1 2 28 32 22 11 4 1.7 2 n.s.2/3 10 22 37 8 16 6Total 5 26 34 18 13 5

Best part of physics 1 5 11 19 18 32 15 10.13 2 <0.05

2/3 6 12 29 33 12 8Total 6 11 22 23 25 13

Enjoyable 1 2 18 31 20 16 13 6.0 2 <0.05

2/3 6 29 37 14 10 4Total 4 22 33 18 14 10

shown as percentages for clarity but all statistical analyses were carried out using frequencies.Those in the second and third years have made the deliberate choice to continue with theirphysics studies, and therefore tend to have a stronger commitment to the subject. To allowstatistical comparison, the data were put into two groups: first year students and students inthe second and third years combined. The responses of the two groups were compared usingchi-square as a contingency test. All calculations used frequency data. Question 1 followedthe Osgood format (full question shown in appendix).

Looking at table 1, the responses of the students tend towards the more positive end in eachitem, although extremely positive views are not common. However, they are not convincedthat their laboratory experiences are the best part of physics. The older group, however, aremore positive, seeing laboratories as more interesting and understandable. They also holdslightly more positive views in some other areas. This is to be expected in that this group arefar more committed to physics.

Question 2 followed the Likert format (full question shown in appendix).This question explores laboratory experiences and, again, responses are quite positive

with the older students being more positive in quite a number of areas. For example, theolder students are significantly more confident and less confused than the first year students.First year students, however, found tutorial questions before the laboratory were more helpfulthan the older students, reflecting their greater need and showing the value of pre-laboratory

90 M Hanif et al

Table 2. Students’ current laboratory work experiences in physics.

Question 2: Think about your experiences in laboratory work in physics

Percentages (%)

Serial Statements Year SA A N D SD χ2 df p

A I prefer to have written 1 45 35 18 1 1 2.0 1 n.s.instructions for experiments 2/3 29 41 20 10 0

Total 39 37 19 4 1

B I was unsure about what was 1 16 50 23 11 0 8.0 2 <0.05

expected of me in writing up 2/3 6 43 20 18 10my experiments Total 13 48 22 13 4

C Lab work helps my 1 9 36 30 23 2 7.0 2 <0.05

understanding of Physics 2/3 10 51 31 6 2topics Total 9 41 30 18 2

D Discussions in lab enhance 1 7 39 23 20 7 4.0 2 n.s.my understanding of subject 2/3 12 47 25 12 2

Total 9 42 24 18 6

E I only understood the 1 9 20 34 28 9 1.3 2 n.s.experiment when I started to 2/3 2 18 41 35 4write about it afterwards Total 6 20 36 30 7

F I had few opportunities to 1 15 40 34 9 2 8 2 <0.05

plan my experiments during 2/3 4 27 43 22 0the lab work Total 11 36 37 13 1

G I felt confident in carrying 1 1 14 27 44 15 19.3 2 <0.001

out the experiments in 2/3 6 35 37 22 0Physics Total 3 21 30 36 10

H The experimental procedure 1 0 18 27 37 18 9.3 2 <0.01

was clearly explained in the 2/3 4 25 43 25 4instructions given Total 1 20 32 33 13

I I was confused in the lab 1 22 37 18 17 4 19.6 3 <0.001

that I ended up following 2/3 4 18 31 43 4the instructions without Total 16 31 22 26 4

understanding whatI was doing

J Attempting the tutorial 1 5 52 31 5 5 22.6 2 <0.001

questions before the lab was 2/3 4 10 63 8 2very helpful to perform the Total 5 38 42 6 4

experiments

K There was good linkage 1 2 46 34 10 5 11.3 2 n.s.between experiments and 2/3 6 41 29 20 2the relevant theory Total 4 44 32 13 4

L The amount of time given 1 2 16 23 27 30 62.8 1 <0.001

for each experiment was 2/3 20 67 10 4 0sufficient Total 8 34 19 18 20

M The demonstrators provided 1 17 42 22 14 3 1.0 3 n.s.valuable assistance with my 2/3 16 51 18 8 6work Total 17 45 21 12 4

N I found the inclusion of a 1 35 36 20 2 4 2.3 2 n.s.break beneficial 2/3 27 29 29 0 4

Total 32 34 23 1 4

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning 91

Table 3. Laboratory work as an integral part of the physics course.

Question 3: Here are several reasons why labwork is an integral part of a physics course

1 2/3 TotalSerial Statements (%) (%) (%)

A Physics is a practical subject 56 61 58

B Experiments illustrate theory for me 45 61 50

C Laboratory work allows me to test out ideas 19 14 18D Experiments assist me to plan and organize 10 6 9E New discoveries are made by means of experiments 47 41 45

F Experimental skills can be gained in the laboratory 45 59 50

G Experimental work allows me to think about Physics 44 35 41H Experimental work makes Physics more enjoyable for me 15 20 17

Table 4. Students’ views about the lab l work.

(4b) What was it about that experiment that made it particularly useful or enjoyable?

Students’ responses P1 (%) P2/3 (%)

Fun 8 6Got it finished 8 –Tied in well with theory 6 8Interesting 4 14Practical 4 6Good instructions – 16

Table 5. Students’ perceptions about the lab work.

(4c) Did you find the experiment easy or challenging?

Serial Statements Total (%)

A Easy 25B Challenging 32C Not sure 19

Table 6. Learning outcomes of the lab work.

(4d) What did it teach you?

Serial Statements Total (%)

A Understanding of theoretical knowledge 33B Equipments/measuring tools handling 21C Lab/experimental knowledge 4

preparation. The responses to questions C and D are consistent with the achievement of goals3 and 4, respectively, of the list of five goals made by the AAPT (1997).

In question 3, students were given eight possible reasons for the inclusion of laboratoriesin physics courses and were asked to select the three which they thought were most important.The options chosen most frequently are shown in bold.

92 M Hanif et al

Table 7. Opinions about learning skills in the lab work.

(4e) List any skills, which improved as a result of doing the experiment.

Serial Statements Total (%)

A Computer/lab skills 4B Data analysis/problem solving 35C Team work and patience 13

Table 8. Students’ views for the improvement in the laboratory work.

Question 5: Imagine you have been asked to run the lab for your year group next session.What changes might you introduce in order to make the laboratory experience more

helpful so that future students can be helped to understand and apply the ideas of physics?

1 2/3 TotalSerial Statements (%) (%) (%)

A Detailed demonstration and instructions about the experiments 35 20 30B Time to be increased so experiments can be completed easily 17 2 12C Enough equipments of laboratory and must be in good working condition 7 6 7D Provision of pre-lab and improvement in the present Lab Scripts/working sheets 9 18 12E More supervision during the experiments 2 8 4

Students think that they do practical work because physics involves practical work (A)(which is a kind of cyclical argument) and also to learn practical skills (F). The morefundamental question, however, is whether undertaking physics practical work equips thestudents in terms of their understanding of physics. Would it be more cost effective interms of time and resources (labs are expensive) for them to have extra tutorials or watchdemonstrations? Indeed, many of the practical skills they may learn will rarely be used infuture careers.

At first sight, it is encouraging to see the high ratings for experiments illustrating theoryfor them (B), thinking about physics (G) and making new discoveries (E). Physics theory,however, is coupled with experimental studies and it is highly unlikely that students will evermake any discoveries in an undergraduate laboratory, although their ‘discoveries’ may wellbe new to them. Nonetheless, they are right in seeing making new discoveries as the goal ofphysics enquiry. With the tightly organized nature of most undergraduate laboratories, there islittle room for planning (D) while enjoyment is not rated highly as an aim (H). The responsesto question B are consistent with the achievement of goal 3 while the responses to question Fare consistent with the achievement of goal 2 (from the AAPT list, 1997).

Theme 4 involved a group of questions (4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 4e) which were more open-ended. The students were asked to identify the experiment from which they thought they hadlearnt most and then expand on the reasons. 4(a) is not discussed here because it applies toa specific laboratory course. Totals for parts of question 4 do not add to 100 because somestudents chose not to respond.

The responses of the students based on question 4 are shown in the tables 4, 5, 6 and 7respectively. It is clear that both groups overwhelmingly agreed that they enjoyed laboratorywork while performing the experiments (table 4) and both the groups viewed the laboratorywork as challenging as well (table 5). The majority of the students considered that laboratorywork has provided them with an opportunity to understand theory by doing experiments(table 6) and laboratory work has provided them with analytical and problem solving skills aswell as to work as a team (table 7). The responses in table 6 are consistent with the achievement

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning 93

of goals 2 and 3 while the responses in table 7 are consistent with the achievement of goals2 and 5 (of the AAPT 1997). There is some measure of consistency in the high number ofresponses to ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’ in table 4 with the reasonably positive responses to thewords ‘enjoyable’ and ‘interesting’ in table 1. This suggests that responses do, in fact, offer areasonable picture of real student perceptions.

In question 5, the students were given freedom to write what they wanted and theirsuggestions were found to group under five broad headings (table 8). First year students aredemanding more time to perform the experiments as compared to older ones while both groupsare keen to have more detailed demonstrations and instructions. Pre-lab exercises can help hereand are used in the department. It seems that students want even more. Johnstone et al (1998)have shown that pre-lab work in physics fostered a positive attitude in students towards theirwork in the physics laboratory and was very effective in terms of understanding. In chemistry,Carnduff and Reid (2003) reviewed the use of pre-labs more generally, offering guidancerelating to their development. Nonetheless, these views suggest a measure of uncertainty asstudents embark on their experimental work. It is very evident that preparation at the outset iswhat is wanted and not more support during the laboratory.

6. Interviews

The evidence shows clearly that carefully designed surveys, completed under appropriateconditions will give remarkably reliable results (Reid 2003). Interviews are also consideredto be a powerful tool to gain insights into student attitudes and can be useful with samplesof students after a survey has been carried out to gain further insights into the results. Inthis investigation, two interviews were conducted, one with four first year students, anotherwith three second year students, in a relaxed and informal atmosphere. The duration ofthe interviews were around 50 min. During the interview, an attempt was made to see ifperceptions of the students about physics learning seen in the survey were confirmed.

To put the students in each group at ease, they were initially asked to highlight what theythought the best and worst aspects of the laboratories were. The strongest aspect was thatthe laboratory gave them the chance to get a better understanding of physics theory throughpractical application. The weakest aspect, particularly for first year students, was that therewas insufficient time to complete the work. The students felt that the laboratories could beimproved by providing guidance on how equipment was to be used, and that there should be agreater level of demonstrator assistance available. This latter view is at odds with the resultsfrom question 5 of the survey, where increased demonstrator help was not a high priority. Thestudents also felt that laboratory instruction sheets could be improved, in part to try and makethe laboratory a fun, as well as educational, environment. In general, the picture gained fromthe survey was strongly confirmed by the interviews.

7. Summary and conclusions

It is often argued that laboratory work is an essential and integral part of the study of physicsat school as well as at university level. The AAPT (1997) had arrived at a series of concisegoals for laboratory work from the point of view of educators. This study looked at the viewsof 143 undergraduate students to gauge their opinions and experiences in physics teachinglaboratories and whether they were in agreement with the AAPT goals. The evidence from thestudents is generally positive and suggests that undergraduate physics laboratory work may

94 M Hanif et al

well be contributing towards the achievements of desirable goals. It is also encouraging to seequite positive responses in terms of interest and enjoyment.

The students believed that the laboratory was the place to learn practical skills as well asto illustrate theory taught in lectures. In addition, the students felt that the practical skills andtheir ability to understand theory were improved through the use of these laboratories. Theseviews correspond well with goals 2, 3 and 4 from the AAPT summary. It was also apparent thatstudents recognize that one value of a laboratory is that it can be the source of new discoveriesin the subject, despite the fact that totally new discoveries are unlikely to happen for them intheir undergraduate courses. Nonetheless, what they find out may be totally new to them. Thestudents also felt that their abilities to work collaboratively were improved in the laboratory,this being the final goal on the AAPT list. Through this exercise, only goal 1 was not directlyillustrated by the student responses. This relates to the art of experimentation and this has tobe seen in terms of the place of the experimental in scientific thinking, which is much moredifficult to assess.

Overall, then, the views of the students surveyed in this work were in agreement with thegoals laid down by the AAPT. And, encouragingly from the point of view of the institutionat which the study was carried out, the students consider the laboratory class to be a positivepart of their studies.

Acknowledgments

Grateful thanks are due to Professor Andrew Long (Head of Department, Physics andAstronomy, University of Glasgow), Professor Rex Whitehead, Morag Casey and EricYao for valuable advice and to the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan, for financialsupport.

Appendix

(1) What are your opinions about your present university laboratory experiences in Physics?

(Tick ONE box on each line)

lufesU Useless

lufpleh toN Helpful

Understandable Not understandable

gniyfsitaS Not satisfying

gniroB Interesting

Well organized Not well organized

The best part of Physics The worst part of Physics

elbayojne toN Enjoyable

(2) Think about your experiences in laboratory work in Physics.

(Tick the box which best reflects your opinion). Strongly Neutral Strongly eergasiD eergasiD eergA eergA

(a) I prefer to have written instructions for experiments……………………………..

(b) I was unsure about what was expected of me in writing up my experiments…….

(c) Laboratory work helps my understanding of Physics topics……………………...

(d) Discussions in the laboratory enhance my understanding of the subject………….

(e) I only understood the experiment when I started to write about it afterwards…….

(f) I had few opportunities to plan my experiments during the laboratory work……..

(g) I felt confident in carrying out the experiments in Physics………………………..

(h) The experimental procedure was clearly explained in the instructions given……..

The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning 95

(i) I was so confused in the laboratory that I ended up following the instructions without understanding what I was doing……………………………...

(j) Attempting the tutorial questions before the lab was very helpful to perform

the experiment………….

(k) There was good linkage between experiments and the relevant theory……………

(l) The amount of time given for each experiment was sufficient …………………...

(m) The demonstrators provided valuable assistance with my work …….............…..

.(n) I found the inclusion of a break beneficial………………………...............………

(3) Here are several reasons why laboratory work is an integral part of Physics course.

Place a tick against the THREE reasons which YOU think are the most important.

New discoveries are made by means of experiments

Experimental skills can be gained in the laboratory

Experimental work allows me to think about Physics

Experimental work makes Physics more enjoyable for me

Please answer the following questions in terms of your experiences in this semester only.

(4) Think back over the experiments which you have completed during this semester.

(a) Which experiment did you find most useful or enjoyable?

(b) What was it about that experiment that made it particularly useful or enjoyable ?

(c) Did you find the experiment easy or challenging ?

(d) What did it teach you ?

(e) List any skills which improved as a result of doing the experiment.

(5) Imagine you have been asked to run the laboratories for your year group next session.

What changes might you introduce in order to make the laboratory experience more helpful so that future

students can be helped to understand and apply the ideas of Physics.

Physics is a practical subject

Experiments illustrate theory for me

Laboratory work allows me to test out ideas

Experiments assist me to planning and organize

References

Al Ahmadi F M A 2008 The development of scientific thinking with senior school physics students PhD ThesisGlasgow University, Glasgow

American Association of Physics Teachers 1997 Goals of the introductory physics laboratory Physics Teacher35 546–8

Arons A B 1993 Guiding insight and inquiry in the introductory physics laboratory Physics Teacher 31 278–82Boud D J 1973 The laboratory aims questionnaire: a new method for course improvement Higher Educ. 2 81–94Boud D J, Dunn J, Kennedy T and Thorley R 1980 The aims of science laboratory courses: a survey of students,

graduates and practising scientists Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2 415–28Brown S C 1953 A survey of elementary physics laboratories Am. J. Phys. 21 411–7Carnduff J and Reid N 2003 Enhancing Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories: Pre-Laboratory and Post-Laboratory

Exercises (London: RSC Publishing)Doran R L 1978 Assessing the outcomes of science laboratory activities Int. J. Sci. Educ. 62 401–9Gonzalez G and Gilbert J 1980 ‘A’ level physics by the use of an independent learning approach: the role of laboratory

work Br. Educ. Res. J. 6 63–83Gooday G 1990 Precision measurement and the genesis of physics teaching laboratories in Victorian Britain Br. J.

Hist. Sci. 23 25–51Halls W D 1972 European Curriculum Studies (Strasburg: Council for Cultural Cooperation)Hegarty E H 1978 Levels of scientific enquiry in university science laboratory classes Res. Sci. Educ. 8 45–57Hofstein A and Lunetta V N 1982 The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research Rev.

Educ. Res. 52 201–21Hellingman C 1982 A trial list of objectives of experimental work in science education Int. J. Sci. Educ. 4 29–43Johnstone A H, Watt A and Zaman T 1998 The students’ attitude and cognition change to a physics laboratory Phys.

Educ. 33 22–9Likert R 1932 A technique for the measurement of attitudes Arch. Psychol. 140 5–53Menzie J C 1970 The lost arts of experimental investigation Am. J. Phys. 38 1121–7Nedelsky L 1949 Formulation of objectives in the physical sciences Am. J. Phys. 17 345–54

96 M Hanif et al

Nedelsky L 1958 Introductory physics laboratory Am. J. Phys. 26 51–9Osgood C E, Suci C J and Tannenbaum P H 1957 The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois

Press)Phillips M 1981 Early history of physics laboratories for students at the college level Am. J. Phys. 49 522–7Phillips M 1983 Laboratories and the rise of the physics profession in the nineteenth century Am. J. Phys. 51 497–503Read F H 1969 New techniques for the teaching of practical physics Phys. Educ. 4 77–81Reid N 2006 Getting started in Pedagogical Research in the physical sciences: a physical sciences practice guide

(1st edn 2003) (Hull: Higher Education Academy)Reid N and Serumola L 2006 Scientific enquiry: the nature and place of experimentation: a review J. Sci. Educ.

7 1–15Reid N and Serumola L 2007 Scientific enquiry: the nature and place of experimentation some recent evidence J. Sci.

Educ. 7 88–94Reid N and Shah I 2007 The role of laboratory work in university chemistry Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8 172–85Sharma M D et al 2008 What does a physics undergraduate education give you? A perspective from Australian

physics Eur. J. Phys. 29 59–72Swain J, Monk M and Johnson S 1999 A comparative study of attitudes to the aims of practical work in science

education in Egypt, Korea and the UK Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21 1311–23Thomson W 1885 Scientific laboratories Nature 31 409–13Toothacker W S 1983 A critical look at introductory laboratory instruction Am. J. Phys. 51 516–20Trumper R 2003 The physics laboratory: a historical overview and future perspectives Sci. Educ. 12 645–70