Most agree that laboratory work is essential for engineering learning. The purpose of laboratory work is usually to the deepen understanding of the material and/or to prepare students for the workforce. However, having well thought out experiments certainly does not guarantee that those goals are met. In order to meet those goals constructive alignment is of utmost importance. Having appropriate learning outcomes, appropriate assignments corresponding to the laboratory work and having it aligned to coverage in lectures is crucial to reach constructive alignment. Having an appropriate group size in the laboratory work is also vital. The group size needs to fit the number of tasks in each experiment but also to fit the assignment format to ensure active engagement of all members. This paper presents an experiment on improving laboratory work component of an undergraduate Fluid Mechanics course in Mechanical and Chemical Engineering at University of Iceland. The experiment spans the years from 2015 to 2021, where several adjustments in the laboratory were tested. The measurements tools include i) midterm and ii) end of term student teaching quality surveys with Likert scale questions and open-ended replies, iii) a survey specially made by the author to target the laboratory work (with Likert scale questions and open-ended replies) and iv) a focus group interview on the same subject. The experiment sparked because a large portion of students complained that the workload of the laboratory work was immense and in no correlation to the ECTS units given for the course. This turned out to be a valid point. More seriously students also complained that they did not see the purpose of the laboratory work and that they learned nothing from it. By making adjustments to the alignment of material coverage and laboratory work, by reducing idle time in the laboratory, by adjusting the laboratory work assignment, by making sure the group size was manageable and more significant improvements were seen in reduced student workload perception, student perceived learning, student enjoyment of the laboratory and students saw the purpose of the laboratory. Since workload perception may differ from actual workload it may be assumed that with better structure and learning, workload perception was reduced with the same learning objectives. Some of those results have been published in two papers in the journal International Journal of Engineering Education but this paper emphasizes the newest developments since their publications and more detailed cumulative analysis.
