Student learning in the laboratory is multidimensional, as it encompasses psychomotor, cognitive, affective, conative, social, and epistemic domains. The many dimensions of learning in this context lend themselves to a rich account of student experiences, but they are not equally represented in educational research and practice. The role of affect and conation has only recently gained a more prominent voice in the discourse of experimental work. In this paper, we are developing an assessment instrument that centres affect and conation in understanding epistemic practices associated with lab work. Different methods were used to investigate the problem, but in both labs, students were video- and audio-recorded during their lab work. Discourse analyses, both traditional microanalytic and epistemic network analysis were used. A survey instrument was developed and the students were interviewed.

Provisional results from the discourse analysis substantiates at least five types of laboratory discourse, viz. procedural-psychomotor, conceptual, epistemic, instrumental, and affective discourse. It appears that for the physical chemistry lab, the conceptual discourse represents the weakest link compares to the other types of discourse. Data for the analytical chemistry lab is still being analysed but the higher inquiry level seems to generate more conceptual and epistemic discourse. The affective discourse is well represented in both labs, and it signifies a strong affinity towards effective collaboration, trust, and camaraderie, albeit sprinkled with curse words and a wide range of human emotions. The survey reveals that most students are very much willing to help each other, which triangulates findings from the discourse analysis. At least in the context of analytical chemistry lab, students are accustomed to collaborative problem solving and using evidence to support their arguments. Their motivational strategies indicate a large scope for personal goal settings beyond what is described in the manual.