During the school years 1969-1971, a set of objectives expressed by Dr. John M. Fowler of the Commission on College Physics was used to evaluate the divergent physics laboratories at New Mexico State University. The result indicated greater achievement of two of the objectives by students enrolled in divergent laboratories than by students enrolled in traditional laboratories. Additionally, the need for revising some elements of the divergent laboratory was indicated, as well as a need for special training of the graduate assistants who conducted the divergent laboratories. A synopsis of this paper was presented to the 14th Annual Idaho Academy of Science Meeting in April, 1972. In the past, much has been written about laboratories. Questions have been raised at all levels regarding the number and type of laboratory experiences that should be offered or required of a student. More recently, there has been a growing concern regarding what is accomplished by instruction in laboratories. In the "traditional or conventional laboratory," deductive in nature as evidenced by many laboratory manuals, explicit instructions are given on what to do and what data to collect. In addition, directions for data analysis are often included, as well as indications of what conclusions to reach. The "project laboratory," inductive in nature and usually reserved for advanced students, differs greatly from the "traditional laboratory." In the "project laboratory," the student is assigned or chooses a project and then proceeds as he determines, with or without assistance from a staff member. A third laboratory, known as the "divergent laboratory," is an attempt to combine the project and traditional laboratories. It is described by Dr. J. W. Ivany as follows: "The divergent laboratory can be regarded as a realistic compromise between free and formal labs, independent project work and mechanical cookbookery. In the divergent lab, there should be parts of the experiment that are predetermined and standard for all members of the class, but there should be as many possible directions in which the experiment can develop after the initial stage. The divergent lab would provide the student with tasks similar to those he would encounter in a free or project laboratory within a framework that is compatible with the various restrictions imposed as a result of the wider system of instructional organization of the school". [1] For a meaningful evaluation to take place, it is important to have developed a set of objectives whose attainment may be measured. In 1956, at the Storrs conference on Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of Introductory Courses, it was recognized that the laboratory portion of a physics course not only contributed to the principle objectives of the course, but had objectives of its own. The objectives were divided into two parts, the "Knowing" and the "Feeling". The "Knowing" area is that which has been referred to in some studies as knowledge gained. The "Feeling" area is aimed at having the student experience physics as the physicist does [2]. Dr. John M. Fowler, director of the Commission on College Physics, formulated a set of objectives for the introductory physics laboratory in the late summer of 1969. A "rough draft" of this set of objectives was made available to Dr. Harold A. Daw, Head of the Physics Department at New Mexico State University. It was decided to seek from the students enrolled in the divergent laboratories, their opinions regarding the attainment of the objectives of the divergent laboratory as expressed by Fowler. Although other sets of objectives have been formulated, those expressed by Fowler most nearly paralleled the unwritten objectives for the laboratory held by the Physics Department at New Mexico State University. Over the following two years (1969-1971), the general and specific objectives as outlined by Fowler were used. Fowler's axioms: 1. It is in the "lab" and only in the "lab," that the student can experience physics as it actually is. 2. For learning to take place most effectively, the student must be motivated through interest. Fowler's objectives: 1. The student should have the opportunity to make personal investigative decisions. a. At some stage in the work the student must choose an experimental path and the choice must be based on work already completed. b. The experiments should be capable of differing degrees of precision so that the student can decide on the basis of his own work when greater precision is needed. c. The student should have an opportunity to exercise control over some aspect of nature. d. The student should be allowed to follow up incorrect decisions occasionally without being immediately corrected by the instructor. II. The laboratory should broaden a student's exposure to the behavior of nature and to the physicist's description and predictions of that behavior. a. An opportunity should be provided for the student to experience a broad range of phenomena. b. Whenever possible, some theoretical analysis should be demanded as part of the lab experience. This should consist of application of broadly based principles rather than computation of formulae. c. The student should have the opportunity in the lab to test some simple model of a phenomenon and to construct and test a more complex model based on his experimental findings. d. Natural phenomena are often a complex interaction of many processes. In the lab, a student should learn by experiment the importance of these various processes and evaluate their magnitude. III. The lab instruction should provide an environment in which discovery by the student is both possible and encouraged. a. As many experiments as possible should lead to results that are not likely to be known to the student in advance. b. Lab interaction with phenomena is often provided prior to lecture exposition. c. Student questions which appear as appropriate for exploration in the lab are allowed to take precedence over preconceived routines. d. The lab should be the source of "dis-equilibrating" experiences, experimental results which are unexpected and difficult to explain, for such experiences facilitate learning. IV. The lab, the lecture, the recitation, the textbook, etc. should provide learning experiences which complement and reinforce each other. a. Opportunity should be provided for both quantitative measure and analysis and qualitative experience [3]. In order to obtain some type of comparison, the opinions of students enrolled in more traditional laboratories were collected as well as opinions of students enrolled in divergent laboratories. The comparisons were somewhat superficial, since the students enrolled in divergent laboratories were enrolled in a different course and were studying different subjects from those enrolled in the more traditional laboratories. The two laboratories used were Introductory Mechanics, and Introductory Electricity and Magnetism, both for calculus level students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]