@inproceedings{StegerNitscheMileyetal.2017, author = {Steger, Fabian and Nitsche, Alexander and Miley, Cayler and Schweiger, Hans-Georg and Belski, Iouri}, title = {Laboratory Learning: Hands-on versus Simulated Experiments}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2017)}, editor = {Huda, Nazmul and Inglis, David and Tse, Nicholas and Town, Graham}, publisher = {Macquarie University}, address = {Sydney}, isbn = {978-0-646-98026-3}, url = {https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/proceedings-of-the-28th-annual-conference-of-the-australasian-ass}, pages = {940 -- 947}, year = {2017}, abstract = {CONTEXT Many universities and vocational training institutions conduct laboratories as simulated experiments. This is due to the costs and supervision needs to conduct hands-on labs safely. Numerous studies have presented mixed opinions on whether hands-on laboratory work is more conducive to learning than a simulated laboratory. Most of the studies put students from experimental and control groups in significantly different conditions. Therefore, it is hard to reach any definite conclusion regarding the influence of the learning mode onto the learning achievements. PURPOSE This study compares learning outcomes of student laboratory work in an energy storages course conducted in two different modes: first as a practical hands-on exercise and second using computer-based simulations. APPROACH In order to provide reliable insights, this study implements optimized research methodology to avoid any other effect (e.g. learning synchronicity/distance learning/instructions) on the learning outcome rather than the effect of the learning mode itself. The student laboratory experiments were created in a manner that they could be conducted in both modes in the same way and using a single set of instructions. To ensure a comparable group environment for the individual student, the students were arranged into two similar groups based on the student's practical experience. In this crossover study, the groups were taught the same topics by means of interchanging learning modes. RESULTS To evaluate the influence of each mode on student learning, short written tests regarding the previous experiment were conducted at the beginning of the subsequent laboratory session. 102 students have taken part in the study in two years. Overall learning results of hands-on experiments were slightly better than those of simulated laboratories (Cohen's d=0.25), the difference in performance was statistically significant (p<0.02). Through solicited feedback on each laboratory session, in hands-on mode more students expressed they have acquired new insights/comprehensions (76\% vs. 66\%, Cohen's d=0.23, small effect, p<0.07). CONCLUSIONS Following the strategy not to optimize the lessons individually to the learning mode, other influences on the learning outcome, which were usually mixed, were excluded. The students' subjective opinions show advantages of the hands-on mode. Based on the objective data, a weak, but significant outcome to better knowledge acquisition with hands-on laboratory experiments was achieved. This observation is against the trend of the literature in the last years towards better or equal learning with nontraditional labs. Some of the excluded factors might have a stronger influence on student learning than estimated previously. To get a clear view, the authors recommend isolated research.}, language = {en} }