Cited by 76Experimental Learning in EngineeringEngineering Education and PedagogyProblem and Project Based Learning

Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratory Projects for Instructional Design: Impacts on Student Engagement

Nolen, Susan Bobbitt, Koretsky, Milo D.·2018·IEEE Transactions on Education

Abstract

Contribution: Student engagement and interest in engineering is compared between virtual and physical laboratory projects, designed to be realistic and replicate engineering practice. Reported motivation and engagement was greater in the virtual project than the physical projects. Results are interpreted in terms of the different affordances for instructional design using physical and virtual laboratories. Background: Interest is increasing in incorporating virtual laboratories in engineering curricula. Numerous studies report equal or greater gains in students' conceptual understanding in a virtual laboratory than a corresponding physical laboratory, but many researchers question if virtual laboratories can stimulate the same level of excitement for engineering as physical laboratories. Research Questions: Do students' self-reports of interest in engineering depend on the instructional design afforded by the laboratory mode? How do instructional designs of virtual and physical laboratory projects relate to students' perceptions of engagement, their contribution to the team, and the transfer of prior coursework to meet project objectives? Method: In a within-subjects design, 118 students' interest and engagement in two physical laboratory projects and one of two virtual laboratory projects in a senior-year capstone course is investigated. Separate principal components analyses were used to develop reliable scales for interest and for engagement. Findings: Students reported gr…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/te.2018.2791445

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Nolen, S. B., & Koretsky, M. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Education
Published
2018-08
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
226-233
ISSN
  • 0018-9359 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9638
OpenAlex
W2794021795
Cited by
76
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DRL 1251264, DRL 1251866)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Experimental Learning in Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
virtual laboratory, physical laboratory, student engagement, engineering interest, instructional design, student motivation, prior knowledge transfer, team contribution, engineering education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review