The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories
Abstract
Laboratories play a crucial role in the education of future scientists and engineers, yet there is disagreement among science and engineering educators about whether and which types of technology-enabled labs should be used. This debate could be advanced by large-scale randomized studies addressing the critical issue of whether remotely operated or simulation-based labs are as effective as the traditional hands-on lab format. The present article describes the results of a large-scale (N = 306) study comparing learning outcomes and student preferences for several different lab formats in an undergraduate engineering course. The lab formats that were evaluated included traditional hands-on labs, remotely operated labs, and simulations. Learning outcomes were assessed by a test of the specific concepts taught in each lab. These knowledge scores were as high or higher (depending on topic) after performing remote and simulated laboratories versus performing hands-on laboratories. In their responses to survey items, many students saw advantages to technology-enabled lab formats in terms of such attributes as convenience and reliability, but still expressed preference for hands-on labs. Also, differences in lab formats led to changes in group functions across the plan-experiment-analyze process: For example, students did less face-to-face work when engaged in remote or simulated laboratories, as opposed to hands-on laboratories.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678 · Cited by 7,800
Mayer, R. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781316941355 · Cited by 7,777
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4 · Cited by 1,983
Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312705055535 · Cited by 759
An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams
McDonough, E. F., Kahnb, K. B., & Barczaka, G. (2001) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1820110 · Cited by 543
Addressing the challenges of inquiry‐based learning through technology and curriculum design
Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_3 · Cited by 366
Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception
Bradner, E., & Mark, G. (2002) · Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/587078.587110 · Cited by 224
Cited by
Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis
Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Dormido, S. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010 · Cited by 574
Metadata
- Authors
- Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 7
- ISSN
- 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7325
- OpenAlex
- W1986763974
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 23.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1275511.1275513
- The paper
- Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/1275511.1275513
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.