THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTEGRATING VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL LABORATORIES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
Keywords:
laboratory education, virtual laboratory, physical laboratory, experiential learning, model-based learning, cognitive load, didactic conditions, engineering education.Abstract
This article analyzes the theoretical foundations and didactic conditions for
integrating virtual and physical laboratories in engineering education. The study is based
on an analytical review of empirical research examining the effects of different types of
laboratories on learning outcomes, as well as theories of experiential learning, model-
based learning, and cognitive load. The possibilities of achieving laboratory learning
objectives in traditional and integrated instructional settings are compared. Virtual–
physical laboratory integration is characterized as an organizational and methodological
approach applicable across different teaching methods and aimed at establishing
connections between models and experimental results. Four didactic conditions for
implementing integration are proposed: model comprehensibility, mandatory
comparison of models with experimental results, gradual reduction of instructional
scaffolding, and teachers’ methodological and technical preparedness. The article
emphasizes the need for further empirical verification of the effectiveness of the proposed
conditions.
References
1. Feisel L. D., Rosa A. J. The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education // Journal of Engineering
Education. – 2005. – Vol. 94, № 1. – P. 121–130. – DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x.
2. Lasi H., Fettke P., Kemper H.-G. et al. Industry 4.0 // Business & Information Systems Engineering. – 2014. – Vol. 6,
№ 4. – P. 239–242. – DOI: 10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4.
3. Hernandez-de-Menendez M., Morales-Menendez R., Escobar C. A., McGovern M. Competencies for Industry 4.0 //
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). – 2020. – Vol. 14, № 4. – P. 1511–1524. – DOI:
10.1007/s12008-020-00716-2.
4. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2019-yil 8-oktabrdagi PF-5847-sonli «O‘zbekiston Respublikasi oliy
ta’lim tizimini 2030-yilgacha rivojlantirish konsepsiyasini tasdiqlash to‘g‘risida»gi Farmoni // Qonun hujjatlari
ma’lumotlari milliy bazasi. – 2019. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/4545884.
5. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2020-yil 5-oktabrdagi PF-6079-sonli «Raqamli O‘zbekiston – 2030»
strategiyasini tasdiqlash va uni samarali amalga oshirish chora-tadbirlari to‘g‘risida»gi Farmoni // Qonun hujjatlari
ma’lumotlari milliy bazasi. – 2020. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/5031048.
6. Hofstein A., Lunetta V. N. The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century //
Science Education. – 2004. – Vol. 88, № 1. – P. 28–54. – DOI: 10.1002/sce.10106.
7. Domin D. S. A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles // Journal of Chemical Education. – 1999. – Vol. 76, № 4. –
P. 543–547. – DOI: 10.1021/ed076p543.
8. Wieman C. E., Adams W. K., Perkins K. K. PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning // Science. – 2008. – Vol. 322, № 5902. – P. 682–683. – DOI: 10.1126/science.1161948.
9. Ma J., Nickerson J. V. Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review // ACM
Computing Surveys. – 2006. – Vol. 38, № 3. – Art. 7. – DOI: 10.1145/1132960.1132961.
10. Lindsay E. D., Good M. C. Effects of Laboratory Access Modes upon Learning Outcomes // IEEE Transactions on
Education. – 2005. – Vol. 48, № 4. – P. 619–631. – DOI: 10.1109/TE.2005.852591.
11. Corter J. E., Nickerson J. V., Esche S. K. et al. Constructing Reality: A Study of Remote, Hands-On, and Simulated
Laboratories // ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. – 2007. – Vol. 14, № 2. – Art. 7. – DOI:
10.1145/1275511.1275513.
12. Brinson J. R. Learning Outcome Achievement in Non-Traditional (Virtual and Remote) versus Traditional (Hands-
On) Laboratories: A Review of the Empirical Research // Computers & Education. – 2015. – Vol. 87. – P. 218–237. – DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003.
13. Zacharia Z. C. Comparing and Combining Real and Virtual Experimentation: An Effort to Enhance Students'
Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. – 2007. – Vol. 23, № 2. – P. 120–
132. – DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x.
14. Olympiou G., Zacharia Z. C. Blending Physical and Virtual Manipulatives: An Effort to Improve Students'
Conceptual Understanding through Science Laboratory Experimentation // Science Education. – 2012. – Vol. 96, № 1. – P.
21–47. – DOI: 10.1002/sce.20463.
15. de Jong T., Linn M. C., Zacharia Z. C. Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education //
Science. – 2013. – Vol. 340, № 6130. – P. 305–308. – DOI: 10.1126/science.1230579.
16. Gomes L., Bogosyan S. Current Trends in Remote Laboratories // IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. –
2009. – Vol. 56, № 12. – P. 4744–4756. – DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2009.2033293.
17. Kolb D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. – Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1984.
18. Abdulwahed M., Nagy Z. K. Applying Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education // Journal of
Engineering Education. – 2009. – Vol. 98, № 3. – P. 283–294.
19. Abdulwahed M., Nagy Z. K. The TriLab, a Novel ICT-Based Triple Access Mode Laboratory Education Model //
Computers & Education. – 2011. – Vol. 56, № 1. – P. 262–274. – DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.023.
20. Hestenes D. Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction // American Journal of Physics. – 1987. – Vol. 55,
№ 5. – P. 440–454. – DOI: 10.1119/1.15129.
21. Clement J. Model-Based Learning as a Key Research Area for Science Education // International Journal of Science
Education. – 2000. – Vol. 22, № 9. – P. 1041–1053.
22. Sweller J. Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning // Cognitive Science. – 1988. – Vol. 12, №
2. – P. 257–285. – DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
23. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E. Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of
the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching // Educational
Psychologist. – 2006. – Vol. 41, № 2. – P. 75–86. – DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
24. Sánchez J., Dormido S., Pastor R., Morilla F. A Java/Matlab-Based Environment for Remote Control System
Laboratories: Illustrated with an Inverted Pendulum // IEEE Transactions on Education. – 2004. – Vol. 47, № 3. – P. 321–
329. – DOI: 10.1109/TE.2004.825525.
25. Mayer R. E. Multimedia Learning. – 2nd ed. – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
26. Shulman L. S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching // Educational Researcher. – 1986. – Vol.
15, № 2. – P. 4–14. – DOI: 10.3102/0013189X015002004.
27. Kritzinger W., Karner M., Traar G. et al. Digital Twin in Manufacturing: A Categorical Literature Review and
Classification // IFAC-PapersOnLine. – 2018. – Vol. 51, № 11. – P. 1016–1022. – DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474.