Computer Assisted Fluid Power Instruction: A Comparison of Hands-On and Computer-Simulated Laboratory Experiences for Post-Secondary Students

Abstract

Purpose . The primary purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of utilizing a combination of lecture and the computer resources already existing in many post-secondary educational and industrial settings to train personnel to assume roles as hydraulic system technicians and specialists in the fluid power industry. This study compared computer simulated laboratory instruction to traditional hands-on laboratory instruction. Procedures . Four sections of the same college course with a total of 70 subjects participated in this study. After receiving the same lecture at the same time, the subjects in each course were randomly split into two treatment groups. Group B completed the first two laboratory assignments using the traditional hands-on fluid power trainers, while Group A completed the first two laboratory assignments using the computerized fluid power simulation program. Upon completion of the first two laboratory assignments, the performance instrument was individually administered to each student. The performance (psychomotor) evaluations were given using a criterion-referenced instrument at the completion of the first two laboratory assignments and prior to switching to the other type of trainer. Upon completion of the mid-lab performance test, each of the groups switched to the other type of laboratory trainer so that all of the students received experience with both the hands-on trainers and the computerized simulation program. Upon completion of both treatments, the performance (psychomotor) test was re-administered to each subject individually. At the completion of the course, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was administered to all of the students to determine the cognitive learning styles (field-dependent or field-independent) of each subject. Separate t -test procedures were used to test for differences between the treatment groups for all six hypotheses. Conclusions . (1) Similar results can be achieved on a psychomotor performance evaluation whether the instruction is given using a computerized simulation program or a traditional hands-on trainer to teach basic fluid power circuitry. (2) Where both computerized simulation and hands-on trainers are used for fluid power instruction, the sequencing of the two types of laboratory instruction resulted in similar student psychomotor performance. (3) Students classified as field-independent learners perform better on psychomotor performance tests on basic fluid power circuitry than those classified as field-dependent learners.