New Orleans, Louisiana
June 25, 2016
June 25, 2016
June 25, 2016
International Forum Virtual Presentation
Like many other engineering schools, the School of Engineering and Information Technology (SEIT) at the University of New South Wales (Canberra) recognised the importance of student laboratories to complement classroom theory. This is because laboratory work enables students to observe the relationship between theory and practice. Importantly, students begin to gain confidence in the application of theory by observing its practical limitations. For this reason, it was decided to develop an airborne laboratory facility. An aircraft was acquired and it was equipped with a suite of sensors and instruments that allowed many aircraft flight parameters to be measured and recorded. Beginning in 1998, Aeronautical Engineering students and candidate pilots carried out a flight which allowed them to investigate aspects of aircraft performance, handling qualities and stability (static and dynamic) in a 1.2 hour flight. These experiments maximized the students’ experience and exposure to flight test. After an evaluation of the effort and time that academic staff required to operate the flight laboratory in 2010 the airborne flight laboratory was discontinued. In its place there has been developed an Aviation Studio, equipped with a fixed-base flight simulator. The engineering flight simulator has been specifically designed as a versatile and practical hands-on aid to the teaching of flight mechanics and dynamics and aircraft design. Using a flight console, screens and X-Plane software, students can manipulate many aircraft characteristics. The purpose of this paper is to compare the learning outcomes of what was a very experiential learning process – the airborne flight laboratory, to a more ‘contained’ learning environment – the Aviation Studio.
It is realized that comparisons of examination results and test scores are not a valid metric when evaluating the learning outcomes of different cohorts of students. In both the airborne laboratory and the flight simulator laboratory students submitted a laboratory report some two weeks after the laboratory session. The marked and assessed laboratory reports are a component of the total assessment for a Fundamentals of Flight course. A comparison of the marks and quality of laboratory reports produced in the two teaching and learning environments provided a basis of comparison for the learning outcomes of the two teaching and learning laboratories. In a matched-subjects design, participants were matched into blocks on the basis of a variable the researcher believes relevant to the experiment – in this case academic prowess. In this way some of the methodological issues when comparing the learning outcomes of two student cohorts may be overcome. The weighted average mean result (WAM) achieved by each student at the end of the previous year was ascertained. Students with similar WAMs and who have carried out either the airborne lab or the studio laboratory were matched and the resultant difference in their laboratory assessment recorded. A statistical analysis of the result difference produced evidence that the flight simulator laboratory produced a significantly better learning outcome. This result is discussed with reference to the development of learning paradigms and research activities in the flight simulator laboratory.
Lewis, R. C., & Garratt, M. (2016, June), A Comparison and Evaluation of Aeronautical Engineering Learning Outcomes using an Airborne Flight Laboratory and a Flight Simulator Laboratory. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE International Forum, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://peer.asee.org/27226
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2016 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015