In my analysis class integral of differential form $w=fdx_1 \wedge dx_2 \wedge ... \wedge dx_k$ on some open subset of $R^n$ was defined as follows:
$$\int_Uw=\int_Ufd\lambda$$
So as lebesgue integral.
Consider set bounded by $\left|x \right|<1$ and $\left|y \right|<1$ (square), call this set $U$. I want to compute following integral:
$$\int_Udx \wedge dy$$
From definition it is equal to:
$$\int_Ud\lambda_2$$
Which is equal to:
$$\int_{-1}^1\int_{-1}^1dxdy$$
Now, from this post: what measure is dx ,if $dx$ is lebesgue measure $1$, is $dxdy$ lebesgue measure $2$? Is it true that $dx \wedge dy$ is lebesgue measure $2$?
So the question basically is whether differential forms are lebesgue measures.
A differential form is not a measure. But, you can use a differential form to induce a measure (see first paragraph here), and you can use the integral over Lebesgue measure to define integrals of forms over oriented manifolds (see second part of my answer here). It’s like lemons vs limes; they’re not the same thing, but they taste pretty similar.
So, on $\Bbb{R}^2$, it is not correct to say $dx\wedge dy=d\lambda_2$, but (with the usual conventions for orientation), we can say that by definition, for any Lebesgue-measurable set $E$, $\int_Edx\wedge dy=\int_E1\,d\lambda_2$. The thing is the symbol $\int_E$ on the left stands for the integral of a differential form, while the integral symbol on the right is $\int_E(\cdot)\,d\lambda_2$, the Lebesgue integral of a function over the set $E$. So, I’m using an already defined object (Lebesgue integral of a function on a measure space) to define a new object (integral of a differential form on an oriented manifold).
Having said this, by abuse of language, it is not uncommon to find people saying things like $d\lambda_2=dx\wedge dy$ (among other things).