A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education

Economic pressures on universities and the emergence of new technologies have spurred the creation of new systems for delivering engineering laboratories in education, in particular simulations and remote-access laboratory systems. Advocates of simulation argue that physical labs needlessly consume university space and students' time. However, proponents of hands-on laboratories argue that student engineers should be exposed to real environments. Remote laboratories have appeared as a third option. These laboratories are similar to simulation techniques in that they require minimal space and time, because the experiments can be rapidly configured and run over the Internet. But unlike simulations, they provide real data. Studying the relative effectiveness of these modes of delivering student laboratories is complex, for the underlying technology of the laboratory is just one of many possible factors that could influence effectiveness. For example, the interface to the equipment may be of importance, as might the discussions students have among themselves. This paper presents a model for testing the relative effectiveness of engineering laboratories in education that takes account of these and other factors. The results are presented for an assessment study comparing versions of remote labs versus hands-on labs in a junior-level mechanical engineering course on machine dynamics and mechanisms. The results suggest that students learned lab content information equally well from both types of laboratories, and that they have a realistic understanding and appreciation of the practical advantages of remote laboratories.

[1]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Remote experiments, re-versioning and re-thinking science learning , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Sven K. Esche.  On the Integration of Remote Experimentation into Undergraduate Laboratories-Technical Implementation , 2006 .

[3]  Eileen Scanlon,et al.  Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[4]  R. Gunstone,et al.  Conceptual Change in Science through Collaborative Learning at the Computer. , 1997 .

[5]  R. Mayer,et al.  Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preference. , 2003 .

[6]  H. Gardner,et al.  Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Technical Report No. 4. , 1989 .

[7]  Annemarie Hauf,et al.  Computers in education , 1983 .

[8]  Neil D. Fleming,et al.  Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection , 1992 .

[9]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers , 2002 .

[10]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century , 1994, INTR.

[11]  Denis Gillet,et al.  Collaborative web-based experimentation in flexible engineering education , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[12]  Peter van der Straaten,et al.  Research on Presence in VR: a Survey , 2001 .

[13]  H. Gardner,et al.  Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences , 1989 .

[14]  Mary C. Whitton,et al.  Evaluating a scientific collaboratory: Results of a controlled experiment , 2003, TCHI.

[15]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design , 1999 .

[16]  Felipe Korzenny,et al.  A Theory of Electronic Propinquity , 1978 .

[17]  Dale A. Harris,et al.  Advancing asynchronous distance education using high-speed networks , 1996 .

[18]  Nesimi Ertugrul,et al.  New Era in Engineering Experiments: an Integrated and Interactive Teaching/Learning Approach, and Real-Time Visualisations* , 1998 .

[19]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[20]  Tim Kerns,et al.  Should We Use Cooperative Learning in College Chemistry , 1996 .

[21]  Martijn J. Schuemie,et al.  Research on Presence in Virtual Reality: A Survey , 2001, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[22]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[23]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[24]  Sven K. Esche,et al.  Remotely Accessible Laboratory Approach For Undergraduate Education , 2000 .

[25]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[26]  R. Pea.  Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. , 1993 .

[27]  Brigitte Servatius,et al.  Assessing the quality of web-enabled laboratories in undergraduate education , 2002, 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education.

[28]  J. Reiman.  Guest Editorial: The Stepford Administrators , 2005, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[29]  William F. McComas.  The Nature of the Laboratory Experience: A Guide for Describing, Classifying, and Enhancing Hands-On Activities. , 1997 .

[30]  Sven K. Esche,et al.  A scalable system architecture for remote experimentation , 2002, 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education.

[31]  Sangarapillai Kanapathipillai,et al.  Engineering students' understanding of the role of experimentation , 2000 .

[32]  Mike Calver,et al.  Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology? , 2002 .

[33]  Scott Hill,et al.  Contrasting time mode and sensory modality in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous videoconferencing , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[34]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[35]  Michael S. Shur,et al.  MIT Microelectronics WebLab , 2003 .

[36]  Sven K. Esche.  On the Integration of Remote Experimentation into Undergraduate Laboratories--Pedagogical Approach , 2005 .

[37]  D.C. Sicker,et al.  Assessing the Effectiveness of Remote Networking Laboratories , 2005, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference.

[38]  Mel Slater,et al.  Presence in immersive virtual environments , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[39]  Madara Ogot,et al.  An Assessment of In‐Person and Remotely Operated Laboratories , 2003 .

[40]  Claudio A. Canizares,et al.  Advantages and disadvantages of using various computer tools in electrical engineering courses , 1997 .

[41]  Cooperative study teams in mathematics classrooms , 2004 .

[42]  G. W. Ford,et al.  The structure of knowledge and the curriculum , 1964 .

[43]  M. Herron,et al.  The Nature of Scientific Enquiry , 1971, The School Review.

[44]  Andrew Nafalski,et al.  Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories , 2003, 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003..