Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-1
Using Remote Experimentation in a Large
Undergraduate Course: Initial Findings
M. C. Costa Lobo, Gustavo R. Alves, M. A. Marques, C. Viegas, R. G. Barral, R. J. Couto, F. L. Jacob, C. A.
Ramos, G. M. Vilão, D. S. Covita, Joaquim Alves, P. S. Guimarães, Ingvar Gustavsson [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract - The use of remote labs in undergraduate
courses has been reported in literature several times
since the mid 90’s. Nevertheless, very few articles present
results about the correspondent learning gains obtained
by students, and in what conditions those systems can be
more efficient, thus suggesting a lack of data concerning
their pedagogical effectiveness. This paper addresses
such a gap by presenting some initial findings concerning
the use of a remote lab (VISIR), in a large undergraduate
course on Physics, with over 550 students enrolled.
Index Terms - Remote laboratories, weblabs, learning
assessment, engineering education.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of laboratory experience in engineering
education curricula has been emphasized in a large number
of science and engineering education articles [1]. Laboratory
pedagogy has been recently reported to be a fertile arena of
research for the coming years [2], especially in the context
of the increasing need to make more use of the new
developments in information and communication technology
for enhancing the laboratory education. When technology-
intensive teaching tools become widely available, the
traditional roles of the university lecturers will change from
pure classroom-based teaching to one of consultation, advice
and direction giving. However, it is believed that the
technology-based course will not eliminate the educators;
instead it will change the type of activities the educators do.
In the technology-based teaching/learning practice, the
major activities of the lecturers may include preparation of
the software packages, adopting new concepts and new
teaching practices, modifying existing materials to suit the
changes introduced by the latest version of the multimedia
tools, and above all these they can spend time to
continuously evaluating the teaching/learning outcomes. The
roles of teachers and students are changing, and there are
undoubtedly ways of learning not yet discovered. However,
the computer and software technology may provide a
significant help to identify the problems, to present solutions
and life-long learning. It is clear that the computer-based
educational technology has reached the point where many
major improvements can be made, and significant cost
reductions can be achieved, specifically in the area of
engineering education. The proper use of techniques and
methodologies is critical in any technology intensive
teaching/learning development system. In addition, it should
be ensured that the designed work keeps up with the
curriculum review and update, and the laboratory work
should be relevant to the material taught in lectures. One
reason for rethinking the role of the laboratory in
engineering and science education is the recent shift towards
constructivist pedagogy in which the importance of
knowledge gained via experience is emphasized.
Furthermore, constructivist pedagogy places a larger role on
student autonomy in the learning process. This is particularly
important in light of the recent increase in the needs of
industry for engineering graduates who are autonomous and
equipped with good hands-on skills.
In their literature review [1], Ma and Nickerson found that
100% of the articles concerning hands-on laboratories
considered that labs should be platforms for facilitating
conceptual understanding, and 65% considered that
laboratories should also facilitate the design skills. However,
constructing knowledge is a complex process which is often
out of the timeframe of the planned laboratory sessions.
Since 2000, a huge number of remote laboratories have been
designed, implemented and set up over the world. [1]-[4].
Papers and books about remote labs focusing on their
advantages/disadvantages, state of art, technologies, and
didactic have been published. Most of these works are
focused on the technology and only few articles are focused
on the didactic utility of remote labs as a didactic tool.
Understanding how different technologies affect the
laboratory learning experience is an endeavor which will
need the participation of many researchers over many years.
In this paper we seek to contribute toward this larger project.
We address the role of the laboratory environment while
conducting experiments for perceiving some fundamental
concepts of electrical circuits, namely the behavior of simple
circuits built with resistors, coils and capacitors, when
powered with DC and AC sources. We have used a set of
tools for assessing the learning gains obtained by students
enrolled in a large Physics course of an undergraduate
degree on Computing Engineering. Students were divided
into two natural groups: one attending both real and remote
lab classes and another simply using the remote lab.
Preliminary results indicate that both students groups
presented learning gains, which suggests the remote lab used
to be a good learning tool for developing experimental skills
in the taught topic. The rest of this paper is organized as
follows: section II describes the assessment scenario, namely
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-2
the remote lab environment, i.e. VISIR (Virtual Instrument
Systems in Reality), the course curricula and structure, and
the assessment methodology; section III presents the
assessment results, organized in two categories, namely the
integration of VISIR in the target course and the students’
results; finally, section IV concludes the paper.
SCENARIO AND METHODOLOGY
I. The VISIR system
VISIR is an open remote lab dedicated to experiments on
electrical and electronic circuits, acquired by and installed at
the School of Engineering – Polytechnic of Porto (ISEP),
Portugal, in July 2010. Its architecture and characteristics are
well described in several articles [5]-[6]. In this paper, we
concentrate on describing the actions done by persons using
this system under three different roles (administrator,
teacher, and student), to emphasize its simplicity, minimal
learning curve, and reduced institutional impact, namely on
integration and maintenance aspects.
Figure 1 illustrates the three main components used at
ISEP to store and manage institutional data (Portal),
pedagogic contents (Moodle), and, most recently, to provide
remote experiments (VISIR). When starting a new semester,
teachers have access to structured information on both Portal
and Moodle, i.e. they will have access to the course(s) they
will be lecturing, and all the students enrolled in those
courses will also have access to teaching & learning
materials made available by teachers. Adding VISIR implied
some organizational rearrangement, namely on how to
manage teachers and students access to the remote lab, and
on how to manage the courses created on it. The next
paragraphs will therefore describe the actions done by
administrators, teachers, and students, in VISIR, following a
sequential timeline.
FIGURE 1
SITES USED FOR INSTITUTIONAL AND TEACHING & LEARNING PURPOSES AT
ISEP AND ACTIONS DONE BY ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN VISIR
Administrators start by creating a given course. They
then add (i) the responsible for the course (a given teacher),
(ii) other teachers / instructors (typically, courses with
hundreds of students have a team of several teachers), and
finally (iii) the students enrolled on that course. Presently,
this last action simply implies copying & pasting the list of
e-mails of those students enrolled in the same course, into
VISIR, as also depicted in Figure 1. In conclusion, although
VISIR is a fairly new component, it implied a reduced extra
effort into current ISEP administrators’ tasks. This fact is
thought to be crucial to convince institutional managers that
remote labs do not represent an additional cost, in terms of
workload, to the Communications & Informatics Service [7].
Once the course is created, the head-teacher is able to
add new experiments according to the course practical
component. This follows a procedure described in [8], where
the teacher needs to be aware of the components physically
available in the VISIR matrix, or, if not available, indicate
his/her needs to the lab technician, responsible for
configuring and updating the matrix. Assuming that the
components are available in the matrix and that their images
are also available in the list of components depicted by the
VISIR interface, in teacher mode, the teacher may then add a
new experiment to its course and then add a direct link to it,
into the corresponding Moodle course page. Again, these
actions are illustrated in Figure 1.
Students access VISIR either through the link provided
in the Moodle course page, where in each case they will be
required to enter their login credentials and after that will be
directed to the related experiment or, through the VISIR
URL. In this last situation, students will also have to indicate
their login credentials and then will be directed to a page that
contains a navigation menu on the left side, where students
can see the courses they are enrolled in. Selecting a
particular course will open a page displaying the list of
experiments currently available on that course. Students may
then select one experiment, ending up on the same page they
would get if following the direct link provided in Moodle. In
both situations, VISIR will track the students’ access by
incrementing a counter indicating the number of sessions
done by each student. Additionally, the VISIR log system
tracks the number of experiments done, i.e. the number of
times the button “Perform experiment” is clicked, and hence
and experiment is done in the remote lab. This log system
does not, however, record who has done which experiment,
thus not allowing tracking the experiments (and their setup)
done by each individual user (either students or teachers).
II. Environment description
ISEP is an engineering school offering a large number of
bachelor and Master Degrees and Post-graduate courses in
various engineering areas, ranging from Electronics,
Instrumentation and Computing to Chemistry, Mechanics,
and Metrology. In our study, the choice of an adequate case
study environment relied on the assumption that students
from Computing Engineering degree would have a natural
tendency to use the kind of resources a remote lab
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-3
represents. Also, Electricity is a topic covered in Applied
Physics which is a 2nd
year course, where 2nd
year students
are normally more aware of their academic responsibilities.
Like all engineering degrees at ISEP, this is also a 3-year
degree, where 1st year students acquire mathematical,
programming and lab work skills. Fundamental science
subjects, like Physics, is only taught in the 1st semester of the
2nd
year, being Applied Physics course the sole opportunity
students have contact with physics at university in this this
degree. Our study was developed over this semester, with
561 students enrolled in the course. Applied Physics was
organized in 12 weeks, from which 6 weeks were dedicated
to electricity - from September, 27th to November, 1
st - and
the other 6 weeks to waves and heat transfer. Since students
perform lab work, their assessment is divided in two parts:
(i) lab work assessment with an overall weight of 40% and
(ii) final examination with an overall weight of 60%.
Students were divided in two groups according to their
enrollment requisites. Group A, accounting for 288 students,
is the group attending hands-on lab work classes. In those
same weekly classes, group B, with 273 students, analyses
results taken with VISIR in the previous weekly class,
comparing them with a comparative theoretical circuit
analysis. This happened during weeks 2 and 4, as depicted in
TABLE I. This group already has a lab work mark from
previous years. The number of students in each classroom of
both groups was quite different. The fifteen classrooms from
group A had a maximum of 24 students each, organized in
working groups of 3-4 students. The four group B
classrooms had almost the double number of students.
TABLE I
LABORATORY CLASSES PLAN FOR TOPIC ON ELECTRICITY.
Weeks Organization of topic electricity for lab classes
Group A Group B
Week 1
27/9
Introduction to VISIR. Taking measurements in the remote
system for a DC experiment described in the lab guide.
Week 2
4/10
Real DC circuit mounting and performing measurements.
24h to hand-over the group lab
report.
Comparative DC analysis with values from previous
class and components
nominal values.
Week 3
11/10
Introduction to VISIR. Taking measurements in the remote
system for an AC experiment described in the lab guide.
Week 4
18/10
Real AC circuit mounting and performing measurements. 24h
to hand-over the group lab
report.
Comparative AC analysis with values from previous
class and components
nominal values.
Week 5
25/10
Individual lab report related to one of the two experiments
done.
Teachers use VISIR to
demonstrate the previous
AC circuit as a passive filter.
Week 6
1/11 1st partial examination related to this topic. (a)
(a) For group A the 1st partial examination is done in the problem solving classes.
As shown in TABLE I, in the first week, all students
were introduced to electricity in theoretical classes, where
concepts like resistors associations and Ohm’s and
Kirchhoff’s laws for DC circuits were taught. At the same
time, and also for all students (both groups), VISIR was
introduced by teachers in the first laboratory class, starting
with a small presentation of the VISIR interface and
explanation about its usage. After this introduction, teachers
asked their students to try for themselves, in order to
accomplish the designed circuit of the laboratory task. Every
student was provided with a lab guide describing the
experimental procedure for a DC circuit, which apart from
being implemented, they had to take measurements from. As
stated before, in the week after only group A had hands-on
lab classes to mount the same circuit. During the following
two weeks, this procedure was repeated for an AC circuit,
with the help of the corresponding lab guide. 24 hrs after
each real-circuit implementation class, every group had to
hand-over a lab report where they had to include hands-on
circuit measurements and VISIR measurements. During
week 5, every student, individually, had to write an extended
report on one of the experiments done with the
measurements previously taken, being applied only to group
A. In week 6, every student performed a partial assessment.
III. Assessment Methodology
The analysis is based on a case study investigation [9], since
it is grounded on an empirical study of a real discipline, its
problems characterization and potentials encountered during
the integration of the remote laboratory (VISIR) in an
Introductory Physics course. The two natural students’
groups created (A and B, already explained in the previous
section), allowed us to asses VISIR effectiveness in different
types of students.
These collected data not only regards students’
knowledge and competency gain in this subject, but also
students’ usage of VISIR and students and teachers
perceptions along the course.
VISIR Usage: Teachers and students usage of the
system was registered and allowed us to analyze the total
amount of sessions run by each student and the global long
term (during the 6 weeks) frequency of usage.
Teachers Perceptions: All teachers involved in this
course were interviewed and shared their experience about
their real practice with VISIR. Some of them, who had past
experience lecturing this course, compared some of the
characteristics.
Knowledge and Competence Assessment: The
knowledge and competence questionnaire was constructed
by the course head-teacher together with other
teachers/researchers and meant to assess some of the most
significant issues of the taught subject. Some of the
questions were addressed to directly infer the common
knowledge of the students (questions 1 and 2); other
questions meant to infer some laboratory competences
development (questions 3 and 4); we identified a last set of
questions (questions 5, 7 and 8) which was more specific to
the characterization of DC and AC circuits. The other two
questions (6, 9) were procedural, about parallel and series
components in a circuit. All teachers delivered those
questionnaires in class, on paper, before and after the
lectured subject. In order to allow us to compare results for
each student, these questionnaires were not anonymous. An
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-4
explanation of its goals (simply for research purposes) was
made by every teacher. Even though the questions were the
same in the pre test and post test, their order was changed to
avoid memorization.
Students Perceptions: All students were subject to a
second questionnaire (based on some literature with similar
purpose [10]-[12]) which meant to assess students’
satisfaction and their perception of learning outcomes using
VISIR. This questionnaire was done anonymously,
accessing a Google page at the end of the course. In addition
to this large inquiry, some students of each teacher’s class
were interviewed in order to reach a more personal view of
the class implementation of VISIR and to better understand
students’ autonomous usage of the system. These students
were chosen because of their higher number of run sessions
at VISIR and a more significant gain on the competency test,
or exactly the opposite.
Course Results: These results included the
laboratory reports assessment, frequency of the course and
exams’ classification.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The results were organized into two categories: i)
implementation of the system in a large course; ii) students’
learning results and perceptions while using this system,
both focusing on the differences encountered in the two
analyzed groups of students.
I. On VISIR Course Integration
VISIR Usage: Using the information available in the
VISIR log system, we first analyzed the total number of
accesses (i), the number of activated accounts (ii), the
number of activated accounts with zero accesses (iii), and
the number of daily accesses (iv) of both students and
teachers. This initial analysis was already presented in [13].
In this paper we focus on the analysis of students’ accesses,
from groups A and B, according to their daily classes,
throughout the six-weeks period of the module on electricity.
Therefore, we present the distribution of daily classes, per
week, for groups A and B, in Table II. Figure 2 presents the
charts with the daily number of accesses, of students’ groups
A and B (figure top and bottom, respectively), versus the
number of daily classes. A careful analysis of the depicted
charts, considering the laboratory classes plan for the topic
on Electricity (Table I), allows to extract the following
conclusions:
TABLE II
CLASSES DISTRIBUTION FOR STUDENTS’ GROUPS A & B
Hour/day Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.
10:00 11:00 A A A B A A B
11:00 12:00
13:00 14:00 A
14:00 15:00 A
A
15:00 16:00 B B
16:00 17:00 A A
A A
17:00 18:00
21:30 22:30 A A
A
22:30 23:20
FIGURE 2
ACCESSES VS. DAILY CLASSES FOR GROUP A STUDENTS (TOP) AND FOR
GROUP B STUDENTS (BOTTOM)
Group A students have used VISIR following what was required from them, either in week terms (see top of figure 2) – access patterns in weeks 1 and 3 following the pattern of daily classes and access patterns in weeks 2 and 4 denoting the 24-hrs period to hand-over the group lab report. As using VISIR was not compulsory (but just complementary) in week 5, the number of accesses from group A students is clearly residual. In week 6, where the use of VISIR was not even complementary, the number of accesses drops to almost zero.
Group B students denote a more autonomous usage, evidenced by the lack of an access pattern close to the pattern of daily classes. Furthermore, the number of accesses in week 6 (in opposition to the number of accesses from group A students, in week 6) is also in line with this conclusion. Basically, one may say that these students take advantage of the complementary nature of remote labs.
Teachers Perceptions: All teachers were
interviewed and shared their class experience and their
perception about students learning concerning VISIR usage.
This analysis is presented in Table III.
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-5
All teachers agreed that students of group A showed, in
general, more laboratory competences in assembling the
circuits’ components and indeed a much lower percentage of
burning multimeter fuses was found (nearly half of the one
encountered in previous years). As to students’ knowledge
of the subjects, teachers agree that even though this is more
difficult to infer, it is unlikely that a greater benefit has been
produced. However, some teachers referred that higher gains
can be achieved in students who closely follow class
developments or who have already mastered part of it
(especially group B), once they better realize the potential of
the system in order to help them in their difficulties.
TABLE III
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ANALYZES.
VISIR Usage Group A Group B
students’
visible interest
students brought their
computers (1 or 2 per group)
fewer computers than it
was desirable (0 or 1 per group)
work in class
teacher shows how it is done (more detailed in 1st class)
students work depends on
teachers explanations; more autonomous work in 2nd
class
students little interact in 1st
class and in the following classes work with
teachers’ help
autonomous
work outside
class
some students worked beyond the expectations,
bringing printouts of the
VISIR circuits to help them in the hands-on lab
some students use VISIR in order to successively
improve their learning
laboratory
competences
development
circuits assembling
improvement; better
performance of data acquisition; greater security
while handling circuits
management
greater security while
handling circuits
management
epistemic
development
not evident a few students showed
some improvement
Greater
value
Training possibility allows students to gain confidence
Possibility of working lab competences outside class Students’ motivation
Future
suggestions
Give a meaningful feedback, in order for students to
improve their work and teachers to be able to use it to reach out their difficulties
VISIR has limited possibilities, if possible this should be
improved (or at least give information of these kind of error as a “non error” to students)
More experiments (different situations) in order to do the
linkage to theoretical models
II. On Students’ Results
Knowledge and Competence Assessment: Even
though these tests were delivered in class, allowing everyone
to participate, we only got 178 results from group A and 49
from group B, which represents nearly 41% of the total
amount of students. The students’ results were treated
according to Marx & Cummings gain lines [14], which
means positive gain lines of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%,
successively, in the upper left triangle and similar negative
gain lines in the lower right triangle. Group A (Figure 3)
shows a large percentage of students with positive gains –
the majority has gains between 0-40%. Group B (Figure 4)
presents similar results, slightly improved: the majority has a
gain between 20% and 40%.
FIGURE 3 GAIN RESULTS IN THE TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRE, FOR GROUP A STUDENTS
FIGURE 4
GAIN RESULTS IN THE TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRE, FOR GROUP B STUDENTS
As explained, questions addressed different objectives. In
order to be able to recognize and more clearly identify those
gains, we analyzed these data separately, referring only to
questions 3 & 4, which addressed directly the development
of laboratory competences, respectively for both students
groups, A and B. The general gains in these two questions
are the greatest observed in all sets of questions delivered.
Once again it is perceived a similar distribution, with Group
B showing fewer problems in handling those questions
before and after working with VISIR, not even showing
cases of 0% in the post test.
Students Perceptions: A group of students who were
identified as enthusiastic users were invited to an interview.
Students largely reported doing access from home, outside
of school, and described the access sessions to last about 15
to 30 min. Noteworthy is the fact that most of these students
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-6
say they have experienced the VISIR beyond what was
required in the laboratory classes and have also used VISIR
to check elements of the lecture. Regarding the perceived
advantages for using VISIR, the interviewed students
expressed the view that VISIR helped to better understand
concepts, enhance training and clarity of procedures,
increasing motivation. Some students suggest the existence
of tutorials to support the use of VISIR. They all recognized
VISIR as a good instrument to improve their laboratory
skills. Some of them compared with their previous
experience at the course and stated that it had improved and
that this year they understood the subject better due to it. At
the end of the course, students were asked to complete a
questionnaire about their perception of the utility VISIR had
to their learning and motivation. This was not mandatory,
yet 185 students choose to share their opinion, which
represents a sample of 33 %. As can be seen in TABLE IV,
students agree that VISIR was most helpful in developing
laboratory competences. Even though they did not feel it
helped with their motivation, a great percentage would like
to extend its usage to other subjects, showing their
palatability towards the system. These results also indicate
that the system has not shown many irregularities, but
students felt that a formal tutorial could have been helpful,
as some of them stressed out in the interviews.
TABLE IV
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Questions (using a Likert scale: 1 - minimum and 5
- maximum
Results
Average Standard
deviation
Q1
Did VISIR help you on:
a) concepts and problem solving?
b) handling the equipment? c) Mounting the circuits?
3.40
3.57 3.84
1.07
1.22 1.20
Q2 Did VISIR motivate you to the learning
objectives? 2.77 1.26
Q3 a) Provided usage information was sufficient?
b) Was VISIR operating in stable conditions?
2.61
3.66
1.10
1.26
Q4 Would you like to have similar systems for
other course subjects? 3.34 1.44
Course Results: Although it was not possible to
compare directly between laboratory evaluation (concerning
VISIR implementation) with previous years, in general, the
teachers noticed a slight increase in the reports’
classification, based in a more complete data collection (this
analysis was made only for students in group A, since the
group B maintained the frequency of laboratory grade).
Although this can not be directly attributed to VISIR usage,
it shows that students were not harmed in their knowledge
construction, by using VISIR.
The exams’ results, after analyzing the issues directly related
to the subject worked with VISIR, strongly enhance the
differences between the two groups of students. Figures 5
and 6 show the grades obtained in the two exam questions
related to this theme (P1 - DC, P2 - AC, and Additional - an
optional question which allowed students to improve their
thematic assessment evaluation). The final grade distribution
is also presented, for information purposes.
Group A
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
G ra de (0-100)
Stu
de
nts
' P
erc
en
tag
e F inal Grade
Additional
P 1 (D C )
P 2 (AC )
FIGURE 5 GRADES DISTRIBUTION IN EXAM QUESTIONS, FOR GROUP A STUDENTS
Group B
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
G ra de (0-100)
Stu
de
nts
' P
erc
en
tag
e F inal G rade
Additional
P 1 (DC )
P 2 (AC )
FIGURE 6
GRADES DISTRIBUTION IN EXAM QUESTIONS, FOR GROUP B STUDENTS
Although the overall results are very poor - which is usual
for this course - group B students show a relatively higher
ratings distribution. Comparing the results of the students
who used VISIR with those who did not (e.g. for the P1
exam question, as shown in Figure 7 and 8), it appears that
not only students who used VISIR can achieve better overall
results, but also that group B students have a slight
supremacy.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stu
den
ts' P
erc
en
tag
e
Grade (0-100)
Group A
Students who used VISIR
Students with no VISIR access
FIGURE 7
GRADES DISTRIBUTION ON P1 EXAM QUESTION, FOR GROUP A STUDENTS
Session S4G
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S4G-7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stu
den
ts' P
erc
en
tag
e
Grade (0-100)
Group B
Students who used VISIR
Students with no VISIR access
FIGURE 8
GRADES DISTRIBUTION ON P1 EXAM QUESTION, FOR GROUP B STUDENTS
CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is a consensus in the remote lab literature
that a combination of remote and hands-on laboratories is
useful for students' learning be better sustained [1]. In our
study, we found that students, who already attended the
hands-on lab classes, could easily accompany the course
using VISIR. In general, comparing VISIR usage and
students’ results, students of group B (who already attended
lab classes) seems to be able to make more use of the
system, despite their initial reluctance (seen for instance in
the number of computers brought to class) and they show a
more continuous usage of the system throughout the 6
weeks, which can mean they use it in order to study for their
class assessment on this material. In fact all our results point
to similar or better results in these students.
Our findings are also aligned with literature concerning
the motivation and enthusiasm raised on students [3]. Since
the same tool was available to all students, we were able to
compare the way it leveraged students to use it. This
approach enabled to perceive a more active role dependent
on how students felt its usefulness, which is readily achieved
in group B students, who already understand their
difficulties more easily and are able to potentiate their
learning with VISIR.
REFERENCES
[1] Ma, J & Nickerson, J. V. Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote
Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review. ACM Computing
Surveys, vol. 38, no. 3, article 7. 2006.
[2] Feisel, L. D.,Rosa, A. J. The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. J.Eng. Education, 121–130. 2005.
[3] Lindsay, E. D., & Good, M. C. Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. .IEEE transactions on education, vol. 48, no. 4, pp.619-631. 2005.
[4] Nickerson, J V; Corter, J E; Esche, S. K. & Chassapis, C. “A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education”. Computers & Education, Volume 49, no.3, pp. 708-725. 2007.
[5] I Gustavsson, J. Zackrisson, K. Nilsson, J. Garcia-Zubia, L. Håkansson, I. Claesson, and T. Lagö, “A Flexible Electronics Laboratory with Local and Remote Workbenches in a Grid,” International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), vol. 4, n.º 2, pp. 12-16, 2008.
[6] I. Gustavsson et al., “On Objectives of Instructional Laboratories, Individual Assessment, and Use of Collaborative Remote Laboratories,” IEEE Trans. on Learning Tech., vol. 2, pp. 263-274, Oct.-Dec. 2009.
[7] N. Hine et al., “Institutional Factors Governing the Deployment of Remote Experiments: Lessons from the REXNET Project,” 4th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV'07), Porto, Portugal, June 2007.
[8] I. Gustavsson, “Teacher manual for VISIR,” https://openlabs.bth.se/electronics/index.php?page=AboutPage#, accessed 8th December, 2010.
[9] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London and New York: Routdlege Falmer, 2007
[10] I. Gustavsson et al., “On objectives of Instructional Laboratories, Individual Assessment, and Use Collaborative Remote Laboratories”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, vol.2, nº4, October-December 2009, pp.263-274.
[11] J. Garcia-Zubia, Hernández, I. Angulo, P. Orduña and J. Irurzun, “Acceptance, Usability and Usefulness of WebLab-Deusto from the Students Point of View”, Acceptance, Usability and Usefulness of WebLab-Deusto from Students Point of View, 2009.
[12] A. Hyder, S. K. Choi and D. Schaefer, “Remotely Controlled Laboratory Experiments: Creation and Examples”, Proceedings of 2010 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, April 23, 2010.
[13] Gustavo R. Alves et al., “Using remote experimentation in a large undergraduate course: initial findings”, IEEE Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp., Amman, Jordania, April 2011.
[14] J. D. Marx and K. Cummings, “Normalized Change”, American Journal of Physics, 75(1), pp.87-91, 2007.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
M. C. Costa Lobo, Psychologist, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] Gustavo R. Alves, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] M. A. Marques, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] C. Viegas, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] R. G. Barral, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] R. J. Couto, School of Engineering – ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] F. L. Jacob, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] C. A. Ramos, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] G. Vilão, Junior Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] D. S. Covita, Invited Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] Joaquim Alves, Adjunct Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] P. S. Guimarães, Junior Professor, ISEP - School of Engineering - Polytechnic of Porto, [email protected] Ingvar Gustavsson, Senior Professor, Blekinge Institute of Technology, [email protected]
Top Related