The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - October-December (2009 vol.2)
pp: 275-288
Drago Cmuk , University of Zagreb, Zagreb
Tarik Mutapcic , University of Zagreb, Zagreb
Ivan Bilic , University of Zagreb, Zagreb
ABSTRACT
Emersion of Websites that enable users to easily participate in creation of their content moved individuals on a scale rarely seen before. Web 2.0 transformed the passive reader into an active user and millions of users were drawn into a community previously reserved for professionals only. Users became able to experiment with data, collaborate with other users, and add value to a community of users. A similar revolution is needed in the electrical engineering education. In this field, courses offer a significant amount of theory and generally an unstimulating content to the students. Remote laboratories (RLs) could, however, make a difference. Instead of being passive collectors of the theory, students could become active builders of their own knowledge. At this point, the design of such a laboratory becomes important. Without a detailed user-oriented design, RL could have a counterproductive effect, generating frustration instead of motivation. A team of researchers used the QFD method to translate multidimensional and interdependent user requirements into the RL design model—MIRACLE. The MIRACLE model is based on survey results, instructional design, and good e-learning practice, and as such this model brings satisfaction, raises effectiveness and motivation, and makes electrical engineering courses appealing to students.
INDEX TERMS
Remote laboratory, e-learning, user-oriented design.
CITATION
Drago Cmuk, Tarik Mutapcic, Ivan Bilic, "MIRACLE—Model for Integration of Remote Laboratories in Courses that Use Laboratory and e-Learning Systems", IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol.2, no. 4, pp. 275-288, October-December 2009, doi:10.1109/TLT.2009.48
REFERENCES
[1] J. Ma and J. Nickerson, “Hands-On, Simulated and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 7, 2006.
[2] T. Brown, “Beyond Constructivism: Exploring,” Education Today, http://www.dreamland.co.nz/educationtoday Tom_Brown_ Beyond_Constructivism.pdf, 2005.
[3] C.J. Bonk and C.R. Graham, Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, 2004.
[4] M. Brenda, “Learning Theories of Instructional Design,” http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/ 802papers/mergel brenda.htm, May 1998.
[5] L.D. Fink, Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass, 2003.
[6] D. Cmuk et al., “A Novel Approach to Remote Teaching: Multilanguage Magnetic Measurement Experiment,” IEEE Trans. Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 724-730, Apr. 2008.
[7] J.M. Keller, “The Systematic Process of Motivational Design,” Performance and Instruction, vol. 26, nos. 9/10, pp. 1-8, 1987.
[8] A.Y. Kolb and D.A. Kolb, “Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education,” Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 193-212, 2005.
[9] R.M. Felder and L.K. Silverman, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education,” Eng. Education, vol. 78, no. 7, pp. 674-681, 1988.
[10] J.E. Corter et al., “Remote versus Hands-On Labs: A Comparative Study,” Proc. Frontiers in Education Conf., vol. 2, pp. 17-21, 2004.
[11] G. Andria et al., “Remote Didactic Laboratory ‘G. Savastano,’ Italian Experience for e-Learning,” IEEE Trans. Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1135-1147, Aug. 2007.
[12] A.W. Bates and G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education, pp. 47-74, Jossey Bass, 2003.
[13] R. Zemsky and W.F. Massy, “Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-Learning and Why?” The Learning Alliance for Higher Education, http://www.thelearningalliance.info/Docs/ Jun2004ThwartedInnovation.pdf, 2004.
[14] M. Ogot, G. Eliott, and N. Glumac, “Hands-On Laboratory Experience via Remote Control: Jet Thrust Laboratory,” Proc. Am. Soc. for Eng. Education Ann. Conf. and Exposition, 2002.
[15] D. Varnava-Marouchou, “21st Century Trends in Education: Implications for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education,” Proc. Fifth Int'l Conf. Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET '04), pp. 443-448, 2004.
[16] P.R. Polsani, “E-Learning and the Status of Knowledge in the Information Age,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Computers in Education, pp.1068-1069, 2004.
[17] J. Gerhard and P. Mayr, “Competing in the E-Learning Environment—Strategies for Universities,” Proc. 35th Int'l Conf. System Sciences, 2002.
[18] T. Brown, “Beyond Constructivism: Navigationism in the Knowledge Era,” On the Horizon, no. 3, vol. 14, pp. 108-120, 2006.
[19] IMS, “Instructional Management System. IMS Global Learning Consortium: Specifications,” www.imsglobal.orgspecifications. html, 2006.
[20] N.C. Alparslan, N.E. Cagiltay, M. Ozen, and E. Uray Aydin, “Teaching Usage of Equipments in a Remote Laboratory,” The Turkish Online J. Educational Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1303-6521, Jan. 2008.
[21] Z.L. Berge and M.P. Collins, “Technology and Changing Roles in Education,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Professional Comm. Conf. pp. 13-18, Sept. 1995.
[22] I.J. Jason, “The Definition of the Field of Instructional Technology,” http://www.ianjones.us/portfolio/PDFThe%20Field%20of%20 InstructionalTechnology.pdf , Apr. 2008.
[23] M.E. Noam, “Electronics and the Dim Future of the University,” Science, vol. 270, pp. 247-249, Oct. 1995.
[24] M. Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” On the Horizon, vol. 9, 2001.
[25] L. Feisel and D. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education,” J. Electrical Eng., vol. 94, no. 1, Jan. 2005.
[26] J.M. Keller, “How to Integrate Learner Motivation Planning into Lesson Planning: The ARCS Model Approach,” http://mailer. fsu. edu/~jkeller/Articles Keller%202000%20ARCS%20Lesson%20 Planning.pdf , 2000.
[27] Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, “MIT iCampus. iLabs Architecture,” http://icampus.mit.edu/ilabs/architecture/ content ?iLabsInteractive10, 2007.
[28] Univ. of South Australia, NetLab, http://netlab.unisa.edu.au/facesframeset.jsp , 2006.
[29] G. Andria et al., “Remote Didactic Laboratory ‘G. Savastano,’ The Italian Experience for E-Learning at the Technical Universities in the Field of Electrical and Electronic Measurement: Architecture and Optimization of the Communication Performance,” IEEE Trans. Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1124-1134, 2007.
[30] D. Vujevic, Mjeranja u Elektrotehnici—Upute za Labora-Torijske Vježbe. Dorsum d.o.o., fifth ed., pp. 142-143, 2004.
[31] N. Ertugrul, “Magnetic Circuit Fundamentals,” Nat'l Instruments Developer Zone, http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id4292 , 2003.
[32] D. Dagger et al., “Service-Oriented E-Learning Platforms,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 28-35, May/June 2007.
[33] Y. Akao, “Development History of Quality Function Deployment,” The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment, p. 339, Asian Productivity Organization, 1994.
[34] Int'l Standard Organization, “ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems—Requirements,” http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_ catalogue/catalogue_tc catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=21823 , 2007.
[35] R.E. Zultner, “Priorities: The Analytic Hierarchy Process in QFD,” Proc. Fifth Symp. Quality Function Deployment, 1993.
[36] A.J. Lowe, “QFD Tutorial,” Webducate—Inovative Solutions for e-Learning, http://elsmar.com/pdf_filesQFD-Tutorial.swf , 2000.
[37] J.E. Ashby, “The Effectiveness of Collaborative Technologies in Remote Lab Delivery Systems,” Proc. 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf., pp. F4E-7-F4E-12, Oct. 2008.
35 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool