The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.04 - October-December (2009 vol.2)
pp: 331-341
Ben Hanson , University College London, London
Peter Culmer , University of Leeds, Leeds
Justin Gallagher , University of Leeds, Leeds
Kate Page , University of Leeds, Leeds
Elizabeth Read , Royal Academy of Engineering, London
Andrew Weightman , University of Leeds, Leeds
Martin Levesley , University of Leeds, Leeds
Remote laboratories are increasingly being developed to provide students with Web-based access to real laboratory experiments. The demonstrable advantages (e.g., increased accessibility) are tempered by concerns that remote access will be substituted for "hands-on” practical work, and reduce interaction between students. We argue that these concerns can be avoided if remote labs are used appropriately, as with any other pedagogical method. We review studies that have made direct comparisons between remote and hands-on labs, and analyze the important similarities and differences by considering the students' physical and psychological experiences. A case study is presented: "ReLOAD”, which has been in operation since 2001 providing remote operation of dynamic experiments in Mechanical Engineering, featuring personalized experiments, immediate automated grading and feedback, and collaborative learning. We present results from online surveys and from focus groups of students' opinions and experiences with hands-on and remote labs. Drawing from this experience, the characteristic properties of remote-access labs are investigated from a pedagogical perspective. We find that many of the differences and similarities between the modalities are controllable factors, to greater or lesser extents, and provide examples of remote labs offering some valuable educational advantages which are not possible with traditional labs.
Engineering, collaborative learning, distance learning, personalized e-learning.
Ben Hanson, Peter Culmer, Justin Gallagher, Kate Page, Elizabeth Read, Andrew Weightman, Martin Levesley, "ReLOAD: Real Laboratories Operated at a Distance", IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol.2, no. 4, pp. 331-341, October-December 2009, doi:10.1109/TLT.2009.35
[1] N.J. Nersessian, “Conceptual Changes in Science and Science Education,” History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, pp. 133-148, OISE Press, 1991.
[2] M.P. Clough, Using the Laboratory to Enhance Student Learning, Learning Science and the Science of Learning, R.W. By-Bee, ed., pp.85-97, Nat'l Science Teachers Assoc., 2002.
[3] D.J. Magin and S. Kanapathipillai, “Engineering Students' Understanding of the Role of Experimentation,” European J. Eng. Education, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 351-358, 2000.
[4] R. Barnard, “Experience with Low Cost Laboratory Data,” Int'l J. Mechanical Eng. Education, vol. 13, pp. 91-96, 1985.
[5] J. Ma and J.V. Nickerson, “Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 38, no. 3, 2006.
[6] “Inter-University Teaching and Its Funding in the UK,” Univ. of Cambridge, United Kingdom, Mar. 2008.
[7] D. Krehbiel, R. Zerger, and J.K. Piper, “A Remote-Access Lab-VIEW-Based Laboratory for Environmental and Ecological Science,” Int'l J. Eng. Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 495-502, 2003.
[8] A. Selmer, M. Kraft, R. Moros, and C.K. Colton, “Weblabs in Chemical Engineering Education,” Education for Chemical Engineers, vol. 2, pp. 38-45, 2007.
[9] D. Lang, C. Mengelkamp, R.S. Jager, D. Geoffroy, M. Billaud, and T. Zimmer, “Pedagogical Evaluation of Remote Laboratories in eMerge Project,” European J. Eng. Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 57-72, 2007.
[10] A.P.H. Weightman, P. Culmer, M.C. Levesley, and B.M. Hanson, “An Application of Remotely Controlled Experiments to Perform Feedforward and Feedback Damping Control of an Electro Mechanical Servomechanism,” Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Web Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 419-426, Mar. 2007.
[11] M.C. Levesley, P. Culmer, and P. Cripton, “An Application of Remotely Controlled Experiments to Perform Feedback-Damping Control of a Vibrating Beam,” Proc. Second Int'l Assoc. for Science and Technology for Development (IASTED) Int'l Conf. Education and Technology, pp. 233-238, July 2006.
[12] T.B. Sheridan, “Descartes, Heidegger, Gibson, and God: Towards an Eclectic Ontology of Presence,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 551-559, 1999.
[13] F. Biocca, “Inserting the Presence of Mind into a Philosophy of Presence: A Response to Sheridan and Mantovaniand Riva,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 546-556, 2001.
[14] J.V. Nickerson, J.E. Corter, S.K. Esche, and C. Chassapis, “A Model for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Remote Engineering Laboratories and Simulations in Education,” Computers and Education, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 708-725, Nov. 2007.
[15] F. Koens, K.V. Mann, E.J.F.M. Custers, and O.T.J. Ten Cate, “Analysing the Concept of Context in Medical Education,” Medical Education, vol. 39, pp. 1243-1249, 2005.
[16] S.M. Smith and E. Vela, “Environmental Context-Dependent Memory: A Review and Meta-Analysis,” Psychonomic Bull. Rev., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 203-220, 2001.
[17] M.C. Levesley, P. Culmer, K. Page, J. Gallagher, B.B. Bhakta, A. Tennant, and P. Cripton, “Development and Evaluation of Personalised Remote Experiments in an Engineering Degree,” Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Web Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 330-337, Mar. 2007.
[18] E.D. Lindsay and M.C. Good, “Effects of Laboratory Access Modes Upon Learning Outcomes,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 619-631, 2005.
[19] E. Read, B. Hanson, and M.C. Levesley, “Curriculum Development to Support the Needs of Widening Participation Students,” Eng. Education: J. Higher Education Academy of Eng. Subject Centre, vol. 3, no. 1, 2008.
[20] G.R. Evans, “Teaching,” Academics and the Real World, pp. 38-58, Soc. for Research into Higher Education & Open Univ. Press, 2002.
[21] L. Elton, “Student Motivation and Achievement,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 215-221, 1988.
[22] E. Read and Sarmiento, “Using Business Plans as Assessment Tools for Engineering Students: A European Perspective,” Proc. Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conf. (IntEnt '05), July 2005.
[23] S.D. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, pp. 49-70. Jossey-Bass, 1995.
[24] S. Rowland, The Enquiring University: Enquiry and the Reintegration of Teaching and Research. Open Univ. Press, 2006.
[25] C. Juwah, D. Macfarlane-Dick, B. Matthew, D. Nicol, D. Ross, and B. Smith, “Enhancing Student Learning through Effective Formative Feedback,” The Higher Education Academy Generic Centre, June 2004.
[26] J.F. Gallagher, M.C. Levesley, P. Culmer, A. Weightman, K. Page, B. Hanson, and P. Cripton, “ReLOAD-SAFE: A System for Submission, Assessment, Feedback and Evaluation of Remote Experiments,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Eng. Education (EE '08), pp. 14-16, July 2008.
751 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool