Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical

Alternatives

Dr Euan LindsayDept Mechanical Engineering

Curtin University of Technology

Three Themes in Remote Labs

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

The Purpose of Laboratory Classes

• Some analysis in the literature– Fiesel & Rosa 2005– Scanlon et al 2002– Antsaklis et al 1999

• Many good reasons– Why do *you* have laboratory

classes?

Why do *you* have labs?

Four underlying themes

• Illustrating and validating analytical concepts

• Introducing students to professional practice, and to the uncertainties involved in non-ideal situations

• Developing skills with instrumentation

• Developing social and teamwork skills in a technical environment

There are some downsides:

• Expensive to run• Difficult to schedule• Safety issues• Space requirements – need a

laboratory• Require physical attendance

Alternative Modes for Laboratories

• Remote Access– Hardware can be anywhere– Safety issues are reduced– Don’t need room around the

equipment– Asynchronous access

• Simulation Access– No hardware at all

Which Motivates the Technical

• From the logistical

• Can we control this equipment remotely?

• Can we teach our students online?

Three Themes in Remote Labs

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

The Answer is yes

• Standard industrial practice these days– Nobody manually moves valves in a

Siberian Oil Refinery

• First reported in Academia in 1996 – Aktan et al– “Second Best to Being There”

Types of Technical Approaches

• Remote Desktop - Commercial Software• Thick Client - Server • Web Services - Browser-based with

Plug-ins• Hybrid - UTS - control via remote

desktop, output viewer via browser

Capacity Planning• When are experiments done?

2PM: 6.012 exercise out

(75 students)

4PM: 6.720J/3.43J exercise out (25 students)

2PM: 6.012 exercise due

4PM: 6.720J/3.43J exercise due

[Oct. 13-20, 2000]

Access control

• The big difference between the industrial and the academic context– Who can access the equipment?– For how long?– Do you queue for access, or book a

time in advance?

So we have …

• Systems built for peak use– Most of the capacity is never used

• Systems for controlling and scheduling access

• A need to validate the investment in the equipment

• Colleagues excited by what we’ve achieved

LET’S SHARE LABS

Three Themes in Remote Labs

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

Political

• At the first glance, sharing remote labs is a great idea– Provides access to new equipment– Provides wider visibility for what we

have done– Inter/Multi/Trans-whatever

collaboration

But it’s not that simple

• Penalizing the Altruist– You’re willing to share your lab, but not your

time!

• Reputation– Can we be seen to be using their

equipment?

And of course…

• Who pays for it?– Access costs– Maintenance

Costs– Repair Costs

• Up front costs as a project are often ok, but it’s the ongoing costs that are difficult

$$

But Back to our List:

• Where does any of this fit with why we actually have labs?

Three Themes in Remote Labs

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

Pedagogical Issues

• We’re designing and building a learning experience for our students

• Why a laboratory? Why a remote laboratory?

Proximal labs

Remote Labs

Virtual Labs

Two Necessary Ingredients:

• Separation– Physical separation in remote labs– Psychological separation in virtual

labs

• Technology-Mediated Interface– Usually some kind of computer GUI

Equivalency?

=

+

=

+

Literature from elsewhere suggests perhaps no

• Distance Education literature says separation causes changes

• Technology in Education literature says interfaces cause changes

The Value of Laboratory Classes…

…is that they’re different

• Different objectives• Different methods• Different experiences

Now We Have A Different Kind of Different

So What Kind of Differences?

• Student happiness• Student assessment outcomes• Student learning outcomes• Students’ perceptions of learning

outcomes

Student Happiness

• Everyone reports that the students really like it

“whenever I tell someone that I can control cylinders in Sydney from my couch in Perth, people are

amazed”

But why are they happy?

• Novelty?• Hawthorne Effect?• Relaxed Scheduling Constraints?

– Flexible start time or flexible end time?

• Increased access?– Personal access rather than

“passenger” in a group

Student Assessment Outcomes

• The marks stay much the same– But they are different marks

Effect Sizes

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Eff

ec

t S

ize

(std

de

vs

)

S - P

R - P

S - P -0.26 -0.10 -0.20 -0.42 0.80 0.13 -0.64 -0.10

R - P 0.08 0.04 0.25 -0.04 0.88 0.50 0.09 0.26

out_A out_B out_C out_D out_E out_F out_G out_H

Student Learning Outcomes

• Students are more reflective in the remote mode– Amplification / filtering?

• Better able to handle unexpected data– And the consequences of that data

• Still understand physical meanings of their data– Something that gets lost in simulations

Perceptions of Learning outcomes

• Students have different expectations of the different access modes– Sometime explicit, sometimes implicit

• Students engage differently in the different modes

• Very similar experiences can lead to very different perceptions

Perceptions of Objectives

Perceptions of Outcomes

Mostly the sameNo significant differences

Objectives vs Outcomes

One cross-theme topic:

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

Transparency is Important

• Students must focus upon the equipment, not on the interface

• All the gains from remote labs go away if the interface is opaque

• The laboratory must still be real

• How real is real enough?

Establishment reality vs maintenance reality

• Different levels of reality are needed for different users– Novices need to establish reality– Regular users need to maintain reality– Expert users need neither

Three Themes in Remote Labs

•Technical

•Political

•Pedagogical

So What Does It All Mean?

• The different access modes are significantly different learning experiences, and the students construct significantly different outcomes – outcomes that will be the prior knowledge for their future learning.

• The modes are not simply interchangeable

Not Equivalent

≠+

≠+

Two Consequences

• If the mode is fixed, then compensate for the deficiencies– Reconcile objectives with outcomes,

remote need transparency, simulation need reminders of reality

• If the mode is free, choose the mode that emphasises the desired outcomes– Non-proximal promote exception

handling, simulations will promote focus on theory

YOU STILL NEED

REAL LABS

Where Next?

www.labshare.edu.au

Where next? - Research Directions

• The Nature of Interactions– Student-Equipment, Student-

Demonstrator, Student-Student– Seeking information, seeking

confirmation– What it is about the supervision that

makes the supervision valuable? About the group context?

• Intelligent tutoring systems

Research Directions (contd)

• Establishment Reality vs Maintenance Reality

• Using Game Engines– eg 2nd Life

• Hybrid Laboratories– Why stick to one mode when they

achieve different things?• Use the right laboratory for the

right outcomes

Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical

Alternatives