Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical Alternatives

1. Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical Alternatives Euan Lindsay Dept Mechanical Engineering Curtin University of Technology

2. A Bit About Me • Mechatronic Engineer • PhD in Engineering Education • Senior Lecturer in Mechatronic Engineering at Curtin • Black Belt Swordsman • Really poor guitar player • Recently Married

4. Warning! - Active Learning Ahead

5. Three Themes in Remote Labs • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

6. 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?

7. Why do *you* have labs?

8. 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

9. There are some downsides: • Expensive to run • Difficult to schedule • Safety issues • Space requirements – need a laboratory • Require physical attendance

10. 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

11. Which Motivates the Technical • From the logistical • Can we control this equipment remotely? • Can we teach our students online?

12. Three Themes in Remote Labs • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

13. 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”

14. 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

15. 4PM: 6.720J/3.43J exercise due 2PM: 6.012 exercise out (75 students) 4PM: 6.720J/3.43J exercise out (25 students) 2PM: 6.012 exercise due [Oct. 13-20, 2000] Capacity Planning • When are experiments done?

16. 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?

17. 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

18. Three Themes in Remote Labs • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

19. 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

20. 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? • Infrastructure for adoption • Research infrastructure and services • Adaptation services ???

21. 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 $$ And of course…

22. But Back to our List: • Where does any of this fit with why we actually have labs?

23. Three Themes in Remote Labs • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

24. Pedagogical Issues • We’re designing and building a learning experience for our students • Why a laboratory? Why a remote laboratory?

25. Proximal labs

26. Remote Labs

27. Virtual Labs

28. Two Necessary Ingredients: • Separation • Physical separation in remote labs • Psychological separation in virtual labs • Technology-Mediated Interface • Usually some kind of computer GUI

29. Equivalency? = + = +

30. Literature from elsewhere suggests perhaps no • Distance Education literature says separation causes changes • Technology in Education literature says interfaces cause changes

31. The Value of Laboratory Classes… …is that they’re different • Different objectives • Different methods • Different experiences Now We Have A Different Kind of Different

32. So What Kind of Differences? • Student happiness • Student assessment outcomes • Student learning outcomes • Students’ perceptions of learning outcomes

33. 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”

34. 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

35. Student Assessment Outcomes • The marks stay much the same • But they are different marks

36. 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

37. 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

38. Perceptions of Objectives

39. Perceptions of Outcomes Mostly the same No significant differences

40. Objectives vs Outcomes

41. One cross-theme topic: • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

42. 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?

43. 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

44. Three Themes in Remote Labs • Technical • Political • Pedagogical

45. 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

46. Not Equivalent ≠ + ≠ +

47. 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

48. YOU STILL NEED REAL LABS

49. 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

50. Research Directions (contd) • Establishment Reality vs Maintenance Reality • Using Game Engines • eg 2nd Life • Deception Trial • Is perception bigger than reality?