Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical Alternatives

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

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

3. 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?

4. Why do *you* have labs?

5. 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

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

7. 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

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

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

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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…

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

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

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

22. Proximal labs

23. Remote Labs

24. Virtual Labs

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

26. Equivalency? = + = +

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

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

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

30. 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”

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Perceptions of Objectives

36. Perceptions of Outcomes Mostly the same No significant differences

37. Objectives vs Outcomes

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

39. 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?

40. 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

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

42. 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

43. Not Equivalent ≠ + ≠ +

44. 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

45. YOU STILL NEED REAL LABS

46. Where Next?

47. www.labshare.edu.au

48. 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

49. 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

50. Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, not Logistical Alternatives