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. 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]

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. 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 $$

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 2 nd Life Deception Trial –Is perception bigger than reality?

51. Where next? – Development Directions Hybrid Laboratories –Why stick to one mode when they achieve different things? Shared laboratories –Curtin, UTS, UniSA, RMIT & QUT Use the right laboratory for the right outcomes

52. http://remotelabs.eng.uts.edu.au

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