This document proposes a tabletop interface to enhance practical knowledge among students through hands-on learning activities. It discusses the current shortcomings in practical education in Indian schools, including a lack of proper resources and time for reflection. Teachers face pressures that discourage exploratory learning and students are often exam-focused without understanding the purpose of activities. The proposed tabletop interface aims to support collaborative, activity-based learning to help address these issues by facilitating hands-on experiments and discussions in a group setting.

1. Enhancing practical knowledge among students through
table top interface
Neeraj Talukdar, Avinandan Basu, Prince Bharali,
Linu George, Rupam Das, Ravi Mokashi Punekar
Department of Design
IIT Guwahati
North Guwahati-781039, Assam
{n.talukdar, avinadan, linu, b.prince, d.rupam, mokashi}@iitg.ernet.in
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses the current state of affairs in the context of
practical education in schools and proposes a solution in the form
of a table-top interface for conducting practical activities. At a
global level, one could argue that tabletops convey a socio-
constructivist flavor: they support small teams that solve problems
by exploring multiple solutions. The development of tabletop
applications also witnesses the growing importance of face-to-face
collaboration in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL) and acknowledges the physicality of learning. Our
solution tries to incorporate the advantages of a table-top setup in
the context of Indian schools for facilitation of activity based
learning in a collaborative manner. We present an application
scenario dealing with a particular section and illustrate some
preliminary ideas.
ACM Classification Keywords
K.3 [Computing Milieux]: Computers and Education;H.5.3
[Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g., HCI)]:
Group and Organization Interfaces – computer-supported
co-operative work
General Terms
Design, Human Factors
Keywords
Learning Science, Table-top interface, CSCW, Laboratory
Instruction
INTRODUCTION
Practical work is defined as learning experiences in which
students interact with materials or with secondary sources of data
to observe and understand the natural world (for example: aerial
photographs to examine lunar and earth geographic features;
spectra to examine the nature of stars and atmospheres; sonar
images to examine living systems[19].
Contemporary science education literature continue to suggest
that school science activities have the potential to be an important
medium for introducing students to central conceptual and
procedural knowledge and skills in science[18].Practical
knowledge is essential to conceive the relationship between nature
and science and is shown to have developed interest in the subject
among students (CBSE report, 2005).
The crucial role of hands on experiments in the STEM curriculum
to motivate and deepen understanding is universally accepted. In
India, many schools lack equipment in science labs and in rural
areas there is a lack of teachers depriving students of STEM
education. The intention of the project is to develop a
technological intervention at the classroom level which would
assist students to perform activities and experiments in a
collaborative manner.
CURRENT SCENARIO
CBSE and practical knowledge:
The CBSE intends to impart practical knowledge to students via
two mediums: Explicit Lab experiments and Textbook activities.
However, the accessibility and availability of pertinent resources
in completing the textbook activities is questionable (CBSE
report, 2005), as could be supported by the findings from the
ethnographic study.
Also according to CBSE lack of proper assessment of the
procedural knowledge of science due to large number of students
and improper planning and management is also another reason
behind the unfortunate marginalization or neglect of experimental
work in Indian schools.
According to Gunstone [5], using the laboratory to have students
restructure their knowledge may seem reasonable but this idea is
also naive since developing scientific ideas from practical
experiences is a very complex process. Gunstone and Champagne
[6] suggested that meaningful learning in the laboratory would
occur if students were given sufficient time and opportunities for
interaction and reflection. Students generally do not have time or
opportunity to interact and reflect on central ideas in the
laboratory since they are usually involved in technical activities
with few opportunities to express their interpretation and beliefs
about the meaning of their inquiry. They normally have few
opportunities for metacognitive activities. The same observations
were made in the field study.
Also it was observed that the explicit laboratory activities
provided by the CBSE were not conducted when the
corresponding theory was being taught. The lack of in-time
procedural knowledge is a factor behind the non-reflective nature
of the students’ interactions and also behind their lack of interest.

2. Attitude of Teachers
The factor of time has been observed (from ethnographic study) to
be a critical factor which hinders teachers from indulging the
students in exploratory, student directed inquiry methods. Less
time is generated due to pressure from CBSE in the form of
formative evaluation and lack of sufficient class hours.
Teachers are often confused about their role in instruction when
students are engaged in hands-on activity. Many teachers are
concerned about an adjustment they may have to make in their
teaching style to facilitate hands-on programs as well as how
students will react to increased responsibility and freedom [23]
and also validated by ethnographic study. Several studies have
reported that very often teachers involve students principally in
relatively low-level, routine activities in laboratories and that
teacher–student interactions focused principally on low-level
procedural knowledge.
Teachers might not perceive that laboratory activities can serve as
a principal means of enabling students to construct meaningful
knowledge of science, and they might not engage students in lab
activities in ways that are likely to promote the development of
science concepts [11].
In addition, many teachers do not perceive that helping students
understand how scientific knowledge is developed and used in a
scientific community is an especially important goal of laboratory
activities for their students [11].
Difficulty of tailoring laboratory activities to the needs of diverse
students caused some teachers to avoid laboratory investigations,
particularly when working with students having low motivation
and skill [79].
Brickhouse and Bodner [26] reported that students’ concerns
about their grades has a strong influence on teachers’ practices.
More specifically, they suggested that some teachers will
emphasize goals for learning and use teaching techniques that are
aligned with students’ ability to earn high grades. The very same
was supported by the field study.
A general consensus that was reached after the user survey
conducted with teachers from Faculty Higher Secondary School
strengthened our preliminary investigations and consolidated most
of the general findings that have been reported above.
Fig 1. User survey with teachers from Faculty
Higher Secondary School, Guwahati
Attitude of Students
It has been observed in the field study that students also lack time
due to the diverse activities they are involved in. Some students
were found to lack interest. An important point to note is that their
goals are highly influenced by grades and their parents. Parental
pressure is one of the major factor affecting the academic and
social goal of the students. So if a change is to be brought, it has
to be brought in the grass root level when the students start
developing attitude towards the subject.
Chang and Lederman [60] and others (e.g. Wilkenson & Ward
[61]) have found that often students do not have clear ideas about
the general or specific purposes for their work in science
activities. Many students engage in laboratory activities in which
they follow recipes and gather and record data without a clear
sense of the purposes and procedures of their investigation and
their interconnections. Other studies have shown that students
often perceive that the principal purpose for a laboratory
investigation is either following the instructions or getting the
right answer. They may perceive that manipulating equipment and
measuring are goals but fail to perceive much more important
conceptual or even procedural goals. Students often fail to
understand and to question the relationship between the purpose
of their investigation and the design of the experiment they have
conducted, they do not connect the experiment with what they
have done earlier, and they seldom note the discrepancies between
their own concepts, the concepts of their peers, and those of the
science community [62] [63] This can be attributed to the
temporal disconnect Consistent with the findings of Lunetta and
Tamir [65] and others, students seldom get the opportunities to
use higher-level cognitive skills or to discuss substantive
scientific knowledge associated with the investigation, and many
of the tasks presented to them continue to follow a “cookbook”
approach [78]. An exam-oriented approach towards academics
with significant parental pressure generates a competitive
environment, which subdues the curiosity of the students. All
these factors can lead to an indifferent attitude on the part of the
student regarding the lab activities. A change in the psychological
perspective of the student needs to be brought about and this is
possible if interventions are made at a primary stage of
development. The idea that “Lab” needs to be a place not for
manipulating equipment but manipulating ideas, must be brought
to focus. The following is the user survey data that we collected
from a group of 30 students of eighth standard from KV IIT,
Guwahati. Illustrations are in the form of bar graphs.
Fig 2. User survey data on the question
whether the activities are done in the class(X-
axis: Likert score and Y-axis: No. of students)

3. Fig 3. User survey data on the question
whether the facilities are available for
performing the activities in the class(X-axis:
Likert score and Y-axis: No. of students)
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is no doubt that lab-based courses play an important role in
scientific education. Nersessian [5] goes so far as to claim that
“hands-on experience is at the heart of science learning” and
Clough [2002] declares that laboratory experiences “make science
come alive.” Lab courses have a strong impact on students’
learning outcomes, according to Magin et al. [27].
Researchers have convincingly argued that information
technology has dramatically changed the laboratory education
landscape [28]. The nature and practices of laboratories have been
changed by two new technology-intensive automations: simulated
labs [29] and remote labs [30] as alternatives for conventional
hands-on labs. Each type of lab has been discussed from different
perspectives [31] [32] [33]. However, there is no conclusive
answer to the key question: Can technology promote students’
learning or not? The two new forms of laboratory are seen by
some as educational enablers [69] 70] [71] and by others as
inhibitors [72] [73]. The relative effectiveness of the two new
laboratories compared with traditional hands-on labs is seldom
explored.
Jing Ma et al. [74] categorizes labs into three categories: Hands-
on, simulated and remote. The three types of labs are sometimes
compared to each other, while in other cases the labs are merged.
A number of articles evaluated remote laboratories in comparison
to hands-on laboratories [67] [68] [40] or simulated laboratories
in comparison to hands-on laboratories. Engum et al. [66] showed
that hands-on labs were more effective than simulated; however, it
needs to be noted that the problem domain, the placement of an
intravenous catheter by nursing students, might reasonably be
expected to require hands-on training, which in turn biased the
outcome of the study in favour of Hands-on lab. The general
consensus of these comparison studies, with the exception of
Engum et al., is that there is no significant and consistent
difference between hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories
as measured by the results of lab reports or testing.
Hands-On Labs. Hands-on labs involve a physically real
investigation process. Two characteristics distinguish hands-on
from the other two labs: (1) All the equipment required to perform
the laboratory is physically set up; and (2) the students who
perform the laboratory are physically present in the lab.
Advocates argue that hands-on labs provide the students with real
data and “unexpected clashes”—the disparity between theory and
practical experiments that is essential in order for students to
understand the role of experiments. Such experiences are missing
in simulated labs [39]. On the other hand, hands-on experiments
are seen as too costly. Hands-on labs put a high demand on space,
instructor time, and experimental infrastructure, all of which are
subject to rising costs [45] [58].A continuous decline in hands-on
laboratory courses has been noted. The ASEE [1987] suggested
that “making use of advances in information technology” might be
a “cost-effective approach” towards economizing laboratory-
based courses. Also, due to the limitation of space and resources,
hands-on labs are unable to meet some of the special needs of
disabled students [55] and distant users [38]. Additionally,
students’ assessments suggest that students are not satisfied with
current hands-on labs [56] [57] and also validated by qualitative
user survey.
Simulated Labs. Simulated labs are the imitations of real
experiments. All the infrastructure required for laboratories is not
real, but simulated on computers. The advocates of simulated labs
argue that they are not only necessary, but valuable. First,
simulated labs are seen as a way to the deal with the increasing
expenses of hands-on laboratories. Simulations purportedly
reduce the amount of time it takes to learn. Additionally,
simulated labs are seen as being at least as effective as traditional
hands-on labs [37] in that “the students using a simulator are able
to ‘stop the world’ and ‘step outside’ of the simulated process to
review and understand it better”[36]. Furthermore, they are also
embraced for creating an active mode of learning that thereby
improves students’ performance [44]. Detractors argue that
excessive exposure to simulation will result in a disconnection
between real and virtual worlds [39]. Data from simulated labs are
not real and therefore, the students can’t learn by trial-and-error
[76]. Another concern about simulation is its cost. Some note that
the cost of simulation is not necessarily lower than that of real
labs [54]. Realistic simulations take a large amount of time and
expense to develop and still may fail to faithfully model reality
[Papathanassiou et al. 1999]. The theory of situated learning [53]
would suggest that what students learn from simulations is
primarily how to run simulations.
Remote Labs. Remote labs are characterized by mediated reality.
Similar to hands-on labs, they require space and devices. What
makes them different from real labs is the distance between the
experiment and the experimenter. In real labs, the equipment
might be mediated through computer control, but co-located. By
contrast, in remote labs experimenters obtain data by controlling
geographically detached equipment. In other words, reality in
remote labs is mediated by distance. Remote labs are becoming
more popular [51] [52]. They have the potential to provide
affordable real experimental data through sharing experimental
devices with a pool of schools [40] [41]. Also, a remote lab can
extend the capability of a conventional laboratory. Along one
dimension, its flexibility increases the number of times and places
a student can perform experiments [43] [46]. Along another, its
availability is extended to more students [42]. Additionally,
comparative studies show that students are motivated and willing
to work in remote labs [42]. Some students even think remote labs
are more effective than working with simulators [59].

4. RELATED WORK
Several initiatives have been taken in the form of technological
interventions to assist activity and experiment oriented learning.
Amrita, in consortium projects with research grants from MHRD
and DIT, has developed a Multilingual Collaborative
platform(project CAPPS) that teachers can use to deploy
simulations, animations, remote access to remote equipment and
other media learning material to provide an interactive
supplemental learning environment to perform lab experiments
that promote STEM+ skills. The framework allows 'learning-
enabled assessment' of practical skills and allows evaluation of
both reporting and procedural skills. Various online scaffolds are
used during assessment which help students focus and redirect
their efforts to the appropriate task needed for mastery of the skill.
Laboratory experience is critical for effective science education,
but it is unfortunately not a possibility for many students in
developing countries with more limited resources. Remote
laboratories, which offer real equipment that can be accessed and
manipulated via the internet, are feasible lower-cost alternatives to
traditional in-person laboratories. With the ever-expanding
presence of mobile networks in even the most remote areas of
developing countries, there is an opportunity to provide laboratory
experiences to those students who would otherwise not have
them. ROSE (Remotely Operated Science Experiment) is a project
which works on the concept of Remote Labs to deliver practical
education to students in schools which lack facilities. A test was
carried out wherein the students were given the opportunity to see
the effects of temperature, water and air on the growth of a
particular plant species where they could control those parameters
via sensors. The ideal growth of the plant needed to be
maintained. Groups of three were divided and asked to come up
with the most accurate solution. Collaboration was observed to a
certain extent.
Lab@Future [75] is a prototype system for supporting secondary
school laboratory education. The Lab@Future platform is focused
on supporting novel pedagogical concepts and learning practices
based on constructivism, combined with action oriented learning
such as real-problem solving, collaborative learning, exploratory
learning and interdisciplinary learning by pioneering the
implementation of a “mixed and augmented reality” into an e-
learning platform incorporating: 3D, Virtual reality, mobile and
wireless technologies. It is important to highlight two concepts:
Activity Theory and Constructivist Model at this point.
Activity Theory
Activity theory and the theory of expansive learning determining
that ‘subjects’ or participants (e.g. students and teachers) in a
learning activity consciously and unconsciously are engaged in
dynamic learning goal or object formation. This entails that the
outcome from a learning experience or activity cannot always be
predicted because it will be influenced by several factors
operating within the contextual environment or community in
which teaching and learning takes place. This pedagogical stance
therefore, emphasizes the fact that knowledge emerges as a result
of disturbances or conflicts in learning activity, which results in
the construction of novel practical activity systems and artefacts
for use in real life contexts. Therefore, participants in a learning
activity are essentially involved in constructing new:
 Learning activities
 Methods for teaching and learning
 Tools for exploring and interacting with learning objects
(e.g. application sharing tools, content management
tools etc.).
Constructivist Model
Developing practical knowledge involves developing investigative
experiences upon which the students can construct scientific
concepts within a community of learners. These experiences are
generally developed out of teacher’s expectations. But we can
assist students to develop this using collaborative reflective
investigative activities designed for the specific context. The
investigative experiences are developed through “inquiry”.
Inquiry refers to diverse ways in which scientists study the natural
world, propose ideas, and explain and justify assertions based
upon evidence derived from scientific work. It also refers to more
authentic ways in which learners can investigate the natural world,
propose ideas, and explain and justify assertions based upon
evidence and, in the process, sense the spirit of science.
Baird (1990) is one of several persons who has observed that the
laboratory learning environment warrants a radical shift from
teacher-directed learning to “purposeful-inquiry” that is more
student-directed. The investigations to gain insight are
participatory and explorative in nature, the goals of which might
not be very discernable by the students when the inquiry is
teacher-directed. The goals of the instructions can be achieved
when the students can understand them.
Instructional Simulations in education
Interacting with instructional simulations can help students
understand a real system, process, or phenomenon. Lunetta and
Hofstein [64]. Both practical activities and instructional
simulations can enable students to confront and resolve problems,
to make decisions, and to observe the effects. Simulations can be
designed to provide meaningful representations of inquiry
experiences that are often not possible with real materials in many
science topics. In such cases, simulations engage students in
investigations that are too long or too slow, too dangerous, too
expensive, or too time or material consuming to conduct in school
laboratories. It is well established that engaging students in
appropriate simulations takes considerably less time than
engaging them in equivalent laboratory activities with materials.
This resolves the issue of time constraints which is often used as
an excuse on the part of the teacher in avoiding the textbook
activities. This also addresses the hurdle of unavailability of
resources. Presentation of the simulation at the time of imparting
the concept overcomes the problem of temporal disconnection,
which could facilitate better understanding of concepts.
Smart classes provides such type of instructional simulations. But
the frequency of use of smart classes in schools is questionable as
was observed in the field study.
The other advantage of instructional simulations is that it can be
used in a way to which the students can connect to easily and thus
reflect on it. Also it can be provided in-time with reference to the
theoretical framework. The simulations would provide a means of
personalization for each of the activities and would provide a

5. learning environment which could be incorporated with means for
shared understanding. Students learn not only from equipment,
but from interactions with peers and teachers [74]. A collaborative
approach in learning has been found to be fruitful in many cases,
leveraging cooperative decision making and equitable
participation by group members.
.
Table top interface in education
Desktop computers based on a single-user/single-computer
paradigm [20], which restricts the children in their behavior. Scott
et al. [19] have for instance shown that forcing children to share
one input device leads to boredom and off-task behavior. Children
rather enjoy technology that supports concurrent activities. These
findings are coherent with the results of Inkpen et al. [35]. They
found earlier that children exhibit a significantly higher level of
engagement and activity when working alongside each other.
Such findings are especially relevant for one particular activity
that most children share: education. A collaborative environment
is more likely to elicit increased intrinsic motivation, which is an
important factor in productive learning of new skills. This is
where table top interfaces have the upper hand.
Table top interfaces have been used in numerous settings,
especially in the domain of education. There are certain
advantages which it provides [16]. Tabletops have a specific
educational flavor. While most CSCL (Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning) environments are designed for on-line
activities, tabletops are designed for co-located teamwork [50].
Even if some on-line functionality is integrated in some tabletops,
it generally constitutes an enrichment of face-to-face interaction
rather than the central activity [50]. Tabletop devices illustrate the
evolution of CSCL from virtual spaces to the physical realm
(touching objects or co-learners, conveying intention through
gesture and posture, etc. Tabletops have a set of specific
affordances, including the ability to physically support objects and
to afford co-located collaboration and coordination.
Interactive tabletop technology inherently supports social
interaction and provides a shared experience for learners and
educators, both of which are central to one’s learning process
[24].
The distribution of large displays and their impact on
collaboration and social patterns has mostly been investigated in
the working domain. Vertical large displays provide affordances
for shared visualization and do not cause orientation conflicts, but
hinder active multi user simultaneous interaction. The physical
affordances of the table seem to provide social affordances [5]
suitable for co-located collaboration: in particular, it seems that
the horizontal orientation of the display is raising more
discussion, which is the parameter mostly adopted to assess co-
located collaboration. Collaboration and social patterns has
mostly been investigated in the working domain. Vertical large
displays provide affordances for shared visualization and do not
cause orientation conflicts, but hinder active multi user
simultaneous interaction. The physical affordances of the table
seem to provide social affordances [5] suitable for co-located
collaboration: in particular, it seems that the horizontal orientation
of the display is raising more discussion, which is the parameter
mostly adopted to assess co-located collaboration.
DESIGN-PROCESS
The goal of our application is not to teach activity based skills
explicitly, but rather to provide a motivating and supportive
paradigm through which students may practice social and group
work skills in the process of performing lab based activities and
experiments which are otherwise neglected.
We aimed to develop a cooperative, multi-player tabletop game
that encourages meaningful application of group work skills such
as negotiation, turn-taking, active listening, and peer-learning for
students to understand and perform practical activities.
User Profile
The user profile chosen was that of an eighth grade student and
content chosen was that of plants and its various processes like
germination, photosynthesis, transpiration, transportation,
reproduction etc. Various activities related to these processes have
been included in the NCERT textbooks which aim at creating a
practical mindset among the students regarding the various
concepts.
Game Concept
We intend to create an entire game in the form of a package to
demonstrate the various practical activities in the chapter of plants
and their processes. A fictional world would be simulated and
level wise progression would take place where each level would
consist of a particular challenge that would require collaborative
effort from the students. Each challenge would correspond to a
particular practical concept that the students would need to master
before passing on the next level. Inquiry driven approach would
be engendered following a series of mini challenges that would be
inculcated in each level. For a quick prototype, we have taken the
process of germination.
Fig 4. Screenshots of the level involving
germination of the plant
Game rules
Each user has a small physical input device that can be placed on
the table, thus triggering the visualization of an overlapping
graphical interface. For simplicity, we have defined the context
based on a three player game where each player is provided a
marker representing a seed of different variety from one another
with significant difference in soil, water and manure requirement.
There are three markers, representing water, pesticide and manure
respectively. The maximum content is limited in both the cases, in
order to make the students manage the resources in a collaborative
manner and maintain interest throughout the process. The content
level is displayed through horizontal bars. Each student has the
responsibility to ensure proper growth of his/her plant. Besides
the individual health of each plant, the overall health is also
represented visually through health bars. Thus, any attempt of
isolated effort has negative repercussions. With each plant having

6. different growth requirements, optimization of limited resources
would be required in order to attain the growth of all the three
plants simultaneously. We realized that the challenge in designing
a compelling cooperative game for this audience would be to
create an engaging experience that does not directly focus on
traditional content but also involves challenging game mechanics
which would preserve interest levels in the students. A tool
representing a magnifying glass is also provided to the students to
help them analyze the various processes in and around the plant
that are not visible to the naked eye. As new challenges pop up,
the students need to use the “magnifying glass” to identify the
source or cause of the problem and take actions accordingly.
Prototype
Prototyping was done on Processing IDE. Fiducial markers were
attached to the underside of the tokens representing the seeds,
water, manure, pesticide and magnifying glass. A camera beneath
the table captures images which are processed by reacTIVision to
recognise the location, orientation and identity of the fiducials.
The fiducials serve as points of reference for pre-defined
simulations and feedback. An acrylic sheet was used as the table-
top surface on which projection of all simulations were done from
the bottom. Following are some of the illustrations of the interface
that we came up with.
DISCUSSIONS
Students’ preferences, and perhaps their learning performance,
cannot be attributed to the technology of the laboratory alone. In
other words, it is important to focus on how students’ mental
activities are engaged in coping with the laboratory world. From
this point of view, other factors discussed in relation to the
effectiveness of laboratories, such as motivation [77], peer
collaboration [48], error-corrective feedback [76] and richness of
the media [47] should also be studied in order to produce more
interactive and immersive settings that ultimately lead to a space
students perceive as real. Research work in these areas seem
promising at this level.We might expect that students in a
simulated or remote lab where the reality is, respectively, faked or
mediated by distance may experience psychological presence, but
not physical presence. In a similar way, students in a real hands-
on experiment could be exposed to physically real apparatus, but
may not experience psychological presence. For example, student
might get bored or distracted if their role is only to passively
watch others interact with the device. Thus, it is important to
maintain the interest level of the student when such activities are
being done. As has been proven by several studies which have
been cited above, table-top interfaces have been found to be
successful in educational settings. However, table tops cannot be
considered as a placebo to solve all problems. Being cumbersome
in itself for carrying out user testing due to the lack of mobility
and also due to lack of an opportune moment due to holidays, the
usability testing of our prototype remains to be completed. Our
research investigation in the future would try to address the
question of efficiency and reliability of table-tops in the context of
practical activities and experiments in Indian schools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our special thanks to Dr. Ravi Mokashi Punekar, Keyur Sorathia,
Dr. Om Deshmukh and Kuldeep Yadav for guiding us and giving
us valuable inputs throughout our progress. Sincere gratitude must
also be expressed towards Dr. Dwivedi and Dr. Jugal Bora,
principal and vice-principal of KV IIT, Guwahati and Faculty
Higher Secondary School, Guwahati respectively for allowing us
to conduct user surveys at their respective schools. Without them
this project would not have been possible.
REFERENCES
[1] Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance
student learning. In Learning Science and the Science of
Learning, R. W. Bybee, Ed. National Science Teachers
Association, Washington, DC, 85–97.
[2] Cooper, M. (2005). Remote laboratories in teaching and
learning – issues impinging on widespread adoption in
science and engineering education. International Journal of
Online Engineering (iJOE), 1(1), 1-7.
[3] Hodson D., (1993), Re-thinking old ways: towards a more
critical approach to practical work in school
[4] Carlson, L. E. & Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands-on
engineering: Learning by doing in the integrated teaching
[5] Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for
enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and
Development. 18(1), 57–75..
[6] Magin, D. J. & Kanapathipillai, S. (2000). Engineering
students’ understanding of the role of experimentation.
European J. Eng. Education 25 (4), 351–358.Ding, W. and
Marchionini, G. 1997. A Study on Video Browsing
Strategies. Technical Report. University of Maryland at
College Park.
[7] Gunstone, R.F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical
work. In B.E.Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science. Milton
Keynes, England: The Open University.
[8] Gunstone, R.F. & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting
conceptual change in the laboratory. In E.Hegarty-Hazel
(Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp.
159–182). London: Routledge.
[9] Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical working
school science. School Science Review, 71, 33–40.
[10] Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the
laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research.
Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–217. Tavel, P.
2007. Modeling and Simulation Design. AK Peters Ltd.,
Natick, MA.

7. [11] Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V.N. (2003). The laboratory in
science education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century.
Science Education 88, 28–54.
[12] Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high
school chemistry students with opportunities to develop
learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study.
International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.
[13] Hofstein A., Navon O., Kipnis M. and Mamlok-Naaman R.,
(2005), Developing students’ ability to ask more and better
questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791-806.
[14] Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in
science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century.
Science Education, 88, 28–54.
[15] Lazarowitz R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using
laboratory instruction in science. In D.L.Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 94–127).
New York: Macmillan.
[16] Lunetta, V.N. (1998). The school science laboratory:
Historical perspectives and context for contemporary
teaching. In B.Fraser & K.Tobin (Eds.), International
handbook of science education (pp. 249–264). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer.
[17] Baird, J.R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful inquiry and
conceptual change. In E.Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student
laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183–200).
London: Rutledge.
[18] Bryce, T.G.K., & Robertson, I.J. (1985). What can they do?
A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in
Science Education, 12, 1–24.
[19] Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J.Minstrel
& E.H.Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and
teaching (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
[20] Garnett, P.J. & Hacking, M.W. (1995). Refocusing the
chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations.
Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41, 26–32.
[21] Bybee, R. & McCrae, B.(2011). Scientific literacy and
student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. -
International Journal of Science Education, 2011 - Taylor &
Francis
[22] Bybee, R. (2000) . Achieving technological literacy: A
national imperative.- Technology Teacher
[23] Lunetta V,N., Hofstein A. and Clough M., (2007), Learning
and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of
research, theory, and practice, In N, Lederman. and S. Abel
(Eds,), Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 393-
441), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[24] Shymansky, J., Penick, J. & Hathway, J. (1978) Comment on
“student behavior and self-perception”. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, Volume 15, Issue 5, pages 421–422.
[25] Tobin, K.G. (1990) Research on science laboratory activities:
In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve
learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.
[26] Brickhouse, N., Bodner, G. (1982) The beginning science
teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
[27] D.J. Magin, J.A. Reizes (1990) Computer simulation of
laboratory experiments: An unrealized potential. Computers
& Education,Volume 14, Issue 3, 1990, Pages 263–270
[28] Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T., & Cooper, M. (2002)
Contemporary approaches to learning science:
Technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Sci.
Education 38, 73–114.
[29] McAteer, E., Neil, D., Barr, N., Brown, M., Draper, S., &
Henderson, F. 1996. Simulation software in a life sciences
practical laboratory. Computers and Education 26, 1–3, 102–
112.
[30] Albu, M. M., Hobert, K. E., Heydt, G. T., Grigorescu, S. D.,
& Trusca, V. 2004. Embedding remote experimentation in
power engineering education. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19, 1,
139–143.
[31] Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. 2003. Remote
laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In
Proceedings of the 2003 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference. Boulder, CO. T3E.1-T3E.6.
[32] Sehati, S. 2000. Re-engineering the practical laboratory
session. Int. J. Electrical Eng. Education 37, 1,86–94.
[33] Selvaduray, G. 1995. Undergraduate engineering ceramics
laboratory development. Int. J. Eng. Education 11, 4–5, 374–
379.
[34] Subramanian, R. AND Marsic, I. 2001. ViBE: Virtual
biology experiments. In Proceedings of the 10th International
World Wide Web Conference. Hong Kong. 316–325.
[35] Scott, S., Mandryk, R. and Inkpen, K.(2003) Understanding
children's collaborative interactions in shared environments.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2,
pages 220–228, June 2003
[36] Parush, A., Hamm, H. & Shtub, A. 2002. Learning histories
in simulation-based teaching: The effects on self-earning and
transfer. Computers and Education 39, 319–332.
[37] Shin, D., Yoon, E. S., Lee, K. Y., & Lee, E. S. 2002. A web-
based, interactive virtual laboratory system for unit
operations and process systems engineering education:
Issues, design and implementation. Computers and Chemical
Eng. 26, 2, 319–330.
[38] Shen, H., Xu, Z., Dalager, B., Kristiansen, V., Strom, O.,
Shur, M. S., Fjeldy, T. A., Lu, J.-Q., & Ytterdal, T. 1999.
Conducting laboratory experiments over the Internet. IEEE
Trans. Education 42, 3, 180–185.
[39] Magin, D. J. & Kanapathipillai, S. 2000. Engineering
students’ understanding of the role of experimentation.
European J. Eng. Education 25, 4, 351–358.
[40] Sonnenwald, D. H., Whitton, M. C., & Maglaughlin, K. L.
2003. Evaluating a scientific collaboratory: Results of a
controlled experiment. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact
10, 2, 150–176.
[41] Zimmerli, S., Steinemann, M.A., & Braun, T. 2003.
Educational environments: Resource management portal for
laboratories using real devices on the Internet. ACM
SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Review 53, 3, 145–151.

8. [42] Cooper, M., Donnelly, A., AND Ferreira, J. M. 2002.
Remote controlled experiments for teaching over the
Internet: A comparison of approaches developed in the
PEARL project. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE
Conference 2002. Auckland, New Zealand. UNITEC
Institution of Technology, M2D.1-M2D.9.
[43] Canfora, G.,Daponte, P., & Rapuano, S. 2004. Remotely
accessible laboratory for electronic measurement teaching.
Computers, Standards and Interfaces 26, 6, 489–499.
[44] Faria, A. J. & Whiteley, T. R. 1990. An empirical evaluation
of the pedagogical value of playing a simulation game in a
principles of marketing course. Development in Business
Simul. Experiential Learning
[45] Hessami, M. & Sillitoe, J. 1992. The role of laboratory
experiments and the impact of high-tech equipment on
engineering education. Australasian J. Eng. Education 3,
119–126.
[46] Hutzel, W. J. 2002. A remotely accessed HVAC laboratory
for distance education. Int. J. Eng. Education 18, 6, 711–716.
[47] Chaturvedi, S., Akan,O., Bawab, S., Abdej-Salam, T., &
Venkataramana,M. 2003. A web-based multimedia virtual
experiment. In Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, CO. T3F.3-
T3F.8.
[48] Baxendale, P. & Mellor, J. 2000. A ‘virtual laboratory’ for
research training and collaboration. Int. J. Electrical Eng.
Education 37, 1, 95–107.
[49] Morris, M.R., Piper, A.M., Cassanego, A., and Winograd, T.
Supporting Cooperative Language Learning: Issues in
Interface Design for an Interactive Table. Stanford University
Technical Report, 2005.
[50] Piper, A., O’Brien, E., Morris, M., Winograd, T.(2006)
SIDES: A Cooperative Tabletop Computer Game for Social
Skills Development. Proceeding CSCW '06 Proceedings of
the 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, 1-10.
[51] Fujita, J. S. T., Cassanga, R. F., & Fernandez, F. J. R. 2003.
Remote laboratory. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics. Rio. de
Janeiro, Brazil. 1104–1106.
[52] Gustavsson, I. 2002. Remote laboratory experiments in
electrical engineering education. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Caracas Conference on Devices, Circuits and
Systems (ICCDCS 2002). Aruba. I025.1–I025.5.
[53] McLellan, H. 1995. Situated Learning Perspectives.
Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[54] Canizares, C. A. & Faur, Z. T. 1997. Advantages and
disadvantages of using various computer tools in electrical
engineering courses. IEEE Trans. Education 40, 3, 166–171.
[55] Colwell, C., Scanlon, E., & Cooper, M. 2002. Using remote
laboratories to extend access to science and engineering.
Computers and Education 38, 1–3, 65–76.
[56] Dobson, E. L., Hill, M., & Turner, J. D. 1995. An evaluation
of the student response to electronics teaching using a CAL
package. Computers and Education 25, 1–2, 13–20.
[57] Magin, D. J. & Reizes, J. A. 1990. Computer simulation of
laboratory experiments: An unrealized potential. Comput.
and Education 14, 3, 263–270.
[58] Farrington, P. A., Meissimer, S. L., & Schroer, B. J. 1994.
Simulation and undergraduate engineering education: The
technology reinvestment project (TRP). In Proceedings of
the 1994 Winter Simulation Conference. Lake Buena Vista,
FL. J. D. Tew et al., Eds. 1387–1393.
[59] Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M., & Paolo, T. D. 2004.
Remote experiments, reversioning and rethinking science
learning. Comput. and Education 43, 1–2, 153–163.
[60] Chang, H. P., & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The effect of levels
of cooperation with physical science laboratory groups on
physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32, 167–181.
[61] Wilkenson, J.W., &Ward, M. (1997). The purpose and
perceived effectiveness of laboratory work in secondary
schools. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 43–55.
[62] Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985).
Instructional consequences of students’knowledge about
physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.),
Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61–68). New
York: Academic Press.
[63] Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction:
An examination of four research perspectives in science
education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.
[64] Lunetta, V. N., & Hofstein, A. (1991). Simulations and
laboratory practical activity. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.),
Practical science (pp. 125–137). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
[65] Lunetta, V. N., & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching lab activities
with teaching goals. The Science Teacher, 46, 22–24.
[66] Engum, S. A., Jeffries, P., & Fisher, L. 2003. Intravenous
catheter training system: Computer-Based education versus
traditional learning methods. American J. Surgery 186, 1,
67–74.
[67] Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., & Chasappis, C.
2004. Remote versus hands-on labs: A comparative study. In
Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference. Savannah, GA. F1G.17-F1G.21.
[68] Ogot, M., Elliott, G., Andglumac, N. 2003. An assessment of
in-person and remotely operated laboratories. J. Eng.
Education 92, 1, 57–62.
[69] Ertrugul, N. 1998. New era in engineering experiments: An
integrated and interactive teaching/learning approach, and
real-time visualizations. Int. J. Eng. Education 14, 5, 344–
355.
[70] Raineri, D. 2001. Virtual laboratories enhance traditional
undergraduate biology laboratories. Biochemistryand
Molecular Biology Education 29, 4, 160–162.
[71] Striegel, A. 2001. Distance education and its impact on
computer engineering laboratories. In Proceedings of the
2001 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Reno,
NV. F2D.4–F2D.9.
[72] DEWHURST, D. G.,MACLEOD, H. A., AND NORRIS, T.
A. M. 2000. Independent student learning aided by

9. computers: An acceptable alternative to lectures? Comput.
and Education 35, 3, 223–241.
[73] Dibiase, D. 2000. Is distance teaching more work or less
work? American J. Distance Education 14, 3, 6–20.
[74] Ma, J. & Nickerson, J. Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote
Laboratories: A Comparative literature review (2006). ACM
Computing Surveys (CSUR).
[75] Baudin, V.; Faust, M.; Kaufmann, H.; Litsa, V.; Mwanza,
D.; Pierre, A. and Totter, A. (2004). The LAB@FUTURE
Project - Moving Towards the Future of E-Learning. In:
Proceedings of Technology Enhanced Learning Workshop at
IFIP World Computer Congress, 22-27 Aug 2004, Toulouse,
France.
[76] Grant, A. 1995. The effective use of laboratories in
undergraduate courses.Int. J. Mechanical Eng. Education 23,
2, 95–101.
[77] Edward, N. S. 2002. The role of laboratory work in
engineering education: Student and staff perceptions. Int. J.
Electrical Eng. Education 39, 1, 11–19.
[78] Roth, WM. (1994) Experimenting in a constructivist high
school physics laboratory. Journal of research in Science
teaching. Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 197–223
[79] Tobin, K. G. (1986). Student task involvement and
achievement in process-oriented science activities.Science
Education, 70, 61–72.