This document discusses remote laboratories and their use for teaching and learning. It provides examples of remote labs both on and outside a university campus that allow students to conduct experiments online. Challenges of implementing remote labs include different technologies used, network security, and ensuring teacher training and technical support. Evaluation of a project providing online access to engineering labs found it improved student interaction with teachers and peers as well as the learning process. Remote labs can complement but not replace real labs when used appropriately.

1. Remote laboratories for teaching and learning Enriching Student Learning Experience through International Collaboration in Remote Laboratories Meeting at Adelaide :: January of 2009 :: This presentation is available at http://www.slideshare.net/josemmf J. M. Martins Ferreira [ jmf@fe.up.pt ] FEUP / DEEC Rua Dr. Roberto Frias 4200-465 Porto – PORTUGAL

2. Outline of this talk Scope and characterization Examples On-campus Outside The Labs-on-the-web project Pedagogical issues Conclusion

3. What they are and what they are not Remote labs may be seen as an extension of e-learning (but they use a wider technology spectrum) They are a complement – not a replacement – to real labs

4. Remote, virtual and mixed-reality labs A remote lab enables access to real devices through a communication network A virtual lab deals with simulation models In a mixed-reality lab real devices interact with simulation models

5. Benefits… (pedagogical and other wise) Adapt easily to each individual’s pace of learning Safety and security Cost / benefit Institutional image and interaction with the outside world

6. Technical implementation issues Timing  Very short or very long experiments need an off-line mode, but most experiments enable on-line modes Observation-only experiments do not require access management tools, but observation-and-control experiments call for reservation and coordinated sharing

7. Technical obstacles The wide variety of technologies used in their implementation is a problem (each case is a different case too often…) Network security policies and bandwidth represent additional obstacles

8. Institutional implications Teacher training (technical and pedagogical) Technicians for setup and maintenance Support services (computers and pedagogical contents) Access policies

9. The examples herein presented… Do not cover all types of remote labs existing at FEUP (which includes several departments) Were selected to illustrate two main types: On-campus labs Outside labs

10. On-campus: an on-line workbench for electronics Electronics is an area where on-line workbenches may or may not be a good choice In this example the students develop a microcontroller-based electronic die Their main task is to write the (assembly) program for the microcontroller A webcam located in the remote workbench shows the operation of the electronic die

11. How the remote workbench looks like The NI ELVIS station replaces the instruments found in a “standard” workbench NI ELVIS station Webcam Electronic die Microcontroller board (8051)

12. Off-line work

13. In the case of observation and control , booking is required Access to the workbench (  ) becomes possible when the current time equals the reserved slot

14. On-line work Control buttons, live workbench image, videoconferencing Code transfer and status information

15. Electronic die (video)

16. The remote lab may also be outside the campus… University campus E-learning server Student Teacher Student Campus lab Student LAN / Internet Lab server Workbench The e-learning server might be on-campus or outside E-learning server Student Teacher Student Campus lab Student LAN / Internet Lab server Workbench

17. Outside campus: Access to an SDRAM test station at Qimonda The Advantest T5365 is used in the Electronic Systems Testing curricular unit (three editions in 2007/08 and 2008/09) Dedicated ADSL access Isolated from the internal QPT LAN Advantest offered all software licenses

18. Remote SDRAM testing Access management MRBS on Moodle (to display the reservations) The killtest command (for solving conflicts) Off-line : Test program development On-line : Compilation (multiuser) Execution (single user)

19. Reservation via MRBS in Moodle

20. Off-line work Test program development (ATL code file created with any text editor)

21. On-line work ATL code uploading, compilation and test execution

22. Further examples: The Labs-on-the-web project Web access to lab workbenches in engineering courses Implementation and pedagogical contents Evaluation of pedagogical effectiveness Teacher training A FEUP-FPCEUP partnership with a duration of 20 months (Nov’06 - Jun’08)

23. Labs-on-the-web: Teacher training Training actions – TA1 : Pedagogical principles; TA2 : E-learning via Moodle; TA3 : On-line workbenches 4 months in total, 5 on-site sessions for each training action (alternating TA1 and TA2), homework recommendations Teachers were allowed to build their own personal training plan

24. Labs-on-the-web: On-site training actions TA1: Discussion TA3: Discussion & hands-on TA2: Hands-on

25. Labs-on-the-web: Training results 103 teachers from 15 institutions 152 evaluation questionnaires received Evaluation results show approval and positive impact on teaching practices

26. Labs-on-the-web: Pedagogical evaluation Evaluation dimensions : interaction with the teacher, peer cooperation, learning process, knowledge and skills Various curricular units and a number of respondents that ranged from 153 to 169 Evaluation questionnaires were proposed before and after the remote experiments, using a grading scale of 1 to 7

27. Labs-on-the-web: Pedagogical evaluation (2)

28. Labs-on-the-web: DVD contents Management Dissemination Training Evaluation Technology

29. Pedagogical issues: Remote x virtual Do on-line workbenches (remote labs) have an added-value in relation to simulation (virtual labs)? [Quino]

30. Pedagogical issues: Acquisition of skills Are simulation / remote experimentation able to meet all our training needs? (acquisition of haptic skills, professional recognition, etc.) [Quino]

31. Pedagogical issues: Technical restrictions Technical restrictions may hamper the pedagogical benefits… (by degrading the experiments, the interaction among, the students, etc.) [Quino]

32. Pedagogical issues: Interaction with the teacher May the students find themselves abandoned to technology? [Quino]

33. Pedagogical issues: A glimpse of the future? Do we want to replicate the real lab experience? Will the ubiquitous teacher become real? Are there any ethical issues?

34. Complementary activities at FEUP The benchmarking exercise on e-learning (ESMU / University of South Denmark) Quality assurance on teaching and learning at FEUP (in cooperation with the Psychology and Educational Sciences faculty)

35. Conclusion The availability of remote labs may indeed contribute to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning Bad use is possible, but relatively easy to avoid (just as with e-learning in general…) There’s plenty of opportunities to innovate, both in technical and pedagogical terms

36. Remote laboratories for teaching and learning Enriching Student Learning Experience through International Collaboration in Remote Laboratories Meeting at Adelaide :: January of 2009 :: This presentation is available at http://www.slideshare.net/josemmf Thanks for your attention!