A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education

Computers and Education

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 708-725

  Nickerson, Jeffrey V ^a   Corter, James E ^b   Esche, Sven K ^a   Chassapis, Constantin ^a  

^a STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Educational assessment; Presence; Remote laboratories

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENGINEERS;

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT; PRESENCE; REMOTE LABORATORIES;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 34249000813     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.019     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. ABET (2004). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/05-06- EAC%20Criteria.pdf.
2. Alamo J.A.d., Chang V., Brooks L., McLean C., Hardison J., Mishuris G., et al. MIT microelectronics WebLab. In: Fjeldly T.A., and Shur M.S. (Eds). Lab on the web (2003), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ 49-87
3. Amigud, Y., Archer, G., Smith, J., Szymanski, M., & Servatius, B. (2002). Assessing the quality of web-enabled laboratories in undergraduate education. In 32nd ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference. Boston, MA. F3E12-16.
4. Canizares C.A., and Faur Z.T. Advantages and disadvantages of using various computer tools in electrical engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education 40 3 (1997) 166-171
5. Colwell C., Scanlon E., and Cooper M. Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers & Education 38 (2002) 65-76
6. Daft R.L., and Lengel R.H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32 (1986) 554-571
7. Edelson D.C., Gordin D.N., and Pea R.D. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 8 3-4 (1999) 391-450
8. Ertugrul N. New era in engineering experiments: an integrated and interactive teaching/learning approach, and real-time visualisations. International Journal of Engineering Education 14 (1998) 344-355
9. Esche S.K. On the integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories - technical implementation. International Journal of Instructional Media 32 4 (2005)
10. Esche S.K. On the integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories - pedagogical approach. International Journal of Instructional Media 33 3 (2006)
11. Esche, S. K. & Chassapis, C. (1998). An Internet-based remote-access approach to undergraduate laboratory education. Engineering Education without Boundaries, Proceedings of the 1998 fall regional conference of the middle atlantic section of ASEE, Washington, DC, USA, November 6-7, pp. 108-113.
12. Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Nazalewicz, J. W. & Hromin, D. J. (2002). A scalable system architecture for remote experimentation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, November 6-9.
13. Esche S.K., Chassapis C., Nazalewicz J.W., and Hromin D.J. An architecture for multiuser remote laboratories. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2 1 (2003) 7-11
14. Esche, S. K., Prasad, M. G., & Chassapis, C. (2000). Remotely accessible laboratory approach for undergraduate education. Engineering education beyond the millennium, Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE annual conference and exposition, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, June 18-21.
15. Finn H., Maxwell M., and Calver M. Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology?. Journal of Biological Education 36 4 (2002) 158-164
16. Fleming, N. D., & Bonwell, C. C. (2003). VARK (Version 3). Retrieved January, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.vark-learn.com.
17. Fleming N.D., and Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy 11 (1992) 137-143
18. Gardner H., and Hatch T. Multiple intelligences go to school: educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher 18 8 (1989) 4-10
19. Gillet D., Nguyen A.V.N., and Rekik Y. Collaborative web-based experimentation in flexible engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Education 48 4 (2005) 1-9
20. Harris D.A., and Dipaolo A. Advancing asynchronous distance education using high-speed networks. IEEE Transactions on Education 39 3 (1996) 444-449
21. Henry, J. (2000). 24 Hours, 7 days lab experiments access on the web all the time. In ASEE annual conference and exposition (pp. 1-8).
22. Herron M.D. The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review 79 2 (1971) 171-212
23. Kalyuga S., Chandler P., and Sweller J. Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors 40 (1998) 1-17
24. Kerns T. Should we use cooperative learning in college chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching 25 6 (1996) 435-438
25. Klionsky D.J. A cooperative learning approach to teaching introductory biology. Journal of College Science Teaching 27 5 (1998) 334-338
26. Korzenny F. A theory of electronic propinquity: mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research 5 (1978) 3-24
27. Kozhevnikov M., Hegarty M., and Mayer R.E. Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction 20 1 (2002) 47-77
28. Magin D., and Kanapathipillai S. Engineering students' understanding of the role of experimentation. European Journal of Engineering Education 25 4 (2000) 351-358
29. Mayer R.E. Multi-media learning (2001), Cambridge, New York
30. Mayer R.E., and Massa L.J. Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 4 (2003) 833-846
31. McComas W.E. The nature of the laboratory experience: a guide for describing, classifying and enhancing hands-on activities. CSTA Journal (1997) 6-9
32. Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003, November 5-8, 2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In Proceedings of the 2003 33rd annual frontiers in education conference. Boulder, CO. T3E1-6.
33. Nowak, K. L., Watt, J., & Walther, J. B. (2004). Contrasting time mode and sensory modality in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1-10).
34. Ogot M., Elliott G., and Glumac N. An assessment of in-person and remotely operated laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education 92 1 (2003) 57-62
35. Pea R.D. Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist 28 3 (1993) 265-277
36. Scanlon E., Colwell C., Cooper M., and Di Paolo T. Remote experiments, re-versioning and re-thinking science learning. Computers & Education 43 (2004) 153-163
37. Schubert T., Friedmann F., and Regenbrecht H. The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10 3 (2001) 266-281
38. Schuemie M.J., van der Straaten P., Krijn M., and van der Mast. Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior 4 2 (2001) 183-200
39. Schwab J.J. Structure of the disciplines: meanings and significances. In: Ford G.W., and Pugno L. (Eds). The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (1964), Rand McNally, Chicago 6-30
40. Sheridan T.B. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1 (1992) 120-125
41. Short J., Williams E., and Christie B. The social psychology of telecommunication (1976), John Wiley, London
42. Sicker D.C., Lookabaugh T., Santos J., and Barnes F. Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. Frontiers in Education (2005) S3F7-S3F12
43. Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Presence in immersive virtual environments. In IEEE virtual reality international symposium (pp. 90-96).
44. Soloway E., Guzdial M., and Hay K.E. Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions 1 (1994) 36-47
45. Sonnenwald D.H., Whitton M.C., and Maglaughlin K.L. Evaluating a scientific collaboratory: results of a controlled experiment. ACM Transactions on Human Computer Interaction 10 2 (2003) 150-176
46. Tao P.-K., and Gunstone R.F. Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education 21 1 (1999) 39-57
47. Toumasis C. Cooperative study teams in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 35 5 (2004) 669-679
48. Willams A., and Gani R. Can experimentation course save engineering laboratory work from extinction?. Research and Development in Higher Education 15 (1992) 420-425