Hybrid Laboratory Model with Triple Mode Access

There is no general agreement as to the effectiveness of one or other mode of laboratory access. For instance, in a study of the effectiveness of remote laboratories, it has been quantitatively found that remote students achieved about 5% to 8% lower grades than those of the hands-on students. Generally, they also needed more time to finish the experiments (Sicker et al. 2005). However, contrary results obtained by other researchers have also been reported. Corter et al. (2004) in a comparative study on online versus hands-on labs found that most students who used the remote labs obtained similar or even better results in the tests than those who used the hands-on lab.

There is a general agreement that simulations cannot and should not always replace the hands-on labs, however, they can be an effective assisting tool. Engum et al. (2003) made a comparative study on using a virtual catheter lab versus a real catheter lab. The study revealed that students who performed both the real lab and the virtual lab could adequately demonstrate the required skills, however, the students preferred performing the real lab against the virtual lab. Engum suggested that a combination of the two methodologies may enhance the students satisfaction and skills acquisition level.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the TriLab.

To date, and according to our knowledge, there is no one hybrid lab that utilizes hands-on, virtual, and remote modes in one stand-alone complementary package. There have been trials embedding two modes together in the pedagogical processes (Engum et al. 2003; Tzafestas et al. 2006), indicating better learning outcomes in the hybrid labs. Raineri (2001) supplemented his hands-on lab with a simulated lab. Using the simulated lab during the course over five years yielded a five percent increase in the final exam scores, and a dramatic decrease in the number of students who either failed or passed only with the minimum threshold. The same article emphasized the importance of the hands-on lab, and suggested that the simulated laboratory is rather a supplement, but yet an important addition to the module. Very similar conclusions can be found by Ronen et al. (2000) and McAteer et al. (1996). Tzafestas implemented two modes, a simulated and remote hybrid telerobotic lab, this combination was found to be effective (Tzafestas et al. 2006). One of the most important conclusions in the Ma comparative literature review of the Hands-on, Simulated, and Remote labs is the importance of taking advantage of using the different access modes as much as possible (Ma et al. 2006). This is an indication of the recent research awareness of enriching the laboratory education by blending different access modes instead of relying mainly on one access mode, which classically was the hands-on lab experiment so far.

There is no argument as to the importance of the hands-on laboratory in engineering education (engineering itself started as a hands-on science). Despite the disadvantages of hands-on experimentation, they still provide the highest realism level for students. Virtual laboratories have been found to be powerful in increasing conceptual understanding. They offer a cheap instrument for repeating experiments as many times as a student requires. However, they are characterised by weak realism. The advent of online experimentation and conferencing techniques has added a new dimension to the way engineering projects can be dealt with. Furthermore, there is strong potential for enhancing the experiential engineering education experience of students through the sharing of the experiments and the practice of completing those experiments. Embedding online experimentation in the engineering curricula could become a necessary step sooner or later to meet the increasing demands for online operation and collaboration of future engineers and researchers. Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of the TriLab system proposed by us, which combines the use of the three access modes in a common software environment and applies them in a well defined combination in the teaching process.

References:

Corter JE, Nickerson JV, Esche SK, and Chassapis C, 2004. Remote versus hands-on labs: A comparative study. The 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 20 – 23, 2004, Savannah, USA.

Engum SA, Jeffries P, and Fisher L, 2003. Intravenous Catheter Training System: Computer-Based Education Versus Traditional Learning Methods. The American Journal of Surgery, 186(1), 67-74.

Ma J and Nickerson JV, 2006. Hands-on, Simulated, and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review. ACM Comput. Surv., 38(3), 1-24.

McAteer E, Neil D, Barr N, Brown M, Draper S, and Henderson F, 1996. Simulation Software in a Life Sciences Practical Laboratory. Computers & Education, 26(1-3), 101-112.

Raineri D, 2001. Virtual Laboratories Enhance Traditional Undergraduate Biology Laboratories. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 29(4), 160-162.

Ronen M and Eliahu M, 2000. Simulation — a Bridge Between Theory and Reality: the Case of Electric Circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 14-26.

Sicker DC, Lookabaugh T, Santos J, and Barnes F,  2005. Assessing the Effectiveness of Remote Networking Laboratories. Frontiers in Education. The 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 19-22.Oct, Indiana, USA.

Tzafestas CS, Palaiologou N, and Alifragis M, 2006. Virtual and remote robotic laboratory: comparative experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, (3), 360-369.