Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote
This article describes an Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) designed and implemented in order to monitor various modalities of using an Automatic Control Laboratory by analyzing the quality of work that can be obtained from a specific student group when the proposed experimental practice is being c...
- Autores:
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2013
- Institución:
- Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio Institucional UTB
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.utb.edu.co:20.500.12585/9068
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12585/9068
- Palabra clave:
- ABET Indicators
Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP)
Local laboratory
Remote laboratory
Better performance
Control Laboratory
Evaluation protocol
Quality of work
Remote laboratories
Remote systems
Statistical differences
Statistical techniques
Automation
Control
Instrument testing
Process control
Students
Research laboratories
- Rights
- restrictedAccess
- License
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
id |
UTB2_bfffc5190c45d269feb468fbe0cb94d7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.utb.edu.co:20.500.12585/9068 |
network_acronym_str |
UTB2 |
network_name_str |
Repositorio Institucional UTB |
repository_id_str |
|
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
title |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
spellingShingle |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote ABET Indicators Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) Local laboratory Remote laboratory Better performance Control Laboratory Evaluation protocol Quality of work Remote laboratories Remote systems Statistical differences Statistical techniques Automation Control Instrument testing Process control Students Research laboratories |
title_short |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
title_full |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
title_fullStr |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
title_full_unstemmed |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
title_sort |
Academic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remote |
dc.subject.keywords.none.fl_str_mv |
ABET Indicators Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) Local laboratory Remote laboratory Better performance Control Laboratory Evaluation protocol Quality of work Remote laboratories Remote systems Statistical differences Statistical techniques Automation Control Instrument testing Process control Students Research laboratories |
topic |
ABET Indicators Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) Local laboratory Remote laboratory Better performance Control Laboratory Evaluation protocol Quality of work Remote laboratories Remote systems Statistical differences Statistical techniques Automation Control Instrument testing Process control Students Research laboratories |
description |
This article describes an Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) designed and implemented in order to monitor various modalities of using an Automatic Control Laboratory by analyzing the quality of work that can be obtained from a specific student group when the proposed experimental practice is being conducted according to a particular type of lab-work modality. To serve this purpose, the types of use-modalities associated to different lab-works are classified as follows: Local Real Laboratory (RL), Remote Laboratory (R@L) and Local plus Remote Laboratory (RL+R@L). To estimate how a specific lab-work modality impacts upon the development of an experimental practice, parameters such as average utilization time and the ABET-Indicators are used. The results obtained from this pedagogical instrument are analyzed by various means, namely the ANOVA Test, a Descriptive Statistical Technique and Wilcoxon Testing. The findings reveal that the student groups involved in experimental lab-practices following the RL and RL+R@L modalities achieve better performance (when conducting the automatic control laboratory) than the student groups served with the remote system only. The analysis performed indicates that there is no statistical difference between working at the Local Laboratory (RL) or at a Local plus Remote Laboratory (RL+R@L). As a result, the use of the remote system combined with the local one does not improve significantly the ABET score, ruling out the idea that by placing special interest in using only the remote system, an improvement in students' comprehension is achieved. © 2013 TEMPUS Publications. |
publishDate |
2013 |
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2013 |
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-03-26T16:32:53Z |
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-03-26T16:32:53Z |
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_c94f |
dc.type.driver.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject |
dc.type.hasversion.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.spa.none.fl_str_mv |
Conferencia |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.citation.none.fl_str_mv |
International Journal of Engineering Education; Vol. 29, Núm. 6; pp. 1551-1563 |
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
0949149X |
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12585/9068 |
dc.identifier.instname.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar |
dc.identifier.reponame.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio UTB |
dc.identifier.orcid.none.fl_str_mv |
55499187700 7004864427 26647351600 55498635300 6602908026 6507137176 56689499100 55499203900 |
identifier_str_mv |
International Journal of Engineering Education; Vol. 29, Núm. 6; pp. 1551-1563 0949149X Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar Repositorio UTB 55499187700 7004864427 26647351600 55498635300 6602908026 6507137176 56689499100 55499203900 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12585/9068 |
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec |
dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
dc.rights.accessrights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
dc.rights.cc.none.fl_str_mv |
Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec |
eu_rights_str_mv |
restrictedAccess |
dc.format.medium.none.fl_str_mv |
Recurso electrónico |
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84891961447&partnerID=40&md5=281d56f8a172c2d234106b8b75c64a9a |
institution |
Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.utb.edu.co/bitstream/20.500.12585/9068/1/MiniProdInv.png |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
0cb0f101a8d16897fb46fc914d3d7043 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional UTB |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositorioutb@utb.edu.co |
_version_ |
1814021717731835904 |
spelling |
2020-03-26T16:32:53Z2020-03-26T16:32:53Z2013International Journal of Engineering Education; Vol. 29, Núm. 6; pp. 1551-15630949149Xhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12585/9068Universidad Tecnológica de BolívarRepositorio UTB5549918770070048644272664735160055498635300660290802665071371765668949910055499203900This article describes an Academic Evaluation Protocol (AEP) designed and implemented in order to monitor various modalities of using an Automatic Control Laboratory by analyzing the quality of work that can be obtained from a specific student group when the proposed experimental practice is being conducted according to a particular type of lab-work modality. To serve this purpose, the types of use-modalities associated to different lab-works are classified as follows: Local Real Laboratory (RL), Remote Laboratory (R@L) and Local plus Remote Laboratory (RL+R@L). To estimate how a specific lab-work modality impacts upon the development of an experimental practice, parameters such as average utilization time and the ABET-Indicators are used. The results obtained from this pedagogical instrument are analyzed by various means, namely the ANOVA Test, a Descriptive Statistical Technique and Wilcoxon Testing. The findings reveal that the student groups involved in experimental lab-practices following the RL and RL+R@L modalities achieve better performance (when conducting the automatic control laboratory) than the student groups served with the remote system only. The analysis performed indicates that there is no statistical difference between working at the Local Laboratory (RL) or at a Local plus Remote Laboratory (RL+R@L). As a result, the use of the remote system combined with the local one does not improve significantly the ABET score, ruling out the idea that by placing special interest in using only the remote system, an improvement in students' comprehension is achieved. © 2013 TEMPUS Publications.Recurso electrónicoapplication/pdfenghttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacionalhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16echttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84891961447&partnerID=40&md5=281d56f8a172c2d234106b8b75c64a9aAcademic evaluation protocol for monitoring modalities of use at an Automatic Control Laboratory: Local vs. remoteinfo:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionConferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_c94fABET IndicatorsAcademic Evaluation Protocol (AEP)Local laboratoryRemote laboratoryBetter performanceControl LaboratoryEvaluation protocolQuality of workRemote laboratoriesRemote systemsStatistical differencesStatistical techniquesAutomationControlInstrument testingProcess controlStudentsResearch laboratoriesBarrios A.Duque M.Canu M.Villa Ramírez, José LuisChevrel P.Grisales V.H.Prieto F.Panche S.Marchisio, S., Lerro, F., Von Pamel, O., (2010) Use of a Remote Laboratory to Promote Meaningful Learning in the Teaching of Electronic Devices, pp. 129-139. , Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. ISSS: 1133-8482 - N° 38 July-DecemberGarcia-Zubia, J., Hernandez, U., Angulo, I., Acceptance, usability and usefulness of WebLab-Deusto from the students point of view (2009) International Journal of Online Engineering (IJOE), 5 (1), pp. 1-7Gobbo, F., Vaccari, M., Open standards for higher education in robotics by immersive telelaboratories (2005) IEEE Computer Society, 7, p. 3. , Learning Technology NewsletterIndrusiak, L.S., Glesner, M., Reis, R., On the evolution of remote laboratories for prototyping digital electronic systems (2007) IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, 54 (6). , Dec(1996) Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities, , The Boyer Commission on Education Undergraduates in the Research UniversityLewis, T., Coming to terms with engineering design as content (2005) Journal of Technology Education, 16, pp. 37-54Haury, D.L., Rillero, P., (1994) Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching, , The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Columbus, OH 43210-1080. Posted to NCRELGrim, L., Yarnold, P.R., (1994) Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics, , American Psychological Association. Washington D.CBen-Dor, A., Bruhn, L., Friedman, N., Tissue classification with gene expression profiles (2000) Journal of Computational Biology, pp. 559-583Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Terenzini, P.T., Developing performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning: The case of engineering (2001) Research in Higher Education, 42 (3)Barrios, A., Panche, S., Duque, M., Grisales, V.H., Prieto, F., Villa, J., Chevrel, P., Canu, M., A multi-user remote academic laboratory system (2013) Computers and Education, 62, pp. 111-122Wolf, K., Stevens, E., The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning (2007) The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7 (1), pp. 3-14Nelder, J.A., The statistics of linear models: Back to basics (1994) Statistics and Computing, 4, pp. 221-234Kirk, R.E., (1995) Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, , Third edition. Brooks/ColeRuiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., Shepard, L.A., (2011) Impact of Undergraduate Science Course Innovations on Learning Science, 331. , 11 March, Published by AAASMattaloni, M., Kofman, H., Lucero, P., (2005) La Realidad de la Experimentación Ísica en Laboratorios Remotos, , 1er. Congreso en Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación en la Enseñanza de las Ciencias. TICEC05, La Plata, Argentina - SeptemberStone, M., Perrone, V., Prkins, D., Wilson, D., (1998) Teaching for Understanding, , San Francisco: Jossey-BassGelman, A., (2006) Analysis of Variance, , Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, March(2010) ANOVA/MANOVA, , http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/anova-manova/?button=1, StatSofi, Accessed 10 July 2012Wilcoxon signed-rank test (2009) Handbook of Biological Statistics, , http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/statsignedrank.html, Accessed 25 July 2012Barsalou, L.W., (2008) Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, p. 617Zacharia, Z.C., Loizou, E., Papaevripidou, M., (2012) Early Child. Res. Q., 27, p. 447Zacharia, Z.C., Olympiou, G., Papaevripidou, M., (2008) J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45, p. 1021Renken, M.D., Nunez, N., (2012) Learn. Instr., 23, p. 10De Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C., Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education (2013) Science, 340, p. 305Hofstein, A., Lunetta, V.N., The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research (1982) Review of Educational Research, 52 (2), pp. 201-217(2007) The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in Science Instruction, , www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspxCox, D.R., (2006) Principles of Statistical Inference, , Cambridge New York: Cambridge UniversityMcBeath, R.J., (1992) Instructing and Evaluating in Higher Education: A Guidebook for Planning Learning Outcomes, , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology PublicationsImhoff, K., (2012) Engineering ABET Cheat Sheet, , Drexel Universityhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_c94fTHUMBNAILMiniProdInv.pngMiniProdInv.pngimage/png23941https://repositorio.utb.edu.co/bitstream/20.500.12585/9068/1/MiniProdInv.png0cb0f101a8d16897fb46fc914d3d7043MD5120.500.12585/9068oai:repositorio.utb.edu.co:20.500.12585/90682023-04-21 15:42:16.598Repositorio Institucional UTBrepositorioutb@utb.edu.co |