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...

Full description

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