e-Lab: An electronic classroom for real-time distance delivery of a laboratory course

Journal of Engineering Education, Oct 2001 by Gurocak, Hakan

It can be seen from Table 2 that in both offerings the t-statistic is less than the t-critical value (or the p-value >0.05 for a twotailed test). Based on these results we can conclude that in both offerings there is no statistically significant difference between the performance of the remote and the local students. As a result, the answer to question 2 above is that the e-Lab resulted in consistent quality of education irrespective of the physical location of the students.

To assess whether individual labs met their learning objectives (question 3 above) first the entire set of homework and exam questions as well as laboratory assignments and activities were examined. Three of the labs had assignments that targeted the learning objectives of these labs. Also, homework assignments and exams contained questions that were directly aimed to explore the subjects covered in all labs. For example, question 17 in the first exam as well the lab 1 assignment targeted the material covered in the first lab (Table 3, Exam1, Q 17; Labl assignment). We then combined such questions and/or assignments to use as a performance measure for each lab. Next, scores of each student in these performance measures were tabulated and studied. Table 3 summarizes the performance measures, total possible score for each measure and statistical analysis of the data for each year. We set up a null hypothesis that the labs achieved their learning objectives with both the remote and the local students. The alternative hypothesis is that the labs did not achieve their learning objectives. The results for both years indicate that the null hypothesis is well supported (p-value >0.05) for all labs except for lab 4 in the first year. Therefore, except for lab 4 in the first year, we can conclude that the labs achieved their learning objectives for both the remote and the local students with no statistically significant difference. The outcome of lab4 (p-value

The success of a distance education program not only depends on students' performance but also on an effective learning environment for both the local and the remote students. To measure the effectiveness of the e-Lab as a learning environment (question 4 above) surveys were administered to all students at the end of the course. These surveys used a Likert scale where 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = No opinion, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly disagree. The survey questions targeted there main areas: (1) Lab content and classroom interaction; (2) Delivery technology and; (3) Learning experience.

The data from such a survey is of an ordinal nature. Therefore, the mean is not a sensible statistic to use along with a t-test.11, 11 The survey data consists of two ranked sets (a remote and a local students set). Therefore, the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responses from the two data sets." 14 The null hypothesis is that the e-Lab was successful in creating an effective learning environment for both remote and local students. The alternative hypothesis is that the e-Lab was not an effective learning environment. Table 4 shows the survey questions, averages and p-values for both years. The mid to high range p-values indicate that the null hypothesis is well supported by the data. However, in the first year we observe relatively low p-values for questions four and seven. These questions pertained to working in groups of two or three. Due to the limited hardware available, the students had to be grouped during the labs. In the first year, some students did not like working in groups. Also, they thought that other members of the group were not helpful during the lab and therefore ability to interact with them was not that important. This situation was not observed among the students in the second year.

VI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE NEW APPROACH

A. Advantages

1. No need to duplicate expensive equipment at each site. Students use the same set of equipment irrespective of where they are located.

2. No need to design custom curriculum for remote sites since the same equipment is used by everyone.

3. No need for additional instructors. The same instructor can teach the lectures and the labs in spite of the remote sites.

4. Uniform educational quality across all sites is achieved.

5. Creates a very active and competitive learning environment that cannot be created using software simulations or videotapes of equipment.