Virtual laboratories have been demonstrated to contribute successfully to the theoretical understanding of many important systems theory and automatic control concepts in engineering education. This paper describes the pilot experience on the use of such laboratories as learning tools in introductory systems theory courses at the University of Extremadura during the academic year 2015/2016. The purpose of the present paper is to offer some objective academic evidence for the effectiveness of the use of virtual laboratories to improve learning in laboratory lessons in engineering.
CorterJEEscheSKChassapisC, et al.
Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Comput Educ2011;
57: 2054–2067.
2.
GuzmanJLCosta-CastelloRDormidoS, et al.
An interactivity-based methodology to support control education: how to teach and learn using simple interactive tools [lecture notes]. IEEE Control Syst Mag2016;
36: 63–76.
3.
Dormido BencomoS.Control learning: present and future. Annu Rev Control2004;
28: 115–136.
4.
RojkoAHercogDJezernikK.E-training in mechatronics using innovative remote laboratory. Math Comput Simulat2011;
82: 508–516.
5.
Villa-LópezFHGarcía-GuzmánJEnríquezJV, et al.
Electropneumatic system for industrial automation: a remote experiment within a web-based learning environment. Proc Technol2013;
7: 198–207.
6.
PopovićNNaumovićMB.Virtual laboratory and learning management system in optimal control theory education. Int J Elec Eng Educ2016;
53: 357–370.
7.
HeradioRde la TorreLGalanD, et al.
Virtual and remote labs in education: a bibliometric analysis. Comput Educ2016;
98: 14–38.
8.
EsquembreF. Facilitating the creation of virtual and remote laboratories for science and engineering education. In: Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop on Internet Based Control Education (IBCE15), vol.
48, 2015, pp.49–58. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9.
KoretskyMDAmatoreDBarnesC, et al.
Enhancement of student learning in experimental design using a virtual laboratory. IEEE Trans Educ2008;
51: 76–85.
10.
MartínezGGuzmánJBerenguelM, et al. An open-source graphical library for the development of interactive tools. In: Proceedings of the 8th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education, 2010, vol.
42, pp.37–42. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
StefanovicM.The objectives, architectures and effects of distance learning laboratories for industrial engineering education. Comput Educ2015;
69: 250–262.
12.
BrinsonJ.Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: a review of the empirical research. Comput Educ2016;
87: 218–237.
13.
ChaosDChacónJLópez-OrozcoJ, et al.
Easy Java simulations: a software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Comput Phys Commun2004;
156: 199–204.
14.
ChaosDChacónJLópez-OrozcoJ, et al.
Virtual and remote robotic laboratory using EJS, MATLAB and LabVIEW. Sensors2013;
13: 2595–2612.
15.
GarcíaADuroNDormidoR, et al.
The reaction wheel pendulum: an interactive virtual laboratory for control education. Int J Online Eng2010;
6: 54–58.
16.
DormidoRVargasHDuroN, et al.
Development of a web-based control laboratory for automation technicians: the three-tank system. IEEE Trans Educ2008;
51: 35–44.
17.
PérezEGonzálezICalderónAJ. Concept maps and app-based instant feedback in automation course. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Education, Innovation and Learning Technologies, 2015.
18.
GonzálezI. Interactive virtual platform for automation training. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Education, Innovation and Learning Technologies, 2015.
19.
GonzálezICalderónAJ. SCADA software for education in automation and supervision: initial evaluation of easy java simulations. In: Proceedings of the Global Conference on Applied Computing in Science & Engineering, 2016.
20.
CalderónAJGonzálezI. Plataforma hardware in the loop basada en LabVIEW, PLC y OPC. Experiencia de uso docente en automatización y supervisión. In: Proceedings of the 24th Congreso Universitario de Innovación Educativa en las Enseñanzas Técnicas, 2016.
21.
TejadoISerranoJPérezE, et al. Low-cost hardware-in-the-loop testbed of a mobile robot to support learning in automatic control and robotics. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education (ACE 2016), 2016, vol.
49, pp.242–247. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
22.
GonzálezICalderónAMejíasA, et al.
Novel networked remote laboratory architecture for open connectivity based on PLC-OPC-LabVIEW-EJS integration. Application in remote fuzzy control and sensors data acquisition. Sensors2016;
16: 1822.
23.
TejadoIVinagreBMPérezE, et al. Physical modeling based simulators to support laboratory learning in automatic control and robotics. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2016), 2016, pp.622–630. Valencia: IATED Academy.
24.
AyasMSAltasIH.A virtual laboratory for system simulation and control with undergraduate curriculum. Comput Appl Eng Educ2016;
24: 122–130.
25.
CoccoliMGuercioAStanganelliL.Smarter universities: a vision for the fast changing digital era. J Visual Lang Comput2014;
25: 1003–1011.
WelshJSDarediaTSoboraF, et al. Simulated versus hardware laboratories for control education: a critical appraisal. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress, 2008, vol.
41, pp.8129–8134. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
28.
RúaSZuluagaCAPosadaNL, et al. Development of the supervision/control software for a multipurpose three-tank system. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education (ACE 2016), 2016, vol.
49, pp.156–161. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29.
Artal SevilJRomero PascualEArtacho TerrerJ. Simulation-based learning: an interactive tool to increase the student motivation in higher education. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED2016), 2016, pp.3621–3630. Valencia: IATED Academy.
30.
DíazJDormidoS. ITADLS: an interactive tool for analysis and design of linear systems. In: Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop on Internet Based Control Education (IBCE15), 2015, vol.
48, pp.253–258. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31.
PotkonjakVGardnerMCallaghanV, et al.
Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: a review. Comput Educ2016;
95: 309–327.
32.
HeradioRde la TorreLDormidoS.Virtual and remote labs in control education: a survey. Annu Rev Control2016;
42: 1–10.
33.
TrnkaPVránaSŠulcB. Comparison of various technologies used in a virtual laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education (ACE 2016), 2016, vol.
49, pp.144–149. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34.
UziakJ.A project-based learning approach in an engineering curriculum. Global J Eng Educ2016;
18: 119–123.
35.
FroydJSrinivasaAMaxwellD, et al. A project-based approach to first-year engineering curriculum development. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference Frontiers in Education (FIE’05), 2005.
36.
RushMNewmanDWallaceD. Project-based learning in first year engineering curricula: course development and student experiences in two new classes at MIT. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE 2007), 2007.
37.
StappenbeltBRowlesC. Project based learning in the first year engineering curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference (AAEE 2009), 2009, pp.411–416. Piscataway: IEEE.
38.
de los RíosICazorlaADíaz-PuenteJM, et al.
Project-based learning in engineering higher education: two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Proc Soc Behav Sci2010;
2: 1368–1378.
39.
ShekarA. Project based learning in engineering design education: sharing best practices. In: Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014.
40.
MakenTH. Internationalisation of engineering education: experiences from project based learning environment. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning (IRSPBL 2013), 2013, pp.404–409. Aalborg: Aalborg University.
41.
RosenMA. Engineering education: future trends and advances. In: Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION'09), 2009, pp.44–52. Stevens Point: World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS).
42.
AmbroseSA.Undergraduate engineering curriculum: the ultimate design challenge. The Bridge. Linking Eng Society 2013;
43: 16–23.
43.
BadiruAB.A systems model for global engineering education: the 15 grand challenges. Eng Educ Lett2015;
3: 1–14.
44.
RompelmanODe GraaffE.The engineering of engineering education: curriculum development from a designer’s point of view. Eur J Eng Educ2006;
31: 215–226.
45.
BergsmannESchultesM-TWinterP, et al.
Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: from theory to practice. Eval Program Plann2015;
52: 1–9.
46.
PimmerCMateescuMGröhbielU.Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education settings. A systematic review of empirical studies. Comput Human Behav2016;
63: 490–501.
47.
SongYKongSC.Affordances and constraints of BYOD (bring your own device) for learning and teaching in higher education: teachers’ perspectives. Internet Higher Educ2017;
32: 39–46.
48.
ChanT-WRoschelleJHsiSK, et al.
One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Res Pract Technol Enhanced Learn2006;
1: 3–29.
49.
SobaihAEEMoustafaMAGhandforoushP, et al.
To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Comput Human Behav2016;
58: 296–305.
50.
MancaSRanieriM.Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Comput Educ2016;
95: 216–230.
51.
HwangG-JWuP-HChenC-C, et al.
Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interact Learn Environ2016;
24: 1895–1906.
52.
CrockettKLathamAWhittonN.On predicting learning styles in conversational intelligent tutoring systems using fuzzy decision trees. Int J Hum-Comput Stud2017;
97: 98–115.
53.
WiskerG.The good supervisor.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
54.
SaalmanE. Engineering education teachers’ pedagogical use of digital media shown in projects carried out in a higher education course: learning in digital media. In: Proceedings of the 1st World Engineering Education Flash Week (WEE'2011), 2011, pp.41–48. Brussels: European Society for Engineering Education.
55.
Serrano-LagunaÁMartínez-OrtizIHaagJ, et al.
Applying standards to systematize learning analytics in serious games. Comput Stand Inter2017;
50: 116–123.
56.
HanusMDFoxJ.Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput Educ2015;
80: 152–161.
57.
AlberolaJMdel ValESanchez-AnguixV, et al.A general framework for testing different student team formation strategies. In: Caporuscio M., De la Prieta F., Di Mascio T., Gennari R., Gutiérrez Rodríguez J., Vittorini P. (eds) Methodologies and intelligent systems for technology enhanced learning.
Berlin:
Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp.23–31.
58.
Al-AbriAJamoussiYKraiemN, et al.
Comprehensive classification of collaboration approaches in E-learning. Telemat Informat2017;
34: 878–893.
59.
YücelÜAUsluelYK.Knowledge building and the quantity, content and quality of the interaction and participation of students in an online collaborative learning environment. Comput Educ2016;
97: 31–48.
GoreckyDMuraKArltF. A vision on training and knowledge sharing applications in future factories. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFAC Symposium on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems, 2013, vol.
46, pp.90–97. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
62.
RendaGKuysB.Connectivism as a pedagogical model within industrial design education. Proc Technol2015;
20: 15–19.
63.
KesimMAltínpullukH.A theoretical analysis of MOOCs types from a perspective of learning theories. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2015;
186: 15–19.
64.
Yuen-ReedGReedKB. Engineering student self-assessment through confidence based scoring. Adv Eng Educ2015; 1–23.
65.
HeywoodJ.The assessment of learning in engineering education: practice and policy.
Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-IEEE Press, 2016.
66.
ThomasGDarayanS.Electronic engineering technology program exit examination as an ABET and self-assessment tool. J STEM Educ2018;
18: 32–35.
67.
Verano-TacoronteDBolívar-CruzAGonzález-BetancorSM.Self-assessment: a critical competence for industrial engineering. DYNA2015;
82: 130–138.
68.
El-MaaddawyT. Enhancing learning of engineering students through self-assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON17), 2017, pp.86–91. Piscataway: IEEE.
69.
De GraaffEKolmosA.Characteristics of problem-based learning. Int J Eng Educ2003;
19: 657–662.
70.
GomesLBogosyanS.Current trends in remote laboratories. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2009;
56: 4744–4756.
71.
FroydJEOhlandMW.Integrated engineering curricula. J Eng Educ2005;
9: 147–163.
E. H. E. A. (EHEA). European higher education area and bologna process, www.ehea.info. (2001, accessed 20 March 2018).
74.
FabregasEFariasGDormido-CantoS, et al.
Developing a remote laboratory for engineering education. Comput Educ2011;
57: 1686–1697.
75.
JaraCACandelasFAPuenteST, et al.
Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in automatics and robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory. Comput Educ2011;
57: 2451–2461.
76.
NickersonJVCorterJEEscheSK, et al.
A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education. Comput Educ2007;
49: 708–725.
77.
PradaMAFuertesJJAlonsoS, et al.
Challenges and solutions in remote laboratories. Application to a remote laboratory of an electro-pneumatic classification cell. Comput Educ2015;
85: 180–190.
78.
TiradoRHerreraRSMárquezMA, et al. Comparing remote laboratories from the student perspective. In: Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop on Internet Based Control Education (IBCE15), 2015, vol.
48, pp.176–181. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
79.
MaJNickersonJV.Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories. ACM Comput Surv2006;
38: 1–24.
