Upload
marylou-garrison
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(1/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Sharing online laboratories and their components
- a new learning experience
K. Jeppson, P. Lundgren, J. del Alamo, J. Hardison, D. Zych
Chalmers University of Technology Massachussetts Institute of TechnologySolid State Electronics Laboratory Cambridge, MA, USAGöteborg, Sweden
(2/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Sharing online laboratories
Experiences from using MIT WebLab in large classes (~350 students)
• What are critical issues for successful sharing?
• How do students perceive, relate to and use this tool?
• How do we design courses to benefit from the resources of shared online laboratories?
(3/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
So what is WebLab?A remote laboratory is ...
• a cost effective way of opening up the laboratory hall for measurements 24 hours a day
• a cost effective way of making state-of-the-art devices available to students
• a measurement tool organized to simplify data aquisition and to minimize time spent on practical details
• more specific, WebLab is an online remote laboratory setup for I-V characterisation of MOSFETs
(4/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
WebLab graphical interface
(5/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Critical issues for sharing
• Lecturer must have opportunity to set course focus so that resources offered by the online laboratory can be fully utilized and appreciated
• Good and fast communication between host and user site when system goes down or device is broken
• Simple and self-instructive graphical interface• Easy access – no waiting time• Dependable – the system must be accessible
whenever students have planned their measurement session
(6/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Critical issues for sharing
• adding online laboratory exercises to courses previously without hands-on exercises is one thing…
• ...but successfully replacing traditional on-campus laboratory exercises with remote ones online is quite another
• The on-campus and the remote laboratories are two qualitatively quite different learning tools - just as listening to a lecturer is something else than reading a book
(7/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Can shared online laboratories help create a competitive learning
environment?
• We choose to change a traditional closed-task laboratory assignment to an open task where students were expected to plan measurements themselves and to find important device parameters to study
• Exploring device properties and how to model them must be an integrated part of the course
(8/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Measurement task
The objective of using WebLab became an issue of moving student focus • from handling instruments for collecting data• to analysing (readily available) data by comparing
experimental data to models
Measurement results expected to be presented orally
(9/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
An important measure of success is the impact on student learning
(in relation to the teaching costs)
• Student time spent on subject• Student attitude towards subject• Student focus within subject• Student learning outcome
(10/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
When did students login to WebLab?
2-22
2-24
2-26
2-28
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-8
3-10
3-12
3-14
2-26 2-28 3-2 3-4 3-6 3-8 3-10 3-12 3-14 3-16
Presentation date
(11/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Positive comments on WebLab• Access (43%):
– ”You can decide for yourself when to do the laboratory exercise!”
– ”means less stress!”– ”gives opportunity to see how different settings affect results”– ”offers flexibility – you can work from home at your own pace”
• Interface (19%): – ”Clear graphs!”
• Real devices (16%): – ”You get a feeling for realistic values”
• Repeated use (15%): – ”Measure one day – think a bit – then measure again!”
• Methodology (9%): – ”focus is on assignment, not on instrumentation or wiring”– ”avoids many practical problems”
(12/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
What students thought about WebLab
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Miserable Poor OK High Outstanding
Accessibility and stability User friendliness Educational value
“Accessibility” and “Educational value” ratings not correlated
(13/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Technical Problems
• The use of WebLab in undergraduate courses at Chalmers was the largest and most ambitious deployment of WebLab to date
• This was bound to result in identification of new bugs and problems not seen before
(14/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Peak performance
• On February 25, 2003 between noon and 1 PM EST WebLab performed 134 characterization experiments in one hour – on average that means one experiment every 27 seconds
• This was a 35% increase over previous WebLab record
(15/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Two types of technical problems
• A handful of system blackouts during which WebLab was unavailable for measurements – due to improper resource allocation setting in web server
• System returned error message in response to valid experimental request – problem was eliminated by increasing time-out settings of the device driver
(16/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Negative comments on WebLab
• System instabilities (35%):– ”WebLab performs poorly – at first web site is not
available, then it keeps on crashing”
• Supervision (30%): – ”WebLab is difficult to handle – much to learn and no
instructors”
• Time consumption (17%): – ”It takes TOO MUCH TIME!”
• Reliability (16%):– ”Quite a few bugs in new graphical interface”
• Speed: – ”WebLab is slow”
(17/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Negative impacts on students
• At Chalmers students worked in groups while at MIT assignments were of individual nature – more difficult for group to re-schedule when WebLab was down >> frustration & project delay
• Time zone differences – even trivial problems with WebLab took long time to correct since MIT staff was off duty
(18/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Improvements needed
• More powerful server to handle heavy traffic• I/V range limits to prevent device breakdown• Measurement examples available online• Options to save graphs directly• Simplified data export to Excel and/or Matlab
(according to student opinion)
(19/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
WebLab vs hands-on
• Lucidity and tangibility are important• Provides practical device experience...• ...but gives no instrumentation experience• However, avoids hazzle with ”boring”
instruments• A real lab is better – because supervisor is
available and topic is ”easier” to grasp
(20/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Video evaluation
(21/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Conclusions
• It is not trivial to design a course that fully benefits from the resources of shared online laboratories
• Online laboratories are not simply replacements for traditional hands on laboratories
• The most important concern from the students´ point of view is that of accessibility
• On the negative side, lack of supervision when stuck on trivial matters is very frustrating for many students
(22/23)
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004EWME workshop
Conclusions
• A successful implementation should carefully address the topics of how assignment is organized, where supervision is available, and maybe supply a list of FAQs and some measurement setup examples
• Nevertheless, WebLab motivated students to undertake more advanced data analysis than before
• Over all, WebLab was received positively in the introductory (second year) microelectronic device course