(1/23)
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
Solid State Electronics Laboratory
Göteborg, Sweden
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA, USA
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(2/23)
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?
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(3/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(4/23)
WebLab graphical interface
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(5/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(6/23)
Critical issues for sharing
• adding online laboratory exercises to courses
previously without hands-on exercises is one
thing…
• ...but successfully replacing traditional oncampus 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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(7/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(8/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(9/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(10/23)
When did students login to WebLab?
3-14
3-12
3-10
3-8
3-6
3-4
3-2
2-28
2-26
2-24
2-22
2-26
2-28
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-8
3-10
3-12
3-14
3-16
Pre se nta tion da te
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(11/23)
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”
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(12/23)
What students thought about WebLab
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Miserable
Poor
A ccessibility and stability
OK
High
U ser friendliness
Outstanding
E ducational value
“Accessibility” and “Educational value” ratings not correlated
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(13/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(14/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(15/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(16/23)
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”
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(17/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(18/23)
Improvements needed
(according to student opinion)
•
•
•
•
•
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(19/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(20/23)
Video evaluation
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(21/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004
(22/23)
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
EWME workshop
Lausanne, April 15-16, 2004