243
1 INTRODUCTION
Online college education is a rapidly growing
phenomenon, which is evident from all kinds of
sources: newspapers, professional magazines and
researchjournals.Ithasbeenespecially valuable for
studentswhoseaccesstocollegecampusesisdifficult
and results in their inability to attend, for example,
duetoa
largephysicaldistance,aspecificailmentor
disability,oraprofessionalreason,suchasstationing
ontheseaorinaremotearea.
However, in engineering and in computing, in
particular,unlikeinotherdisciplines,amongmultiple
problems to solve, online education has one
additionalchallenge:remoteuseoflaboratories.
Labs
areanessentialcurricularelementofprovidinghigh
quality education in all engineering and computing
disciplines, and replacing hands‐on student
experiencebyavirtualsubstitutemaynotalways be
thebestchoice,sinceitdeprivesstudentsoftheactual
experienceofputtingtheirhandsontheequipment.
Thispaper
addressestheremotelabschallengeby
outlining the historical development and use of a
hands‐on web‐based lab (called remote labs) in
science and engineering, and presenting real‐time
software engineering lab at Florida Gulf Coast
University (FGCU). It consists of a number of lab
stationsdesignatedforremote
softwaredevelopment
andtesting.Thestationsaredesignedforuseinhigh
level courses in software engineering, such as real‐
timesystems,embedded systems programming, and
software project courses, and involve the following
equipment:
microcontroller for remote data acquisition and
control
single‐board computer with real‐time kernel for
remoteaccesstoexperiments
Hands-on Software Engineering Labs via the Web:
Game Changing in Online Education
J
.Zalewski
FloridaGulfCoastUniversity,Ft.Myers,Florida,USA
ABSTRACT:Thepaperaddressestheissueofoffering hands‐onengineeringlabsviatheweb.Thehands‐on
featurereferstothefunctionalityofthelab,whichispreservedwhetherthelabexperimentsaredoneoverthe
weborwithstudent’sphysical
presenceinthelab.Afteranextensivereviewofremotelabs,examplesoflab
stationsare describedfromthearea ofsoftwareengineering,where softwaredevelopmentis doneremotely
andthensoftwaremodulesareuploadedandtestedonthelabstations.Thistypeoflabcanbecalledinvasive,
since
the essential element of an experiment is the replacement or modification of the software module
controllingtheremoteequipment.Thisisincontrasttoregularremotelabs,whicharenon‐invasive.Twolab
stationsarepresentedinmoredetail,oneforawirelesssensornetworkandanotherforaremotelyaccessible
microcontroller.Severalobservations aremaderegardingthe usefulnessofthistechnologyand prospects of
adoptioninsoftwareengineeringprograms.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 7
Number 2
June 2013
DOI:10.12716/1001.07.02.12
244
multicore processor for remote development of a
networkgame
wireless sensor network for remote control and
uploadingnewmodulestothesensors
robotic arm controller for remote use and
development.
Twostationsarepresentedbrieflyinthispaper.
The approach is original, because it allows
students and developers of software for embedded
systemsnotonlytooperateremotelythelabdevices
via the web interface, like in other engineering
disciplines, but program
the devices from remote
locations and test the developed software by
uploading it to the remote device and seeing its
operation(with theassistanceof a webcam)without
ever entering the lab physically. In this view, it is
game changing, because it will ultimately cause a
significantexpansionoftheways
studentsofsoftware
engineering and computing disciplines can learn
online.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section2discussestheconceptofremotelaboratories
and its recent history in various engineering
disciplines.Section3presentslabstationsdeveloped
by the author and mentions the lab assessment
process,
andSection4providesasummary.
2 REMOTELABORATORIES
Laboratories and experiments are compulsory in
engineering and science education. Traditionally,
physical(hands‐on)labswereexercised,followingthe
principle known as “learning by doing.” With the
adventoftheInternetandaproliferationofrespective
technologies, it became possible to offer
the same
functionsofthelabovera distance,whichcreateda
phenomenonknownasremotelabs(alsocalledweb‐
basedlabsandonlinelabs).
Thissectiondiscussestheevolutionofremotelabs
in engineering and compares them with traditional
hands‐onlabs.
2.1 Earlyhistoryofremotelabs
The
concept of remote engineering labs came into
play as early as at the mid‐nineties (Taylor &
Trevelyan1995,Atkanetal.1996,Stancil1996,Arpaia
etal.1997),andmaybeevenearlier(Aburdeneetal.
1991).Sincethen,alargenumberofpapersappeared
invariousjournalsandatmultiple
conferences.
A variety of issues arose back then on creating
remotelabsandusingtheminteaching,amongthose
technicalandpedagogicalissues.Whatisparticularly
interesting are the views on the need for such labs
and on the impact such labs may have on the
effectivenessofteaching.
In
an early talk given to the Hewlett‐Packard
Advisor Council, one of the early proponents of
remotelabs,DanStancil(1996),outlinedarationaleto
createandoperatesuchalab:
useofthelabwhenitisphysicallynotopen;
wideningaccesstoequipmentforstudents;
sharinginstrumentsamongmultipleuniversities;
remote access to expensive equipment the
universitycannotafford;
savingsontraveltimeandexpenses;
possibilityofremotemaintenanceandsupport.
Later on Stancil (1999) formulated the likely
benefitsofremotelabsinelectricalengineering:
possibility of configure circuits and get results
very quickly, which encourages exploratory
activitiesmorethaninaphysicallab;
flexibilitytologinandcompleteassignmentsfrom
anyplaceandatanytime;
broader access to expensive and/or specialized
equipment;
preparing students to work in a “remote mode”,
which is becoming increasingly common in the
workplace;
enabling hands‐on experience in distance
educationcourses.
Cooperetal.(2002)analyzedvariousapproached
toremotelabs,inaninternationalproject,focusingon
learningobjectives,whichincludedthewaystohelp
studentstoaccomplishthefollowing:
identifyobjectsandphenomena;
learnfacts;
learnconcepts;
learnmathematicalrelationships;
learnatheoryormodels;
learnhowtouselaboratoryinstruments;
carryoutstandardprocedures;
learn to plan investigation to address specific
questionorproblem;
learnhowtoprocessdata;
learnhowtousedatatosupportaconclusion;
learnhowtocommunicateresultsofwoek.
Trevelyan (2004) outlined very early lessons
learnedfromnearly 10 years of operationof remote
labs. Among other things, he stated that “students
usingremoteaccesslaboratoriesoperatedequipment
formuchmoretimethaninconventionallaboratory
classes, and learning outcomes seem to
be
significantlyimprovedasaresult.”Itwasalsoclearto
Trevelyan that “This allows students the time they
need to explore the differences between theory and
reaklequipmentbehaviorforthemselves.”
Nedićetal.(2003)andtheirmultiplefollowers(for
instance, Winckles et al. 2011) used a number of
criteria
to compare three types of labs against each
other, listing their mutual advantages and
disadvantages(seeTable1).
Table1. Commparison of hands‐on, virtual & remote labs
(Nedićetal.,2003).
_______________________________________________
Setting Advantages Disadvantages
_______________________________________________
Hands‐onrealdatatime/placerestrictions
realequipmentinteract. expensive
collaborativework supervisionrequired
interactionw/supervisorschedulingrequired
Virtual goodtoexplainconceptsidealizeddata
notime/placerestrictionlackofcollaboration
interactivemediumnorealequipment
lowcost
Remote realequipmentinteract. virtual presenceonly
no
time/placerestriction
realisticdata&cost
calibration
_______________________________________________
245
Corteretal.(2004),ontheotherhand,conducted
an interesting assessment study comparing remote
labs to hands‐on labs in mechanical engineering.
Theirmainobjectivewastoseewhetherremotelabs
are as effective as hands‐on labs. From the data
collected by the authors, it turns out that
students
view both types of labs as essentially equivalent in
effectiveness. The factors included in the
questionnaires for both labs were as follows:
preparatoryinstructions,dataacquisitioncomponent,
lab report, team work, and physical presence in the
lab.
Regarding the remote labs themselves, the most
highly rated aspects were: convenience
in access,
convenience in scheduling and reliability of setups.
Thelowestscoresweregiventothecriterionnamed
“feelingofimmersion”.
2.2 Periodofdevelopmentofremotelabs
Afteraninitialperiodremotelabsreallytook off,in
various disciplines around the globe. The focus of
developments was still on technology
and
educationalaspects.
Ma & Nickerson (2006) and several others (for
example,Elawady&Tolba2009)comparedhands‐on,
virtualandremotelabstakingintoaccounttheABET
educational criteria for laboratory learning
(understanding concepts, and developing design,
socialandprofessionalskills).Theytookintoaccount
technical issues, such as
access mode and
infrastructure, as well as pedagogy. The results for
pedagogyareshowninTable2.
Table2.Pedagogy issuescomparisonfordifferent typesof
labs(Ma&Nickerson2006)
_______________________________________________
Setting AdvantagesDisadvantages
_______________________________________________
Hands‐onrealdata&equipment supervisionrequired
interactionw/supervisortimerestrictions
collaborativework
candotrial&error
Virtual greaterpedagogyvalue norealequipment
totallysafeenvironment nosupervision
flexibility/easeofuse norealequipment
enhancementthrough
animation
Remote goodfordistancelearn. social
skillsnotdevel.
feelingrealitywithdata designskillsnotdevel.
focusonconcepts
focusonprofessionalskills
_______________________________________________
Lowe et al. (2007) followed the same principal
ABET criteria to analyze factors impacting learning
outcomes with remote labs. They reviewed existing
literaturewithrespecttothefollowing:
understandingproceduresandtimeontask;
socialandinstructionalresources;
studentpreferenceforlabformats;
learningstyleofstudents;
priorlearningandexperience;
tutorassistance;
groupworkandcollaboration;
interaction;
mentalperceptionofhardware;
presenceandconstructsofpresence.
Especially,theconceptofpresencehasreceiveda
significantattentioninthisandvariouspriorstudies,
with respect to remote labs, due to a separation of
learner and equipment. The authors elaborated on
threetypesofissuesrelatedtopresence:telepresence,
socialpresence,andinstructor’s
presence.
Multiple well‐developed labs have been created
over the years and heir full descriptions have been
published. In one of these projects, named iLab
(Harwardetal.2008),threetypesofremotelabshave
beendefined:
batched experiments, where the entire course of
theexperimentis specifiedbeforetheexperiment
begins;
interactive experiments, where the user monitors
andcontrolsoneormoreaspectsoftheexperiment
duringitsexecution;
sensorexperiments,where theusersmonitor and
analyzereal‐timedatastreamswithoutinfluencing
thephenomenabeingmeasured.
The authors discuss a number of fundamental
questionsrelatedtopedagogy,amongthem:
Whatexperimentsarebestsuitedforremotelabs?
Is there an appropriate integration of online and
hands‐onlabsthatisoptimumforagivensubject?
What principles should guide the design of the
clientinterface?
Whatpedagogicalmaterialsshouldbegiventothe
studentsbeforetakingthelabtobestengagetheir
interestandoptimizetheirlearning?
Howbestsupportstudentswhoaretakingthelab
remotelyatrandomtimes?
Gravieretal.(2008)gavethefollowingaccountof
theadvantagesoftheremotelabs:
loweringthecostoflabequipmentpurchase,due
toincreaseopportunitiesofsharing;
securityofusers,dataanddevices;
observability of sessions by multiple users at the
sametime;
avoidingthe dangers,ifthephysical experiments
aredangerous;
accessibilityforthehandicappedpeople;
increasedavailabilityduetothegeographicaland
temporaladvantages.
Theynotice,however,thatthereexistanalarming
diversityofsolutionsamongremotelabprojectsand
essentially “every laboratory project implements its
ownsoftwarearchitecture”.Thisfactcausesthelack
ofreusabilityandportabilityamongvariousprojects
andlabs.Theyalso
pointouttootherrelatedfactors
that could be improved, such as: interoperability,
collaborativeness, and convergence with Learning
ManagementSystems(LMS).
Auer&Gravier(2009)summarizetheadvantages
of remote laboratories as follows: reducing obstacles
relatedtocost,moreefficientuseoffacilities,reduced
technical support, removing limitations of physical
access,
benefit for people with special needs and
employeeswhocommute.
Cooper and Ferreira (2009) give a firm rationale
for remote labs, listing a number of advantages,
includingthefollowing:
studyingatadistancefromaninstitutionoffering
acourse;
246
sharingprohibitivelyexpensiveequipmentamong
multipleinstitutions;
coping with large number of students with a
limitedphysicallabspace;
extendingaccesstostudentswithdisabilities;
towhichonecouldaddavoidingharshlaboratory
environment(gases,fluids,microorganismsetc.).
Based on their multiyear experience with using
remote labs, they list several lessons learned over a
periodofnearlytenyears:
importance of removing/minimizing accessibility
barriers;
importanceofpedagogicalstrategy;
needtoevaluatepedagogicaleffectiveness;
relativedifficultyofautomationorremotecontrol;
necessity to formulate learning objectives and
makerespectivedesigndecisions.
Gomes and Bogosian (2009) list the following
benefitsofusingremotelaboratories:
offeringsimilar flexibilityas simulationlabswith
respecttolabspaceandstudents’schedules;
accessibilityatanytime;
useful as a supplement for regular lab
assignments;
overallbetterschedulingofactivities;
better return on investment due to shared
resources;
easeofcollaborationsaroundtheworld;
supportforautonomouslearning;
supportforstudentswithdisabilities;
preventsequipmentdamagesandensuressafety;
meets the experimentation needs of distance
education.
Inthesame article,multiplelabs are reviewed in
severalengineeringdisciplines,including:
electronicsandmicroelectronics;
powerelectronicsandelectricdrives;
controlengineeringandautomation;
robotics;
microprocessor, reconfigurable, and embedded
systems.
Thisbringsustothemostrecentdevelopmentsin
remotelabs,whichisdiscussedinthenextsubsection.
2.3 Mostrecentworkonremotelabs
Following the initial period of developments in
secondhalfofthe1990’s,atremendousprogresshas
beenmadein the
firstdecadeofthiscentury,inthe
design,implementationandofferingofremotelabsin
engineering and science courses. Many of these
developments and respective trends have been
describedintworecentcollectionsofarticles(Azadet
al.2011,Zubía&Alves2011).Belowwereviewsome
of the issues, which
came up in the developmentof
remotelabs,andthemostrecentsolutionstoselected
problems.
Technical, pedagogical and administrative issues,
whichweremostlyaddressedandresolvedinthefirst
decade, have become gradually replaced by other
kinds of problems, more relevant to the relative
maturity of this technology. These
new problems
arose mostly from expansion of this technology and
from attempts to make it have more substantial
impact on education in individual science and
engineering disciplines. The focus has shifted from
theequipmenttotheuserandsoftwareconnectivity.
An excellent review of remote labs published
recently (Tawfik et al.
2012) sets the stage for
articulatingmostoftheproblemsinremotelabsbeing
currently addressed. The paper gives a thorough
overview of technological issues at the connectivity
level.Akey diagraminthisstudy,similar to Fig. 1,
reflectsthearchitectureofsuchlabs.Eachelementof
thearchitecture
isthenaddressedseparately:GUIfor
theremoteclients,Internetprotocolsoftware,servers,
anddeviceinterfaces(calledcontrollers).
Figure1.Architecturalcomponentsofremotelab.
A similar overview has been recently given by
Thames et al. (2012), although from a slightly
differentperspectiveandusingdifferentterminology.
They overview a cross‐section of assets and
distinguish among: (1) human assets (including
remote GUI), (2) communication assets (with all
communication protocols), and (3) remote lab assets
(including
physical processes). An important
motivation for their work is to make “progress
towards the creation of standardized infrastructure
andtheirsystemmodels.”
Both these views of the architectural issues are
compatible.Eventhoughgivenfromslightlydifferent
perspectives,theyaddressallessentialproblemsand
show the big picture of remote
labs. Selected works
addressing architectural components from Figure 1
are discussed in the sequel, starting from the
user/clientperspective(left‐handsideofFig. 1), and
ending at the equipment side (right‐hand side of
Fig.1).
Onesubstantialimprovement,whichcanbemade,
is with the user interface on the
client side. The
currenttrendistoprovideaunifiedsetofinterrelated
components, called widgets, from which a user can
createtheirownversionoftheGUI,themostsuitable
foraparticularexperiment.Inthisview,Bogdanovet
al. (2012) argue for replacing monolithic GUI’s with
universal widgets
that a user could re‐aggregate
dynamicallytoformtheirownpersonalenvironment
andassemblelabmodulesontheirown.
On the same side of the aisle, which concerns
clients/users,theissueofmobilitycameuprecently.
Maiti&Tripathy(2012)addressaccessingremotelabs
from the perspective of providing the
user with
maximum mobility and freedom to perform
experiments.Inthisrespect,theystudyandcompare
differenttechniques suitablefordevelopingplatforms
formobiledevicesenablinglabaccess.
247
Moving to the middle of Figure 1, when user
requests pass through the network, clearly Internet
related issues become important. Out of many
problems, which become important from the remote
labs perspective, security is a topic worth particular
attention. Many issues, in that regard, including lab
security, for example, are
not much different for
remote labs than they are for other Internet based
applications.However,remote labs bring upunique
problems when one begins talking about multi‐user
access, lab distribution, collaborations, integration
withothereducationalsystems,etc.
From this perspective, an interesting article on
routing and security was recently
published by A.
Diop (2012). It discusses a technique to provide
centralized network management from a single
location,tomanageaccesstoremotelabsdistributed
overthenetwork.Themethod,however,isbasedona
technology from single vendor, which is a
disadvantage and may play a role in adopting the
methodifstandardizationisconsidered.
Another paper along the same lines discusses
access to collections of distributed remote labs
(Diponio et al. 2012). The authors’ objective is to
develop an extension of an existing remote lab
system, so that distributed laboratory resources
would be aggregated and accessible from a single
location. The method would simplify and broaden
gaining remote access to the lab via a federated
architecture.
A detailed account of various issues related to
remote labs at the Internet level has been given by
Guimarãesatal.(2011),basedondatacollectedfrom
lab usage. Several aspects of good lab
design are
emphasized, including: access control, security,
qualityofserviceandfederatedoperation.
Successful collaborations in remote labs depend
notonlyonresolvingarchitecturalissuesanduniform
access, but also on minimizing intercultural
differences, since the collaborations reach across the
worldbarriers.Inthisregard,areportbyNedi ćet
al.
(2011) breaks the grounds by providing insight into
learning practices in highly distributed remote labs
withintercontinentalparticipation.
The progress goes even further than
collaborations,makingthelabsintoavirtualworldto
use it with SecondLife (García ‐Zubia et al. 2010),
strictlyintegratingitwithLMSsystems(Abdellaouiet
al.2010,Lerroetal.,2012),creatingdegreeprograms
inonlineorremoteengineering(Popetal.2011),and
articulationoftheneedsforstandardization(Thames
etal.2012).
Moreover,sincetheverybirthofthistechnology,
ithasbeenclearthatremotelabsofferunprecedented
opportunities for students in
remote areas and
underdevelopedcountries,butonlyrecentlythisissue
hasbeensufficientlyarticulated(Ayodeleetal.2011,
Baffouretal.2012).
On top of social and collaborative issues, labs
accessibility, and their systematic analysis, what is
always needed is a serious analysis of the
effectiveness of labs in teaching. In
this regard, the
most recent study by Lang (2012) goes a little bit
furtherthan Ma&Nickerson (2006)andElawady &
Tolba (2009) and measures students perception of
acquiring professional skills, as per the ABET
educationalcriteria. Thestudentswere askedtorate
thelevelatwhichtheyacquired
thefollowingskillsin
thephysicsexperimentsthey conducted: uncertainty
estimation, measurement, mastering of physical
controls of the apparatus, use of Internet for
measurements and for other purposes, calculations,
graphics, analysis, written communication, oral
communication.
Comingbacktotheright‐handsideofFig.1,one
canenumeratemultitudeofdevices
andinstruments
thatcanbe successfullyconnectedto thenetworkto
enableremotelabs (Azadetal. 2011,Zubía&Alves
2011).Severaldisciplineshaveenteredtheterritoryof
remotelabs,includingmarinesciences(S.Surma&J.
Mikulski 2008, Casals‐Torren & Bosch‐Tous 2010,
Velascoetal.2012).
Whatisofinterestinthisproject,however,isthe
accessibilityofpotentiallabs,whichcouldbeusedin
software engineering courses. This is less oriented
towards measuring instruments and more towards
devicesusedforcomputations.Itisinterestingtosee
anumberofdevelopmentsinthisarea,includinglabs
with
devices such as FPGA’s (Morgan et al. 2012,
Vera et al. 2012), robots (Dziabenko et al.2012) and
SCADA(Kirubashankaretal.2011)).
Tawfik et al. (2012) summarize the results of a
project integrating functions of such a laboratory,
with combined lab stations composed of
microcontrollers, Programmable Logic Devices
(PLD’s),
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC’s),
and measuring instruments programmed in Matlab
and LabVIEW. Their objective is to provide lab
integrationaccordingtoABETaccreditationcriteria.
Summarizingtheaccomplishmentsinremotelabs,
Castro et al. (2012) advocate and anticipate the
followingnextstepsinremotelaboratories:
1 Creationofaglobalnetworkof
virtualandremote
labs;and
2 Development on new e‐learning standards to
facilitatetheexchangingofresource.
Interestingly, they mention several engineering
disciplines(inadditiontosciences),inwhichremote
labshavebeenusedforexperimentation:electronics,
control engineering, telecommunications, and
physics,butdonotmentionsoftwareengineering.
This
isourstartingpointindescribingtheneedfor
remotelabsinsoftwareengineeringdiscipline.
3 REMOTELABORATORIESINSOFTWARE
ENGINEERING
3.1 Essenceofremotelabsinsoftwareengineering
Itmaynotbeimmediatelyobvious,butitshouldbe
made absolutely clear that the World Wide Web, as
we know it
now, bas been created exactly for the
purpose of remote access to the labs. The very first
paper published on this technology was written by
two scientists from the European Organization for
Nuclear Research., CERN, in Geneva, proposing the
creation of a protocol, which would allow sharing
dataandequipment
usageamongphysicists around
248
the world, working on high‐energy physics
experiments(Berners‐Lee&Caillieu,1990).
While such drive by scientists to access
instruments and experiments remotely has led to a
significant progress in designing and establishing
remotelabs,itisthefactofthematterthattheselabs
have not been used
in courses in software
engineering. There should be a different type of
motivation for creating remote software engineering
laboratories.
Thishadactuallyhappenedaslongagoasin1997
duringthePathfindermissiontoMars(Reeves1997).
Inbrief,aroboticdevice,whichlandedonMars,got
stuckdueto
anunidentified softwareproblem,later
during the mission recognized as,so called, priority
inversion. Then, engineers at the ground control
center corrected the software and re‐uploaded it
remotelytothedevice.
This sort of operation is substantially different
thaninalllabsdescribedabove,usedinsciencesand
engineering. Regular
remote labs include
measurement and control instrumentation and
provide access for students to conduct experiments
prescribed in the manuals or lab lessons to learn
about certain scientific phenomena or engineering
concepts. Thus, the labs can be called non‐invasive,
since the student is not intended to change the
software, which
runs the instrument or device,
perhaps,withafewexceptionslimitedtoselectionof
modulesbutneverwithcompletechangeofsoftware
running the device, like in the case of Pathfinder
mission.
In software engineering labs, the situation is
completely different, because the essence of a lab is
for the
student to design, implement and test a
softwaremoduleontheequipment,accessiblelocally
or remotely. Thus, the notion of remote lab in
softwareengineeringmustbeextendedbyaconcept
ofinvasivelabs,wherenewsoftware,goodorbad,but
developed by a student, is to be uploaded to the
remote instrument or device to let he student learn
software engineering principles to become a
professional.
The operation of a remote device can be
thoroughly tested, using a prescribed experimental
method, which may include viewing by a webcam,
buttheobjectiveofobtainingmeasurementsisnotto
investigate any physical
phenomena, but rather
investigate how the software performs, whether it
meets its specifications. In other words, the
phenomenon,whichisbeing investigatedisnotany
physicalprocess,butjusttheoperationofsoftware.
It is surprising that a description of this type of
labscanbehardlyfoundintheexisting
literature.A
verythoroughstudy of remote laboratories revealed
onlytworelevantpapersonthissubject.Firstpaper,
byKarlsson&Hrissagis(2005),initiallyintheproject
objectivespromisesanarrangement,whichcouldbe
called a remote software engineering lab, but later
backs off stating that it was not possible
to
implement. The second paper, by Yin et al. (2008),
describesa remote labforanembeddedsystem,but
since the paper talks about measurements, it is not
perfectly clear from the reading, what are the exact
softwareengineeringfunctionsofthelabstation.
3.2 Web‐basedsoftwareengineeringlabat
FGCU
Giventhestrongmotivationfordevelopingthelabs,
asoutlinedintheprevioussection,aweb‐basedreal‐
timesoftwareengineering labwithhands‐onfeatures
has been created at FGCU, and has been used on
experimental basis in project courses. General
overview of the lab and its progress
has been
presentedpreviously(Zalewski2010,Zalewski2013).
Below,twoexamplesoflabstationsarepresented,
where software development is done remotely and
then modules are uploaded and tested on the lab
stations. Stations’ selection is dictated by the
willingness to show the contrast between a home‐
made station consisting of
a microcontroller and
commercially available station with wireless sensor
network.Thehands‐onfeatureisemphasized,which
means that the functionality of an experiment is
preservedwhetherthelabexperimentsaredoneover
theweborwithstudent’sphysicalpresenceinthelab.
Figure2.Web‐basedmicrocontrollerstation.
The first station is based on an Atmel STK 500
microcontroller board, which is connected to a
temperature sensor (Fig. 2). Its operation can be
programmed remotely by a user and viewed via
webcam. Respective lab experiment is designed to
verify students’ knowledge of microcontroller’s I/O
anditsprogramminginC
andassembly.
While the first lab station has been developed
locally,thesecondwascommerciallypurchased.Itis
National Instrument’s Wireless Sensor Network
consistingofremotesensornodes,whichcanhandle
attached sensors, and a gateway node, which has
Internet connectivity and allows uploading control
softwaretosensors (Fig.3).
Thelabexperimentsare
designed to verify students’ knowledge of remote
dataacquisitionandprogramminginLabVIEW.
Figure3.Wirelesssensornetworkremotelabstation.
249
The lab stations are not technically extremely
complicated,whichallowsstudentstoconcentrateon
themeritofexperimentsratherthanontechnicalities.
An important issue is to evaluate the usefulness of
individualstationsandtheentirelab.Todothis,eight
experts have been given access to the lab materials
and later interviewed to answer ten questions
concerning lab functionality, professional usefulness
and pedagogy. Comments of the experts, as well as
feedbackfromthestudents,arebeingimplementedin
successiveversionofthelab.
4 SUMMARY
Remote labs in science and engineering have nearly
20years of history of development
and usage. They
are non‐invasive, in a sense that the software
controlling the experiment is preloaded and is not
changed by the student. The essence of labs in
softwareengineering,however,istodevelopsoftware
to control experiment and upload it to the remote
devicetotestitsoperation,
thus,beinginvasive.
Thispaperreviewedthehistoryofremotelabsin
science and engineering, outlining the most recent
developments,andpresented brieflytwolabsstations
used on an experimental basis in senior project and
embeddedsystemscoursesattheauthor’sinstitution.
It is concluded that remote labs will be
further
developed and used in online courses, due to their
multiple advantages. A standardization process to
unifysome of the diversities in the labs has already
started(IEEEWG1876,2012).
REFERENCES
Taylor, K. &Trevelyan, J.P. 1995. Australia’sTelerobot on
the Web. Proc. 26th Symposium on Industrial Robotics.
Singapore,October1995,pp.39‐44.
Atkan, B., Bohus, C.A., Crowl, L.A. & Shor, M.H. 1996.
Distance learning applied to control engineering
laboratories.IEEETrans.onEducation,39(3):320‐326.
Stancil,D. 1996.
TheVirtualLabExperience.HewlettPackard
Educators Co uncil, August 12‐14, 1996. URL:
http://research.ece.ncsu.edu/preal/pubs/virtual‐lab‐
hp.pdf
Arpaia,P.,Baccigalupi,A.,Cennamo,F.&Daponte,P.1997.
A Remote Measurement Laboratory for Educational
Experiments.Measurement,21(4):157‐169.
Aburdene,M.F.,Mastascusa,E.J.&Massengale,R.1991.A
Proposal for a
Remotely Shared Control Systems
Laboratory. Proc. FIE’91, 21st Annual Frontiers in
EducationConference,PurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,
Ind.,September21‐24,1991,pp.589‐592.
Stancil,D.1999(Fall).TheProsandConsofRemote Labs,
Hewlett‐PackardEngineeringEducator,3(3):8‐9.
Cooper, M.,Donnelly, A.& Ferreira,
J.M.M. 2002. Remote
ControlledExperiments forTeachingover theInternet:
AComparisonofApproachesDevelopedinthePEARL
Project. Proc. ASCILITE’02, 19th Ann. Conference of the
Australian Society of Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education, Auckland, New Zealand, December 8‐11,
2002.
Trevelyan, J. 2004. Lessons Learned from 10 Years
of
ExperiencewithRemoteLaboratories.Proc.iCEER2004,
Intern. Conference on Engineering Educationand Research,
Ostrava,CzechRepublic,June27‐30,2004.
Nedić, Z., Machotka, J. & Nafalski, A. 2003. Remote
Laboratories versus Virtual versus Real Laboratories.
Proc. FIE’03, 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference, Boulder, Colo., November 5
‐8, 2003. T3E.1‐
T3E.6.
Winckles, A., Spasova, K. & Rowsell, T. 2011. Remote
Laboratories and Reusable Leatning Objects in a
Distance Learning Context. Networks, Issue14, January
2011.
Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Esche, S.K. & Chassapis, C.
2004. Remote versus Hands‐on Labs: A Comparative
Study. Proc. FIE2004, 24th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in
EducationConference,Savannah,GA,October20‐23,2004,
pp.F1G17‐F1G21.
Ma, J. & Nickerson, J.V. 2006. Hands‐on, Similated and
RemoteLaboratories:AComparativeLiterature Review.
ACMComputingSurveys,38(3):ArticleNo.7.
Elawady,Y.H.&TolbaA.S.2009.EducationalObjectivesof
Different Laboratory Types: A
Comparative Study.
Intern. Journal of Computer Science and Information
Security,6(2):89‐96.
Lowe,D.,Murray,S.,Liu,D.,Lindsay,E.&Bright,C.2007.
Remotely Accessible laboratories – Enhancing Learning
Outcomes:LiteratureReview.Sydney:AustralianLearning
andTeachingCouncil.
Harward,V.D.etal.2008.TheiLabSharedArchitectures:A
Web Services Infrastructure to Build Communities of
InternetAccessibleLaboratories,ProceedingsoftheIEEE,
96(6):931‐950.
Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Bayard, B., Ates, M. & Lardon, J.
2008. State of the Art about Remote Laboratories
Paradigms: Foundations of Ongoing Mutations. Intern.
JournalofOnlineEngineering,4(1):19‐25.
Auer,M.A.&Gravier,C.2009.TheManyFacetsofRemote
Laboratories in Online Engineering Education (Guest
Editorial for a Special Issue). IEEE Trans. on Learning
Technologies,2(4):260‐262.
Cooper, M. & Ferreira, J.M.M. 2009. Remote Laboratories
ExtendingAccesstoScienceandEngineeringCurricular,
IEEETrans.onLearningTechnologies,
2(4):342‐353.
Gomes,L.&Bogosyan,S.2009.CurrentTrendsinRemote
Laboratories.IEEETrans.onIndustrialElectronics,56(12):
4744‐4756.
Azad, A.K.M., Auer, M.A. & Harward, V.J. (eds.) 2011.
InternetAccessibleRemoteLaboratories:ScalableE‐Learning
Tools for Engineering and Science Disciplines. Hershey,
Penn.:IGIGlobal.
Zubía
J.G. & Alves, G.R. (eds.) 2011. Using Remote Labs in
Education: Two Little Ducks in Remote Experimentation.
Bilbao,Spain:UniversityofDeusto.
Tawfik,M., Sancristobal,E., Martin, S.,Diaz, G. &Castro,
M. 2012. State‐of‐the‐Art Remote Laboratories for
Industrial Electronics Applications, Proc. TAEE’12,
ConferenceonTechnologiesApplied
toElectronicsTeaching,
Vigo,Spain,June13‐15,2012,pp.359‐365.
Thames,J.L.,Ahler,R.,Hyder,A.,Wellman,R.&Schaefer,
D. 2012. Architecture and Design Methodologies for
Scalable Sustainable Remote Laboratory Infrastructure.
In A.K.M. Azad et al. (eds.), Internet Accessible Remote
Laboratories:254‐275.Hershey,Penn.:IGIGlobal.
Bogdanov,E.,Salzmann,C.&Gillet,D.2012.Widget‐Based
Approach for Remote Control Labs. Proc. 9th IFAC
Symposium on Advances in Control Education, Nizhny
Novgorod, June 19‐21, 2012. Advances in Control
Education,9(1):189‐193.
Maiti, A. & Tripathy, B. 2012. Different Platforms for
Remote Laboratories in Mobile
Devices. Intern. Journal
onModernEducationandComputerScience,5:38‐45.
Diop, A. 2012. Routing and Security for Remote Labs for
Teaching and Research. Intern. Journal of Computational
EngineeringResearch,2(5):1577‐1582.
Diponio, M., Lowe, D. & de la Villefromoy, M. 2012.
Supporting Local Access to Collections
of Distributed
Remote Laboratories. Proc AAEE2012, Australasian
250
Association for Engineering Education Annual Conference,
Melbourne,Australia,December3‐5,2012.
Guimarães,E.G.,Cardozo,E.,Moraes,D.H.&Coelho,P.R.
2011. Design and Implementation Issues for Modern
Remote Laboratories, IEEE Trans. on Learning
Technologies,4(2):149‐161.
Nedić, Z., Nafalski, A., Machotka, J. & Göl, Ö. 2011.
Enriching
studentlearningexperiencesthroughinternational
collaboration in remote laboratories. Final Report.
AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil.
García‐Zubía, J. et al. 2010. SecondLab: A Remote
Laboratory under Second Life, Intern. Journal of Online
Engineering,6(4):34‐39.
Abdellaoui,N.,Gravier,C.,Belmekki,B. &Fayolle,J.2010.
Proc. EDUCON
2010, IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference,Madrid,Spain,April14‐16,2010.
Lerro, F.et al.2012.Integration ofan e‐Learning Platform
andaRemoteLaboratoryfortheExperimentalTraining
at Distance in Engineering Education. Proc. REV’2012,
Intern. Conference on Remote Engineering & Virtual
Instrumentation,Bilbao,Spain,July4
‐6,2012.
Pop,D.,Zutin,D.G.,Auer,M.E.,Kenke,K.& Wuttke,K.‐D.
2011. An Online Lab to Support a Master Program in
Remote Engineering. Proc. FIE’2011, 41st ASEE/IEEE
FrontirsinEducationConference,RapidCity,SD,October
12‐15,2011,GOLC2.1‐GOLC2.6.
Ayodele, K.P., Kehinde, L.O. & Komolafe, O.A. 2012.
Hybrid Online Labs: Making Remote Laboratories
Usable Under Unfavorable Bandwidth Conditions,
Intern.JournalofOnlineEngineering,8(4).
Baffour, R.A, Asamoa‐Baah, F., Anokye, F.B. & Offe, A.
2012. Science and Engineering Education in Africa:
ProspectsofRemoteLabs.IEEEPotentials,31(4):22‐27.
Lang,J.2012.ComparativeStudyof
Hands‐onandRemote
Physics Labs for First Year University Level Physics
Students, Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning
Journal,6(1):1‐25.
Casals‐Torrens, P.& Bosch‐Tous,R. 2010. VirtualLabs for
LearningElectricalMachinesinMarineEngineering,C.
Panaitetal.(eds.),Proc.MN’10,3rdIntern.Conferenceon
Maritimeand Naval Science and Engineering, Constantza,
Romania, September 3‐5, 2010. WSEAS Press, pp. 108‐
112.
Velasco, F.J., Revestido, E., Moyano, E. & López E. 2012.
Remote Laboratory for Marine Vehicles
Experimentation, Computer Applications in Engineering
Education,20(4):728–740.
Surma, S. & Mikulski, J. (2008). Integrated Software for
Implementation
of Control Systems Based on PLC
Controllers. TransNav – Intern. Journal on Marine
Navigationand SafetyofSea Transportation,3(2): 297‐
300.
Morgan, F., Cawley, C. & Newell, D. 2012. Remote FPGA
Lab for Enhancing Learning of Digital Systems, ACM
Trans. on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems, (3):
ArticleNo.18.
Vera,A.,Quiñones, J.,Enriquez,E.,Arenas,S.&Bernal,A.
2012. Remote Laboratory for e‐Learning of Digital
Systems Design. Asian Trans. on Fundamentals of
Electronics,Communication&Mutimedia,2(5):1‐10.
Dziabenko,O.,García‐Zubía,J.&Angulo, I.2012. Timeto
PlaywithaMicrocontrollerManagedMobile
Bot.Proc.
EDUCON 2012, IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference,Marrakech,Morocco,April17‐20,2012.
Kirubashankar,R.,Krishnamurthy,K.,Indra,J.&Vignesh,
B. 2011. Design and Implementation of Web Based
Remote Supervisory Control and Information System.
Intern.JournalofSoftComputingandEngineering,1(4):43‐
51.
Tawfik M.
et al. 2012. Common Multidisciplinary
Prototypes of Remote Laboratories in the Educational
Curricula of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Proc.
ASEE’12, 119th Annual Conference and Exhibition of the
American Society of Engineering Education, San Antonio,
Tex.,June10‐13,2012,PaperNo. AC2012‐3227.
Castro,M.etal.2012,One
StepAheadintheFutureofLabs:
Widgets,UbiquityandMobility.Proc.REV’2012,Intern.
Conference on Remote Engineering & Virtual
Instrumentation,Bilbao,Spain,July4‐6,2012.
Berners‐Lee,T.&Cailliau,R.1990,WorldWideWeb:Proposal
for a HyperText Project. CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
URL:http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html
Reeves, G.E. 1997. What
Really Happened on Mars:
Authoritative Account. URL:
http://research.microsoft.com/en‐
us/um/people/mbj/mars_pathfinder/authoritative_accou
nt.html
Karlsson,P.&Hrissagis,K.2005.RemoteProgrammingand
Configuration of a Robotic System: A Workplace
Oriented Case Study. D. Miller (ed.), MARVEL:
Mechatronics Training in Real and Virtual Environments,
Bremen:MARVELProject,pp.73‐82.
Yin,W.,Sun,R.&
Wan, Z.2008,RealizationofDistributed
RemoteLabandRemoteDebugSoftwareforEmbedded
System.WSEASTrans.onSystems,7(12):1433‐1442.
Zalewski, J. 2010. A Comprehensive Embedded Systems
Lab for Teaching Web‐based Remote Software
Development,Proc.CSEET2010,23rdAnnualIEEEConf.
onSoftwareEngineeringEducation&Training
,Pittsburgh,
Penn.,March9‐12,2010,pp.113‐120.
Zalewski,J.2013. Lab‐by‐Wire:FullyWeb‐basedHands‐on
Embedded Systems Laboratory, Proc. EDUCON 2013,
IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Berlin,
Germany,March13‐15,2013.
IEEEStandardsAssociation(2012).WorkingGroupP1876‐
NetworkedSmart Learning Objects for
Online Laboratories.
URL:http://ieee‐sa.centraldesktop.com/1876public
