Automating Engineering Educational Practical Electronics Laboratories for Designing Engaging Learning Experiences

  • Anmol SrivastavaEmail author
  • Pradeep Yammiyavar
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)


This paper presents a work on understanding the effect of automated systems on learning experiences of students in practical electronics laboratory sessions. Here automation refers to the ability to provide students with contextualized information and instructions to rectify mistakes made while conducting practical experiment. A system employing mobile augmented reality (AR) and a debugging tool to assist students with physical circuit prototyping was developed. The AR provides active visualization to students regarding practical experiment. The debugger tool senses errors made while prototyping of electronic circuits on breadboard. The proposed system, named Smart Learning System, has shown to improve students’ engagement in practical laboratory sessions and improve laboratory dynamics by reducing the workload of instructors.


Augmented reality Smart objects Engineering education Artificial intelligence Qualitative HCI 



We are thankful to all students, lab assistants and course instructors who participated in this study. Due consent was taken to record videos and take photographs. The authors would like to thank Dr. Praveen Kumar, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, IIT Guwahati for his kind inputs and support. The authors acknowledge the help of Subir Dey and Venkatesh Varala from Department of Design, IIT Guwahati during user research studies. Special thanks to Vamshi Krishna Reddy for helping with prototype.


  1. 1.
    Portugal, R.J.: Breadboard for electronic components, 1 December 1971Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drew, D., Newcomb, J.L., McGrath, W., Maksimovic, F., Mellis, D., Hartmann, B.: The Toastboard. In: Proceedings 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST 2016, pp. 677–686 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sutton, A., Charles, G.: A case study approach to large-group teaching of level 4 electronics to engineering students from other disciplines Discipline bias, pp. 1–9 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things, vol. 16, no. 4 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon, H.A.: Artificial intelligence: an empirical science. Artif. Intell. 77(1), 95–127 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weiser, M.: The computer for the 21st century. Sci. Am. 265(3), 94–104 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watai, L.L., Brodersen, A.J., Brophy, S.P.: Designing effective electrical engineering laboratories using challenge- based instruction that reflect engineering process (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lammi, M.D.: Student achievement and affective traits in electrical engineering laboratories using traditional and computer-based instrumentation. Utah State University (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Gog, T., Paas, F.: Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educ. Psychol. 43(1), 16–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C.: Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10(3), 251–296 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Booth, T., Stumpf, S., Bird, J., Jones, S.: Crossed wires. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2016, pp. 3485–3497 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dede, C.: Advanced technologies and distributed learning in higher education. Higher Education in an Era of Digital Competition: Choices and Challenges, pp. 71–91 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jou, M., Wang, J.: Ubiquitous tutoring in laboratories based on wireless sensor networks. Comput. Human Behav. 29(2), 439–444 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hwang, G.J., Yang, T.C., Tsai, C.C., Yang, S.J.H.: A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Comput. Educ. 53(2), 402–413 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mattern, F., Floerkemeier, C.: From the internet of computers to the internet of things. In: Sachs, K., Petrov, I., Guerrero, P. (eds.) From Active Data Management to Event-Based Systems and More. LNCS, vol. 6462, pp. 242–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuo, F., Hwang, G., Chen, Y., Wang, S.: Standards and Tools for Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning Center for Teacher Education, National University of Tainan Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan Institute of Technological and Vocational Education, no. Icalt, pp. 6–7 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisen, B.: Adaptive generation of feedback in a learning environment with smart objects. In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work, pp. 658–686 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shirazi, A.A.H.: Content delivery using augmented reality to enhance students’ performance in a building design and assembly project. Adv. Eng. Educ. 4(3) (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuen, S.C.-Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., Johnson, E.: Augmented reality: an overview and five directions for AR in education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exch. 4(41), 119–140 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonçalves, F., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T.: Human work interaction design: an overview. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Barricelli, B.R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.) HWID 2015. IAICT, vol. 468, pp. 3–19. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clemmensen, T.: A human work interaction design (HWID) case study in e-government and public information systems. Int. J. Public Inf. Syst. 7(3) (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davidoff, S., Lee, M.K., Dey, A.K., Zimmerman, J.: Rapidly exploring application design through speed dating. In: Krumm, J., Abowd, G.D., Seneviratne, A., Strang, T. (eds.) UbiComp 2007. LNCS, vol. 4717, pp. 429–446. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Scenario-based design. In: The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 1032–1050 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Srivastava, A., Yammiyavar, P.: Students’ feedback into enriching learning experiences for design of smart devices and applications, vol. 66 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, C., Bryan, H.Y., Wu, W.T., Hung, R.L.Y., Chen, M.Y.: CircuitStack : supporting rapid prototyping and evolution of electronic circuits. In: Proceedings 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST 2016, pp. 687–695 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fischer, G.: Distributed intelligence: extending the power of the unaided, individual human mind. In: Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 7–14 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., Globerson, T.: Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educ. Res. 20(3), 2–9 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abowd, G.D., Mynatt, E.D.: Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 7(1), 29–58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bengtsson, M.: How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2, 8–14 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Estrada, T., Atwood, S.A.: Factors that affect student frustration level (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, Y.S.: Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Inf. Manag. 41(1), 75–86 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun, P.C., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.Y., Yeh, D.: What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 50(4), 1183–1202 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Srivastava, A., Yammiyavar, P.: Students’ feedback into enriching learning experiences for design of smart devices and applications. In: Chakrabarti, A., Chakrabarti, D. (eds.) ICoRD 2017. SIST, vol. 66, pp. 1051–1060. Springer, Singapore (2017). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn. Instr. 8(4), 293–332 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4(4), 295–312 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UE & HCI Lab, Department of DesignIndian Institute of TechnologyGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations