Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the Use of Remote Laboratories for Secondary School Science Education

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laboratory experimentation is generally considered central to science-based education. Allowing students to “experience” science through various forms of carefully designed practical work, including experimentation, is often claimed to support their learning and motivate their engagement while fulfilling specific curriculum requirements. However, logistical constraints (most especially related to funding) place significant limitations on the ability of schools to provide and maintain high-quality science laboratory experiences and equipment. One potential solution that has recently been the subject of growing interest is the use of remotely accessible laboratories to either supplant, or more commonly to supplement, conventional hands-on laboratories. Remote laboratories allow students and teachers to use high-speed networks, coupled with cameras, sensors, and controllers, to carry out experiments on real physical laboratory apparatus that is located remotely from the student. Research has shown that when used appropriately this can bring a range of potential benefits, including the ability to share resources across multiple institutions, support access to facilities that would otherwise be inaccessible for cost or technical reasons, and provide augmentation of the experimental experience. Whilst there has been considerable work on evaluating the use of remote laboratories within tertiary education, consideration of their role within secondary school science education is much more limited. This paper describes trials of the use of remote laboratories within secondary schools, reporting on the student and teacher reactions to their interactions with the laboratories. The paper concludes that remote laboratories can be highly beneficial, but considerable care must be taken to ensure that their design and delivery address a number of critical issues identified in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term rig is commonly used to refer to an experimental apparatus that can be used by a single student or group of students at one time.

  2. Consider, for example, an item of laboratory apparatus that is used for two 1-hour demonstration sessions each term. If this was made remotely accessible, and supported by an appropriate scheduling scheme, then instead of supporting a single school, it could support up to 125 schools (10 weeks x 5 days x 5 hours per day / 2 hours usage per school), and possibly many more if the schools existed across multiple time zones..

  3. See http://www.ises.info/

  4. See http://ilabcentral.org/

  5. See http://unischoolabs.eun.org

  6. See http://www.labshare.edu.au

  7. See http://www.kirbyfoundation.com.au/

  8. The work reported in this paper forms part of a broader strategy that is aiming to provide enhanced support for K-12 science education through the provision of rich remote laboratory environments. As this program is expanded it is considered critical that an effective evaluation program is in place. As such this study has, as a subsidiary objective, the objective of determining the extent to which the SLEI instrument may be appropriate in supporting this evaluation.

References

  • Abdel-Salam, T., Kauffman, P., & Crossman, G. (2006). Does the lack of hands-on experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 747–756. doi:10.1080/03043790600911886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aktan, B., Bohus, C. A., Crowl, L. A., & Shor, M. H. (1996). Distance learning applied to control engineering laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Education, 39(3), 320–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Science Teachers Association. (2007). SPECTRA—ASTA (Australian science teachers association)—Promoting science teaching. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from http://www.asta.edu.au/resources/spectra.

  • Barraket, J., Payne, A. M., Scott, G., & Cameron, L. (2000). Equity and the use of communications and information technology in higher education. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Dunn, J., & Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Teaching in laboratories. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 9(1), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan, M., Harkin, J., Mccolgan, E., Mcginnity, T., & Maguire, L. (2007). Client–server architecture for collaborative remote experimentation. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 30(4), 1295–1308. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2006.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, V., Gütl, C., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). Evaluation of collaborative learning settings in 3D virtual worlds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 4(s3), 6–17. doi:10.3991/ijet.v4s3.1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote versus hands-on labs: a comparative study. In Proceedings of FIE 2004: 34th Annual Frontiers in Education. Savannah, GA, USA. Oct 20-23, 2004. IEEE. 595-599, doi:10.1109/FIE.2004.1408586

  • Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C. I. S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: a study of remote, hands-on and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(2), 7/1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education Science and Training. (2006). Audit of science, engineering & technology skills. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faltin, N., Böhne, A., & Wagner, B. (2004). Evaluation of reduced perception and tele-tutorial support in remote automation technology laboratories. In Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Ostrava, Czech Republic, June 27–30, 2004. iNEER, 1097-1106.

  • Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, A., Pentland, P., Hubber, P., Blake, D., & Tytler, R. (2009). STELR: improving science retention rates in Australian secondary schools. Science Education, 55(3), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science. Science Education, 77(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343–357. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<343::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-R.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: a review. Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, L., & Bogosyan, S. (2009). Current trends in remote laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 56(12), 4744–4756. doi:10.1109/TIE.2009.2033293. IEEE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Training. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Noyel, G., Leleve, A., & Benmohamed, H. (2006). Distance learning: Closing the gap between remote labs and learning management systems. In Proceedings of 1ST IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics, Hammamet, Tunisia, Dec 18-20, 2006. IEEE, 130-134. doi:10.1109/ICELIE.2006.347198.

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbrie, P. K., & Raghaven, S. (2005). A remote e-laboratory for student investigation, manipulation and learning, In Proceedings of 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, USA, Oct 19-22, 2005. ASEE/IEEE, F3J/1-3.

  • Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., & Torres, F. (2008). Virtual and remote laboratory for robotics e-learning. In Proceedings of 18th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, Lyon, France, Jun 1-4, 2008. Elsevier, 1193–1198.

  • Jona, K., Roque, R., Skolnik, J., Uttal, D., & Rapp, D. (2011). Are remote labs worth the cost? Insights from a study of student perceptions of remote labs. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 7(2), 48–53. doi:10.3991/ijoe.v7i2.1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostulski, T., & Murray, S. (2010). The national engineering laboratory survey: a review of the delivery of practical laboratory education in australian undergraduate engineering programs. Sydney, Aust, Labshare. Retrieved May 11, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/images/site/Labshare_Report_panel_website.pdf.

  • Lindsay, E., & Good, M. (2005). Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 619–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, E., Naidu, S., & Good, M. (2007). A different kind of difference: theoretical implications of using technology to overcome separation in remote laboratories. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(4), 772–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, E., Murray, S., Liu, D., Lowe, D., & Bright, C. (2009). Establishment reality vs maintenance reality: how real is real enough? European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D., Murray, S., Lindsay, E., & Liu, D. (2009). Evolving remote laboratory architectures to leverage emerging internet technologies. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(4), 289–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D., Mujkanovic, A., & Murray, S. (2010). Policy-Based remote laboratory multi-user access management. In Proceedings of REV 2010: 7th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation. Stockholm, Sweden, Jun 29 - Jul 2. International Association of Online Engineering, 65–70.

  • Lowe, D., Conlon, S., Murray, S., Weber, L., Villefromoy, M. D. L., Lindsay, E., et al. (2012). LabShare: towards cross-institutional laboratory sharing. In A. Azad, M. Auer, & J. Harward (Eds.), Internet accessible remote laboratories: scalable e-learning tools for engineering and science disciplines (pp. 453–467). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7/1–24. doi:10.1145/1132960.1132961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, A., Noble, K., Kist, A. A., Fogarty, R., Gibbings, P., & Midgley, W. (2011). Exploring a cross-disciplinary research initiative with remote access laboratories : Robot RAL-ly as a stimulus for consideration of Engineering pathway. In Proceedings of AaeE 2011: Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Freemantle, Australia, Dec 5-7, 2011. AAEE, 441-447.

  • Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In Proceedings of 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, Colorado, Nov 5–8, 2003. IEEE, T3E/1-6.

  • Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, laboratory, and field. Science Education, 60(4), 493–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogot, M., Elliott, G., & Glumac, N. (2003). An assessment of in-person and remotely operated laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2008). Students' perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment. In C. Sundberg, D. W. Sunal, & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching science, Information Age Publishing, 111–134.

  • Pickering, M. (1993). The teaching laboratory through history. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 699–700. doi:10.1021/ed070p699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, G. A., & Howe, R. W. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in secondary school science, part II, instructional procedures. The Science Teacher, 36(4), 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. (2012). F1 in Schools (Technical Report). Retrieved March 21, 2012, from http://www.f1inschools.org.au/.

  • Rennie, L. (2010). Evaluation of the science by doing stage one professional learning approach 2010. Evaluation. Canberra, Australia, Australian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved Apr 4 2012 from http://www.science.org.au/sciencebydoing/documents/SbD-report-020211.pdf

  • Schauer, F., Kuřitka, I., Lustig, F., Centre, P., Bata, T., Masaryk, S. T. G., et al. (2005). Creative laboratory experiments for basic physics using computer data collection and evaluation exemplified on the Intelligent School Experimental System (ISES). In Proceedings of ICEER’2005: Exploring innovation in education and research: Exploring innovation in education and research. Tainan, Taiwan, Mar 1-5, 2005. iCEER, 305-312.

  • Scheucher, B., Bailey, P. H., Gütl, C., & Harward, J. V. (2009). Collaborative virtual 3D environment for internet-accessible physics experiments. International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(5), 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). America's lab report: investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press

  • Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(1), 35–9. doi:10.1152/advan.00026.2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The University of Newcastle. (2012). Science and engineering challenge. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/faculty/engineering/community-engagement/challenge/.

  • Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(6), 414–419. doi:10.1037/h0026490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the James N. Kirby Foundation in supporting the work described in this paper. We would also like to acknowledge the insightful comments from the reviewers of the earlier versions of this paper, and particularly for their comments regarding consideration of students' attitudes towards laboratory work, and the importance of considering practical work more broadly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Real-Time Information Networks, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    David Lowe, Peter Newcombe & Ben Stumpers

Authors
  1. David Lowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Newcombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ben Stumpers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lowe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lowe, D., Newcombe, P. & Stumpers, B. Evaluation of the Use of Remote Laboratories for Secondary School Science Education. Res Sci Educ 43, 1197–1219 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9304-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9304-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation