An Assessment of Elearning Technologies to Support - CiteSeerX

Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

An Assessment of Elearning Technologies to Support Telecommunications Laboratory Learning Objectives Joyce Lucca, Nicholas C. Romano, Jr., Ramesh Sharda, Mark Weiser Oklahoma State University [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract While current distance learning (DL), now sometimes referred to as “eLearning”, technologies focus on bringing the classroom to a remote student, the next generation of eLearning, has the potential to bring remote students into the laboratory. Virtual Reality systems are being developed to engage the user as fully as possible within a computer-supported environment. This paper describes an on-going implementation of an environment that allows remote interaction with equipment and other participants that previously required co-location. Technology is used to extend a telecommunications laboratory (lab) to enable acquisition of cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills. New hardware and software are being applied to develop a virtual lab experience through which remote students can attain learning objectives as well as students that use a traditional face-to-face (F2F) lab environment. A Same-Time/Different-Place (STDP) learning environment can be both a cost effective and convenient way to educate students. The design, development, and assessment of such a system is presented.

successful Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) program (www.mstm.okstate.edu). Although most required MSTM coursework is delivered through a combination of Web and video technologies, the program requires all students to travel to OSU to receive significant learning via a hands-on lab on the use of technical equipment for various aspects of voice, video, and data networking. The goal of the lab is to ground in reality the learning previously obtained in several theory-based lecture courses, to familiarize students with telecommunications equipment, and to enlighten them about challenges that technicians face. Although feedback on the lab course is highly favorable, the need for travel to a common site is often viewed as undesirable and may prevent some students from enrolling in the program. This paper describes possible technical solutions to the DL limiting lab-work problem, the theoretical foundation for design and development of a system to enable the achievement of lab psychomotor learning objectives and the empirical testing and assessment of such a system.

2. POSSIBLE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

1. INTRODUCTION Laboratory coursework, which we define to include learning of psychomotor, cognitive and affective skills, has become a limiting factor in the growth of Distance Learning (DL). Current instructional development theories and information technologies are insufficient for learning modules that employ hands-on DL with equipment in group settings. A technology-supported Elearning system is being developed at Oklahoma State University (OSU) to support the DL capabilities of its highly

Different-Time/Different-Place (DTDP) technology has been employed as one possible solution [13]. In this case, a remote student logs onto a server using a Web browser to interact with the equipment at possibly a different place and different time than other students also participating in the lab. These types of systems have been used successfully by Cisco Systems E-Learning Remote Labs, Mentor Technologies vLab System, and the Rice University Virtual Lab in Statistics [3, 8, 9]. While these labs provide readily

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

1


available training, they do not have the collaborative atmosphere of a Same-Time/Same-Place (STSP) lab. We argue that what is needed is a synergistic integration of technologies and Human-Computer Interface (HCI) principles from Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), collaborative learning systems, and immersive presence technologies to enable achievement of psychomotor learning objectives, which we refer to as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning requiring Immersive Presence (CSCLIP) [14.] CSCLIP is a theory-driven system that enables lab coursework to take place in a group setting. Sharda et al. [14] make the case that the lack of opportunity to interact with lab mates and the instructor limits the richness and effectiveness of the distributed learning experience. That, coupled with continued advances in wide area and last mile communications and other integrated technologies, shows promise for making a virtual lab experience as effective as a faceto-face (F2F) interaction [13]. The continued improvements in technologies such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) and cable modems have reached a point that support for audio and video, the interactions necessary for a Same-Time/Different-Place (STDP) lab, are logistically and economically feasible. This technology allows replication of many of the relevant activities of a lab experience in a remote desktop interaction. Possible activities include interacting with peers, other remote students, and those working in the physical laboratory at the same time, as well as with laboratory hardware and software. The concepts of CSCLIP will not require students to be co-located to participate in a lab setting. It will also allow for more students to participate at the same time. This provides the MSTM program, and other educational or training programs that require immersive presence for laboratory learning in a group setting, new potential for growth and new opportunities.

3. THEORY TO INFORM CSCLIP DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT An initial review of the literature on learning theory in general, and on technology-supported learning specifically, reveals that no one theory exists that adequately explains how people learn, how instructional systems should be designed, how social interaction affects learning or how people and technologies function best together [6]. While the focus of this work is in the area of psychomotor learning objectives, cognitive and affective process also interact in order that the psychomotor skills may be integrated, meaningful, and successful [17]. It is important to recognize that the presence of all three of these factors is necessary for task completion. The

following sections provide a brief description of the relevant learning domains and related theories.

3.1 Cognitive Learning Objectives Domain The cognitive domain focuses on intellectual learning and problem solving and includes knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of learning [2]. Two theories that are valuable to our understanding are situated cognition theory and socio-constructivist theory. Stein [18] argues that situated learning should simulate the complexity and ambiguity of real world learning and allows students to use the knowledge gained in new situations. A closely related theory is socioconstructivist in that real world collaborative environments enable students to see a problem from others perspectives and create expanded, shared understanding. [15].

3.2 Affective Learning Objectives Domain The affective domain focuses on a person’s emotions and value system. Affective levels include receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing by a value [7]. Media richness theory (MRT) and social presence theory add insight into this domain. In their media richness theory, Daft and Lengel [4] propose that a rich medium facilitates rapid clarification of ambiguous issues, while a leaner media is characterized by requiring a longer time to improve understanding. F2F is considered the richest media because it can provide immediate feedback, while leaner media tends to be more impersonal and include written memos or formal reports. The basic premise of MRT is that users have a mix of information requirements. Biocca et al. [1] argue that the assessment of satisfaction and productive performance in teleconferencing and collaborative virtual environments is based largely on the quality of the social presence. Social presence theory can provide insights into the nature of nonverbal and interpersonal communication and how this affects productivity and transfer of skills learned in a distributed environment to a real world setting.

3.3 Psychomotor Learning Objectives Domain The psychomotor domain refers to movement characteristics and capabilities including physical types of learning [16]. Activities relevant to CSCLIP include manipulating, controlling, and assembling. Cybernetics is the theory that has provided the most information in motor-skill learning and was developed by Wiener [19] and further refined by George [5]. Cybernetic theory is based on feedback through information in the form of errors that is sent back to the device controlling the output. The learner then

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

2


modifies the input to correct the output. Adjustments are made by the detection of errors. The learner to make adjustments then uses this information; otherwise performance will not be improved. This activity continues until the goal and behavior match.

wherever they may be, we intend to implement other facets of a typical lab experience. We have included capabilities that allow remote students to virtually stroll down the hall, walk into an adjacent room, and interact with the people therein.

4. DESIGN OF THE VIRTUAL LABORATORY EXPERIENCE

4.3 Lab Experiment Re-design

Prior to system development, it is important to carefully consider various options in order to avoid costly, time consuming mistakes. In this section we use theory to guide our design decisions as they relate to learning objectives, the instructional setting, and new lab tasks required for the CSCLIP environment.

To gain a better understanding of some of the issues and potential solutions involved in developing a STDP virtual lab, it is informative to explore in greater detail the differences between the STSP and STDP versions of a specific laboratory experiment. We examine the Peer-to-Peer LAN lab.

4.1 Learning Objectives

4.3.1. Current STSP Methodology To begin building a network for a small company, a simple hub-based peer-to-peer local area network is usually required. This exercise requires that students physically wire three to four PCs to a common hub, and then configure these computers properly so that each can communicate with the other computers in the group. Once established, portions of each system's hard drives are configured to allow access by the other computers of the group. Groups are not yet able to communicate with other groups, as a network to interconnect the groups with each other is set up in a later lab. After the local students have properly established their physical connections, and after all students have properly configured basic TCP/IP on their respective computers, all the connections can be tested via Packet Internet Groper (PING).

The virtual lab covers many aspects of voice, video, and data networking. The goal of this lab is not to train students to be experts on specific hardware, but rather familiarize them with a wide variety of the telecommunications equipment they may become involved with in the future and to teach them concepts and skills they can apply in any environment with any equipment. Explicit learning objectives to be achieved by CSCLIP can include: • Students will display the ability to recognize and choose proper equipment for task completion, which may include navigating throughout the lab either physically or virtually • Students will display the ability to assemble and connect lab equipment • Students will adapt, manipulate, and control lab equipment in response to emergent situation

4.2 Instructional Setting The MSTM lab course is an excellent candidate for implementing the STDP methodology, because student interactions with the functions in the hardware occur via a personal computer [13]. Given today's technology, there is no reason for PCs to be physically located in the lab. To enable most of the interactions that normally occur in a STSP lab, good quality audio and video communications between the lab and the remote students' sites are mandatory. The virtual lab attempts to capture as many of the relevant activities of a lab experience as possible, including interacting simultaneously with other remote students, with students in the physical lab, and with lab hardware and software. In addition to implementing the obvious requirement that remote students be able to manipulate the equipment associated with a particular experiment and to interact with their lab mates,

4.3.2 Current STDP Methodology The process of completing the save exercise in a STDP setting becomes a bit more involved and requires the use of additional process support and technologies. Remote students communicate visually and audibly with their local lab mates using their virtual interface and connect to the nearest Polycom camera, which is permanently connected to an external network. The lab setup includes a local MS Windows PC for the off-campus student, and one for every on-campus member of the group. The remote student's local PC has two network interfaces. One interface is assigned to the Internet via the external network and provides a path that will allow the remote student to communicate with his/her local PC. The other interface is assigned and connected via a known good cable to the office hub that will be shared with the local lab mates. The local students PC's are not yet connected to the hub.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

3


Connecting cables from the local PC to the LAN hub in each office, confirming a good electrical and logical connection between each system and hub, and testing it with data are important parts of the lab experience. Local students next make these physical connections. Because remote students cannot make the physical connection, special-purpose virtual-cabling software for the remote students’ use is under development and will be described in more detail in the next section. The remote student first uses NetMeeting to connect to their assigned local PC, then uses the virtual cabling software to connect his or her PC to the hub by selecting the proper cable from a pile and virtually inserting the cable into the hub, and then into his or her virtual PC. Bad cables are set to occur randomly in the software. If completed properly, the light on the virtual hub will come on. Simultaneously, a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) message will be sent to the actual hub to activate the port containing the pre-connected known-good cable. After having virtually established a connection between the local PC and the hub, the remote user, using NetMeeting to control the local PC, is effectively on the local LAN.

5.DEVELOPMENT OF THE TELECOM VIRTUAL LAB Once hardware and software needs and learning objectives have been established, system development is possible. Using Quick Time Virtual Reality, a virtual tour of the lab was developed that allows both local and remote students to become familiar with the physical layout as well as all the equipment to be used during the lab sessions. In addition, pre-taped lectures that can be streamed are also under development. A description of the functionality of the virtual cabling software is also discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Instructional Setting Development Remote students become orientated with the physical lab environment and equipment by touring the lab prior to the first day of class through a threedimensional virtual environment (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Lab Tour It is possible to “walk” the halls and investigate a variety of equipment, without regard to student location, physical accessibility of the room, and equipment availability. In some ways, this virtual tour is better than a physical tour, because equipment from the lab can be linked to detailed technical information from manufacturers and protocol developers. For example, someone could walk around a telephone switch, select and remove a critical component for closer inspection, and pull up technical details for that device, without disrupting the function of the physical switch. Additionally, there are several live cameras in the lab, any of which can be remotely accessed by students via a point and click virtual map of lab. Almost all areas of the lab can be viewed by selecting a part of the lab to “be in” through the various camera nodes. Prior to the F2F lab, students spend several hours in classroom lecture and take a physical lab tour to become familiar with the equipment and environment. This exposure is necessary due to the diverse background of the students to ensure that everyone understands the functions that they will implement, rather than simply following instructions on how to physically complete the tasks. To implement this process virtually, lecture materials are being captured with full audio and video and will be available to students in streamed format. Coordinated with the lectures are detailed graphics and digital images of the switches, interfaces, and cabling structures. Students can preview both the functions they will implement as well as the equipment configurations with which they will interact. One of the main psychomotor objectives of this lab is the manipulation and connection of lab hardware. Either physical-layer connections of cabling or facilities to access alternate media (wireless, etc.) is required early in the implementation of any voice, video, or data network. Remote students cannot

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

4


physically manipulate cables as local students can. Therefore, an alternate means of providing remote students with a cabling experience, and more importantly, the same logical processes toward a solution, is necessary to provide similar, and hopefully equivalent or superior pedagogical value compared to the local students’ experience. This was accomplished by developing specialized virtual cabling software. The student first sees a very realistic view of the local lab. They then must select the correct cabling for that exercise. The student cannot move on to the next step in the process until the correct cable is selected. The student then sees a virtual image of the same switch the local students are using, must find the correct cable orientation, and plug the cable into a port on the switch. Again, the student cannot move on to the next step until this step is completed correctly. A text box provides hints and audio cues aid the student when an error is made. Finally, the student connects to the PC that also establishes a logical connection at the local switch. Lights flash to indicate the connection has been correctly established. Local students can view this process using desktop sharing. All hardware and software components were extensively pilot-tested for reliability, ease of use, and overall experience richness, and found to be acceptable by the students and the instructors.

5.2 Redesign of the Process The re-designed peer-to-peer lab module was also extensively pilot-tested. Initially, MSTM students were used to test for task difficulty, time to complete, interactivity, and enjoyability. Once the module was satisfactorily revised, the system was tested using novices to the telecom domain, and then further revised. The main finding in testing was that it was critical to have very specific instructions for both the local and remote students and to keep each group informed as to what the other group is doing. This serves as both task and process structure for individual students and for the teams as a whole. An excerpt from the re-designed module is shown below in Figure 2. REMOTE STUDENT Student 1: 1. Connect to the Polycom camera in the local room using Net meeting. To do this double click on the Net meeting icon located in the top right hand corner of your screen Enter the IP address. If you are in Room D the

LOCAL STUDENT 1. Wait for the remote student to connect.

number is 139.78.9.248 If your are in Room C the number is 139.78.9.249 Then click the telephone icon. 2. Watch the local students make their physical connections as in the network diagram on page3. They will connect If you have any questions about what they are doing ASK!

2. Connect the LPC1 to the switch through the NIC (LAN2). Also connect the other computers to the switch as in the network diagram on page3. If the connection from the PC to the switch is proper then a light glows above the port where the cable is connected.

Figure 2. An example ‘Re-designed’ lab module

6. ASSESSMENT OF eLEARNING OBJECTIVES Once the hardware, software and new lab modules were thoroughly pilot-tested, and an extensive empirical experiment was designed and implemented. In this section we describe our hypotheses, the experimental design, course, participants, procedures, independent variable manipulation, and dependent variable measures. CSCLIP provides support for the activities mentioned above by four mechanisms: process support, process structure, task structure, and task support [12]. Process support for CSCLIP is provided through the use of audio, video, and chat using basic Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networking technology. Process Structure is provide through the lab exercises themselves and written scripts that serve as scaffolding. In addition, the software and hardware provide feedback that help to guide the students through the process. Task support refers to the instructional infrastructure (e.g. the virtual tours of both the physical layout of the lab as well as 3D visualization of all equipment being used. Task structure refers to the instructional lab modules that provide information for task completion. These mechanisms have been shown to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of distributed groups by increasing process gains and reducing process losses (two or there GSS citations – methinks these two [12, 10.] Process gains are activities that improve group performance over individual performance. Examples of group process gains include

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

5


more alternative solutions being generated, improved error detection, and increased synergy, leading to better overall performance [11]. Process losses diminish group performance compared to individual performance. Examples of group process losses include fragmentation or turn taking when speaking is necessary, domination by one or a few individuals, fear of negative evaluation by other group members, and information overload. Process gains are increased through improved communication channels, thus reducing fragmentation, dominance, and social loafing and enabling members to stay focused on the task.

6.1 Hypotheses While much empirical testing has been done with cognitive and affective theories, and to much a lesser extent psychomotor theory, CSCLIP provides an opportunity to test these concepts in a new domain, namely the lab. Based on the theories previously discussed, we assert that the collaborative, highly immersive, easy to use, feedback-oriented CSCLIP environment will support the following hypotheses:

video, and data and how they are transmitted over the telephone system, Local Area Networks (LANs), and Wide Area Networks (WANs).

6.4 Participants A total of 78 undergraduate students participated in the experiment. Complete records were only available for 55 participants. Participants were tested on their basic theoretical understanding of LAN technology prior to the experiment to make certain that they had a baseline understanding for the task to be completed during the experiment. Lab participation is a required part of the course and students received 50 points if both lab sessions were completed. The participants were representative of those in a technical major in that 75% were male and the average age was 23.5. The largest ethnic group was Caucasian at 57.3%, with the second largest group being Asian at 30.7%. The majority (88%) were seniors, with 45% of participants indicating they had frequently used computers.

6.5 Procedures H1: Learning groups with remote participants will have greater improved cognitive understanding than those groups that were co-located. H2: Learning groups with remote participants will be more satisfied with the motor learning process than those groups that were co-located. H3: Learning groups with remote participants will perform as efficiently in post-treatment motor tasks than those groups that were co-located.

6.2 Research Design A basic treatment – control/post measure only research design was implemented. Participants were randomly assigned to groups and then groups were randomly assigned to a treatment. Subjects completed their exercise and then were assessed based on pre and post lab quizzes, time to complete the task individually, and overall satisfaction.

6.3 The Course The course is a senior-level course in data communications. It is required of all Management Science and Information Systems (MSIS) students. The students are presented with management-oriented information about data communication. The basic components of data, voice, and video communications are discussed so that the students become familiar with many of the concepts used in the telecommunications industry. The course also provides students with some basic theoretical background in the areas of voice,

The basic objectivewas to study the transfer of psychomotor skills learned in a remote telecom lab. Groups were used to to set up a peer to peer LAN with both local and remote participants, and then were compared to those that learned the technique F2F. Lab sessions were conducted at various time slots on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of week 1. Students were randomly assigned to either a F2F, local, or remote group. Local refers to participants or equipment located in the telecommunications lab. Remote refers to participants or equipment located at the remote participants’ place of interaction. All participants received a brief description of the task and procedure, and a handout with instructions for task completion. Each group was asked to set up a LAN. All groups used the same equipment: Dell desktop PCs, Extreme Switches, Cat 5 cable, Intel video cameras, microphones, and identical software. A software was running that captured all their keystrokes and screen captures every 10 seconds in both group and individual settings. After the experiment they were debriefed and it was explained that such data was captured for later detailed analysis. Individual subjects returned one week later in a slightly modified setting and were asked to set up a LAN individually. Each student performed the follow on task in a different environment to ensure that they could generalize from the environment they learned in to another environment. The time frame followed the same Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday time slots. Upon completion of the task, participants were asked to complete a survey about their overall satisfaction.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

6


Later the participants took a post lab quiz to assess improved understanding.

6.6 Independent Variable Manipulation The control group participated in a traditional F2F team telecom lab environment. Treatment groups were either local or remote. Local students made physical connections and configurations to connect a LAN while remote students watched via videoconferencing. The remote students then used the virtual cabling simulation software to “virtually” connect their PCs to the LAN. Local students watched the remote students using desktop sharing software. Both control and treatment groups had the same size LAN, consisting of four PCs, with the treatment groups having two participants as local members and two participants as remote.

6.7 Dependent Variable Measurement Change in cognitive understanding was measured by comparing pre-test quiz scores to post-test quiz scores. Satisfaction was self-reported by the participants using an instrument with satisfactory psychometric properties at alpha = 0.8. Psychomotor skills were measured in terms of efficiency and response magnitude (i.e. the number of computers that were connected.) Efficiency was measured in terms of the time to complete the task and response magnitude was measured as the number of PCs successfully connected to the LAN. All 55 participants completed the entire task. Qualitative data were collected through openended survey questions. Participants were also randomly video taped in order to compare different treatment group behaviors. The qualitative sources of data were then used to triangulate and corroborate the quantitative results and to add greater insight into our explanations.

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Univariate tests were then conducted for each hypothesis and their results are shown below.

7.1 Analysis of Hypothesis 1 While not statistically significant, students who participated locally with a remote group scored 12% higher on the pre-test than on the post-test than did students who participated in a F2F group. This is practically significant in terms of learning outcomes, because in a typical class this would be the difference between a letter grade of A and B on a test or any assignment. Those that participated as remote students scored 3% higher than the F2F group. A plausible explanation is that the highly visual and interactive

CSCLIP environment enhances learning by requiring students to stay more focused on the task, thus generating more and better problem solutions which lead to a better cognitive understanding of the task. Table 1 provides the statistical significance results. Table 1: ANOVA statistics for Hypothesis 1 Cognitive Pre- and Post-test Score Differences Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of df Squares 8.760 2 206.895

55

215.655

57

Mean Square 4.380

F

Sig.

1.164

.320

3.762

7.2 Analysis of Hypothesis 2 H2 is partially supported as local groups had the highest level of satisfaction with a mean of 4.45 compared to F2F groups, which had a mean of 4.40, and remote groups, which had a mean of 4.14. One possible explanation is that the rich medium increased synergies resulting in greater satisfaction. Other factors that could explain the high level of satisfaction among local groups include more complex task accomplishment, task novelty, and a greater sense of engagement or flow. Table 2 presents the statistical results. Table 2. ANOVA statistics for Hypothesis 2 Group Satisfaction Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of df Squares 1.818 2 19.212

69

21.030

71

Mean Square .909

F 3.264

Sig. .044

.278

7.3 Analysis of Hypothesis 3 H3 is supported in that there is no difference in the time to complete the task individually, regardless of whether the skill was learned in a F2F group, a local group, or a remote group. An interesting comparison can be drawn; while those that learned the task in a F2F group have the overall lowest times, their mean time actually increased by 1.37 minutes when they completed the task individually. The opposite is the case for those students who learned the task in either a local or remote setting as their mean task completion time was reduced by 2.53 minutes and 1.96 minutes respectively. Plausible explanations could be less domination and social loafing while the skill was first being learned. Also the remote students received specific positive and negative feedback throughout the process, local students were exposed to this same

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

7


feedback via desktop sharing, but the F2F students did not receive such feedback from the system. Such feedback may motivate skill acquisition and strengthen the learning experience. A higher level of focus was required for remote students resulting in a more intense experience, increased synergies, and greater task understanding. Table 3 displays the ANOVA results for Hypothesis 3. Table 3: ANOVA statistics for Hypothesis 3 ANOVA Individual Total Time to Complete Task Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 40.832

df

Mean Square 2 20.416

2014.940

67

2055.771

69

F .679

Sig. .511

30.074

8. CONCLUSIONS The initial results from this first proof of concept CSCLIP experiment are very promising. Results indicate no difference between learning psychomotor skills in a F2F setting, locally, or remotely. Another interesting finding is that the local participants demonstrated a higher level of increased cognitive understanding and the greatest improvement in task completion time, and reported greater satisfaction compared to F2F and remote participants. One possible explanation is that through collaborative learning they were exposed to additional artifacts that improved their overall understanding of the concepts being learned; and that such additional understanding led to improved task performance and thus greater satisfaction. This is a very interesting phenomenon and will need to be considered carefully in our future CSCLIP research efforts. The positive results from this early work indicate that more work is worth pursuing in this research stream. Technology, task, and process support and structure needs to be developed and assessed for more complex tasks that are carried out over longer time periods and with a larger numbers of participant groups. Lessons learned from this first assessment can help to design new experiments. This is important in CSCLIP research, because such experiments are very complex to design and implement, and future lab modules will need to be highly structured and carefully pilot-tested with technical support staff readily available before and during experimental treatments. Video taping the participants also provides a potential wealth of qualitative data for discovery of new insights. In addition, the keystroke and screen capture data may

also yield unexpected clues and results that will inform the design of future CSCLIP environments and tasks. Another important consideration as we move forward to make CSCLIP more generalizeable to other domains is the identification of other variables that might affect the overall success of the system and the participants. These could include things such as instructor variables, user experience level, and user learning style. Collaboration and collaborative learning do not occur “merely” because people are electronically connected. Virtual labs and their coordinating technologies are providing a framework that extends our understanding of how best to educate in the eLearning era beyond the classroom into hands-on tasks and experiences. A cross-disciplinary perspective combined with careful examination of the necessary components of a successful system will provide the basis for advances in virtual lab development. Note: Part of this research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Grant #xxxxx.

REFERENCES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Burgoon, J.K., Criteria for a theory and measure of social presence. Paper under review for Presence, 2002. Bloom, B.S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. 1956, New York: McKay. Cisco, Cisco Remote Labs. 2001Online at.http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtrainin g/demos/vlab_demo/ Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H., Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 1986. 32: p. 554-571. George, F.H., The Brain as a Computer. 1962, Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc. Koschmann, T.D., Myers, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S., Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994. 3: p. 227-264. Krathwol, D.R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, handbook 2. 1964, New York: McKay. Lane, D.M., Rice Virtual Lab in Statistics. 2000Online at.http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/rvls.html MentorLabs, Welcom to the VLab System. 2001Online at.http://www.mentorlabs.com/vlab/access

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

8


10. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., and Balthazard, P. B., Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: a discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1996-97. 13(3): p. 163-207. 11. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., and George, J. F., Electronic meeting systems to support group work: theory and practice at Arizona. Communications of the ACM, 1991. 34(7): p. 40-61. 12. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J. F., Group support systems research: experience from the lab and field, in Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, L.M. Jessup, and Valacich, J. S., (Ed.). 1993, McMillan Publishing Company: New York, NY. p. 125-145. 13. Scheets, G., Weiser, M., Implementing a Remote and Collaborative "Hands-On" Learning Environment, in Human Resource Development and Information Technology, C. Sleezer, Wentling, T., and Cude, R., (Ed.). 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston. 14. Sharda, R., Romano, N.C., Jr., and Lucca, J., A Conceptual Framework For Computer Supported

15.

16.

17.

18. 19.

Collaborative Learning Requiring Immediate Presence, in Human Resouce Development and Information Technology, C. Sleezer, Wentling, T., and Cude, R., (Ed.). 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA. Sherman, L.W. A Postmodern, constructivist and cooperative pedagogy for teaching educational psychology, assisted by computer mediated communicationsProceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Learning 95. 1995. Bloomington, IN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Simpson, J.S., The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. Office of Education Project No. 5-85-104. 1966, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Singer, R., Motor Learning and Human Performance. 1975, New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Stein, D., Situated Learning in Adult Education. ERIC Digest, 1998. 195. Wiener, N., Cybernetics. 1961, New York, NY: The MIT Press and John Wiley & Sons.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE

9