References

This book was initiated as a result of many happy years of research and interviews as part of my PhD. The notes below represent primary sources of information together with suggestions for additional reading. The page number is indicated next to the source. The classical academic referencing systems (e.g. APA or Harvard) have not been used in the main text so as to make the book more readable (as in my experience, people don’t like jumping between the main text and references). Nevertheless, a referencing system for each chapter has been created to back up the assertions in the text with good research which you can then investigate further. We have often also given the general source on a website for a given document, as the precise URL location is often moved causing some irritation. When a reference via a web link doesn't work, try to search the specific site. If this doesn't work, search using Google or an equivalent search engine.

Some of the references have been taken from other sources that may not have been as scrupulous in their referencing, as they should have been. There are thus slight errors or omissions in the referencing from these sources.

Preface

1. M. Allen (December 2003). The lessons of E-learning. Optimize, 51-56.

Mike Allen makes the remark that “In the next few years, businesses will actually spend billions of dollars on E-learning. In October, IDC reported that the U.S. market for E-learning will show very strong growth from 2004 through 2007, reaching approximately $10.6 billion. The trouble is, 90% of that money will be wasted on ineffective multimedia that will teach employees one thing: To be wary of ever trying to learn from a computer screen again” (p. 52).

2. Cross, J. (July 17, 2012). Why Corporate Training is Broken and How to Fix it. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://www.internettime.com/2012/07/why-corporate-training-is-broken-and-how-to-fix-it/

3. Masie, E. (August 15, 2012). The ‘e’ in e-Learning, Vanishing? Learning TRENDS, 737.

Whilst clarifying terms, we would also note (for the purists) that the word “internet” was a common, shortened form of the term “internetwork”. Many (most?) authors and publications tend to use the term as a common noun. After all, it has become a generic word, similar to telephone and radio. Similarly, in this book, it will be written “internet” and not “Internet”.

We refer to the ubiquitous Wikipedia for support in our assertion here:

"internet” capitalization conventions. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 11, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22internet%22_capitalization_conventions

4. The Executive Summary by The Australian Flexible Learning Framework entitled: An investigation of the enablers and barriers to industry uptake of e-learning: Small business. December 2007. www.flexiblelearning.net.au It states: “…confirmed that on-the-job, informal training is predominant in the small business sectors surveyed, particularly in manufacturing. Informal training appears to be more common than formal or structured training for all aspects of training, with the exception of professional and technical development. This finding reinforces many other studies that report that small business training is focused on short-term, unplanned ‘bite-size chunks’ targeted at immediate business needs”. The study does recommend that e-learning would be particularly beneficial in this marketplace as most of these businesses have access to the internet and this form of training has the potential to be lower cost and be more targeted.

5. Little, B (2010).The Rise and Fall of 'e'. Retrieved from www.elearnmag.org on January10, 2011.

Chapter 1

1. Dickens, C. (1859). A Tale of Two Cities. London: Chapman & Hall The novel’s opening quotation is somewhat longer and reads as follows:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

2. This comment was made on page 159 of the journal listed below (they were referring to Burnet, G. and Greisch, J.R. (1994). The ten most outstanding engineering education and engineering technology achievements of the past century.

Webster, T.J., Haberstroh, K.M. (2002), Journal of Engineering Education. 83(1), 159-166. Retrieved on October 15, 2009 at asee.org (Journal of Engineering Education).

3. Britt, P. (2004) Elearning on the rise: Companies Move Classroom Content Online, EContent, 27(11), 36-40

4. Clarey, J. (2006). E-learning 101: An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies. Retrieved August 15, 2009 from brandon-hall.com.

Janet Clarey draws on statistics from the ASTD (released in 2006), to make the following observations about growth in e-learning: “Instructor-led classroom-based training has decreased from 80% in 1999 to 68% in 2005. And the use of technology as a delivery method has increased from 8% in 1999 to between 28-38% in 2005” p.10. These are startling changes in the delivery of training and education using the internet and other related technologies.

5. Power, J. (2009). CEO of online conferencing software company, iLinc, quoted Gartner, a well known business IT research and consultancy organisation, as saying in a report dated October 2007, that the worldwide web conferencing would be approximately $US11.5bn in 2011. This figure seems inflated in the light of the 2009, economic slowdown. Paradoxically, however, the market could grow faster due to the significant savings possible on travel costs. Retrieved 2011 from ilinc.com

6. This was cited from:

Mark Longer Press Quotes, http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/WeiserNewsQuotes.html

Edited by Oblinger, Diana. G. (2012) Game Changers. Education and Information Technologies. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

7. Kinney, L., Liu, M., & Thornton, M.A. (2012) Faculty and Student Perceptions of Online Learning in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from http://www.asee.org (Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings).

This observation is cited from:

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, Mass.: Sloan Consortium ;.

8. Bartholomew, Doug. (June 2005). Taking the E-Train. Industry Week., 254(6), 34–37.

9. A web-based e-learning system for increased study efficiency by stimulating learner’s motivation. Inf Syst Front (2006) 8:297-306.

10. Ozelkan, E.,& Galambosi, A. (2009). Benchmarking Distance Education In Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from www.asee.org (Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings).

11. Bokor, J. (2012). University of the future. A Research Report. Ernst & Young. Australia.

12. CHE/MSA Policy Statement on Distance Learning (1997) published by the Commission of Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

13. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning. Implications for Blended Learning. Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Ed.). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

14. Welch, R.W., & Farnsworth, C.B. (2011) Using the ExCEEd Model for Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org (Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings).

This definition of distance education was cited from:

Honeyman and Miller (1993). “Agriculture distance education: A valid alternative for higher education?” Proceedings of the National Agriculture Education Research Meeting, 67-73.

15. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning. Implications for Blended Learning. Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Ed.). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

The various definitions of distance learning were located on p.2.

16. Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A Perspective on Fulfilling the Expectations of Distance Education. CITC40 3.

Hentea, Shea and Pennington drew on the Instructional Technology Council’s definition of distance learning as: “the process of extending learning, or delivering instructional resource sharing opportunities, to locations away from a classroom, building or site, to another classroom, building or site by using video, audio, computer, multimedia communications, or some combination of these with other traditional delivery methods” (ITC's Definition of Distance Education). The term distributed learning is sometimes used interchangeably with distance learning (Muzio, 1999).

17. Ozelkan, E.,& Galambosi, A. (2009) Benchmarking Distance Education In Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from www.asee.org ( Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings).

18. Clarey, J. Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale. (n.d.). E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies. Retrieved August 15, 2009 from brandon-hall.com pp.11-12.

In her report Clarey draws on various authorities to give 5 different definitions of e-learning including: “…instruction that is delivered electronically..”; “…structured, purposeful use of electronic system or computer in support of the learning process, web-based learning, computer-based learning, virtual classrooms..”; “...training delivered on a computer and the integration of instructional practices and internet capabilities to direct a learner toward a specified level of proficiency in a specified competency”.

19. Söderström, T., From, J., Lövqvist, J., & Törnquist, A. (2012, May).The Transition from Distance to Online Education: Perspectives from the Educational Management Horizon. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=513

20. Peercy, P.S., & Cramer, S.M. (2011, October). Redefining Quality in Engineering Education through Hybrid Instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 625-629.

21. Preiss, B. (2012, October 2). The Age. Online challenge to campus life. Retrieved October 9, 2012 from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/online-challenge-to-campus-life-20121001-26vdp.html#ixzz28JZCd9BP

22. Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. (2012, May 1). Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. Ithaka S+R. Retrieved May 4, 2012, from http://www.ithaka.org/about-ithaka/announcements/ithakasr-gates.pdf

23. Grandzol, J.R., & Grandzol, C.J. (2006, June). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

24. 2Tor. (n.d.) 2tor Raises $32.5 Million. Series C. To Make Online Education Great. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from http://2tor.com/news/2tor-raises-32-5-million-series-c-to-make-online-education-great/

25. Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (2012, May). Higher Education’s Online Revolution. The Wall Street Journal, A17.

26. Gordon, L., & Berkeley U.C. (n.d.). To offer free online classes. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/24/local/la-me-0725-berkeley-online-20120725

27. This assumption was quoted from Mary Broad, president of the American Council of Education.

28. Allen, E.I., & Seaman (2006) in their fourth annual report on the state of online learning in the USA higher education for 2005 (for the Sloan Consortium), commented that despite the expectations of a saturation in online enrolments, based on the rapid growth over the past four years (E. Allen & Seaman, 2004), there was still no levelling off with an additional 800,000 additional (online) students and nearly 3.2 million taking at least one online course during the autumn of 2005, off a base of 2.3 million for the previous year. The results showed that the bulk of online students were still overwhelming undergraduates. The proportion of graduate-level students was slightly higher in online education giving some credence to the suggestion that online students are older and have other personal and career commitments. Finally, an increasing margin of the leaders in the educational institutions (62% for 2005 vs. 57% for 2003), believed that the quality of online education was equal to or superior to face-to-face instruction.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade - Online education in the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/entering_mainstream.pdf.

29. These statistics were drawn from the reputable annual reports of the Sloan-C consortium. The paper referred to was:

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course. Online Education in the United States, 2008. The Sloan Consortium. Sloan-C. Needham, MA.

30. Phoenix University, a mainly online university, in 2004 had over 100,000 students worldwide and expected to see future growth of 50% to 60% (L. Anderson, 2004).

Anderson, L. (2004). Evolution after Revolution: E-learning: Early teething problems are now in the past. Financial Times, 4. Retrieved from the ProQuest database

31. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf

32. E.I. Allen, Seaman and Garrett (2007) examined blended learning (as opposed to solely online learning) based on three years of responses from over 1,000 colleges and universities in the USA. They also included results from over 2,000 adults in the USA “interested in post secondary education in the next three years” (p. 1). Despite it being apparently easier to structure (due to the existence of traditional classroom instruction), blended courses were still less numerous than online courses. Overall, 38% of respondents agreed that blended learning courses had more potential than online courses in 2004; down from 46% in 2003.

Allen, E. I., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in - The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C). Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.blendedteaching.org/special_report_blending_in

33. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (n.d.). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research. Retrieved January 8, 2013, from http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/PublishingImages/Online-Learning-Survey-Infographic.png

34. APLU Reports. (n.d.). Strong Faculty Engagement in Online Learning. Sloan-C Foundation. retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/APLU_Reports.

They also report that 64% of faculty note that it takes “somewhat more” to “a lot more” effort to teach online compared to a face-to-face course. Interestingly enough, faculty is driven to present content online due to students increasingly demanding a flexible university experience coupled with faculty’s need to reach a specific type of student.

35. Online Universities Blossom in Asia. (2012, September 4). The Australian. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/online-universities-blossom-in-asia/story-e6frgcjx-1226463838518

36. Patcha, A., & Scales, G. (2006). Next Generation Technologies for Distance Learning: Same Time, Anytime, Anywhere. Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from www.asee.org

The authors quoted from the Educause Quarterly (1999, May) for the statistic of 60%; so these figures are dated. The numbers do, however, clearly indicate a strong and growing impact from the mature age learner.

37. Dhillon, H., & Anwar, S. (2007). A Framework for the Assessment of Online Engineering Technology Courses: A Case Study. Conference & Exposition Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from asee.org

38. Danesh, A., Mandviwalla, M., & Liu, C. (2000). A study in the Use of Technology in Distance Education and On-line Learning. Conference & Exposition. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from www.asee.org

39. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The authors quoted from the following papers to justify these assertions:

Lamb, G.M. (2009, October 15). The future of college may be virtual. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/10/15/the-future-of-college-may-be-virtual

In a recent paper, Nagel quoted from Ambient Insight’s chief Research office, Sam S. Adkins who indicated that by 2014 over half of university and college higher education learning will be online.

Nagel, D. (2009, October 28). Most college students to take classes online by 2014. Campus Technology Online Journal. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/28/most-college-students-to-take-classes-online-by-2014.aspx

Teachout, Z. (2009, September 8). Welcome to Yahoo! U: The web will dismember universities, just like newspapers. The Big Money. Retrieved from http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/diploma-mill/2009/09/08/welcome-yahoo-u

40. Fain, P. (2012). Mature Market for Online Education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/19/adult-students-interest-online-education-flat-study-finds

41. Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James-Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

42. Söderström, T., From, J., Lövqvist, J., & Törnquist, A. (May 2012). The Transition from Distance to Online Education: Perspectives from the Educational Management Horizon. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Leaning. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from eurodl.org/?article=513

43. This paper was oriented towards examining how distance learning students could access laboratories and, in terms of engineering education, what laboratories had to deliver.

Feisel, L.D., & Peterson, G.D. (2002). A Colloquy of Learning Objectives for Engineering Education Laboratories. Conference and Exposition Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from the asee.org

44. Richardson, C. (n.d.) Session 1149: Distance Learning Courses in Engineering Technology. Rochester Institute of Technology, Conference section. Retrieved October, 2009, from asee.org

45. Azemi, A. (n.d.). Designing an Effective Distance Course Using a Synchronous and hybrid e-learning approach. Pennsylvania State University, Conference section. Retrieved 10 October 2009, from www.asee.org

46. Online Universities blossom in Asia. . (2012, September 4). The Australian. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/online-universities-blossom-in-asia/story-e6frgcjx-1226463838518

47. Preston, G., Phillips, R., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Woo, K., & Green, D. (2010). Web-based lecture technologies: Highlighting the changing nature of teaching and learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(6), 717-728.

Four main forms of data collection were undertaken for this research. The first survey for students questioned them on their experiences with web-based lecture technologies (WBLT), examined the relationship between deep and surface approaches to learning (using the Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire from Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P.) and finally, gathered demographic data. The second lecturing staff survey gathered data on teaching and curriculum context, reasons for using WBLT, and their perceptions of WBLT. The third approach used semi structured interviews with students and staff. Finally, the fourth approach was to use a set of case studies to investigate some of the issues in depth.

48. These two interesting but contrasting issues are discussed on page 5 and 6 of the book:

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012) Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Foundations of Distance Learning (5th Ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

49. Whilst the picture painted above appears to indicate that e-learning has been widely accepted, there have been some setbacks with the Financial Times’ subsidiary, FTKnowledge, and a well known European university, INSEAD. Both are shutting down their online learning initiatives due to lack of response (L. Anderson & Bradshaw, 2003). Similarly, despite a much publicised launch of Harcourt General’s online college, it also closed down in 2001 with only 20 to 30 students, despite targeting 20,000 over five years (Antonucci & Cronin, 2001; "Harcourt virtual college shuts down," 2001).

Anderson, L., & Bradshaw, D. (2003, January 27). E-learning retrenchment news from campus. Financial Times (London Edition). 14. Retrieved from ProQuest.

Antonucci, R. V., & Cronin, J. M. (2001). Creating an online university. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 20-23.

50. Ubell, R. (n.d.). The Road Not Taken: The Divergence of Corporate and Academic Web Instruction. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.poly.edu/sites/polyproto.poly.edu/files/JALN%20Ubell%20The%20Road%20Not%20Taken%20FINAL9-1-10%20_jcm-reviewedEC%20(1)10-19-10.pdf.

51. Berstein & Associates (2007). Industry Report from Training November / December 2007. 9 – 24. J. Bersin of Bersin&Associates.

52. Britt, P. (2004) Elearning on the rise: Companies Move Classroom Content Online, EContent, 27(11), 36-40

53. Williams (2006) believed that many training companies were examining the global corporate learning market (estimated at $13.2bn) as the ultimate target for e-learning. O’Leonard (2004) referred to the 2003 Training Magazine survey which found that 17% of corporate training used e-learning. The trends indicate that this can only be increased in 2007.

Williams, P. (2006). Editor's comment: It is all about the global training market. E-learning Age, 1. Retrieved February 4, 2007 from ABI/INFORM Global database.

O' Leonard, K. (2004). Best practices in online customer training: Bersin & Associates.

54. Sitzmann et al. (in press, p. 3) quoted a survey done by Trierweller & Rivera (2005) who noted that the “majority of learning executives anticipated increasing use of online platforms to deliver higher education to their employees.” Indeed, Dixon (2007, pp. 26-27) remarked that “many executives are already refusing to attend on-site training, insisting on remote learning where possible.” Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there is an increasing use of e-learning.

Sitzmann, T. M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. A. (in press). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.moresteam.com/ADLMetaAnalysisPaper.doc.

Dixon, P. (2007). Futurewise: Six faces of global change. London, UK: Profile Books.

55. Astatke, Y., Scott, C.J., & Ladeji-Osias, J.K. (2011). Electric Circuits Online: Towards a Completely Online Electrical Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

56. Cliver, R.C. (n.d.). Using PowerPoint in Distance Learning Laboratories. Retrieved 21st October 2009 from the conference link of asee.org site American Society for Engineering Education.

57. Patcha, A., & Scales, G. (2006). Next Generation Technologies for Distance Learning:"Same Time, Anytime, Anywhere". Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2006. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

58. Beston, W.C., & Craft, E.L. (2011). Roboknowledge: Adaptable, On-line Robotics Production Technician Instructional Components Addressing Mobile Robotic Devices. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

59. Schmoller, S. (2011). Association for Learning Technology. Online Newsletter. Posted on 7 November 2011. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from http://newsletter.altc.ac.uk

60. Robins (2006) described a synchronous application for Six Sigma quality training presented by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE, Norcross, Georgia). The course was over 10 weeks and required applying the learning materials to an on-the-job project. The use of voice over the internet protocol (VoIP) technology allowed both learners and instructors to communicate in real time via the computer at a low cost compared to the more expensive POTS (“plain old telephone system”). Robins believed that there were advantages of synchronous over traditional pre-recorded e-learning, besides the obvious of having an instructor present simultaneously. These advantages include doing computer desktop sharing, using the web browser of students to follow that of the instructor to interesting websites, watching video clips and being able to share software applications simultaneously such as Excel on either the instructor’s machine or that of the learner. Finally both learners and instructor could go to a remote laboratory to see the classroom theory put into practice. This application could be considered to be blended learning as both e-learning and on-the-job training were the key components.

Robins, M. (2006). Live, online learning prompts education. Quality, 10(45), 32-33. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from Proquest Science Journals. October 2006.

61. This issue is mentioned in this paper:

Parker, M.A., & Martin, F. (2010). Using Virtual Classrooms: Student Perceptions of Features and Characteristics in an Online and a Blended Course. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1).

And it is drawn from the primary source of:

Cook, D.A., & McDonald, F.S. (2008). E-learning, is there anything special about the “e”? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 51(1), 5-21.

62. The perennial debate about whether online education is as good (or better than) the traditional classroom form is explored further in numerous studies including that of Moore, M.G., Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A systems view. San Francisco: Wadsworth. Lorenzo, G. and Moore, J. (2002) The Sloan Consortium Report to the

Nation.: Five Pillars of quality online education. Retrieved February 24, 2005, at http://www.aln.org/effective/pillarreport.pdf. The belief is that there are no discernible differences and in our experience, we can clearly see poor instruction having an overwhelming impact on the quality of education.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. San Francisco: Wadsworth.

63. Enriquez, A. (2010). Assessing the Effectiveness of Dual Delivery Mode in an Online Introductory Circuits Analysis Course. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

64. This comment also came from the book:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James-Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

65. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (May 2009). Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning. A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

The quotation was from p. ix of the Abstract.

66. This paper was quoted in the book:

Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

This paper was referred to in the book:

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Foundations of Distance Education (5th Ed.) Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon.

67. Parkhurst, R., Moskal, B.M., Downey, G.L., Lucena, J., Bigley, T., & Elberb, S. (2008). Engineering Cultures: Online vs. In-class. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4).

68. Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. (2012). Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. Ithaka S+R. Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://www.ithaka.org/about-ithaka/announcements/ithakasr-gates.pdf

69. Long, J.M., Horan, B.P., & Hall, R. (2012). Undergraduate Electronics Students’ Use of Home Experiment Kits for Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The report citing this was:

Palmer, S.& Bray, S.L. (2002). On-and off-campus Student Persistence and Academic Performance. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 11(2), 66-72.

70. Kolowich, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 24, 2012 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/conflicted-faculty-and-online-education-2012

71. The benefits, as pointed out by Henderson (2003) and supplemented by other authors, for online learning compared to other approaches such as instructor-led training in a classroom are:

• Travelling to class is minimized for students meaning lower costs and reduced time loss and place independence for the learner and instructor (Anido et al., 2004).

• One can learn at one’s own convenience.

• One can absorb the materials in smaller portions.

• The costs of the actual training can be lower as compared to instructor-led training, especially useful for developing countries (Ahmad, Udin, & Yusoff, 2001).

• Speed of ramp-up in delivery and rollout of training is swift.

• One can respond to business requirements quickly and effectively.

• One is able to update multiple sites with new material quickly.

• It is scalable up or down easily to handle more (or less) requirements such as instructors and time of delivery.

• There is a consistent message to multiple sites and participants with knowledge consistency (Anido et al., 2004).

• Learning is 24/7 hours per week or time independent (Anido et al., 2004).

• One is able to build a community within a business.

• It easily fits into the e-business and existing IT infrastructure of an organization.

• Learning quality can be improved on existing classroom training using consistently and repeatable higher quality training materials and instruction.

• It is adaptable to different learning styles and pace (McVay-Lynch, 2002).

• One can achieve global reach with the learning materials (Anido et al., 2004).

• Arguably, it is claimed that it is more rapid than traditional learning techniques (Anido et al., 2004).

• It can “Provide a means of documenting a complete curriculum” (Armarego, Fowler, & Roy, 2001, p. 260) so that the departure of a lecturer from designing and presenting a course does not mean it has to be rewritten.

Henderson, A. J. (2003). The e-learning questions and answer book. New York: Amacom.

Anido, L., Valero, E., Santos, J., Picos, J., Burguillo, J. C., Fernandez, M., et al. (2004). Applying ICT for educational purposes in the environmental sciences domain. Paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications.

Ahmad, H., Udin, Z. M., & Yusoff, R. Z. (2001). Integrated process design for e-learning: A case study. Paper presented at the The Sixth International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design.

McVay-Lynch, M. (2002). The online educator - A guide to creating the virtual classroom. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Armarego, J., Fowler, L., & Roy, G. G. (2001). Constructing engineering knowledge: Development of an online learning environment. IEEE.

72. Anitsal, M., Anitsal, I., Fidan, I., Barger, B., & Allen, M. (2008). An Exploratory Assessment of Distance and On-ground Delivery of Business, Math and Engineering Technology Courses. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

73. 1080 Group, LLC (2008). Five Keys to Getting Started with Interactive Online Training (A 1080 Group White Paper Prepared for Citrix Online in March 2008).

74. Brown and Lahoud (2005) noted the remarks of Moore and Kearsley (1996) that courses delivered at a distance can be as good as that of traditional classroom instruction. They felt that the key to a good quality course is the way it is designed and delivered. After an extensive review of the literature, Lorenzo and Moore (2002) supported this assertion, by saying that online learning can on occasion be better than traditional classroom learning.

Brown, S. A., & Lahoud, H. A. (2005). An examination of innovative online lab technologies. Paper presented at the SIGITE '05. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from ACM database.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. San Francisco: Wadsworth.

Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. (2002). The Sloan Consortium report to the nation: Five pillars of quality online education. Retrieved February 24, 2005 from http://www.aln.org/effective/pillarreport1.pdf

75. Cygman, L. Learning Styles: Which type of Student is more Successful in which Modality. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved December 23, 2011 from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=442

76. (n.d.). How to Promote the Value of Online Training Within your Organization. Training Industry and Critix Systems. Retrieved March 3, 2012 from http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/images/pdf/GoToMeeting_TrainingIndustry_OnlineTrainingROI.pdf

77. Grandzol, J.R., & Grandzol, C.J. (2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

78. On the other hand, L.J. Smith (2001) listed the problems for e-learning being that of “team building, security of online examinations, absence of oral presentation opportunities and technical problems” (p. 1).

79. Mehrabian, A., Buchanan, W., & Rahrooh, A. (2009). AC 2009-2319: Course Transformation From Synchronous to Asynchronous using Technology. Retrieved from the conference link on the American Society for Engineering Education website at asee.org

80. Anon. (2002). Lessons from the e-learning experience. Training Strategies for Tomorrow Jan/Feb 2002,16(1). ABI/INFORM Global p.19-21.

81. Parkhurst, R., Moskal, B.M., Downey, G.L., Lucena, J., Bigley, T., & Elberb, S. (2008) Engineering Cultures: Online vs. In-class. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4).

Other papers drawn on to support these assertions which were cited in the above paper included (in order cited): Stanford-Bowers, D. (n.d.). Persistence in Online Classes: A Study of Perceptions among Community College

Stakeholders. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1), Retrieved June 1, 2008, from the MERLOT site: jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf

Tyler-Smith, K. (2008). Early Attrition Among first Time eLearners: A Review of Factors that Contribute to Drop-Out, Withdrawal and Non-Completion Rates of Adult Learners undertaking eLearning Programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), Retrieved June 2, 2008, from the MERLOT site: http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol2_No2.htm

Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating Interaction in Computer Mediated Online Courses. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from the Emoderators site, FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference, Tallahassee, FL: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html

Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.

Rivera, B., & Rowland, G. (2008). Powerful E-learning: A Preliminary Study of Learner Experiences. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1). Retrieved June 1, 2008, from the MERLOT site: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/rowland0308.htm

Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Najmuddin, S., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-to-face Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 1(1), 29-49.

82. Kinney, L., Liu, M., & Thornton, M.A. (2012). Faculty and Student Perceptions of Online Learning in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

83. Gonzales, R.F. (2004). A Dynamic Model for Delivering Distance Learning Curriculum via Interactive Peripherals. The 2004 Annual ASEE Conference. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from the American Society for Engineering Education site asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

84. The disadvantages of online learning, as pointed out by Henderson (2003), are:

• Without the interaction it can be dull.

• Computer pages on a screen (such as a book) are difficult to train on.

• Hands-on experiences are difficult to provide.

• There is minimal or no interaction with other class members.

• The presentation is fragmented and a holistic picture of the learning process is difficult to acquire.

• There are low completion rates of online learning courses; there is little motivation to complete. Henderson, A. J. (2003). The e-learning questions and answer book. New York: Amacom.

85. Kinney, L., Liu, M., & Thornton, M.A. (2012). Faculty and Student Perceptions of Online Learning in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

86. On the other hand, L.J. Smith (2001) listed the problems for e-learning being that of “team building, security of online examinations, absence of oral presentation opportunities and technical problems” (p. 1).

Smith, L. J. (2001). Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of electronic and traditional MBA marketing planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 35-43.

87. Tabas, J.M., LeMay, C.M., & Freije, E. (2012). Online Education: The End of Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings from the asee.org

88. Peercy, P.S., & Cramer, S.M. (2011). Redefining Quality in Engineering Education Through Hybrid Instruction. Proceedings of the Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 625-629.

89. A study of online learning applied in New Zealand revealed that online learning provided increased flexibility in timing of presentations, pace and location where training was provided and easier scaling of the number of trainees. However, these benefits were countered by the increased time, human and financial resources required for small and medium sized organisations.

Elliot, R.& Clayton, J. (2007). E-Learning Activity in New Zealand Industry Training Organisations: Perceived Benefits and barriers. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2007, 244-248.

90. In her report, E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies (Janet Clarey, Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale downloaded from the website brandon-hall.com on the 15 August 2009, 50), Janet Clarey, discusses where classroom training would probably be preferable to e-learning.

91. Muggli, D.S., & Tande, B. (2011). A Model for Initiating ABET-Accredited Engineering Degree Programs Using Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Expo and Conference. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from asee.org.

A paper discussing the differing impacts for mature age vs. traditional younger college students is cited in the paper above:

Fisher, F., Hadim, H., Esche, S., Ubell, R., Chassapis, C. (2007). ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Conference Proceedings.

92. As Neal remarked (2006), we have learned from a young age almost exclusively in a classroom environment, so e-learning with its rapidly changing technologies is challenging. Another term used synonymously with e-learning was online training. Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt (2006) quoted the University of Illinois Faculty Seminar (University of Illinois Faculty Seminar, 1999) where online training was taken to be “instruction through a connection to a computer system at a venue distant from the learner’s personal computer”.

The term “Web-based instruction” is also used and was quoted by Sitzmann et al. (in press) from Khan where he referred to it as: “a hypermedia-based instructional program which utilizes the attributes and resources of the World Wide Web to create a meaningful learning environment where learning is fostered and supported” (Khan, 1997, p. 6) which is a form of asynchronous e-learning. The two forms of e-learning using asynchronous and synchronous forms are distinguished in the following section.

Neal, L. (2006). Senior service: Aging learners are just like the rest of us. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=opinion&article=80-1

Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Sitzmann, T. M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. A. (n.d.). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.moresteam.com/ADLMetaAnalysisPaper.doc.

Khan, B. (1997). Web-based instruction. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

93. Loch, B., & Reushle, S. (2008). The practice of web conferencing: Where are we now? In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/loch.pdf.

Further support to the comparison between asynchronous and synchronous e-learning is given by:

Birch, D., & Volkov, M. (2005). Students’ perceptions of compulsory asynchronous online discussion. Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference 2005: Broadening the Boundaries.

94. Anon. (2002). Lessons from the e-learning experience. Training Strategies for Tomorrow Jan/Feb 2002,16(1). ABI/INFORM Global p.19-21.

95. Colwell et al. (2002) noted that practical work and executing experiments help students in learning science and engineering subjects. They quoted from Hewson and Hewson (1983) who stated that students need to engage in knowledge construction. This is difficult for students working in science and engineering as they “need to develop both conceptual and procedural understanding by appropriate actions” (Colwell et al., 2002). This required practical hands-on activity. Jochheim and Roehrig (1999) noted that doing experiments with live processes and equipment equips the engineering student with expertise in tackling engineering problems as well as improving their motivation. He added that many physical phenomena are difficult to understand and explain in words or textbooks but must be witnessed in action.

Colwell, C., Scanlon, E., & Cooper, M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers and Education, 38, 65-76. Accepted November 16,2001.

Hewson, M., & Hewson, P. (1983). The effect of instruction using student's prior knowledge and conceptual change categories on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 731-743.

Jochheim, A., & Roehrig, C. (1999). The virtual lab for teleoperated control of real experiments. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://prt.fernuni-hagen.de/rsvl/cdc99/cdc99.pdf

96. Huntley, Mathieu, and Schell (2004) defined a laboratory (or lab, as it will be henceforth referred to, for brevity) “as a room or building containing specialised equipment” (p. 398). Lindsay (2005) noted that a typical lab class “comprised a small group of students, and a demonstrator (often a postgraduate student), grouped around a piece of hardware located in a lab. Students typically conduct a series of experimental procedures as outlined in the lab handout, they record the data from the hardware, and they write up a report based on this data and the underlying theory in the week or two subsequent to the session” (p. 44).

Huntley, C. L., Mathieu, R. G., & Schell, G. P. (2004). An initial assessment of remote access computer laboratories for IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 397-407. Retrieved November 320, 2006, from the ProQuest Education Journals database.

Lindsay, E. D. (2005). The impact of remote and virtual access to hardware upon the learning outcomes of undergraduate engineering laboratory classes. PhD. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

97. Gandole (2005) added to this by remarking that a lab “should aim to encourage students to gain:

• Manipulative skills.

• Observational skills.

• Ability to interpret experimental data.

• Ability to plan experiments.

• Interest in the subject.

• Enjoyment of the subject.

• A feeling of reality for the phenomena talked about in theory” (p. 49).

Gandole, Y. B. (2005). Development of computer software support for undergraduate electronics science laboratory practical learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(9). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article05.htm.

98. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

99. Chaturvedi, S., Akan, O., Bawab, S., Abdel-Salam, T., & Venkataramana, M. (2003). A Web-based Multimedia Virtual Experiment. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

100. Lahoud and Tang (2006) pointed out that many distance learning students found that traditional lab experiments were not an option due to geographical separation. They suggested offering some form of virtual or remote lab environment for distance learning students. They described the two possible solutions:

• Virtual labs comprising the simulation software running on a host machine; but they believed that it is difficult for students to achieve the required skills and practice. Often very powerful and expensive servers are required to make the simulations as realistic as possible.

• Remote labs are equivalent to the traditional lab environment in using real equipment but situated at a significant distance from the learner.

Lahoud, H. A., & Tang, X. (2006). Information security labs in IDS/IPS for distance education. Paper presented at the SIGITE'06.

101. Ma and Nickerson (2006) referred to the impact that information technology has had on the creation of simulated labs and remote labs as useful alternatives to the traditional conventional labs. They pointed out that the effectiveness of these two new lab approaches as compared with the traditional hands-on labs was not examined in much detail in the research literature. They felt that the remote and simulated labs were an excellent way to share specialized skills and resources over a wide geographical area and thus reduce overall costs and improving the educational experience.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database. September 2006.

102. Ma and Nickerson (2006) noted that simulated labs were considered to be at least as effective as traditional hands-on labs. However Magin and Kanapathipillai (2000) believed that simulation could result in some disconnection between the real and simulated or virtual worlds. An additional problem was the often significant costs of a simulation system (in some cases, more than the physical lab). Remote labs are becoming increasingly popular and provided flexibility in terms of place and time for a student and they can also be accessible to far more students. However, the educational effectiveness of remote labs was questioned by some, as students are likely be irritated by having a computer as an intermediary to the real world equipment (Keilson, King, & Sapnar, 1999).

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database. September 2006.

Magin, D. J., & Kanapathipillai, S. (2000). Engineering students' understanding of the role of experimentation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 351-358.

103. (2011). 10 Reasons Student Say They Prefer Learning Online. Technology & Learning 3(7). Publisher Website: http://www.nbmedia.com.

Chapter 2

1. Banks (2004, p. 22) drew on O’Sullivan (1976) who pointed out that “without transfer of knowledge from one person to another, or from one person to many people, work could not be effectively performed. In order for human beings to be productive and or to perform, some form of training was utilized”. Flores (2006, p. 9) quoted Jack Welch, former General Electric Chairman and CEO, who said: “An organization's ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage”.

Banks, L. V. (2004). Brick, click, or brick and click: A comparative study on the effectiveness of content delivery modalities for working adults. PhD Thesis. Touro University International.

O'Sullivan, K. (1976). Training and development handbook (2nd Ed.). In R. L. Craig (Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flores, J. G. (2006). Uniting learners around the world. Retrieved February 4, 2007 from http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/1._USDLA_Overview.pdf

2. Anderson (2000) referred to IDC, an international IT research organisation, who remarked that corporate CEO’s realize that upskilling and training of employees was normally a top priority and critical to survival of their companies. An article in Works Management ("Train to Succeed," 2003) stated that training was a key part in achieving high levels of productivity from one’s assets. If one’s people do not understand how to exploit an asset’s full capability, then the best return on investment will not be realized. Similarly, downtime can be minimised by a well trained workforce acting quickly to troubleshoot and then to remedy problems with defective equipment. Aitkenhead (2002) noted that training needed to provide three items: greater cognitive skills to perform better, improved motor skills to support good practical performance and the ability to make “reasoned judgements” (p. 376).

Anderson, C. (2000). Elearning in practice: Blended solutions in action. Framingham, MA: IDC. Retrieved November 2006, from http://www.mentergy.com/order_idc.html.

Train to succeed. (2003, July). Works Management, 56, 22-23. Retrieved October 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database

Aitkenhead, A. R. (2002). Undergraduate and postgraduate education. Best Practice & Research Anaesthesiology, 16(3), 375-389. Retrieved October 310,2007 from Elsevier Science database.

3. O’Brien and Hall (2004, p. 935) referred to the work done by a number of researchers (Roche, Frank, & Teasy, 1992; Stevens & Mackay, 1999) in emphasising the importance of training “to company competitiveness and employee motivation.” This is supported by Stewart (2002) who noted that employees are locked into organisations with “knowledge handcuffs” (p. 28), whereby they get opportunities for learning and improving their knowledge. Fitzenz (2000), sometimes referred to as the Father of Human Capital Benchmarking and Performance Assessment, pointed out that when an organisation provides training and development to their employees, “you make a deposit in their loyalty bank” (p. 99). O’Brien and Hall felt that many companies (especially small and medium enterprises) unfortunately do not send their employees on training courses due to the lack of time, cost and lack of appropriate courses, and that online learning could address these issues.

O'Brien, E., & Hall, T. (2004). Training needs analysis - The first step in authoring e-learning content. Paper presented at the SAC'04.

Roche, Frank, W., & Teasy, P. (1992). Industrial training in Ireland: A study prepared for the industrial policy review.

Stewart, T. A. (2002). The wealth of knowledge - Intellectual capital and the twenty-first century organisation. Clerkenwell: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Stevens, J., & Mackay, R. (1999). Training and competitiveness. London.

Fitz-enz, J. (2000). The ROI of human capital - Measuring the economic value of employee performance. New York: Amacom.

4. Gamble (2005) stated that training was the transfer of knowledge from one person to another. She remarked that training was an investment in human assets and a technique to raise a company to new levels of productivity. Training includes classroom activities (instructor-led), distance learning, online learning, on-the-job training and assignments. Gamble (2005) stated that “(blended) training is the process by which (blended) training material is presented to the learner” (parentheses placed in by the author). Robinson and Robinson (1989) focused, more appropriately for this research, on the acquisition of skills when they drew on Nadler and Wiggs (1986, p. 5) definition of training as techniques that would “focus on learning the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to initially perform a job or task or to improve upon the performance of a current job or task.”

Gamble (2005) noted that (blended) learning referred to the “absorption of the (blended) training material by the learner” (parentheses placed in by the author). Whitney (2007) pointed out that there are important distinctions between the terms learning and training. She felt that the generally understood viewpoint was that learning is a long-term process associated with development, in contrast to training which focuses on acquisition of technical skills.

Gamble, V. J. (2005). The effectiveness of blended learning for the employee. PhD Thesis. Fielding Graduate University.

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J. C. (1989). Training for impact: How to link training to business needs and measure the results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, L., & Wiggs, G. D. (1986). Managing human resource development: A practical guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Whitney, K. (2007). Technical learning is good, but what about business skills? Chief Learning Officer, 5.

5. Akaslan, D., Law, E. L.-C., & Taşkın, S. (2011). Analysing Issues for Applying E-learning to the Subject of Electricity in Higher Education in Turkey. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://ineer.org/

6. Banks (2004, p. 22) drew on O’Sullivan (1976) who pointed out that “without transfer of knowledge from one person to another, or from one person to many people, work could not be effectively performed. In order for human beings to be productive and or to perform, some form of training was utilized”. Flores (2006, p. 9) quoted Jack Welch, former General Electric Chairman and CEO, who said: “An organization's ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage”.

Banks, L. V. (2004). Brick, click, or brick and click: A comparative study on the effectiveness of content delivery modalities for working adults. PhD Thesis. Touro University International.

O'Sullivan, K. (1976). Training and development handbook (2nd Ed.). In R. L. Craig (Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flores, J. G. (2006). Uniting learners around the world. Retrieved February 4, 2007 from http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/1._USDLA_Overview.pdf

7. This issue of wringing the maximum value out of your assets with your staff trained properly is a theme explored in an article in:

Train to succeed. (2003). Works Management, 56, 22-23. Retrieved October 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

8. Brinkerhoff (1988) cautioned that corporate training must go beyond simply producing “learning changes with efficiency and efficacy” (p. 5), but also “result in some benefit to the organization” (p. 6). Rae (1991, p. 4) added to this: “..we must know the extent of the efficiency and effectiveness of that training.” J.J. Phillips (1991) urged training evaluation and measurement to be conducted on all programs with an emphasis on results.

Brinkerhoff, R. O. (1988). Achieving results from training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rae, L. (1991). How to measure training effectiveness. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company.

Phillips, J. J. (1991). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

9. Despite the previous positive comments about the benefits of training, one still has to be wary about inappropriate training. Schank (2002) pointed out that the amount of unnecessary or unproductive training (including online learning) that pervaded the modern business enterprise was significant.

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning: How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning: McGraw-Hill.

10. Narayanan, M. (2009) Assessment of the World Wide Web and Technology-enhanced Learning at Miami University. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from www.asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

The author quotes from three other papers in support of this assertion:

Saxe, S. (1990). Peer Influence and learning. Training and Development Journal, 42(6), 50-53.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sims, R.R. (1992). Developing the learning climate in public sector training programs. Public Personnel Management, 21(3), 335-346.

11. Zvacek, S.M. (2009). Creating Engaging Online Courses. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Learning (iJOE), 5(2), 8-9. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1093

12. In the context of this research, one of the challenges with the training as applied to engineers and technicians is the diminishing number available due to aging and inadequate replacement by the younger generation. North America has a particular problem with an aging engineering workforce and needs serious attention and a recent survey by Wilkins (2007) pointed out that in the developed countries such as the USA and the UK, the engineering and technical workforce is getting older and consequently retiring. He felt that manufacturing and engineering does not appeal to the young person today and this is adding to the shortage of good quality entrants to the workforce where the skills requirements in these jobs are far higher than in the past. He pointed that retention is as important to manufacturers today as recruitment. He proposed a strategy of capturing organisational knowledge and experience of their workforce and implementing a coherent and effective training program. Most of the respondents (65%) of his survey indicated average training of 40 hours per annum and he remarked that this was inadequate. He did not indicate what a desirable number of hours of training would have been.

Wilkins, M.J. (2007). Changing Workforce Demographics Transform Manufacturing. Dedham, MA: ARC Advisory Group.

13. Woodill, G., & Wright, S. (March 2011). Improving Knowledge Flow in Organizations. Published by the Brandon Hall Group.

14. Trekles, A., & Nakayama, S. (2010). Work in Progress: Identifying Adequate Level of Instruction without Hindering Deeper Learning in Distance Learning. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

15. Peiwen, T.H. Yew, E.L.T. (2004). Teaching Thinking Skills in online learning–application of Bloom’s Taxonomy. ITE Teachers’ Conference 2004.

The changes that are discussed in the section on Bloom’s Taxonomy are sourced from:

Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

16. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J. and Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

17. This was cited from:

Drucker, P.F. (November 1, 2001) The Next Society. The Economist. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http:/www.economist.com/node/770819

In: Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012). Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

18. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Ed.). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

The trend in generations was cited from:

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008). Generational Myth. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2008.

The disappointing impact of technology was also reported from:

Bauerlein, M. (2008). Online Literacy is a Lesser Kind. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2008.

19. Johri, A., Teo, H.J., Lo, J.L., Schram, A.B., & Dufour, M.S. (2011). Digital Engineers: Results of a Survey Study Documenting Digital Media and Device Use Among Freshmen Engineering Students. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

They cite Tapscott and Williams in describing what the Net Generation expect:

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Atlantic.

The survey quoting the internet access figures is actually quite dated but gives some indication:

Kvavik, R.B., Caruso, J.B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2004: Convenience, connection and control. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERS0405

The (generally negative) impacts from multitasking were assessed by:

Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The Laptop and the lecture: The Effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46-64.

Levine, L.E., Waite, B.M., & Bowman, L.L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(4), 560-566.

20. Thompson, A., & Mann, L. (2008). Responding to our New Students: Flexible Remote Laboratories for Regional Learners. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2008/aaee08_submission_W1B3.pdf

21. Thompson, A., & Mann, L. (2008). Responding to our New Students: Flexible Remote Laboratories for Regional Learners. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2008/aaee08_submission_W1B3.pdf

The quotation is cited from the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR 2008), Views of Engineering Students: Report of a survey of final year university engineering students in Australia. The “Net Generation” are also referred to as “kinesthetic learners”, meaning that they supposedly learn best through “doing, experiencing or being involved”.

22. Pienaar, J., O’Brien, D., & Dekkers, A. (2012). Preparing Distance Education Built Environment Students for An Academic Program. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

23. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J. and Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

24. The book by Knowles (Knowles, M.S., & Associates, Andragogy in Action, San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass, 1984) was reported in this paper.

Erevelles, W.F., Harris, K., Cunningham, P., Faseyitan, & S., Myers, R. (2002). Session 1526: PRIME – The Partnership for Regional Innovation in Manufacturing Education. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the Conference link at asee.org on the 10th November 2009.

25. Hartman, N.W., & Springer, M.L. (n.d.). A Distance Learning Hybrid Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Certificate Program in Technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

Knowles was cited in the paper above:

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: andragogy vs. pedagogy. New York: Association Press.

26. Hall, S., Amelink, C.T., & Hu, D. Designing and Implementing an Online Offering of a Nuclear Engineering Curriculum. (2012). Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Wlodkowski was cited in the above paper:

Wlodkowski, R.J. (2003). Fostering motivation in professional development programs. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 39-47.

27. Stone, T. Blending (n.d.). Web 2.0 Technologies with Traditional Formal Learning.A Guide for CLOs and Training Managers. Element K. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.elementk.com/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e9a061c1-2694-4fda-abfb-56565b07a783&groupId=2814201

28. The definition of informal learning contained on p. 29 of the report below.

Aring, M., & Brand, B. (1998). The Teaching Firm. Where Productive Work and Learning Converge. Report on Research Findings and Implications. Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.edc.org/

29. Bersin, J. and Mallon, D. (2009). The Enterprise Learning Framework: A Modern Approach to Corporate Training. April 2009 Bersin and Associates Research Report. Downloaded from bersin.com site on 15 October 2009. The discussion on informal learning is covered from pages 22 to 38. A well put together video by Jay Cross is located on YouTube.com and this is worth viewing. Do a search for Informal Learning in 10 minutes by Jay Cross.

30. Auer, M.E., Edwards, A.W. (2011). The International Society of Engineering Education (IGIP) and the New Pedagogic Challenges in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

31. Betts, B. (n.d.). The Ubiquity of Informal Learning: Beyond the 70/20/10 Model. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from www.learningsolutionsmag.com

32. Lemley, E.C., & Jassemnejad, B. (2012). Use of Supplementary Online Lecture Materials in a Heat Transfer Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The authors above drew on the following papers to support these assertions:

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp. 75-86.

Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

Khlar, D. and Nigam, M. (2004). The Equivalence of learning Paths in Early Science Instruction. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.

Tuovinen, J.E. and Sweller, J. (1999). A Comparison of Cognitive Load Associated with Discovery Learning and Worked Examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), pp. 334-341.

33. Lemley, E.C., & Jassemnejad, B. (2012). Use of Supplementary Online Lecture Materials in a Heat Transfer Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

34. The background to authentic learning is discussed in this paper in more detail:

Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.

35. Herring, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2006.

36. Phillips, J. J. (2004). Measuring ROI in e-learning: Myth and reality (M403). Paper presented at the ASTD TechKnowledge 2004 Conference and Exposition.

The first four levels are based on Kirkpatrick’s model described here:

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

37. There are five evaluation levels listed by J.J. Phillips (2004) that are used in the measurement process for assessing the efficacy of training, as discussed in detail later. The first four levels are based on Kirkpatrick’s (1998) model.

Phillips, J. J. (2004). Measuring ROI in e-learning: Myth and reality (M403). Paper presented at the ASTD TechKnowledge 2004 Conference and Exposition.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

38. Thalheimer (2007) warned that there is very little correlation between the level 1 (so called smile-sheets) and level 2 assessments. He quoted Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, and Shotland (1997) who indicated a typical correlation level of less than 0.2. Learners are often overconfident about their perceived prowess in their level 2 assessment. Hence the best method is to actually measure the training results with real assessments.

Thalheimer, W. (2007). Measuring learning results: Creating fair and valid assessments by considering findings from fundamental learning research. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from work-learning.com/catalog

Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.

39. In a survey conducted by HR Focus publisher IOMA in 2002, online learning was considered to be the top initiative in terms of cost savings for training initiatives implemented in the past year. The reasons for the cost savings are essentially minimisation of travel costs and reduction in time away from work.

And the cost-savings winner is....e-learning. (2003, March). HR Focus, 80, p.4-5. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from ABI/INFORM Global database

The use of videoconferencing in conjunction with online training for learners as well as for new staff orientation were particularly effective from a cost savings point of view. As Reynolds pointed out, it is increasingly important to demonstrate the return on investment in training, but a common criticism is that this is not done that frequently.

Reynolds, E. J. (2005). Existing industry training program: Economic impact, return on investment, and customer satisfaction. Ed.D Thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

As Sitzmann (in press) pointed out; even if online learning is proven to be equivalent to classroom instruction in terms of effectiveness, cost savings (and thus ROI improvements) on their own would support this medium of learning.

Sitzmann, T. M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. A. (n.d.). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.moresteam.com/ADLMetaAnalysisPaper.doc.

40. Kypreos listed what were believed to be the real cost benefits from online learning.

Kypreos, T. (2003, February). E-learning basics: essay: Building a business case for e-learning. eLearn, 2003, Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=case_studies&article=2013-2001

41. Anthony, R. N., & Reece, J. N. (1979). Accounting text and cases. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

42. In a written communication (email communication dated 8 July 2005) with Brandon-Hall, a major research company in online learning and blended learning, they indicated that “..only about 11% of organisations even try to measure impact at the levels of ….ROI. There are not simple models for assessing this, without really exploring the individual organisation’s goals and creating a bridge between training and the bottom line”. Hence it was felt that the savings resulting from the use of blended learning or online learning against that of classroom learning would be used as the yardstick.

43. Whalen, T., & Wright, D. (2000). The business case for web-based training. Norwood: Artech House.

44. Horton, W. (2000). Designing web-based training. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

45. Whalen, T., & Wright, D. (2000). The business case for web-based training. Norwood: Artech House.

46. Keegan (2005) felt that pedagogy could be broken down into two main thrusts:

Behaviorist/objectivist as per B.F.Skinner’s approach requiring the transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the students where learning is evidenced by a changed behaviour in the learners. This is the traditional form of classroom teaching with the lecture format and is often referred to as positivist, realist, scientific or traditional (Fritze, 2003). The teacher is responsible for ensuring that learning has indeed taken place.

Constructivist on the other hand states that the students are active participants in the process constructing their own learning. The teacher becomes a facilitator of the learning environment. This is often referred to as interpretivist, naturalist, hermeneutic or alternative (Fritze, 2003).

Keegan (2005) supported the notion of other authors that if synchronous online learning used the traditional classroom approach, it will be effectively employing the behaviorist/objectivist pedagogy. But he felt that it is important to go for more interaction so that the online learning is aligned with a constructivist pedagogy.

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

Fritze, P. A. (2003). Innovation in university computer-facilitated learning systems: Product, workplace experience and the organisation. PhD Thesis. RMIT University, Melbourne.

Brandt (1997) remarked that constructivism is based on learners constructing knowledge by making sense of the experiences and interactions with it (Fritze, 2003), in terms of what they already know. They take an existing mental model and modify and expand it to fit the new experiences. Akpinar and Ergin (2007) added that “people learn by actively constructing their own knowledge, comparing new information with their previous understanding and using all of this to work through discrepancies to come to a new understanding” (p. 1). Mental models are “conceptual interactions of knowledge used to interpret the world, which are understood by users themselves through conceptualizations of those mental models” (Brandt, 1997). Brandt emphasised that experiential learning does more than merely strengthen mental models through repetition but confronts the learner with variety which then challenges their existing mental models of a given situation. The result is that the learner’s existing mental model is then tested, modified and strengthened if new concepts are gained. Fritze (2003) felt that the constructivist worldview is relevant to computer facilitated learning systems (online learning) due to its ease of handling the “real-life complexity and multiple perspectives” inherent in this work (p. 34). Armarego, Fowler and Roy (2001), cited Laurillard (1993) and remarked that the constructivist approach applied to a university engineering program, meant that learners could construct personal meaning by engaging in dialogue with others and reflect on the multiple perspectives “to make sense of the experience gained” (p. 258).

Brandt, D. S. (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for understanding of the Internet. Association for Computing Machinery: Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 112. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from The Proquest Science Journals database.

Fritze, P. A. (2003). Innovation in university computer-facilitated learning systems: Product, workplace experience and the organisation. PhD Thesis. RMIT University, Melbourne.

Akpinar, E., & Ergin, O. (2007). The effect of interactive computer animations accompanied with experiments on grade 6th students' achievements and attitudes towards science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(2), 1-6. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/86/65.

Armarego, J., Fowler, L., & Roy, G. G. (2001). Constructing engineering knowledge: Development of an online learning environment. IEEE.

Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

Almala (2006) drew on the work by Piaget and Vygotsky in constructivism and noted that there are “two constructivist learning models: individual constructivism, where knowledge is constructed from personal experience by the individual and social constructivism, which declares that knowledge is acquired through collaboration with meaning negotiated from multiple perspectives”. The emphasis in constructivism is that there is no single reality, but is constructed by the learner during the training process. He noted that during a synchronous online learning session, learners build on their existing knowledge, and the knowledge from the other participants and the instructor to work iteratively to a solution to a joint problem by defining their ideas, concepts to the others and then defending and modifying their initial models in a collaborative way. This is done in accordance with the principles of social constructivism. Almala (2006) noted that Oliver (2000) pointed out that it is imperative that the instructor needs to provide adequate scaffolding. If the above is done, Almala, indicated that constructivism would provide theoretical support to create quality online learning courses.

Almala, A. H. (2006). Applying the principles of constructivism to a quality e-learning environment. Distance Learning...For Educators, Trainers, and Leaders, 3(1), 33-40.

Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web. Educational Technology & Society, 40(6), 5-18.

Vrasidas (2004) listed some constructivist approaches to optimising online learning for learners as follows: active learning; showing knowledge in different ways; real world real experiences when participating; online assessment using written essays and multiple choice quizzes; collaboration with their peers in working on real world problems; and finally, use of distributed tools such as video/remote labs by learners.

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.

Constructivist vs. Objectivist paradigms

The two main approaches in education are currently that of constructivism and objectivism. Constructivism means building one’s knowledge on the foundation of one’s existing knowledge. This is the result of creating knowledge and understanding from the interaction between one’s experiences and ideas. When one absorbs information, one builds on an existing framework without changing that framework (referred to as assimilation). Accommodation occurs when the experience of the world doesn’t match up with one’s internal mental framework. This mental internal framework then has to be adjusted to take this new experience into account. Three famous constructivist theorists were Jerome Bruner, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky.

Retrieved August 15, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)

On the other hand, objectivism refers to the learning that arises as a result from the transmission of information from the teacher to the listening student. Reality exists independent of our minds and one can attain objective knowledge from use of one’s senses, in formulating concepts and the use of inductive and deductive logic. The two famous objectivist theorists were Ivan Pavlov (of salivating dogs fame) and B.F. Skinner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

It was pointed out that modern neuroscience would tend to support the thrust of constructivism but as with everything; it is probably a judicious mix of the two theories that make for successful education.

This is contained on page XXXIV of:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James-Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

Constructivism means that all students have their own unique mental models of the world. The process of learning is where the learner compares new information against existing information and then builds up their own mental model.

Perhaps a criticism of constructivism is that as each learner arrives at a different meaning based on her experiences, there will be some disconnect between the meanings each learner constructs. Hence social constructivism, can minimise this problem by having all new knowledge discussed within a community so as to arrive at a more aligned understanding of the information (although each learner will still retain some uniqueness in their interpretation).

Woodill, G. (2010 August). High Definition Videoconferencing for Training. Brandon Hall Research Brief..

Connectivism is the ability to connect and then store different nodes of knowledge from a network of data and information. This means there is a skill in being able to grasp the connections between ideas and concepts.

Khachadorian, S., Scheel, H., de Vries, P., & Thomsen, C. (2008). A Practical Approach for Managing Online Remote Experiments (ONPReX). European Journal of Engineering Education, 00(00), 1-14.

Constructionism

Bear in mind that there is a similar sounding theory called constructionist learning based on the work of Jean Piaget; which is very important in science and engineering education. This drew inspiration from constructivism but it is a different concept. Constructionism means that highly effectively learning occurs when people make or construct tangible objects in the real world. Papert indicated:

"The word constructionism is a mnemonic for two aspects of the theory of science education underlying this project. From constructivist theories of psychology we take a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then we extend the idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences as constructing a meaningful product."

Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning.

47. Crehan, M., Seery, N., Canty, D., & Lane, D. (2012). Constructivist E-Portfolios: The Use of Media in the Collecting and Evidencing of Student Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This reference was cited in support:

Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2000). Psychology Applied to Teaching (9th Ed). USA: Houghton Mifflin.

48. Guzdial, M. (n.d.). Constructivism vs. Constructivism vs. Constructionism. Retrieved November 6, 2012 from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/Commentary/construct.html

49. Henderson and Mirafzal (1999) described an approach to lab work where they used the principles of constructivism, collaborative working in groups and learning centred on the student. When the students had finished their experiments, they then presented their group results to the rest of the class thus developing their communication skills and clarifying their thoughts. They believe that students who are required to approach their lab work with this experiential approach (as compared to the traditional lecture approach) achieve 30% points higher on these type of assessment questions.

Henderson, L. L., & Mirafzal, G. A. (1999). A first-class-meeting exercise for general chemistry: Introduction to chemistry through an experimental tour. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(9), 1221. Retrieved on March 23, 2006 from the ProQuest Science Journals database.

50. This is examined in an excellent article on p.116 of

Brant, D.S., (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for understanding of the internet. by D.S. Brandt in Assocation for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 40(10), 112-117.

51. There have been questions raised about the poor quality that many users of online learning comment on, in the research as evidenced by Schank. Schank added that whilst he believed that a considerable amount of online learning is unacceptably poor, he felt that there are six attributes of measuring (and thus in knowing how to improve) the quality of a training course. These include “failure” (when the course delivers unexpected results to the participants); the requirement to use “reasoning” in proceeding through the course; “emotionality” (the need to provoke an emotional response by the participant); “exploration” by the participants; “practice by doing”; “observation” (the course allows the participant to view things for themselves) and “motivation” (how much does the course motivate participants to complete the course).

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning - How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning: McGraw-Hill.

52. Aring, M., & Brand, B. (1998). The Teaching Firm. Where Productive Work and Learning Converge. Report on Research Findings and Implications. Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.edc.org/

53. This was cited from:

Carnevale, A. (2009). Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce’s Analysis of Macroeconomic Advisers (MA) Long-Term Economic Outlook.

In:

Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012). Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

54. This was cited from:

Acs, Z., Parsons, W., & Spenser, T. (2008). High Impact Firms: Gazelles Revisited. Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration.

In:

Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012). Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

55. Bersin, J. (November 2011). Strategic Human Resources and Talent Management: Predictions for 2012. Driving Organizational Performance amidst an Imbalanced Global Workforce. Bersin & Associates Research Report.

56. This was explained by Dr Ken Ryan, director of manufacturing automation research and education in the Center for Automation and Motion Control at Alexandria Technical College, Alexandria, Minn, USA.

Amos, C.K. (2007). Troubleshooting Skills Top Training Needs, Automation World, 8.

57. This observation was cited from:

Mote, Jr., C.D. (2011). Strategic Issues Facing Public Universities. Paper presented at the AAAS Annual Meeting.

in the paper by:

Peercy, P.S., & Cramer, S.M. (2011). Redefining Quality in Engineering Education Through Hybrid Instruction. Proceedings of the Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 625-629.

58. Abdulwahed, M., Nagy, Z.K., & Blanchard, R. (2008). Beyond the Classroom Walls: Remote Labs, Authentic Experimentation with Theory Lectures. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2008/aaee08_submission_W1A2.pdf

59. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, 131-146.

60. Brodie, L. (2007). Reflective writing by distance education students in an engineering problem based learning course. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 13(2).

In her assertion, Brodie has drawn on sources from Engineers Australia, ABET and the IEEE.

61. Abdulwahed, M., Nagy, Z.K., & Blanchard, R. (2008). Beyond the Classroom Walls: Remote Labs, Authentic Experimentation with Theory Lectures. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2008/aaee08_submission_W1A2.pdf

62. Pintong, K.P., Summerville, D.H., & Temkin, K. (n.d.). Transitioning a Lab-based course to an Online Format: Strategies for Success. ASEE. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

The following paper is cited in support of the assertion:

Middendorf, J., & Kalish, A. (1996). The Change-Up in Lectures. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 5(2). Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9601/article1.htm.

63. Bandura, A. (1997). The Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York Press: Freeman.

The comment on self-efficacy is cited in the two papers by Dedic et al below:

Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/mONQM/2_41/90190499/print.jhtml.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performance: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 42(2), 1-9.

Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., Ivanov, I. (2008). Online Assignments and Interactive Classroom Sessions: A Potent Prescription for Ailing Success Rates in Calculus. Proceedings of MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 515-525.

64. The authors discuss a remote lab using a remotely controlled robotic arm. They discuss the peculiar requirements of an engineering education compared to that of the other offerings.

Asimopoulos, N.D., Nathanail, K.I., & Mpatzakis, V.I. (2007) A Network-based Electrical Engineering Laboratory. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1).

65. James-Byrnes, C.R., & Holdhusen, M.H. (2012). Online Delivery of a Project-based Introductory Engineering Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Research cited showing that online learning is detrimental to active learning is as follows:

Viswanathan, S. (2002). On-line instruction of Technology Courses – Do’s and Don’t. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies in Education.

Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J. and Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

66. Gardner, T.Q., Kowalski, S.E., & Kowalski, F.V. (2011). Interactive Simulations Coupled with Real Time Formative Assessment to Enhance Student Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This assertion was cited from:

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

67. Cross, J. (July 17, 2012). Why Corporate Training is Broken and How to Fix it. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://www.internettime.com/2012/07/why-corporate-training-is-broken-and-how-to-fix-it/

68. Lawton, D., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Richey, M.C., Dang, V.T., & French, D.E. (2010). Learning Science Principles for Effective Online Learning in the Workplace. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

The study on expert skill levels was cited from:

Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R.R. (2006). Cambridge Handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

69. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, 131-146.

70. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, 131-146.

71. Thomas, C., (2007). Online Learning: Anywhere, Anytime, Radically Altering Education for Engineers. SWE Spring 2007, 30-38. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://epdfiles.engr.wisc.edu/pdf_web_files/mees/articles/MEES_SWE.pdf.

72. Thomas, C., (2007). Online Learning: Anywhere, Anytime, Radically Altering Education for Engineers. SWE Spring 2007, 30-38. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://epdfiles.engr.wisc.edu/pdf_web_files/mees/articles/MEES_SWE.pdf.

73. This was sourced from:

Thomas, C., (2007). Online Learning: Anywhere, Anytime, Radically Altering Education for Engineers. SWE Spring 2007, 30-38.

74. The survey discussed in this whitepaper is somewhat dated (2000) and is perhaps skewed to considerable interest in computer science and technology because of the so-called dot com boom that was occurring at the time; but our experience is that the key findings are still echoed throughout the western world.

Rutz, E. (2000). Use of Distance Learning for Continuing Education of Engineers: Results of an Educational Needs Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 261-264

75. A combined quantitative and qualitative approach was employed in the research methodology. The survey and the results derived here were based on that done by Kim, Bonk and Zeng (2006), who kindly allowed us to use a modified version of their survey instrument.

Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Zeng, T. (2006). Surveying the future of workplace e-learning: The rise of blending, interactivity, and authentic learning. eLearn. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=research&article=5-1.

76. Mackay, S. G. (2008) The impact of blended learning in improving the reaction, achievement and return on investment of industrial automation training. PhD Thesis. Curtin University of Technology, Australia.

Despite the obvious limitations, the authors believe the research has more general applicability; based on the responses to courses attended by the respondents. Obviously another significant weakness with the survey could be considered that it was conducted in late 2007, when the economic boom was well underway. Since mid 2008, there has been an economic crisis which would have impacted on these results. However, we feel that due to the enormous shortage of engineering professionals throughout the world, that the economic impact would have been less significant here.

A combined quantitative and qualitative approach was employed in the research methodology. The survey and the results derived here were based on that done by Kim, Bonk and Zeng (2006), who kindly allowed us to use a modified version of their survey instrument. Approximately, 2500 engineering professionals responded to the survey done in August 2007 with some interesting and useful results. The respondents were sourced from a corporate training provider, IDC Technologies (60,000 contacts), supplemented by two US-based industrial automation magazines, Automation.com (20,000 contacts) and Control magazine (15,000 contacts). The quantitative data were supplemented by over 400 qualitative comments.

Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Zeng, T. (2006). Surveying the future of workplace e-learning: The rise of blending, interactivity, and authentic learning. eLearn. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=research&article=5-1.

77. These issues are discussed coherently and in far more detail in the following paper. There is an interesting discussion on how this fits in well with what the US Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requires.

Massa, N.M., Masciadrelli, G.J., Mullett, G.J. (2005). Re-engineering Technician Education For the New Millenium. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on September 15 2009 from asee.org.

78. Sheely, S. (2006) Persistent technologies: Why can’t we stop lecturing online.

Proceedings of the 23rd annual asciilite conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Retrieved May 27, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p167.pdf.

The need for interaction in effective teaching and learning online is discussed in this book:

Stephenson, J. (2001). Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan Page.

79. Skokan, C. (2011). Hybrid Lessons in Multidisciplinary Senior Design: A Study. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The doctoral thesis that was cited in support of this came from:

Landers, R.N. (2009). Traditional, Web-based and Hybrid Instruction: A comparison of Training Methods, Doctoral Thesis. University of Minnesota.

80. Chan, M.-Y., & Mui, K.-W. (2007). Evaluating the Effectiveness of E-learning in a University. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

81. Bakrania, S. Getting Students Involved in a Classroom With an iPhone App. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The reference cited in support of this assertion was:

Rocca, K.A. (2010). Student Participation in the College Classroom: An Extended Multidisciplinary Literature Review. Communication Education, 59.

82. Connor, K.A., Newman, D.L., & Deyoe, M.M. (2012). Mobile Studio Pedagogy, Part 2: Self-Regulated Learning and Blended Technology Instruction. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

83. Goulding, T. (2010). Lessons from Socrates and the Online Classroom: Achieving Exceptional Performance in Project-Based Classroom. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2010 Zone 1. Retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2010/professional/Lessons-from-Socrates-and-the-Online-Classroom-Achieving-Exceptional-Performance-in-Project-Based-Classroom.pdf

84. Radovan, M. (2011). The Relation between Distance Students' Motivation, their use of learning strategies, and academic success. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 216-222.

Chapter 3

1. Although online learning is a subset of distance learning, Watkins (2005) noted that it should not be an electronic analogue of a traditional correspondence course, “in which interactivity and engagement have often been lacking ” but one “…that is exciting, interactive, purposeful, and beneficial for online learners” (p. 2).

Watkins, R. (2005). 75 e-learning activities: making online learning interactive. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

2. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). On-line Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005.

This was reported in the excellent paper:

Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J. and Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

3. Anon. (2002). Lessons from the e-learning experience. Training Strategies for Tomorrow Jan/Feb 2002, 16, 1. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global p.19-21.

4. M. Allen (December 2003). The lessons of E-learning. Optimize, 51-56

5. Ozelkan, E.C., & Galambosi, A. (2011). Perception and Preferences of Faculty for Online Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Exposition. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and then Conference Proceedings.

6. From Jennifer Hofmann Insynctraining http://www.insynctraining.com

7. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Edition). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

8. Wilson, R., & Woodill, G. (March 24, 2011) Engineering Intelligent Content for Mobile learning. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved December 28, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/651/engineering-intelligent-content-for-mobile-learning

9. Rumble, G., & Harry, K. (1982). The Distance Teaching Universities. New York: St Martin’s Press.

10. Woodill, G. (June 2010). Enterprise Learning Management Systems: The Big Picture. Brandon Hall Research.

11. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Learning (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Allyn & Bacon.

12. Rosenberg (2001) gave a summary of the evolution of online learning over the past 80 years from the position of films. In 1922, Thomas Edison predicted that the new technology at the time, film, would replace textbooks in the classroom. As can be evidenced, this never happened

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning - Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

13. As Baab (2004) then pointed out, media and communication technologies emerged in the eighties which enhanced simple text and audio tapes used in distance learning and led to the arrival of online learning (and thence blended learning).

Baab, L. (2004). Effect of selected factors on students' sense of classroom community in distance learning courses. PhD Thesis. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.

14. Low, S.M. (2003). Tele-Interactive Teaching for Distance Learning / e-Education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

15. Woodill, G. (n.d.). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning in Education and Training: The Business Brief. Brandon-Hall Research, pp.1-24.

16. Morcos, M.M., & Soldan, D.L. (2001). On Distance Learning in Engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2001 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This assertion on attrition is further supported in comments made in:

Miertschin, S., Goodson, C., & Schroeder, S. (2010). Online Tutoring Support Service for STEM. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

17. According to van Dam (2004), the first article on internet-based training appeared in Training Magazine in 1997, signalling rapid growth in this area. According to a succinct summary by van Dam (2004), quoting from IDC, the online learning market rapidly grew from a few million dollars in 1995 to US$3.4 billion worldwide in 2000. However once the stockmarket crashed in 2000, many online learning vendors went bankrupt or merged with other players in the industry and there was a significant decline in business in this area.

van Dam, N. (2004). The e-learning fieldbook. Implementation lessons and case studies from companies that are making e-learning work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

18. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Edition). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

19. "Saba Acquires Centra." Training Nov. 2005: 10-11. Print. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from ABI / Inform Global database.

20. From 2003 onwards, a realization started taking place that a considerable amount of online learning was not delivering satisfactory results due to the cost and time of developing courses and the inadequacies of the learning process (Bersin, 2004). The term blended learning was then coined to indicate that the optimum approach was to use a combination of media to achieve success with training.

Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book - Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

21. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Edition). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

22. Janet Clarey of Brandon-Hall Research (E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies downloaded from brandonhall.com on 18th September 2009) p.9 – p.10 reported that:”In fact, there was a 100% increase in the percentage of corporate dollars dedicated to online learning (4.2% to 8.5%) between 2001 and 2004 (ASTD, 2004), around $11 billion of corporate training funds in 2003 alone (Rouin, 2004)”. She was referring to the American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and Rouin, R. Fritzsche, B., & Salas, E. (2004). Optimizing e-learning: Research-based guidelines for learner-controlled training. Human Resource Management, 43, 2 & 3, 147-162.

23. Ubell, R. (n.d.) The Road Not Taken: The Divergence of Corporate and Academic Web Instruction. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.poly.edu/sites/polyproto.poly.edu/files/JALN%20Ubell%20The%20Road%20Not%20Taken%20FINAL9-1-10%20_jcm-reviewedEC%20(1)10-19-10.pdf.

These figures are quoted from:

ASTD. (2009) State of the Industry Report. ASTD.

Ambient Insight. The US Market of E-learning. In Computers and Education: E-learning from Theory to Practice, edited by et al. B. Fernández-Manjón, 1-11, New York: Springer, 2007.

24. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012) Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Foundations of Distance Learning (5th Ed). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Allyn & Bacon.

25. Lavansiri, D., Sowanwanichakul, B., & Lohatepanont, M. (2006). Electronic Learning at the Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

26. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Foundations of Distance Education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Allyn & Bacon.

27. Lau and Bates (2004) reviewed the literature for online learning in undergraduate medical education and found that a small proportion of articles (4%) discussed the use of synchronous online learning (videoconferencing) whilst the remainder (96%) focused on asynchronous technologies.

Lau, F., & Bates, J. (2004). A review of e-learning practices for undergraduate medical education. Journal of Medical Systems, 28(1), 71-87. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from ProQuest Education Journals database.

28. Little-Wiles, J.M., Hundley, S.P., & Koehler, A. (2010). Work in Progress – Maximising Student Engagement in a Learning Management System. 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/.

A paper is referred to which further defines the Learning Management System:

Carliner, S. (2004). An overview of online learning (2nd Ed.). Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press.

29. Patcha, A., & Scales, G. (2006). Next Generation Technologies for Distance Learning: "Same Time, Anytime, Anywhere". Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2006. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

30. Peslak, A.R. (2003). Teaching Computer Information Systems via Distance Education: A Researched and Personal Perspective. Proceedings of ISECON 2003, v20.

31. The process of facilitation of courses is discussed at length in the web article by Brooke Broadbent and Regan Legassie of e-learninghub.com How to Facilitate courses.

32. Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328

33. Edmonson, C. (2008). A Method of Pacing On-line courses: Blending Asynchronous Assessments and Recorded Lectures with Synchronous Lectures. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

34. Keating, C., Dryer, D., Sousa-Poza, A., Peterson, W., & Safford, R. (2002). Systemic Issues in Asynchronous Delivery of Graduate Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

35. Falloon, G. (2007). Exploring the Virtual Classroom: What Students Need to Know (and Teachers Should Consider). Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 439-451. Retrieved December 22, 2011 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/falloon_1211.pdf

These comments about the ideal deployment of synchronous and asynchronous systems is backed up by research cited in the paper above and discussed in the following papers:

Wang, A., & Newlin, M. (2001). Online lectures: Benefits for the virtual Classroom. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/15513

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K.Renninger & W.Schumar (Eds). Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (159-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning: A Study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

36. Scott, S. (2007). The Blended Classroom: The best of Both Worlds? Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved May 1, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The definition of blended learning is cited from:

Blended Learning: Sleeping Giant. Sloan-C View: Perspectives in Quality Online Education. 4(5), 2005, 1 – 9.

37. Huguet, M.-P., Haley, T.& Danon, Y. (2010). Hands-on Nuclear Engineering Education – A blended Approach. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

38. Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional Strategies: What do Online Students Prefer? Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 357-362.

39. Lan, S.S. (2011). Participation, Class Types, and Student Performance in Blended-Learning Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

40. Huguet, M.-P., Haley, T., & Danon, Y. (2010). Hands-on Nuclear Engineering Education – A blended Approach. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The suggested list of variations in blended learning was derived from this paper:

Jones, M.G., Harmon, S.W., & Lowther, D. (2002). Integrating Web-based learning in an educational system: a framework for implementation. In A.R. Robert and J.V. Dempsey (Eds.) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gonzales, R.F. (2004). A Dynamic Model for Delivering Distance Learning Curriculum via Interactive Peripherals. The 2004 Annual ASEE Conference. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from the American Society for Engineering Education site asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

And the other paper quoted providing guidelines is as follows:

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B-R., Craner, J., &. Duffy, T.M. (2001). Seven Principles of Effective Teaching: A Practical Lens for Evaluating Online Courses. The Technology Source, March/April 2001. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034.

41. Boyle, L.T., Kolosh, K., L’Allier, J., Lambrecht, J. (2003).

Thomson NETg’s Blended-Learning Model: The Next Generation of Corporate and School-Based Learning. Delta Pi Epsilon 45(3). H.W. Wilson Company

The quote contained in the abovementioned article: In summary, true blended learning results when “you activate prior experience, demonstrate skills, apply the skills and then integrate the skills in with real-world activities” comes from:

Merrill, M.D. (2002) First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-60.

42. Scott, S. (2007) The Blended Classroom: The best of Both Worlds? ASEE. Retrieved on February 5, 2011 from asee.org through Papers and Publications and then Conference papers link.

43. Classroom training is still the dominant form of corporate training today (Tai, 2005). Neal (2005) suggested that classroom education is valuable for young children and young adults where face-to-face education is required due to their possible lower maturity and self-discipline levels.

Tai, L. (2005). Corporate e-learning: How e-learning is created in three large corporations. PhD Thesis. University of Pennsylvania.

Neal, L., & Miller, D. (2005). Tutorial: The basics of e-learning: An excerpt from handbook of human factors in web design. eLearn, 2005, Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=tutorials&article=2020-2001

44. Bersin (2004) indicated that blended learning was the combination of different training “media” (technologies, activities and types of events) to create an optimum training program for a specific audience. Harding et al. (2005) noted that blended essentially combines e-learning with other “more traditional types of learning” (page 56). Murray (Hyder, Kwinn, Miazga, & Murray, 2007) suggested that blended learning was a combination of synchronous and asynchronous experiences. He suggested that it was also a mixture of online and face-to-face training and to approaches to “course design and delivery that combine different modalities, for example, self-paced Web-based training, followed by classroom instruction, accompanied by printed job aids, and supplemented by virtual classroom follow-up sessions” (Hyder et al., 2007, page 1).

Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book - Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Harding, A., Kaczynski, D., & Wood, L. (2005). Evaluation of blended learning: analysis of qualitative data. Paper presented at the Uniserve Science Blended Learning Symposium. Retrieved June 17, 2007, from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/procs/wshop10/2005Harding.pdf.

Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328.

45. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J., & Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

46. This table was adapted from:

Mayadas, F. (1997). Asynchronous Learning Networks: A Sloan Foundation Perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1). Published electronically and accessible on the aln.org site.

Adapted from Table 1 from:

Evans, A., Murray, S.L. (n.d.). Session 2542: A Technology Assessment Survey for Web Based Higher Education Programs. ASEE. Retrieved on August 15 2009 from the asee.org site from the Conference Proceedings link.

47. McCue, L.S., & Scales, G.R. (2007). Embracing the middle ground: Engaging on-and off-campus students within the same 'classroom'. 2007 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://155.225.14.146/asee-se/proceedings/ASEE2007/RP2007015MCC.pdf. They quote support for videoconferencing from:

Patcha, A., & Scales, G. (2006). Next generation technologies for distance learning: "Same time, anytime, anywhere". 2006 Annual Conference and Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.

48. The quotation that the course relies “heavily on note memorization” comes from p.355.

Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., & Gharbaran, R. (2010). Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes in Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Learning Environments in a Biology Course. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353-356.

49. Watson, J., & Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course. ASEE. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

50. Richards, L.G., & Ribando, R.J. (2004). Work in Progress – Distance Learning: The Path to Lifelong Education. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2004/index.htm.

51. Cloutier, R., & Squires, A. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Classroom Discussion Approaches Used in the Remote Delivery of Systems Engineering Education. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The note from Swan discussed in the paper above is:

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A.& Maher, G. (2000). Course Design Factors Influencing the Success of Online Learning. AACE, Proceedings of 2000, 513-518.

52. Reid, K.J. (2006). Study of the Success or Failure of Changing Freshman Engineering Technology Courses to an Online Format: Did it Work? Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

They quoted from the following papers for lower satisfaction rates for students in online courses:

Carey, J.M. (2001) Effective Student outcomes: A comparison of online and face-to-face delivery modes. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews11_9.asp.

Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S.R.,Shaik, N.,& Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of interactive learning research, 11, (1), 29-49.

Rivera, J., & Rice, M. (2002). A comparison of student outcomes & satisfaction between traditional & web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3), Retrieved March 15, 2006 from http://www.westga..edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html.

53. Orabi, I.I. (2005). Teaching an Engineering Course Online Using Blackboard. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved January 17, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

54. Anitsal, M., Anitsal, I., Fidan, I., Barger, B., & Allen, M. (2008). An Exploratory Assessment of Distance and On-ground Delivery of Business, Math and Engineering Technology Courses. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

55. Hanson, R., & Osterman, M. (2011). The ROI of Online Training: How Organizations are Moving Online [White Paper]. An Osterman Research and Quantum Leap Marketing White Paper. Sponsored by GoToTraining.

56. Abdel-Salam, T., Williamson, K., Kauffman, P., & Holt, M. (2005). Do On-Campus Students Write Better than their Distance Learning Counterparts in Engineering and Technology Fields? Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 5, 2011 from links at Papers and Publications and then Conference Proceedings.

57. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds (2nd Ed.) United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

58. There are a few subtleties with this study which can be reviewed in:

Dutton, J. Dutton, M. and Perry, J. (January 2001). Do Online students Perform as Well as Lecture Students? Journal Of Engineering Education, January 2001. Retrieved from the www.asee.org site.

Some of the interesting issues discussed are self-selection of students (i.e. students with greater computer skills and maturity have a greater probability of undertaking an online course) and low completion rate being linked with lifelong mature age status and low home work effort during the course. The other associated discussions are contained in the Russell, T.L. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon, Raleigh, NC, North Carolina State University, 1999 and in comparing online with classroom students as discussed in:

Hiltz, S.R. (1996). Impacts of College-level Courses via Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2)1, 77-82.

59. Kozak, M. (2010). In-person vs. Synchronous Remote Delivery of Mechanics Lectures. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from www.asee.org through links Papers & Publications and conference proceedings.

The research quoted here by Kozak, comes from the following references:

Hoyt, J.E., (1999). Does the delivery method matter? Department of Institutional Research.

Hudspeth, D. (1993). Performance and Remote Instruction. P & I Performance Instruction.

McCleary, I.D., & M.W. Egan. (1989). Program Design and Evaluation: Two-way interactive television. The American Journal of Distance Education, 39(1), 50-60.

60. Khiewnavawongsa, S., Leong, R., & Schmidt, E. (2006). Learning a Web-based Course Through Macromedia Breeze. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

61. Dell, C.A., Low, C., & Wilker, J.F. (2010). Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-face Class formats. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 6(1), 30-42.

Bernard cited Clarke (1983 and 1994) in this paper:

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiest, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.

A discussion (cited in the first paper referenced above) on higher level thinking skills is considered in:

Kanufka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271.

A good paper (cited in the first paper above) on motivators for good participation in online learning is:

Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213-18.

62. Carpinelli, J., Callouri, R., Briller, V., Deess, E.,& Joshi, K. (2006). Factors Affecting Student Performance and Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Expo. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

63. Koch, J. (n.d.). Does distance learning Work? Does Distance Learning Work? A Large Sample, Control Group study of Student Success in Distance Learning. Old Dominion University. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/ELearning/17176

64. Anitsal, M., Anitsal, I., Fidan, I., Barger, B., & Allen, M. (2008). An Exploratory Assessment of Distance and On-ground Delivery of Business, Math and Engineering Technology Courses. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

65. Kestell, C., Willis, C., Grainger, S., & Missingham, D. (2012). Are Online Learning Modules the Kiss of Life or Death for Lecture Attendance. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

66. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Foundations of Distance Education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Allyn & Bacon.

67. Cohen, M.S., & Ellis, T.J. (2003). Predictors of Success: A longitudinal Study of Threaded Discussion forums. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2003/index.htm

68. Kellog, S.D. (2003). A Pseudo-Asynchronous Distance Education Delivery System for Programs. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

69. Palmer, S.R. (2001) On-and off-campus engineering student usage of a computer conferencing system. Journal of Research in Computing Education, 33, (3), 280-298.

70. Briller, V., & Carpinelli, J.D. (2004). Reducing Withdrawal Rates in Distance Learning Courses. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 27, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

71. Vitartas, P., Jayne, N., Ellis, A., & Rowe, S. (2007). Student Adoption of web conferencing software: A comparison of three student discipline groups. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/vitartas.pdf.

The research on factors reducing motivation was quoted from:

Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3-4), 6.

72. Palmer, S.R., & Bray, S.L. (2002). On-and off-campus student persistence and academic performance. Engineering Science and Education Journal, April 2002, 66-72. Retrieved on May 18, 2009 from IEEE Xplore.

73. Lehman, R.M., & Conceiçã, S.C.O. (2010). Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching. How to “Be There” for Distance Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This comment was cited from:

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

74. Lehman, R.M., & Conceiçã, S.C.O. (2010). Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching. How to “Be There” for Distance Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This comment was cited from:

Munro, J.S. (1998). Presence at a distance: The educator-learner relationship in distance learning. ACSDE Research Monograph 16. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

75. Insko, B.E. (2003). Measuring Presence: Subjective, Behavioral and Physiological Methods. In Riva, G., Davide, F., Lisselsteijn, W.A. (Eds.), Being There: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments. Amsterdam: Ios Press.

76. Huang, M.P., & Alessi, N.E. Presence as an Emotional Experience. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: The Convergence of Physical and Informational Technologies Options for a New Era in Healthcare. Westwood, J.D., Hoffman, H.M., Robb, R.A., Stredney, D. (eds). pp. 148-153. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1999.

77. Lehman, R.M., & Conceiçã, S.C.O. (2010). Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching. How to “Be There” for Distance Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This comment was cited from:

Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., & Stoner, M. (2001). Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Paper presented at the Presence 2001: Fourth International Workshop.

78. Huang, M.P., & Alessi, N.E. (1999). Presence as an Emotional Experience. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: The Convergence of Physical and Informational Technologies Options for a New Era in Healthcare. Westwood, J.D., Hoffman, H.M., Robb, R.A., Stredney, D. (eds.), 148-153. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1999.

This quotation was cited from:

Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262-271.

79. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to "be there" for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

80. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to "be there" for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

81. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to "be there" for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

82. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to "be there" for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This book has some useful documents containing sample syllabi, surveys and general materials to use in an online course to create a high level of presence.

83. Baratuci, W.B., & Linse, A.R. (2002). Heat Transfer On-line. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2002 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Further to this, the types of interaction are quoted from a number of sources:

Flori, R.E. 1997. Perspectives on the Role of Educational Technologies. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(3), 269-272.

Reference is further made to:

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN Laboratories, Cambridge, MA. Centre for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_apprenticeship.

84. Walls, C.M. (2005). Some Strategies for Balancing Economies of Scale and Interaction in Online/Distance Education Courses. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 8(1). Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ850 357&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ850357

The definition of the five types of instructional interaction cited in the paper above comes from:

Chiou, S., & Chung, U. (2003). Development and testing of an instrument to measure interactions in synchronous distance education. Journal of Nursing Research, 11(3), 188-196.

85. Carbonell, C., & Torralba, M. (2006). Untangling the Web: Weaving Networked Learners. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This was cited from:

Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-16.

86. Cho, C.S., & Kuyath, S. (2010). The Effect of Panopto on Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Traditional-distance Education Students. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

In addition, these authors above quoted the following paper in support:

Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000) Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning with On-line courses: Principles and Examples from SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks, (4:2).

87. Discussions quoting this finding came from:

Anderson, T., & Kuskis, A. (2007). Modes of interaction. In M.Moore (Ed). Handbook of distance education. NJ: Erlbaum.

Beare, P.L. (1989). The comparative effectiveness of videotape, audiotape, and telelecture in delivering continuing teacher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 57-66.

Souder, W.E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master’s degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 37-53.

These papers were quoted in the book:

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA.

88. Higgins, N., & Keightley, D. (2007). Practical guide to e-learning in industry. Brisbane: The Australian Flexible Learning Framework - The Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, at http://industry.flexiblelearning.net.au.

89. One of the challenges with e-learning is the lack of interaction with the instructor and the difficulty of using real tools to demonstrate and provide practical hands-on exercises (such as working with real equipment in an industrial automation environment) for the participants (Cooper, 2000; Cooper et al., 2003).

Cooper, M. (2000). The challenge of practical work in an eUniversity - real, virtual and remote experiments. Paper presented at the Proceedings IST2000 The Information Society for All.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

90. Schank (2002) pointed out the poor quality of e-learning that many users commented on. He stated that learning by doing was an essential part of the learning experience:

Learning by doing works because it strikes at the heart of the basic memory processes that humans rely upon. We learn how to do things and then learn what we have learned is wrong or right. We learn when the rules apply and when they must be modified. We learn when our rules can be generalised and when exceptional cases must be noted. We learn when our rules are domain bound or when they can be used independently. We learn all this by doing, by constantly having new experiences and attempting to integrate these experiences into existing memory structures (Schank, 2002, p. 5).

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning - How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning: McGraw-Hill.

91. In Business: Madison June 2007. inbusinessmagazine.com Educating a Global Workforce E-Learning moves beyond “diploma mills” and towards the future. By Heather Skyler. Wayne Pferdehirt, director of engineering degree programs at the University of Wisconsin, Madison remarked that people have difficulty in reading body language. But on the flip side, they feel less inhibited from participating in a discussion as they are virtually anonymous.

92. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In Bourne, J. R., & Moore, J. C. (2003).Elements of quality online education: engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 13-45. Retrieved June 17, 2012 from http://www.cguevara.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2009/09/learning-effectiveness.pdf

93. Walls, C.M. (2005). Some Strategies for Balancing Economies of Scale and Interaction in Online/Distance Education Courses. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 8(1).

Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ850 357&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ850357

The definition of the five types of instructional interaction cited in the paper above comes from:

Chiou, S., & Chung, U. (2003). Development and testing of an instrument to measure interactions in synchronous distance education. Journal of Nursing Research, 11(3), 188-196.

94. Keating, C., Dryer, D., Sousa-Poza, A., Peterson, W., & Safford, R. (2002). Systemic Issues in Asynchronous Delivery of Graduate Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The quotation is from p.3 of the abovementioned paper.

A number of papers from Mehrabian are referred to in the discussion on immediacy. These include:

Mehrabian, A. (198) Influence of attitude from the posture, orientation, and distance of a communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 296-308.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 359-372.

95. Cho, C.S., & Kuyath, S. (2010). The Effect of Panopto on Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Traditional-distance Education Students. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

In addition, these authors above quoted the following paper in support:

Arbaugh, J.B. (2001) How Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Affect Student Satisfaction and Learning in Web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.

96. Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. (2012). Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. Ithaka S+R. Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://www.ithaka.org/about-ithaka/announcements/ithakasr-gates.pdf

97. Research by O’Connor et al. (2003) with 375 respondents in the USA for a quantitative research project revealed the attrition rate for online learning is estimated to be about 26% for corporate training (against a reported rate of 3% for classroom learning). Factors that contributed to online learning completion were:

•  Personal motivation (73%)

•  Interesting learning interactions (40%)

•  Mandatory company completion policies (29%)

•  Online instructors/facilitators’ follow-up (16%)

O'Connor, C., Sceiford, E., Wang, G., Foucar-Szocki, D., & Griffin, O. (2003). Departure, abandonment, and dropout of e-learning:Dilemma and solutions, Final report: James Madison University.

98. Serwatka (2005) pointed out that lack of instructor training, inadequate course design, minimal learner interaction and personal commitments were reasons for poor retention of students in online courses. She felt that addressing learning styles is one of the most important issues in retaining students and learning materials need to be adjusted to fit in with the more computer oriented contemporary students. Faculty need to demonstrate far more interaction in terms of quicker responses to student requests and discussions. A blended format of learning should be considered. Finally, discussion forums and debates should be used to engage students and appropriate “ice breaker” exercises included.

Serwatka, J. A. (2005). Improving retention in distance learning classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved May 22, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article06.htm.

99. Jordan, L. (2009). Transforming the student experience at a distance: designing for collaborative online learning. Engineering Education: Journal of the Higher Education Academy, 4(2). Retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/index.php/ee/article/viewArticle/134/172

The ideal traits of distance learners were sourced from Thompson:

Thompson, M.M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In: Gibson, C. (ed.), Gibson, C. C. (1998). Distance learners in higher education: institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, Wis.: Atwood Pub.

100. Cho, C.S., & Kuyath, S. (2010). The Effect of Panopto on Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Traditional-distance Education Students. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The paper above noted these reasons for a high attrition and quoted three other papers in support:

Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003) Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (7:1), 66-88.

Swan, K. (2004) Learning online: current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner characteristics. In Bourne, J. R., & Moore, J. C. (2004).Elements of quality online education: into the mainstream. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 63-79.

Swan, K., & Shih, L.F. (2003). On the Nature and Development of Social Presence in Online Course Discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks.

101. There have been a number of comments about poor instructional materials in online learning courses (van Dam, 2004). Henderson (2003) felt that the quality of online learning was degraded by the use of poor learning materials and instruction compared to that of the classroom environment. Anaraki (2004) indicated that only using text-based materials, very little “rich content for good understanding” (p. 59) and “unstructured and isolated” (p. 59) posting of content and instructions for learners by instructors on the learning management system also contribute to a low quality experience. This assertion was supported by others who remarked that “online information is merely text put into an online learning package” ("Lessons from the e-learning experience," 2002b, p. 19). Allen (Boehle, 2006) complained about the emphasis “on content instead of the learning experience” (p. 30) which was surely what the objective of online learning was hoping to achieve. The other issue Allen made was that online learning should be focusing on skill transference and not simply knowledge retention.

van Dam, N. (2004). The e-learning fieldbook. Implementation lessons and case studies from companies that are making e-learning work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Anaraki, F. (2004). Developing an effective and efficient elearning platform. International Journal of The Computer, the internet and Management, 12(2), 57-63. May-August.

Lessons from the e-learning experience. (2002b). Training Strategies for Tomorrow, 16, 19-21. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from ABI/INFORM Global

Boehle, S. (2006). Putting the 'learning' back in e-learning. Training, 43, 29-34. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals

102. Smith and Taveras (2005) discussed a little noted fact about many instructors being absent from a considerable amount of online learning interaction with their students. They stated that there is probably more work for the instructor in online training than with the traditional classroom, and the lack of face-to-face contact with learners, makes instructor absenteeism harder to notice. As has been discussed earlier, student satisfaction with online learning is tightly related to interaction with the instructor. Smith and Taveras suggested improved instructional design, new technical tools and perhaps more obviously, a more conscientious instructor, as being possible solutions.

Smith, G. G., & Taveras, M. (2005). In-depth tutorial: The missing instructor: does e-learning promote absenteeism? eLearn Magazine, 1. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=tutorials&article=2018-2001

103. Dool noted (2007) that the use of teams by organisations in the USA over the past few years has grown significantly. He quoted an estimate which held that one third of American companies with 50 or more employees would place half of them on self managed teams after 2000. He noted the main causes of conflict as revolving around “expected outcomes (grades), roles, style, values and resources (time), or basic personality conflicts”. He believed that the miscommunication between online participants to be exacerbated by the asynchronous communications between participants. Real time intervention and holistic viewing of the conflict is far more difficult with different time zones and virtuality of presence. He made some suggestions on how to prevent team conflict by clearly setting expectations at the outset of the course, stating the objectives and requirements of the team assignment via the syllabus, setting up a team charter, and getting the instructor to assign the team members, actively monitoring the activities of the team and then quickly and appropriately dealing with conflicts.

104. Eatchel (2007) pointed out that there is an increased risk with learners cheating in tests in online learning compared to the traditional paper based approach and this has to be reduced by expanding the online test bank as well as standardised test item development. Increased emphasis in this area will improve test validity, candidate fairness and protect against legal challenges to the validity of the results.

Hentea, Shea and Pennington (2003) felt that poor assessment of student learning (e.g., inappropriate testing) could be addressed by ensuring classroom and online learning standards were equivalent.

Ó Suilleabháin and Goggin (Keegan et al., 2005) made the point there are two fundamental types of assessment for use with live online learning. Formative assessment is used to modify the instructing or learning as it is conducted or to plan how it should be arranged. Summative assessment only gives feedback at the end of the whole instructing experience. Generally assessment for online learning is formative and this may go some way to addressing the problems with inappropriate conduct as it would be done over a number of sessions and the assessor, by interacting directly with all participants, could get to know them considerably better as far as their knowledge levels.

Eatchel, N. S. (2007). Online testing: Making it count. eLearning Magazine. Retrieved June 20, 2007 from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=best_practices&article=38-1

Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance education. CITC4 03.

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

105. There is quite an extensive discussion on a comparison between the Blackboard, RealMedia, Windows Media, Microsoft NetMeeting and RealPresenter, which is useful but unfortunately somewhat dated (over a decade ago) with the recent developments in the technology of web conferencing.

Eller, V.M. Beetner, D. White, J. Pottinger, H. (2002). Session 2158: Development and Delivery of an Interactive Web-based Seminar. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on asee.org on the 29th October 2009.

106. Vrasidas (2004) listed some barriers to teaching online as lack of skills and knowledge in constructing and teaching online; minimal support and training for designing online learning courses; the new approaches to online teaching appear to contradict the traditional face-to-face instruction; minimal tools to construct online learning programs; online learning infrastructure is still in its infancy; time allocated to online teaching is too short and finally, remuneration for faculty to move to online learning is inadequate.

Van Dam (2004) noted the following miscellaneous problems with online learning programs:

•  A lack of investment in preparing these training programs.

•  Stated ROIs in using online learning are not necessarily valid for many organizations.

Other issues remarked upon by Matthew (Hyder et al., 2007) were that learners have a shorter attention span; there is minimal sharing of ideas and a reluctance to do homework; the difficulty for the instructor in managing the myriad of tasks such as software tools, timeliness and engaging the learners.

Keegan (2005) listed what he believed were typical disadvantages of what he terms as VCT (Virtual classroom Technology) systems:

•  Cultural difficulties in using online learning.

•  Reduced control of course participants.

Hentea, Shea and Pennington (2003) listed inadequate student preparation (e.g., inappropriate student types and computer hardware/software) as a problem but this could be addressed by improved motivation of students to achieve successful outcomes to their distance learning studies. More effective use should be made of software and hardware tools and techniques in distance learning for both faculty and for students. Finally, they made the point that intelligent agents should be used to provide “more automated personalized feedback to cater for student’s individual needs.”

Vrasidas, C. (2004). Issues of pedagogy and design in e-learning systems. 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from ACM database.

van Dam, N. (2004). The e-learning fieldbook. Implementation lessons and case studies from companies that are making e-learning work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328.

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance education. CITC4 03.

107. Finally, it was pointed out ("Lessons from the e-learning experience," 2002b) that online learning may not be the solution to a particular training requirement, but may need to be assessed with other solutions such as a blended approach.

According to van Dam (2004), specific areas where online learning appeared not to work well using current technologies were:

•  Exercises which require significant face-to-face contact such as negotiating and sales training.

•  Lab exercises which require access to real hardware which one can work with such as test rigs/instruments/valves/electronic test equipment. The proposed research examines this issue in the context of blended learning and remote labs.

In a discussion on Texas Instruments (TI) outsourcing training to another company, Collins remarked ("Case Study: Outsourcing Plays a Vital Role at Texas Instruments," 2004) that the supposedly “high tech people ” had minimal interest in online learning. “TI engineers prefer to get information via technology, and prefer to learn with their peers in a classroom setting” (p. 40).

Lessons from the e-learning experience. (2002). Training Strategies for Tomorrow, 16(1), 19-21. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

van Dam, N. (2004). The e-learning fieldbook. Implementation lessons and case studies from companies that are making e-learning work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Case study: Outsourcing plays a vital role at Texas Instruments. (2004). Training + Development, 58, p.40. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from ProQuest Education Journals database.

108. One of the greatest challenges with remote training using the internet is the lack of interaction with the instructor (Anaraki, 2004; Tapscott & Williams, 2006). The difficulty of using real tools to demonstrate and provide practical hands-on exercises (such as working with real equipment) for the participants (Rossett, 2001) has been challenging especially due to the differences between the classroom and online learning (Thurmond & Wambach, 2004).

Anaraki, F. (2004). Developing an effective and efficient elearning platform. International Journal of The Computer, the internet and Management, 12(2), 57-63. May-August.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics. London: Penguin Books.

Rossett, A. (Ed.). (2001). The ASTD e-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thurmond, V. A., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved May 22, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm.

109. Wang, Gould and Fulton (2007) referred to Vrasidas (1999) who defined interaction as “the process consisting of the reciprocal actions of two or more actors within a given context” (p. 25). Wang went on to refer to four types of interaction. These are, as outlined by Moore (1989), learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner interactions. Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) added the fourth one pertinent to the online learning environment being learner-interface interaction, with the interface being the interposing tool between the course and instructor and the learners. There is some conjecture about the differences between interaction and interactivity. Thurmond (2004), drew on Wagner (1994; Wagner, 1997) and noted that interactivity is oriented around the technology used, whilst interaction is between people and groups.

Thurmond (2003) defined interaction based on descriptions from a number of other sources (Hillman et al., 1994; Moore, 1989; Wagner, 1994) as:

….the learner’s engagement with the course content, other learners, the instructor, and the technological medium used in the course. True interactions with other learners, the instructor, and the technology results in a reciprocal exchange of information. The exchange of information is intended to enhance knowledge development in the learning environment. Depending on the nature of the course content, the reciprocal exchange may be absent – such as in the case of paper printed content. Ultimately, the goal of interaction is to increase understanding of the course content or master of the defined goals (p. 4).

Wang, H., Gould, L., & Fulton, D. (2007). Bridge the virtual gap: Using new technology to enhance interaction in distance learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(3). Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Mar_07/article05.htm.

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education:An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Thurmond, V. A., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved May 22, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from www.general.utpb.edu/fac/keast_d/tunebooks/pdf/wagner%20article.pdf.

Thurmond, V. A. (2003). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students' satisfaction and willingness to enroll in future Web-based courses while controlling for student characteristics. University of Kansas. Available online http://www.dissertation.com/library/1121814a.htm.

It should be noted that this is also a problem with conventional classroom lectures as pointed out by Scheele, Wessels, Effelsberg, Hofer and Fries (2005) who researched the use of mobile devices for the students to increase the level of interactivity. B. Muirhead (2004) added to this by remarking on the need to create a consistent level of interaction that enables real learning and enhances a community atmosphere. Smith and Taveras (2005) noted that student satisfaction is closely correlated with interaction from the instructor and referred to a number of other supporting sources (Shea, Swan, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2001; Trippe, 2001).

Scheele, N., Wessels, A., Effelsberg, W., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2005). Experiences with interactive lectures - Considerations from the perspective of educational psychology and computer science. The 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! Retrieved June 20, 2007, from the ACM database.

Muirhead, B. (2004). Encouraging interaction in online classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(6). Retrieved May 22, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jun_04/article07.htm.

Smith, G. G., & Taveras, M. (2005, January). In-depth tutorial: The missing instructor: does e-learning promote absenteeism? eLearn Magazine. 1. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=tutorials&article=2018-2001

Shea, P., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2001). Student satisfaction and reported learning in the SUNY learning network. Elements of quality online Education (Vol. 3 in the Sloan-C series). New York, NY: The Sloan Consortium.

Trippe, A. (2001). Student satisfaction at the University of Phoenix online campus. Elements of quality online education (Vol. 3 in the Sloan-C series). New York, NY: The Sloan Consortium.

Baab (2004) referred to Wagner (1997) who indicated that in the context of distance learning, “few topics have generated as much debate as the construct of interactivity”. He went on to say that “interaction can be designed to increase participation, develop communication, receive feedback, enhance retention, increase motivation, negotiate understanding and support team building” (Baab, 2004, p. 35). Baab (2004) suggested that success in distance learning (which included online learning) is predicated by the degree of interactivity.

Baab, L. (2004). Effect of selected factors on students' sense of classroom community in distance learning courses. PhD Thesis. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.

Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from www.general.utpb.edu/fac/keast_d/tunebooks/pdf/wagner%20article.pdf.

110. Keegan (2005) felt that one of the main challenges for online learning is the lack of human contact (or face-to-face contact) or interacting between people. For example, body and eye language were no longer a part of the communication process as with the traditional classroom. With online learning, an additional barrier is created between the teacher or facilitator and the learning participants. Matthew (Hyder et al., 2007) concurred by remarking that a significant drawback with online learning was the inability to observe the participants’ body language and minimal eye contact and the inability to build rapport as with a face-to-face session.

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328.

111. Clayton, J. (2009). E-learning in industry: Case studies from New Zealand. In Same Places, Different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/clayton.pdf.

112. All the above indicated the need for practical work for students of engineering and industrial automation. This is reinforced by Table 1 produced by Trotter (2007) who suggested the different types of instruction in how students learn. This table has been modified following the criticism from Fadel and Lemke (2008) who felt that assigning percentages to each item below is overly simplistic and indeed unproven, but that in using multiple modes in the learning process is more effective than traditional, unimodal learning.

Trotter, P. (2007). A better way to accelerate learning. Machine Design, 82-86.

Fadel, C., & Lemke, C. (2008). Multimodal learning through media: What the research says. Cisco. Accessed March 20, 2008, from http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf.

113. Galambosi, A., & Ozelkan, E. (2007). Value of Online Curriculum for Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

114. A short really readable and inspiring set of suggestions of why online education is equal to or better than face-to-face classroom based education are contained in this paper.

Kassop, M. (n.d.). Ten Ways Online Education Matches, or Surpasses, Face-to-face Learning. Retrieved on October 21 2009 from aln.org.

115. Reid, K.J. (2006). Study of the Success or Failure of Changing Freshman Engineering Technology Courses to an Online Format: Did it Work? Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

The paper quoted from relating to "online distress factors" is:

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (n.d.). Students' distress with a Web-based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participants' experiences, Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University. Retrieved March 17, 2006 from http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/wp00-01B.html

116. Loch, B., & Reushle, S. (2008). The practice of web conferencing: Where are we now? In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/loch.pdf.

Comments about disinhibition come from:

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html.

Comments about democracy come from:

Lapadat, J. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. JCMC, 7(4). Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html.

117. Tongue, B., & Kawano, D. (2010). Move It – Learning Modules for Dynamic Systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 24, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings

118. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual Interactivity: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses. Distance Education, 22(2), pp.306-331.

119. Hall, S., Amelink, C.T., & Hu, D. (2012). Designing and Implementing an Online Offering of a Nuclear Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

120. Cygman, L. (2011). Learning Styles: Which Type of Student is more Successful in which modality? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved February 4, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/?inum=3&p=special&sp=articles&article=442

121. Cygman, L. (2011). Learning Styles: Which type of Student is more Successful in which Modality. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved December 23, 2011 from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=442

Other papers cited in the one above in support of this position include:

Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2). Pp. 99-113. Aragon, S.R., Johnson, S., & Shaik.N. (2002).

The influence on learning style preferences on student success in online vs. face-to-face environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), pp. 227-244

122. Holden, J.T., & Westfall, P.J.-L., & Gamor, K.I. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning – Implications for Blended Learning Featuring an Introduction to Virtual Worlds. Second Edition. United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.usdla.org/assets/pdf_files/AIMSGDL%202nd%20Ed._styled_010311.pdf

123. Blanton, W.H. (2004). Distance Learning Opportunities for Electronic Engineering Technology of Community Colleges. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Conferences, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

124. Chan, M.-Y., & Mui, K.-W. (2007). Evaluating the Effectiveness of E-learning in a University. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings

125. Wright, C.R. (2011). Developing and Reviewing Online Courses: Items for Consideration. Association for Learning Technology. Online Newsletter. Retrieved August 12, 2012 from http://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/2011/11/developing-and-reviewing-online-courses-items-for-consideration/

126. Kist, A. A. (2012). Remote Access Technology and the Learning Experience. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings

127. Mackay, S. G. (2008) The impact of blended learning in improving the reaction, achievement and return on investment of industrial automation training. PhD Thesis. Curtin University of Technology, Australia.

Despite the obvious limitations, the author believes the research has more general applicability; based on the responses to courses attended by the respondents. Obviously another significant weakness with the survey could be considered that it was conducted in late 2007, when the economic boom was well underway. Since mid 2008, there has been an economic crisis which would have impacted on these results. However, we feel that due to the enormous shortage of engineering professionals throughout the world, that the economic impact would have been less significant here.

A combined quantitative and qualitative approach was employed in the research methodology. The survey and the results derived here were based on that done by Kim, Bonk and Zeng (2006), who kindly allowed us to use a modified version of their survey instrument. Approximately, 2500 engineering professionals responded to the survey done in August 2007 with some interesting and useful results. The respondents were sourced from a corporate training provider, IDC Technologies (60,000 contacts), supplemented by two US-based industrial automation magazines, Automation.com (20,000 contacts) and Control magazine (15,000 contacts). The quantitative data were supplemented by over 400 qualitative comments.

Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Zeng, T. (2006). Surveying the future of workplace e-learning: The rise of blending, interactivity, and authentic learning. eLearn. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=research&article=5-1.

128. The study conducted by Phillips (2006) of 140 Australian organisations found that 72% of the respondents used online learning in structured training. This is higher than the results in this research as Australia is probably more developed in respect to online learning when compared with the average in the Asia Pacific and African regions.

Phillips, M. (2006). E-learning in industry growing: A review of the use of e-learning in six industries. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://industry.flexiblelearning.net.au/2006/industry_perf_review_14nov06.pdf

129. These comments are supported by the research done by Phillips (2006), where many engineering respondents noted the need for more “hands-on” training and concerns as to whether online learning would be able to provide this.

Phillips, M. (2006). E-learning in industry growing: A review of the use of e-learning in six industries. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://industry.flexiblelearning.net.au/2006/industry_perf_review_14nov06.pdf

130. This accords with the general market results where the Brandon-Hall research organisation felt that 11% of firms actually performed ROI calculations. Sitzmann et al. (in press) pointed out that the use of online learning and blended learning should be encouraged even if the only difference between this and other alternatives such as face-to-face are the cost savings.

Sitzmann, T. M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. A. (n.d.). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.moresteam.com/ADLMetaAnalysisPaper.doc.

131. Ibrahim, W., & Morsi, R. (2005). Online Engineering Education: A Comprehensive Review. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved May 26, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

132. Scott, C.J., James, P.A., Astatke, Y., & Ladeji-Osias, J.O. (2012). Useful Strategies for Implementing and Online Undergraduate Electrical Engineering Program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

133. Söderströom, T., From, J., Lövqvist, J., & Törnquist, A. (2012). The Transition from Distance to Online Education: Perspectives from the Educational Management Horizon. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from eurodl.org/?article=513

134. In her report: E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies (Janet Clarey, Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale downloaded from the website: http://www.brandon-hall.com on 15 August 2009, pp.20-21), Janet Clarey draws on Bryan Chapman and Brandon Hall Research’s work to create the table.

135. Goodwin, C., & Bowman, M. (2004). Is the bottom line of online out of line? Calculating the total cost of online courses in Technology curricula. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2004 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Chapter 4

1. Parkhurst, R., Moskal, B.M., Downey, G.L., Lucena, J., Bigley, T., & Elberb, S. (2008). Engineering Cultures: Online vs. In-class. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4).

2. Goodson, C.E., Miertschin, S.L., & Stewart, B.L. (2011). Distance Delivery of Courses: What components are Important to Students? Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

3. Trippe, A.P. (2002). Training for Distance Learning Faculty. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

4. Dickrell, D. (2012). Applying Distance Education Technologies to a Large-Scale Engineering Mechanics Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

5. In her report: E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies (Janet Clarey, Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale downloaded from the website: brandon-hall.com on August 17 2009, p.23-24), Janet Clarey, discussed the different LMSs and LCMS and lists the main providers of LMSs being: Moodle (moodle.org) which is open source as well Brandon Hall’s most recent research reveals the following: SumTotal, Saba, Plateau, Oracle, PeopleSoft, GeoLearning and Learn.com.

6. Farook, O., Sekhar, C., Agrawal, J., & Bouktache, E. (2010). Designing of a Course Content Server for the Distance Learning Delivery format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

7. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011). Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

8. Little-Wiles, J.M., & Naimi, L.L. (2011). A Study of Traditional Undergraduate Student Engagement in Blackboard Learning Management System. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

9. The survey conducted is discussed in this paper. Note that it had a creditable 10% response rate on a large number of 3544 respondents; thus giving some credence to its results.

Little-Wiles, J.M., & Naimi, L.L. (2011). A Study of Traditional Undergraduate Student Engagement in Blackboard Learning Management System. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

10. Woodill, G. (June 2010). Enterprise Learning Management Systems: The Big Picture. Brandon Hall Research. Sunnyvale, California.

In addition, a PowerPoint presentation is quoted:

Werner, T. (2009) Learning Management Systems: Trends and Issues. Powerpoint Presentation.

11. Rockland, R.H., Kimmel, H.S., & Carpinelli, J.D. (2011). Moodle as a Course Management System - It isn’t just for Distance Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

12. Piña, A. (2010), An overview of Learning Management Systems. In Kats, Y. (2010). Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching tools and applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 1-19.

13. Branoff, T.J., & Scales, A.Y. (2010). Understanding How Students in a Face-to-Face Engineering Graphics Course Utilize Online Instructional Resources. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education. 65th Midyear Meeting Proceedings. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://edgd.asee.org/conferences/proceedings/65th%20Midyear/Branoff_Scales_Understanding_Student_Utilization_R esources.pdf

14. This survey (detailed in the paper below) had 2418 respondents and a participation rate of 17.2%.

Kuh et al. remarked that the further away students are from campus the more important (online) learning resources are to these students.

Little-Wiles, J., Hundley, S., & Bauer, E. (2010). Designing an Online Learning Management System for a Growing Student Population: The Urban, Commuter Student. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from www.asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

Kuh et al. was referred to in the reference above:

Kuh, G.D, Gonyea, R.M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or Fiction? Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/commuter.pdf

15. Harris, S., & Nantel, R. (2011). Selecting an LMS is Just the Beginning: Developing a Roadmap for Success. Brandon-Hall Group. Retrieved August 10 , 2011 from intelladon.com.

16. Ahern, T.C. (2005). Using online annotation software to provide timely feedback in an introductory programming course. Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

17. Rankine, L., Stevenson, L., Malfroy, J., & Ashford-Rowe, K. Benchmarking across universities: A framework for LMS analysis. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/rankine.pdf

18. Butler, R., & Scherrer, C. (2009). Developing a Standard Student Interface for Online Courses Through Usability Studies. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

19. This survey had a 10% response rate on over 3500 student respondents at Purdue University.

Little-Wiles, J.M., & Naimi, L.L. (2011). A Study of Traditional Undergraduate Student Engagement in Blackboard Learning Management System. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

20. Ieta, A., Manseur, R., & Doyle, T. (2009). Synergistic learning environment using Blackboard learning cells. 2009 ASEE Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 2011, from asee.org though the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

21. Mehrabian, A., Buchanan, W.W., Rahrooh, A. (2011). Free Access to To Technology for International Online Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from links asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

22. Harris, S. (February 2012). Replacing your LMS? Research Brief from Brandon Hall Group.

23. Wijekumar, K., & Cameron, B. (2007). AC 2007-1298: Classifying web-based discussion forum tasks and learning outcomes of undergraduate information science students. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from the conference link at asee.org.

24. This paper is cited in Cranney et al:

Lauron, A.G. (2008). Fostering collaboration to enhance online instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 109-121.

Cranney, M., Wallace, L., Alexander, J.L., & Alfano, L. (2011). Instructor’s Discussion Forum Effort: Is it Worth It? Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 337 – 348.

25. Jackson, K., & Lawrence, N. (2009) Engineering and re-engineering learning discussions in a fully online unit. Proceedings of the 2009 Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Retrieved March 4, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/AAEE2009/PDF/AUTHOR/AE090095.PDF

26. Trippe, A.P. (2002). Training for Distance Learning Faculty. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

27. The effectiveness of the discussion board cited in the paper by O'Neal below was from:

Northrup, P.T. (2002) Online learners' preference for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219-226.

The concerns about the lack of efficacy in the online classroom compared to the face-to-face classroom was cited in the paper by O'Neal below was from:

Shedletsky, L.J., & Aitken, J.E. (2001). The paradoxes of online academic work. Communication Education, 50, 206-217.

O'Neal, K. (2009). The Comparison between Asynchronous Online Discussion and Traditional Classroom Discussion in an Undergraduate Education Course. Proceedings of MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 88-96.

28. Devine, Jo. (2009) Assessable Online Discussion Groups as a Student Learning Tool. Proceedings of the 2009 Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Retrieved March 4, 2012 from aaee.com.au/

29. Östlund, B. (October 2, 2008) Interactive and Collaborative Learning – If, Why and How? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=331

30. Organero, M.M., & Kloos, C.D. (2007). Using Forums and Assessments as Motivational Tools in E-learning Courses: A Case Study. 37th ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

31. Harris, N., & Sandor, M. (2007). Developing online discussion forums as student centred peer e-learning environments. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/harris.pdf.

Comparisons between classroom and online learning has been drawn from:

Dixson, M., Kuhlhorst, M., & Reiff, A. (2006). Creating effective online discussions:optimal instructor and student roles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 3-5.

Garrison, D.R. (1997). Computer conferencing: the post-industrial age of distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 3-11.

Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T.L., & MacDonald, C.J. (2006). Learners' perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-24.

Evidence of the positive effects of peer-to-peer learning is drawn from:

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Light, G., & Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education. London: Paul Chapman.

32. Ellis, T.J., & Cohen, M.S. (2009). Forums and Wikis and Blogs, Oh My: Building a Foundation for Social Computing in Education. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

33. Cohen, M.S., & Ellis, T.J. (2003). Predictors of Success: A longitudinal Study of Threaded Discussion forums. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2003/index.htm.

34. Goldman, Z. (2011). Balancing Quality and Workload in Asynchronous Online Discussions: A Win-Win Approach for Students and Instructors. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2).

35. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: how to "be there" for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

36. This initial comment was cited in Guralnick (below) from the paper:

Wexler, S., Schlenker, B., Bruce, B., Clothier, P., Miller, D.A., & Nguyen, F. (2008). Authoring and Development Tools. The eLearning Guild.

Guralnick, D. (2009). Enabling Effective E-learning Creation on a Large Scale: Special-Purpose Authoring Tools. Proceedings of ICL 2009 Conference, (9)–9(9).

An online learning authoring package. EncompassLite, was created by David Guralnick which allows for easy and quick creation of training scenarios.

37. Spezia, C.J., & Thomas, D.H. (2012). Tools, Techniques and Class Experiences With On-Demand Multimedia Content in an Electric Machines Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

38. Bobbie, P., Duggins, S., Dasigi, V. (2011) Teaching Software Engineering and Computer Science Online Using Recent Instructional Technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education ASEE MidAtlantic Section Fall Conference. Retrieved January 16, 2012 from www.asee.org

39. Enhancing Instruction in Civil Engineering Courses with Use of Video-streamed Tutorials. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Zone I Professional Papers. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from www.asee.org through http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/papers/zone-proceedings/zone1/2010-professional

40. Lemley, E.C., & Jassemnejad, B. (2012). Use of Supplementary Online Lecture Materials in a Heat Transfer Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

41. Baratuci, W.B., & Linse, A.R. (2002). Heat Transfer On-line. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2002 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

42. Nicodemus, G., Falconer, J.L., & Medlin, W. (2011). Incorporating Screencasts into Chemical Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

43. Harcourt General were one of the first to launch an online college based on their extensive experience in providing educational materials to schools, colleges and universities. Ultimately this venture was not successful due to, among other things, very low demand for places.

Antonucci, R.V., & Cronin, J.M. (2001). Creating an Online University The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, 20-23.

44. Chen, J., Victorino, C.A., Birdsong, C., Menon, U., Tseng, M., & Smith, T.S. (2011). A Study of On-line Textbook Use Across Multiple Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

45. Chen, J., Victorino, C.A., Birdsong, C., Menon, U., Tseng, M., & Smith, T.S. (2011). A Study of On-line Textbook use across multiple Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 25, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Research on the effectiveness of digital textbooks was cited from:

Seo, Y.M., & Lee, Y.J. (2010). Meta Analysis on the Digital Textbook’s Effectiveness on Learning Attitude. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education.

46. Babbage. (January 27, 2012). The future of teaching: Difference engine: Let the games begin | The Economist. The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. Retrieved January 28, 2012 from http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/future-teaching

47. On, P.-W., & Salim, H.A. (2012). Transforming a Large-Enrollment, Engineering Statics Course into Quality Online Instruction by Adapting Proven Instructional Strategies. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

48. Stowell, C. (2012). Work-in-progress: Challenges to Developing Online Homework for Upper-Level Engineering courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

49. Harris, L.V.A., & Newman, R. (2006). Streaming Media Collaboration: Benefits and Challenges of a Higher Education Technology Start-up. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

50. Tongue, B.,& Kawano, D. (2010). Move It – Learning Modules for Dynamic Systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 24, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The website referred to and providing examples of this approach is at:

http://www.bensontongue.net/moveit/

51. DeVaney, T.A. (2009). Impact of Video Tutorials in an Online Educational Statistics Course. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(5).

These results were supported by another paper cited in the paper above:

Veronikas, S.W., & Maushak, N. (2005). Effectiveness of audio and screen capture in software application instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 199-205.

52. Barreto, G., Murari, C.A.F., Miguel, P.V.O. (2010). Didactic Videos about Basic Concepts on Alternating Current Circuits. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering, 6(3). Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/issue/view/89

53. Canessa, E., Fonda, C., & Zennaro, M. (September 27, 2007). Webcasting of Traditional Chalkboard Lectures: The EyA System. The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from site:http://www.eurodl.org/?article=276.

54. Dolan, D.S.L., Prodanov, V.I., & Taufik, T. (2011) Student Perception of Lecture Video Use as a Means to Increase Time for In Class Problem Solving Applications. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved October 11, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

There is a good survey to assess the effectiveness of lecture videos in Appendix A of the paper.

55. This great list of activities comes from Curt Bonk who produced the article below. There is a considerable amount of really useful and interesting materials here.

Bonk, C. (2004). “The Perfect E-Storm; Emerging technology, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets”. Report from The Observatory on borderless higher education, 7-11.

Go to Dr Bonk’s website at: http://www.publicationshare.com/ and http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/.

56. Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. May 1, 2012. Ithaka S+R. Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://www.ithaka.org/about-ithaka/announcements/ithakasr-gates.pdf

57. Evans, E.A. Murray, S.L. (n.d.). Session 2542: A Technology Assessment Survey for Web Based Higher Education Programs. ASEE. Retrieved on November 19 2009 from American Society for Engineering Education conference link at www.asee.org.

58. Grandzol, J.R., & Grandzol, C.J. (June, 2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

59. Wagner, R.J., Vanevenhoven, J.P., & Bronson, J.W. (2010). A Top Ten List for Successful Courses. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).

60. These suggestions come from a University of Wisconsin-Whitewater which has over 600 students enrolled on their online MBA program. These have been drawn up based on their decade of experience. These improvements listed below would lead to a smoother running course, which is a better learning experience and would make the students happier (as well, as presumably as the instructors).

Trippe, A.P. (2002). A Methodology for Planning Distance Learning Courses. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

61. Van Barneveld, A. (October 24, 2012) Research for Practitioners: Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1034/research-for-practitioners-nine-ways-to-reduce-cognitive-load

Article cited in the paper above on the supporting research:

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1). Retrieved 22 September 2012 from http://chua2.fiu.edu/nursing/anesthesiology/courses/ngr%206715%20insttech/slides/reduce_cognitive_load_in_me_ma yer_moreno2003.pdf

62. Forni, K., & Holcombe, C. (2009). 62 Tips on Graphic Design, UI/UX Design, And Visualization for Elearning. The E-learning Guild. Retrieved August 9, 2012 from http://www.elearningguild.com/surveys/?sid=209&utm_campaign=ebookolf97&utm_medium=link&utm_source=lsma g

63. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (May 2009). Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning. A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

The quotation was from p. ix of the Abstract.

64. Oswald, D., Baccini, D., Hinckley, S., & Wild, G. (2012). Improving Engineering Students’ Skills using a Digital Storage Oscilloscope using Multimedia Resources. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

The multimedia design principles were cited in the abovementioned paper and were sourced from:

Mayer, R.E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297-313.

65. This formed the basis of an online learning system provided by Halo Training in the UK to help familiarise new personnel with the production facility for a major dairy company. This is described in:

Anonymous (2006), See it and do it.. Dairy Industries International, 71, (11). Academic Research Library p.51

66. Bair, D.,& Dickinson, M.(April 21, 2011). How Much Narration in eLearning? Our Lessons Learned. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/666/?utm_campaign=lsmag&utm_medium=email&utm_source=elg-insider.

67. Lauer, T., Trahasch, S.,& Zupancic, B. (2005). Anchored Discussions of Multimedia Lecture Recordings. Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2005/index.htm.

68. The discussion on when distance learners are successful is discussed in the paper below but is referenced from:

Kim, K. (2009). Motivational Challenges of Adult Learners in self directed e-learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 20(3), 317-335.

The definition of deep learning is referenced from:

Havard, B., Du, J., Olinzock, A. (2005), Deep Learning: The knowledge, methods, and cognitive process in instructor-led online discussions. The Quarterly review of Distance Education, 6(2), 125-135.

The overall paper (where the above two papers are referenced) is from:

Trekles, A., & Nakayama, S. (2010). Work in Progress: Identifying adequate level of instruction without hindering deeper learning in distance learning. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Washington. Retrieved August 11, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/.

69. Oomen-Early, J., Bold, M., Wiginton, K.L., Gallien, T.L., & Anderson, N. (2008). Using Asynchronous Audio Communication (AAC) in the Online Classroom: A Comparative Study. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(3).

The comments on improved learners’ satisfaction, performance were sourced from a paper (cited above):

Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized vs. collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal of E-learning, 7(3).

This research is in contrast to that from Ice, Curtis, Wells and Phillips (cited in the first paper above) who found that online students preferred audio to text-based feedback.

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Wells, J., & Phillips, P. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and student sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25.

70. Seligson, H. (November 15, 2012). University Consortium to Offer Small Online Courses for Credit. The New York Times, Education. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/education/duke-northwestern-to-offer-semester-online-classes.html?_r=0

71. Romanowski, C.J., Raj, R.K., Ramkumar, S.M. (2011). Successful Practices for Online Computing, Engineering, and Technology Courses. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/

72. Supasorn, S., & Vibuljan, S. (2009). Use of an Interactive NMR Spectroscopy Course to Enhance the NMR Understanding of University Students. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 458 – 468.

73. Ozan, E., Tabrizi, M., Wuensch, K., Aziz, S., & Kishore, M. (2007). Learning Effectiveness as a Function of the Technologies Employed in Online Learning Settings. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

74. Squires, A., & Pennoti, M. (2007). Measuring the Value of Course Components in the Online Classroom. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

75. Pintong, K.P., & Summerville, D.H. (2011). Transitioning a Lab-based course to an Online Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Pintong, K.P., Summerville, D.H., & Temkin, K. (2012). Transitioning a Lab-based course to an Online Format: Strategies for Success. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

76. Varde, K. (2007). An Assessment of Performance and Learning Experience of Students in a Distance Learning Program. 2007 Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Publications and Papers and then conference Proceedings.

77. Craig, P., Wozniak, H., Hyde, S., & Burn, D. (2009). Student Use of Web based lecture technologies in blended learning: Do these reflect study patterns? In Same Places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009 Conference. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/craig.pdf

78. Koutropoulos, A., & Hogue, R.J. (October 8, 2012). How to Succeed in a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC). Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1023/how-to-succeed-in-a-massive-online-open-course-mooc

79. Kolowish, S. The Professors Who Make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retreived March 24, 2013 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professors-Behind-the-MOOC/137905/#id=overview

80. Baldwin, J. (2010). Are Online Courses Appropriate for Engineering Classes. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Zone I Professional Papers. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from asee.org through http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/papers/zone-proceedings/zone1/2010-professional

81. St.Clair, D.J. (2009). My Experience with Teaching Online: Confessions and Observations of a Survivor. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 166-175.

82. Cashman, E.M., & Eschenbach, E.A. (2003). Active Learning with Web Technology – Just in Time! Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

Evidence cited in the paper above on reduced attrition and improved lecture attendance is detailed in the following two references:

Novak, G., Patterson, E. (1997). World Wide Web Technology as New Teaching and Learning Environment. International Journal of Modern Physics, 8(1), 19-39.

Rozycki, W. (1999). Just in Time Teaching: Research and Creative Activity. Office of the University Graduate School at Indiana University.

83. Biswas, S., Yeruva, S., Sendaula, M., Sannidhi, K.P.,& Dwivedula, R.S. (2006). An Intelligent Interactive Tutoring for an Electric Circuits Course. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

84. Griffin, T., Gilchrist, A., & Thomson, R. (2009). Role of the online tutor in a large enrolment unit. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/griffin.pdf.

Reference is made to Macdonald's taxonomy of quality interventions:

Macdonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Hampshire, UK: Gower.

85. Pollock, M. (2004).. Using Computers to Deliver a Mathematics Course, to Increase Recruitment and Retention rate of non-traditional students and reduce staff workload. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2004/papers/1298.pdf.

86. Oswald, D., Baccini, D., Hinckley, S., & Wild, G. (2012). Improving Engineering Students’ Skills using a Digital Storage Oscilloscope using Multimedia Resources. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference.. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

87. Hsieh, S.-J., Hsieh, P.Y., & Zhang, D. (2003). Web-based Simulations and Intelligent Tutoring System for Programmable Logic Controller. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2003/index.htm.

Chapter 5

1. This wry comment came from Sivasailam Thiagarajan and Tracy Tagliati.

Tagliati, T., & Thiagarajan, S. (2011). 101 Increasing Interactivity in Virtual Classrooms. The Thiagi Group. Learning Solutions Conference & Expo.

2. Chao, D. (n.d.). WebEx Infograph on Collaboration. [Blog]. Retrieved November 11, 2012 from http://davidchao.typepad.com/web conferencingexpert/2012/10/index.html

3. Hicks, B. (2010). Holding the Virtual Self Accountable. An Online Educator's Obligation. elearn.org. Retrieved on December 5th, 2011 from elearn.org site.

4. Goulding, T. (2010). Lessons from Socrates and the Online Classroom: Achieving Exceptional Performance in Project-Based Classroom. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2010 Zone 1. Retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2010/professional/Lessons-from-Socrates-and-the-Online-Classroom-Achieving-Exceptional-Performance-in-Project-Based-Classroom.pdf

5. Lan, S.S. (2011). Participation, Class Types, and Student Performance in Blended-Learning Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

6. Parker, M.A., & Martin, F. (2010). Using Virtual Classrooms: Student Perceptions of Features and Characteristics in an Online and a Blended Course. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1).

7. Webster, T.J., & Haberstroh, K.M. (2002). An Interactive, Video-Teleconferenced, Graduate course in Biomedical Engineering, Journal of Engineering Education, 159-166. Downloaded 15th October 2009 from asee.org site by clicking on the Journal of Engineering Education web button.

8. Cut Costs and Drive Efficiency of Virtual Teams. (.n.d.). A Research Review from Citrix Online. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from citrixonline.com

9. 1080 Group, LLC Survey Brief. (2010). Web Conferencing Training Trends 2010: Australia and New Zealand. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.1080group.com/ (but no longer on site).

The survey was conducted within Australia and New Zealand by the 1080 Group with 230 responses in August and September 2010. It probably can’t be regarded as more than an indicator of trends.

10. Rowan, T. (January 4, 2010) New Study Reveals Trends in Web Conferencing for Professional Training. Home Health News. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.homehealthnews.org/2010/01/new-study-reveals-trends-in-web-conferencing-for-professional-training/

11. Banky, G.P. (2009) O (Big) Brother, Where Art Thou ?: Exploring the capabilities of synchronous online communication while supervising experiential learning from a distance.. Proceedings of the AAEE 2009 Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.aaee.org

12. Shaurette, M., & Orczyk, J. (2011). Overcoming the Challenges of Distance Education Delivery of a Master of Science Degree in Construction Management. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

13. This interpretation was gleaned by looking at Table II and reading the associated text from:

Evans, A., & Murray, S.L. (n.d.). Session 2542: A Technology Assessment Survey for Web Based Higher Education Programs. ASEE. Retrieved on August 15, 2009 from the asee.org site from the Conference Proceedings link. Session 2542. Although a note is made that this was of asynchronous distance learning tools, synchronous tools are being surveyed as well so this is a bit difficult to reconcile.

14. Nilssen, A., & Greenberg, A. (July 2006). The Vital Role of Web Conferencing in Small & Medium Enterprises. Users Reveal Key Applications and Their Value. Wainhouse Research. wainhouse.com

15. Gal-Ezer, J.,& Lanzberg, D. (2003). Using Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Learning in Computer Science Courses. Proceedings of 33rd ASEE/IEEE Fontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.openu.ac.il/Personal_sites/download/galezer/fie-2003-1239.pdf.

16. Shifting Training to Online Learning: Extending Reach, Improving Productivity, and Keeping Learners Involved. (2007). Report prepared for Citrix Online by Wainhouse Research.

17. Yao, J., & Warren, S. (2010). Work in Progress – A Ubiquitous Laboratory Model to Enhance Learning in Electronics Courses Offered by Two Universities with Dissimilar Curricula. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

The concept was cited from the paper:

Jones, V., & Jo, J.H. (2004). Ubiquitous learning environment: An adaptive teaching system using ubiquitous technology. Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference.

18. Enriquez, A.G. (2011). Strengthening the Community College Engineering Pipeline using Tablet PCs and Online Instruction. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The statistics quoted are not particularly clear as they don’t compare the different forms of online learning. But the numbers are certainly large and convincing:

Of 58,551 courses offered at Californian community colleges in academic years 2006/7 and 2007/8, only 963 (or almost 2%) used synchronous online learning.

19. Murray (Hyder et al., 2007) indicated that the main categories of synchronous online learning technologies, are often confused by different users probably due to the rapid growth in the field.

Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328.

20. Barlow, Peter and Barlow (2002) indicated that web conferencing, as compared to videoconferencing, only allows the camera feed in one direction, but voice and written communications in both directions.

Barlow, J., Peter, P., & Barlow, L. (2002).Smart videoconferencing: new habits for virtual meetings. San Francisco, Calif.: Berrett-Koehler.

21. Downs (2004) defined web conferencing as a technology that allowed a group to communicate and collaborate in an electronic conference format over the internet. She indicated that there are two main types of web conferencing approaches possible:

A webinar is an internet conference where slides are initially downloaded from the moderator’s site and the learners then communicate with the presenter via telephone or a web-based chat option.

Webcasting on the other hand uses streaming video and perhaps, audio over the internet. This allows the data to be transferred in a continuous manner and the presentation commences before all the data are actually transferred. This disagrees somewhat with what Murray (2006) indicated above, in that she did not categorise webcasting as a subdivision of web conferencing.

Downes, S. for Macromedia (2004). Web conferencing 101. A ConferZone white paper [White Paper].

Murray, S. (2006, November 13). E-learning at Cisco's college: Sarah Murray explains the US company's approach. Financial Times, 4. Retrieved February 4, 2007 from Proquest database.

22. Ken has a really great blog with some superb practical notes on running a good blog. Surely, he must be one of the most knowledgeable commentators in the industry. He did a comparison between webinar and web conferencing (and web conference) where it clearly shows that webinar as a search term and news reference is considerably more popular.

Molay, K. Fuel to the Webinar Flame(rs). Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://wsuccess/typepad.com/webinarblog/#tp

23. This was highlighted by Keegan et al. (2005) who remarked on the confusion in the use of the appropriate terminology in the area of online learning especially in simultaneous group based teaching through the internet. He discussed some of the terms that can be used to refer to this group based online learning. Virtual classrooms indicates a grouping of students with instruction led training. Virtual indicates that the meeting will be done virtually or electronically; not in a face-to-face situation

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

24. Gaming and simulations can be described as “online virtual environments that respond and dynamically adjust to learner input” (Hyder et al., 2007, page 5).

Hyder, K., Kwinn, A., Miazga, R., & Murray, M. (2007). Synchronous e-learning. The eLearning Guild. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.1328.

25. Downs (2004) listed the typical functionality required of a web conferencing solution:

•  Slides presentations using the ubiquitous Microsoft Powerpoint

•  Speaker chat between speakers and with moderator

•  Questions and answers in text from the participants

•  Polling of the participants by the speaker at appropriate areas of the presentation

•  Use of an electronic whiteboard by the speaker for writing and drawing on the screen

•  Screen sharing of the presenter’s desktop with participants

•  Application sharing where the presenter allows a participant to take control of the slide show and presentation

•  Web touring where the presenter can take the participants on a tour of certain websites

•  File transfer for appropriate files to participants (such as presentation files)

•  Use of emoticons (such as happy/sad/confused) to allow participants to communicate with speaker.

Downes, S. for Macromedia (2004). Web conferencing 101. A ConferZone white paper [White Paper].

26. Murray felt that videoconferencing was diverging into two areas: high definition “telepresence” (Lichtman, 2006) suited to training fields such as medicine where high quality video was critical and affordable standard definition PC-based systems.

Lichtman, H. S. (2006). Telepresence, effective visual collaboration and the future of global business at the speed of light. Human Productivity Lab. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.humanproductivitylab.com/telepresencepaper/index.php.

27. Woodill, G. (2010 August). High Definition Videoconferencing for Training. Brandon Hall Research. San Jose, CA.

28. McNelley, S., & Machtig, J. (n.d.). What is Telepresence? Retrieved August 8, 2012 from http://www.dvetelepresence.com/files/whatIsTelepresence.pdf

29. Woodill, G. (2010 August). High Definition Videoconferencing for Training. Brandon Hall Research. San Jose, CA.

30. Chao, D. (n.d.). Web Conferencing Best Practices, Web-Based Selling and E-learning Tips from a Nexus IS Insider. [Blog.] Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http://davidchao.typepad.com/web conferencingexpert/2012/11/magic-quadrant-figure-1-magic-quadrant-for-web-conferencing-source-gartner-november-2011-return-to-top-mark.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=15008&utm_campaign=0

31. Focus Research, (2009). Web Conferencing Buyer’s Guide.

32. Chao, D. (n.d.). Web Conferencing Best Practices, Web-Based Selling and E-learning Tips from a Nexus IS Insider. [Blog.] Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http://davidchao.typepad.com/web conferencingexpert/2012/11/magic-quadrant-figure-1-magic-quadrant-for-web-conferencing-source-gartner-november-2011-return-to-top-mark.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=15008&utm_campaign=0

33. Ken Molay (quoted elsewhere in this book who has a blog site entitled Webinar Success), noted that it is hard to use this report for “practical purchase decisions” .

Molay, K (2012) Magic Quadrant for Web Conferencing [Blog]. Retrieved December 28, 2012 from http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/

34. Abler, R., Brennan, S., & Jackson, J. (2008). High Definition Video Support for Natural Interaction through Distance Learning. Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

35. Vendor Landscape: Web Conferencing; Show Me, Don’t Just Tell Me. Product Comparison Info-Tech Advisor Premium – Compare. Info~Tech Group. December 17, 2008. infotech.com

36. The Web conferencing council report is supposedly unbiased (as opposed to the Gartner Quadrant Players as they pointedly suggest -discussed elsewhere) and focuses on web conferencing as opposed to online teaching solutions for engineers and technicians. Top 10 Web Conferencing Solutions, (2009). Council Criteria, Findings, and Recommendations for Web Conferencing Solutions..

37. Hartog, L. ( 2009). The Top 12 Web Conferencing Vendors. Focus Research.

38. Chao, D. (n.d.). Web Conferencing Best Practices, Web-Based Selling and E-learning Tips from a Nexus IS Insider. [Blog.] Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http://davidchao.typepad.com/web conferencingexpert/2012/11/magic-quadrant-figure-1-magic-quadrant-for-web-conferencing-source-gartner-november-2011-return-to-top-mark.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=15008&utm_campaign=0

39. Vest, J. (2011). Google+ Hangouts: Six Practical Uses for Online Education. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved May 22, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/772/google-hangouts-six-practical-uses-for-online-education

40. Sivula, M. (July 2011). Using Skype As An Academic Tool: Lessons Learned. Retrieved August 25, 2011 from http://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=2011843

Engagement theory is discussed further on the website:

Kearsley, G., & Schneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based learning and teaching." Retrieved August 25, 2011 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm.

41. McBrien, J.L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).

42. Moore, M.G. (1993) Theory of Transactional Distance. In D. Keegan, (ed.) (1993). Theoretical principles of distance education. London: Routledge.

43. This is contained in Table 2 on p. 314 of the paper:

Park, Y.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2007). Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Sycnhronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3). 307-323.

44. This comment was made by Nipper in his paper (cited in the paper below):

Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: communication, computers, and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Park, Y.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2007). Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Sycnhronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323.

45. Dadvidson, B. Davidson, R. Gay, G. Ingraffea, A. Miller, M, Nozick, L. Zehnder, A. Sheckler, R., & Rath, C (2002). Session 1302: Distance Design Collaboration Through an Advanced Interactive Discovery Environment. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from the conferences section of asee.org.

46. Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the Virtual Classroom: What Students Need to Know (and Teachers Should Consider). Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 439-451. Retrieved December 22, 2011 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/falloon_1211.pdf

47. Vitartas, P. Rowe, S., & Ellis, A. (n.d.). Student's first experiences with a Web conferencing system - preliminary findings. Retrieved on January 5, 2011 from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw08/papers/refereed/vitartas/paper.html.

48. Burns, J.T. (December 20, 2002). Evaluating staff Development and training models to support the implementation of videoconferencing technology for teaching and learning in a distributed university. European Journey for Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=62

49. Wood, G. (2006). A Distributed Learning Network Unites the Mid-South. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

50. Shi, S. (2010). Teacher Moderating and Student Engagement in Synchronous Computer Conferences. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).

The comment about synchronous instruction having a positive impact is discussed further in numerous studies cited in the paper above:

Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2002). The eClassroom used as a Teacher’s Training Laboratory to Measure the Impact of Group Facilitation on Attending, Participation, Interaction and Involvement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

Murphy, E. (2005). Issues in the Technology, 36(3), 525-536.

Orvis, K.L., Wisher, R.A., Bonk, C.J., & Olson, T. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(6), 783-795.

51. This paper was based around teaching electromagnetism where an extremely high level of visualisation is required to understand the various concepts (including Maxwell’s equations with electric and magnetic waves). In the associated survey, 57% of the students indicated that the use of the Tablet PC increased their interaction with the instructor. Oddly enough, only 38% found that the use of the Tablet PC enhanced their understanding of the lectures. Perhaps this was due to the instructor’s presentation?

Al-Zoubi, A.Y., G. Sammour and Q.M. Al-Zoubi (n.d.). Utilization of Tablet PCs in Electromagnetic Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). Manuscript received 15th February 2007.

52. The suggestions on the Tablet were proposed by Dr Rodney Jacobs (from Welkom in South Africa in 2011), a veteran of online engineering instruction and we have quoted him essentially verbatim as per an email communication.

53. Molay, K. (2011) Live Video in Webinars and Webcasts. Retrieved November 26, 2011 from http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2011/05/live-video-in-webinars-and-webcasts.html

54. Groves, J.F., Caraballo, S.A., Hobson, R.S., Scales, G.R.,&Vahala, L. (2010). Work in Progress– Transitioning an Established Engineering Distance Learning Program Infrastructure to an On-line Instructional Setting. Proceedings of 40th ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved April 14, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/papers/1588.pdf.

55. Addeo, E.J. (1994). Applications of Leapfrog Teleconferencing Technologies to Distance Learning. Proceedings of 1994 American Society for Engineering Education Conference.

56. Addeo, E.J., (n.d.). Applications of Leapfrog Teleconferencing Technologies to Distance Learning. DeVry Institute Session 1547. Retrieved September 12 2009, from the conferences section on asee.org.

57. Heeler, P., & Hardy, C. (2005). A preliminary report on the use of video technology in online courses. Paper presented at the Central Plains Conference.

58. This discussion drew on a particularly useful and readable whitepaper put together by Ian Savage and which can be accessed from http://st20.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/so-you-think-you-can-webex.pdf on the 20 September 2009 and entitled:” So you think you can Webex ?” highlights some of the mistakes he made in transitioning from “designing, developing, and delivering traditional classroom learning events, to doing the same for online learning.” He had to change overnight from flying around the world presenting courses to presenting virtual classroom sessions at odd times. And indeed re-inventing his business which was based around that of classroom based education but which was annihilated by his one company he was working for slashing their traditional training budget due to the financial crisis in 2008.

59. Dadvidson, B. Davidson, R. Gay, G. Ingraffea, A. Miller, M, Nozick, L. Zehnder, A. Sheckler, R. Rath, C. (2002). Session 1302: Distance Design Collaboration Through an Advanced Interactive Discovery Environment. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on September 23, 2009 from the conferences section of asee.org.

60. Molay, K. (n.d.). What is HD Web Conferencing? The Webinar Blog. Web Conferencing Tips, News, and Opinions. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2012/09/what-is-hd-web-conferencing.html

61. Wasfy, H.M., Wasfy, T.M., Peters, J., & Mahfouz, T.M. (2012). Online Automated Interactive Undergraduate Physics Course and Lab. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering 2012 Conference. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and then Conference Proceedings.

62. A really great list of suggestions for driving up interactivity was provided in this paper.

Tagliati, T., & Thiagarajan, S. (2011). 101 Increasing Interactivity in Virtual Classrooms. The Thiagi Group. Learning Solutions Conference & Expo.

63. Bodrero, R., & Bahr, K. (n.d.). Case Study: Engaging Learners in the Synchronous Distance Environment. Learning Solutions Magazine (part of the eLearning Guild). Retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/824/case-study-engaging-learners-in-the-synchronous-distance-environment.

Some of the suggestions are cited from other sources:

Clay, C. (2011). From Blah to Aha! Six Strategies to Engage your Online Audience. Webinar presented by NetSpeed Learning Solutions, July 2011.

Kwinn, A. (2007). The eLearning Build’s Handbook on Synchronous eLearning. The eLearning Guild.

Wenmoth, D. (2008). 144 Tips on Synchronous eLearning Strategy and Research. The eLearning Guild.

64. Vitartas, P., Jayne, N., Ellis, A., & Rowe, S. (2007). Student Adoption of web conferencing software: A comparison of three student discipline groups. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/vitartas.pdf.

65. Zia, O. (2009). E-Learning and E-teaching: A first step towards building a global University. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

66. Khiewnavawongsa, S., Leong, R., & Schmidt, E. (2007). Real-time learning in a distance course. Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

The study referred to in comparing face-to-face and a recorded virtual classrooms was:

Khiewnavawongsa, S., Leong, R., & Schmidt, E. (2006). Learning a Web-based Course through MacroMedia Breeze. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

This was considered elsewhere in this text.

67. Enriquez, A. (2010). Assessing the Effectiveness of Dual Delivery Mode in an Online Introductory Circuits Analysis Course. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

68. Loch, B., & Reushle, S. (2008). The practice of web conferencing: Where are we now? In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/loch.pdf.

69. Cho, C.S., & Kuyath, S. (2010). The Effect of Panopto on Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Traditional-distance Education Students. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

70. Osorno, B. (2007). Online Teaching of Electrical Power Systems in Electrical Engineering; Experiences and Myths. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

71. Van Gulick, L.A., & Paolino, M.A (n.d.). Session 2260: Internationalization of The Lafayette College Engineering Curriculum. Retrieved on October 29, 2009 from the American Society of Engineering Education conference link on their site asee.org.

72. Shaurette, M. (2008). Implementation of Wireless Webcam Technology for Construction Management Field Trips. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

A detailed two appendices (A and B) should be consulted before commencing any application of webcam technology on construction sites. Appendix A provides a Webcam Site Visit Lesson Plan Guide, which is essentially a check list of items ranging from definition of the “Educational Objectives of the Site Visit” to “Understanding and Analyzing course and site visit concepts”. Appendix B, entitled Webcam Field Trip Best Practices, provides a recommended list of items including the field trip, equipment set up and equipment use.

Chapter 6

1. Baecker, R. (2003). A principled design for scalable internet visual communications with rich media, interactivity, and structured archives. Paper presented at the Proceedings CASCON '03. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://epresence.tv/downloads_fileSources/cascon-paper.pdf.

2. Baecker, R. (2003). A principled design for scalable internet visual communications with rich media, interactivity, and structured archives. Paper presented at the Proceedings CASCON '03. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://epresence.tv/downloads_fileSources/cascon-paper.pdf.

3. Thomas, B., & Chasick, D. (Presenter) (2007). From the classroom to distance learning: Career transitions [Audio/Podcast]. USA: Masie Center & Learning Consortium. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from learningwiki.com/library. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from learningwiki.com/library.

4. Kismihók in Keegan et al.(referenced below) made a few suggestions on ensuring a successful synchronous online learning session included:

Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

5. Eller, V.M. Beetner, D. White, J. Pottinger, H. (2002). Session 2158: Development and Delivery of an Interactive Web-based Seminar. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on asee.org on the 29th October 2009.

6. Park, Y.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2007). Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Sycnhronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323.

7. Fripp, P. (July 7, 2009). 15 Tips for Webinars: How to Add Impact when you Present. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.fripp.com/blog/15-tips-for-webinars-how-to-add-impact-when-you-present-online/

8. This checklist was put together by the inimitable Ms Sharne Pretorius (Perth, Western Australia) while putting together procedures for the instructors in 2011 for the Engineering Institute of Technology.

9. Bodrero, R., & Bahr, K. (2011). Case Study: Engaging Learners in the Synchronous Distance Environment. Learning Solutions Magazine (part of the eLearning Guild). Retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/824/case-study-engaging-learners-in-the-synchronous-distance-environment.

Some of the suggestions are cited from other sources:

Clay, C. (2011). From Blah to Aha! Six Strategies to Engage your Online Audience. Webinar presented by NetSpeed Learning Solutions.

Kwinn, A. (2007). The eLearning Build’s Handbook on Synchronous eLearning. The eLearning Guild.

Wenmoth, D. (2008). 144 Tips on Synchronous eLearning Strategy and Research. The eLearning Guild.

10. Beck, J. (2011). Virtual Training: Are you Engaging or Boring? Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved December 23, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/802/virtual-training-are-you-engaging-or-boring

11. Fripp, P. (July 7, 2009). 15 Tips for Webinars: How to Add Impact when you Present. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.fripp.com/blog/15-tips-for-webinars-how-to-add-impact-when-you-present-online/

12. There is a good dissection on real world experiences, optimum discussions, chatting, structuring a presentation and posting comments contained in the excellent article entitled: Discussion Management Tips for Online Educators by Jo Marek September 25, 2009 on elearn.org magazine in their section on Best Practices – Discussion Management Tips for Online Educators. Downloaded 14 October 2009. It is worthwhile subscribing to this rigorous but practical ezine.

13. Ozelkan, E., & Galambosi, A. (2009) Benchmarking Distance Education In Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

14. Trippe, A.P. (2002). Training for Distance Learning Faculty. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

15. Bunzel, T. (n.d.). Taking Traditional Training Online: From the Classroom to the Web. Retrieved February 8, 2011 from http://www.2elearning.com/www/news/new-products/single-news-article/article/virtual-classroom-5-advantages-to-moving-your-training-program-online.html

16. Jancke, G., Grudin, J., Gupta, A. (2000) Presenting to Local and Remote Audiences: Design and Use of the TELEP System. Proceedings of CHI’2000, 384-391.

17. Baecker, R. (n.d.). A Principled Design for Scalable Internet Visual Communications with Rich Media, Interactivity, and Structured Archives. University of Toronto. http://epresence.tv/downloads_fileSources/cascon-paper.pdf

18. These suggestions were kindly made by Dr Rodney Jacobs (Welkom, South Africa) in an email communication in 2011.

19. This paper is perhaps a little dated and focuses on traditional videoconferencing. However, similar problems occur during web conferencing. Besides issues with audio, the authors also discussed other items that were important such as the utility of a documentation camera, planning required for examinations and instructors need to be keenly aware of keeping students involved in the presentation.

Kumar, S. Walker, J. Jalkio, J.A. and Rehn, R.A. (n.d.). Session 2522: Distance Learning, an Enabling Approach in Academia/Industry Partnerships. Retrieved October 25, 2009 from the conference section of asee.org.

20. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J., & Wilbur, S. (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

21. There is quite an extensive discussion on a comparison between the Blackboard, RealMedia, Windows Media, Microsoft NetMeeting and RealPresenter, which is useful but unfortunately somewhat dated (over a decade ago) with the recent developments in the technology of web conferencing.

Eller, V.M. Beetner, D. White, J. Pottinger, H. (2002). Session 2158: Development and Delivery of an Interactive Web-based Seminar. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on asee.org on the 29th October 2009.

22. Molay, K. February 1, (2011). Web Conferencing Solutions–Where is the Performance? Retrieved February 4, 2011 from http://wsuccess.typepad.com.

23. Brunk, M. (2011). Conducting Presence? Retrieved June 3, 2011 from http://www.nojitter.com/blog/229402561#comments/.

24. Grayson and Monk (2003) noted that modern videoconferencing equipment did not support a natural mutual gaze between instructor and learner and made suggestions on addressing this issue. Small video windows to a minimum size of 176 X 144 pixels, with a head and shoulders view, can be used without disrupting the mutual gaze awareness environment.

Grayson, D. M., & Monk, A. F. (2003). Are you looking at me? Eye contact and desktop videoconferencing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions, 10(3), 221-243. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from the ACM database.

25. In his doctoral investigation, Meulenberg (2005) noted that the use of videoconferencing (using PC’s) was rapidly growing worldwide to link classes and students over the internet. Some of his principal findings were as follows. Appropriate training in videoconferencing was lacking in most of the participating organisations – most technical problems could be overcome with adequate training. The human element in setting up a successful videoconferencing system was underestimated. A central co-ordinator was critical to managing the coordination between the different sites. IT support must be available from all organisations. Identical equipment (hardware and software) at the different sites was critical as a minimum. Additional training resources (such as whiteboard/videos/software) added value to the videoconferencing experience. Eye-to-eye contact was critical, hence the cameras must be placed as close as possible to the incoming pictures. High data rates contributed significantly to the quality and success of the experience. Technical ease of use with the videoconferencing package was vital and finally, the dispersed nature of the audience and resultant group dynamics needed careful attention to keep the geographically separated audience feeling united.

Meulenberg, P. (2005). An investigation into the effectiveness of implementing video conferencing over IP (PhD dissertation). Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

26. Bliesener (2006) noted that a major problem with synchronous online learning was that sound and video of each participant was often significantly different in quality and timing between the transmitting and receiving sites due to imperfections in the transmission media and equipment.

Bliesener, T. (2006). Training synchronous collaborative e-learning. International Journal on Elearning, 5(2), 185-196. Retrieved on February 110, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database.

27. Tscholl, McCarthy and Scholl (2005) suggested the importance of non-verbal cues for “dialogue, discourse and information management”. They found that adding high-quality video (at least 25 frames/second), had an effect on the discussion, attitudes and behaviour of participants in that more general concepts would be produced in the discussion. The investigators felt the video may increase the intimacy between the students and it would act an “icebreaker”. (Tscholl et al., 2005). It should be noted that students tended to try and establish eye contact but because of the camera settings, this was never actually made.

Tscholl, M., McCarthy, J., & Scholl, J. (2005). The effect of video-augmented chat on collaborative learning with cases. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! Retrieved February 12, 2007, from The ACM Digital Library.

28. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J., & Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2–11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

29. The process of facilitation of courses is discussed at length in the web article by Brooke Broadbent and Regan Legassie of e-learninghub.com How to Facilitate courses.

30. Molay, K. http://www.wsuccess.com (and a blog site at: http://wsuccess.typepad.com/) who runs a website entitled Webinar success gives some useful tips for recording and suggests that he can do this himself.

31. He, L., Grudin, J., Gupta, A. (2002) Designing Presentations for On-Demand Viewing. Proceedings of CSW2000, 127-134.

32. Rowe, L.A., Harley, D., Pletcher, P., Lawrence, S. (2001). BIBS: A Lecture Webcasting System. BMRC Tech Report June 2001, University of California, Berkeley.

33. A section on Four Event Formats and Design Basics for Each which is part of the document “How to Design for the Live Online Classroom” from Brandon Hall Research. Downloaded from the Brandon Hall site brandon-hall.com on the 15 August 2009.

34. Downes, S. (2004). Web conferencing 101. A ConferZone white paper. White Paper Sponsored by Macromedia.

35. Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance education. Paper presented at the CITC4 03.

In the paper above, frequent references were made to the book by Bain:

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36. Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihok, G., Biro, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions (No. 126). Hagen: Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung (ZIFF).

37. Muirhead, B. (2004). Encouraging interaction in online classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(6). Retrieved May 22, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jun_04/article07.htm.

38. This is discussed on p.640 with the quotation “for diagrammatic techniques” originating from here:

Pankratius, V., & Stucky, W. (2005, May 15-21, 2005). Information systems development at the virtual global university: An experience report. Paper presented at the ICSE'05. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from the ACM database.

39. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J., & Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course. ASEE, 2–11.

40. Brinthaupt, T.M., Fisher, L.S., Gardner, J.G., Raffo, D.M., & Woodard, J.B. (2011). What the Best Online Teachers Should Do. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 515-524. Retrieved December 22, 2011 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/brinthaupt_1211.pdf

41. Molay, K. wsuccess.com (and a blog site at: wsuccess.typepad.com/) who runs a website entitled Webinar success. Ken Molay remarked on the irritating problems with blue chip packages and how this damaged the participants’ exposure to the web conferencing approach. This ranged from the use of Webex and an irritating problem with audio to Schwarzenegger’s web cast where audio and video were inoperative in California. Questions from viewers were streaming in and he was unable to answer.

42. The inimitable Roger Courville claims he is “the web seminar guru” and he has certainly some great references to his ability and experiences in web conferencing. He has worked in the industry for over a decade and has great experience in using web conferencing technology. His very useful and eminently readable book was referred to and can be sourced from:

Courville, R. (2009). The Virtual Presenter’s Handbook. 1080 Group: Oregon.

Also go to the website: thevirtualpresenter.com.

43. Behling, K. Orczyk, J., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Using Adobe Breeze to Deliver a Distance Learning masters Degree in Building Construction Management. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 26, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

Chapter 7

1. Woodill, G., & Cunningham-Reid, A. (2008). Mobile Learning. The Essential Information for Training Professionals. Brandon Hall Research. A Brandon Hall Research Business Report produced by Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale, CA. brandon-hall.com

2. Woodill, G., & Cunningham-Reid, A. (2008). Mobile Learning. The Essential Information for Training Professionals. Brandon Hall Research. A Brandon Hall Research Business Report produced by Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale, CA. brandon-hall.com

We have modified this original list of attributes was created by Mike Sharples–a leading mobile learning theorist who has a blog site: http://iet.open.ac.uk/people/mike.sharples

This definition has been coined by Brandon-Hall and has been modified slightly.

3. Woodill, G., & Wilson, R. (March 24, 2011). Engineering Intelligent Content for Mobile Learning. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/651/engineering-intelligent-content-for-mobile-learning

4. Woodill, G., & Cunningham-Reid, A. (2008). Mobile Learning. The Essential Information for Training Professionals. Brandon Hall Research. A Brandon Hall Research Business Report produced by Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale, CA. www.brandon-hall.com

5. Zhang, X., Vogel, D., Banavar, M.K., Hu, S., Spanias, A.S., Spanias, P.& Thiagarajan, J.J., (2012). Work-in-Progress: Using Modern Mobile Technologies in STEM Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

6. Woodill, G. (2010). Worldwide Mobile Learning Trends. Brandon Hall Research. April 2010. Sunnyvale, CA.

7. Zhang, X., Vogel, D., Banavar, M.K., Hu, S., Spanias, A.S., Spanias, P.& Thiagarajan, J.J., (2012). Work-in-Progress: Using Modern Mobile Technologies in STEM Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

8. Lentz, M., & Carson, B. (October 1, 2012). Designing Content for Multiple Mobile Devices. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved October 3, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1018/designing-content-for-multiple-mobile-devices

9. Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (editors) New Technologies, new Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2009, April. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

10. Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (editors) New Technologies, new Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2009, April. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

11. Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (editors) New Technologies, new Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2009, April. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

This suggesting grouping of mobile technologies was drawn from:

Patten, B., Arnedillo Sanchez, I., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers & Education, 46, 294-308.

12. Woodill, G., & Cunningham-Reid, A. (2008). Mobile Learning. The Essential Information for Training Professionals. Brandon Hall Research. Sunnyvale, CA. brandon-hall.com

13. Woodill, G., & Wilson, R. (March 24, 2011). Engineering Intelligent Content for Mobile Learning. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/651/engineering-intelligent-content-for-mobile-learning

14. Woodill, G. (2010). Worldwide Mobile Learning Trends. Brandon Hall Research. April 2010. Sunnyvale, CA.

These suggestions were from the MOBIlearn Project (in Europe).

15. Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (editors) New Technologies, new Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2009, April. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

16. Golagani, S.C., Esfahanian, M., & Akopian, D. (2012). Template-Based Image Processing Toolkit for Android Phones. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

These comments were drawn from:

Mobile phones switch young people onto learning. Education and Training. London, Vol. 45, Issue 4. 5. pp. 288-230. 2003.

Other suggested uses for mobile phones:

Williams, M.F. (2010). Cell Phones as Teaching Tools. Journal of Educational Leadership, 68(2), 85-86.

17. Woodill, G., & Cunningham-Reid, A. (2008). Mobile Learning. The Essential Information for Training Professionals. Brandon Hall Research. A Brandon Hall Research Business Report produced by Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale, CA. brandon-hall.com

18. Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (editors) New Technologies, new Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2009, April. Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

19. Stone, T. (2009). Where is Mobile Learning Most Helpful ? Element K Blog. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://blog.elementk.com/element_k_blog/2011/05/where-is-mobile-learning-most-helpful.html

20. Kadle, A. (March 1, 2010) Five Mobile Learning Implementation Tips. [Upside Learning Blog]. Retrieved March 22, 2012 from http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/01/five-mobile-learning-implementation-tips/

21. Woodill, G. Worldwide Mobile Learning Trends (2010). Brandon Hall Research.

22. Woodill, G. Worldwide Mobile Learning Trends (2010). Brandon Hall Research.

23. Fulton, T., & Brandon, W. (2012). “Bring your own Device”: Are You Ready? Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved October 4, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/941/bring-your-own-device-are-you-ready

24. Mahmoud, Q.H., & Popowicz, P. (2010). A Mobile Application Development Approach to Teaching Introductory Programming. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

25. Xing, T., Burge, L.L., & Aglan, H.A. (2011). Integration of Mobile Technology into Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

26. Pennington, R., Paredes, J., Tsoi, M.Y., Timpte, C., Sauder, D., & Pursell, D. (2010). Adapting to Student Learning Styles: Using Cell Phone Technology. Undergraduate Science Instruction, 8(5), 1-5. Proceedings of the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Retrieved November 10, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/SCI/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS8805

27. Liu, J., Thiagarajan, J.J., Spanias, A.S., Ramamurthy, K.N., Hu, S., & Banavar, M.K. (2011). iPhone/iPad Based Interactive Laboratory for Signal Processing in Mobile Devices. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

28. Golagani, S.C., Esfahanian, M., & Akopian, D. (2012). Template-Based Image Processing Toolkit for Android Phones. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

Chapter 8

1. There is a good summary from the different authors working in the field on engineering and laboratory-based education on page 283 of this paper.

Abdulwahed, M. and Nagy, Z.K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education. Journal of Engineering Education July 2009, 283-293. Retrieved June 26, 2012 from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/5412/1/nagy.pdf

2. Long, J.M., Stannard, W.B., Chenery, K., & Joordens, M.A. (2012). Physics Practicals for Distance Education in an Undergraduate Engineering Course. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

This assertion was cited from:

Bhatal, R. (2011). Retrospective Perceptions and Views of Engineering Students About Physics and Engineering Practicals. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 403-411.

3. Long, J.M., Stannard, W.B., Chenery, K., & Joordens, M.A. (2012). Physics Practicals for Distance Education in an Undergraduate Engineering Course. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

4. This definition was contained on p.5 of the colloquy summary document.

Laboratories Feisel, L.D. Peterson, G.D. (2002). A Colloquy of Learning Objectives for Engineering Education Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved 12 September 2009, from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

5. Soumare, H., Shroff, R., Hardison, J.L., del Alamo, J.A., Harward, V.J., Bailey, P.H., & DeLong, K.K. (2009). A Versatile internet-Accessible Electronics Workbench with Troubleshooting Capabilities. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5(1).

6. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference. October 3-6, 2012. Seattle, Washington. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://fie2012.org/

7. Soumare, H., Shroff, R., Hardison, J.L., del Alamo, J.A., Harward, V.J., Bailey, P.H., & DeLong, K.K. (2009). A Versatile internet-Accessible Electronics Workbench with Troubleshooting Capabilities. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5(1).

8. Sergeyev, A., & Alaraje, N. (2012). Online Electrical Machinery Course Development for University-enrolled students and industry representatives. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

9. A review is done here a client-server methodology to set up a remote lab between a remotely situated user and a server PC that is located in a lab with an FPGA board attached. The paper written is:

Hashemian, R., & Pearson, T.R. (2009). A Low-Cost Server-Client Methodology for Remote Laboratory Access for Hardware Design. 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 2E-1.

10. Kennepohl, D., Baran, J., Connors, M., Quigley, K., & Currie, R. (2005) Remote Access to Instrumental Analysis for Distance Education in Science. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3).

11. Bersin (2004) commented under the heading of “Research supports the value of experiential learning” that:

After participating in different events, individuals were assessed three months later to measure retention. Results clearly showed that experiential learning drove much higher retention rates…..

Is it possible to create experience through web-based training ? Yes. In e-learning, experiential learning is accomplished with simulations, scenarios, and interactivities…(Bersin, 2004, p. 39)

Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book - Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

12. Auer, M.E.,Pop, D.V.,& Zutin, D.G. (2012). Outcome of an Online Laboratory to Support A master Program in Remote Engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

13. This was cited in the book below on p.6:

Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

From:

Feynman, R. P., & Leighton, R. B. (1964).The Feynman lectures on physics. Reading (Mass.): Addison-Wesley.

14. This comment was cited from the following paper:

Taslidere, E., Cohen, F.S., & Reisman, F.K. (n.d.). Wireless Sensor Networks – A Hands-on Modular Experiments Platform for Enhanced Pedagogical Learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 24-33.

Aburdene, M.F., & Nepal, K. (2011). Satellite Communications, Data Communications, and Simulation. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

15. This comment was cited from the following paper:

Greenberg, J.E., Delgutte, B., & Gray, M.L. (2003). Hands-on learning in biomedical signal processing. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 22(4), 71-79.

Aburdene, M.F., & Nepal, K. (2011). Satellite Communications, Data Communications, and Simulation. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

16. Warren, S., & Yao, J. (2010). Portable Cyber-Laboratories for Electrical Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

17. Machotka, J., Nedic, Z., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2009). A Remote Laboratory for Collaborative Experiments. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

This assertion is contained in the following paper:

Sicker, D.S., Lookabaugh, T., Santos, J., & Barnes, F. (2005). Assessing the Effectiveness of Remote Networking Laboratories. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, S3F-7.

18. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38 (3), 1-24.

19. Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: Worked example vs. conventional problem solving instructional strategies.

Darabi, A.A, Nelson, D.W., & Palanki, S. (2007). Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: Worked example vs. conventional problem instructional strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1809-1819.

20. Ch. Tsihouridis, Vavougios, D., Ioannidis, G.S., & Paraskeuopoulos, S. (2011). Specially Designed Sound-boxes Used by Students to Perform School-Lab Sensor-based Experiments, to Understand Sound Phenomena. iJOE 7(1).

21. This assertion was quoted from: Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38 (3), 1-24.

Which was referenced in:

Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z.K (2009). Applying Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education. Journal of Engineering Education July 2009, 283-293. Retrieved June 26, 2012 from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/5412/1/nagy.pdf

22. Huguet, M.-P., Haley, T.& Danon, Y. (2010). Hands-on Nuclear Engineering Education – A blended Approach. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

23. Abdulwahed, M., Nagy, Z.K., & Blanchard, R. (2008). Beyond the Classroom Walls: Remote Labs, Authentic Experimentation with Theory Lectures. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2008/aaee08_submission_W1A2.pdf

24. Akpinar, E., & Ergin, O. (2007). The Effect of Interactive Computer Animations Accompanied with Experiments on Grade 6th Students’ Achievements and Attitudes towards Science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET).

25. Hamadou, S.-H., Bannour, W., & Mhamdi, M. Modelling Laboratory online: case of an implementation of practical work remotely on a digital signal processing kit. Conference Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education "New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century" 27-31 July 2008, Pécs-Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved January 3, 2012 from http://www.iceehungary.net/download/fullp/full_papers/full_paper294.pdf

26. A good example of the differences between explicit and tacit knowledge is given by Nonaka (1998) where he noted that there are two different forms of knowledge in making bread. Explicit knowledge can be considered to be the product specification for a breadmaking machine as opposed to tacit knowledge which is a core part of the craft or profession and is built on learning via actual experience and action such as learning from a master over a passage of time on how to make good quality bread. Explicit knowledge is often referred to as information (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). Hands-on training could thus be considered a method of transferring tacit knowledge. Nonaka (1998) stated further that tacit knowledge consists of technical skills built up over the years (such as breadmaking) through experience and “know-how”. Nonaka went on to say that there are four basic patterns of creating knowledge in any organisation.

•  From tacit to tacit. This involves transferring the skills of a craftsman to another apprentice, for example. This skill is gained by observation, practice and refinement to imitate the skills of the craftsman.

•  From explicit to explicit. A good example of this would be collecting financial information about a company and then putting this into a report.

•  Tacit to explicit. This could be in taking an engineer’s approach to operating a refinery in an optimal manner and encapsulating this into a software program to take over this function.

•  Explicit to tacit. This would happen when other employees of the company come to use this knowledge and to supplement and extend their tacit knowledge.

Nonaka, I. (1998). The knowledge-creating company, in Harvard business review on knowledge management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Knowledge management: re-thinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge. Information Research, 8(1). October. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper143.html.

27. Herrera, O.A., & Fuller, D.A. (2011). Collaborative Model for Remote Experimentation laboratories used by non-hierarchical distributed groups of engineering students. Proceedings of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 428-445.

28. Tee, M.Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and Cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

29. Huntley, Mathieu, and Schell (2004) defined a laboratory (or lab, as it will be henceforth referred to, for brevity) “as a room or building containing specialised equipment” (p. 398). Lindsay (2005) noted that a typical lab class “comprised a small group of students, and a demonstrator (often a postgraduate student), grouped around a piece of hardware located in a lab. Students typically conduct a series of experimental procedures as outlined in the lab handout, they record the data from the hardware, and they write up a report based on this data and the underlying theory in the week or two subsequent to the session” (page 44).

Huntley, C. L., Mathieu, R. G., & Schell, G. P. (2004). An initial assessment of remote access computer laboratories for IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 397-407. Retrieved November 320, 2006, from the ProQuest Education Journals database.

Lindsay, E. D. (2005). The impact of remote and virtual access to hardware upon the learning outcomes of undergraduate engineering laboratory classes. PhD. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

30. Gandole (2005) added to this by remarking that a lab “should aim to encourage students to gain:

•  Manipulative skills.

•  Observational skills.

•  Ability to interpret experimental data.

•  Ability to plan experiments.

•  Interest in the subject.

•  Enjoyment of the subject.

•  A feeling of reality for the phenomena talked about in theory”. (p. 49)

Gandole, Y. B. (2005). Development of computer software support for undergraduate electronics science laboratory practical learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(9). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article05.htm.

31. Lindsay (2005) added that labs were also useful in introducing students to the world of the engineer and scientist and provided a focus point for student-student and student-instructor interactions. He summarised the underlying principles for lab work being:

•  “Illustrating and validating theoretical concepts.

•  Introducing students to professional practice, and to the uncertainties involved in non-ideal situations.

•  Developing skills with instrumentation.

•  Developing social and team skills in a technical environment.” (page 45-46)

Lindsay, E. D. (2005). The impact of remote and virtual access to hardware upon the learning outcomes of undergraduate engineering laboratory classes. PhD. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

32. McHenry, A., Robertson, J., Munukutla, L., & Newman, R. (2003). How to Maximise Laboratory Experience of Engineering Technology Programs using Electronic Medium. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

33. Huntley, C. L., Mathieu, R. G., & Schell, G. P. (2004). An initial assessment of remote access computer laboratories for IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 397-407. Retrieved November 320, 2006, from the ProQuest Education Journals database.

34. Feisel, L.D. and Peterson, G.D. (2002). A Colloquy of Learning Objectives for Engineering Education Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

35. Rice University’s summary of the objectives of science laboratories was cited in this book:

Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The Rice University online article was referenced:

Rice University Laboratory Educators in Natural Sciences and Engineering. (2006). Brief list of program-wide teaching and learning objectives. Interdisciplinary web-based teaching laboratory material. Retrieved from http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~labgroup/assessment/lab_objectives.html

36. Davies, C. (2008). Learning and Teaching in Laboratories. An Engineering Subject Centre. The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre. Retrieved March 26, 2012 from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/guides/learning-and-teaching-in-laboratories

The suggestion on design of practical work has been cited from Gibbs:

Gibbs, G., & Gregory, R. (1997).Teaching more students. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

37. Machotka, J., Nedic, Z., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2009). A Remote Laboratory for Collaborative Experiments. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

38. Davies, C. Learning and Teaching in Laboratories. (2008). An Engineering Subject Centre. The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre. Retrieved March 26, 2012 from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/guides/learning-and-teaching-in-laboratories

39. Belu, R. (2010). Virtual Laboratory for Study of the Electric Machines Parameters and Characteristics. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

40. Walter, D. (2011). Audio-Visual Lab Tutorials to Develop Independent Learners. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 15, 2011 through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

41. A detailed description of what is required in the development of an undergraduate engineering degree is discussed in this paper prepared by the faculty of Stevens Institute of Technology who are renowned for their innovative online practices.

Fisher, F., Hadim, H., Esche, S., Ubell, R. and Chassapis, C. (2007). Feasibility of a Fully Online Undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Degree for Non-traditional learners. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

42. Lindsay, E. (2005). The Impact of Remote and Virtual Access to Hardware upon the Learning Outcomes of Undergraduate Laboratory Classes. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Melbourne.

Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote vs. hands-on labs: a comparative study. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, F1G-17.

Lindsay, E., & Goode, M. (2007). Learning Styles a Potential Predictor of Student Achievement in Remote and Virtual Laboratory Classes. 18th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education.

Nickerson, J.V., Corter, J.E., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2007). A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education, Computers & Education, 49(3), 708-725.

Bright, C.G., Lindsay, E.D., Lowe, D.B., Murray, S., & Liu, D. (2008). Factors that Impact Learning Outcomes in Remote Laboratories. EdMEDIA 2008.

43. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

44. Long, J., & Baskaran, K. (2004). Engineering Education Down Under: Distance Teaching at Deakin University, Australia. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Paper and thence Conference Proceedings.

45. Auer, M.E.., Zutin, D.G., Maier, C., & Niederstätter, M. (2010). Work in Progress: An Educational Online Laboratory Portal Based on Web 3.0 Technology. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 15, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

46. A useful table showing the difference between traditional, remote and virtual labs is adapted from Auer, Pester, Ursutiu and Samaoila (2003) below.

Auer, M., Pester, A., Ursutiu, D., & Samoila, C. (2003). Distributed virtual and remote labs in engineering. Paper presented at the ICIT 2003.

47. Anwar, A. H. M. F., Lindsay, E., & Sarukkalige, P. R. (2011), “Key factors for determining the suitability of converting a fluid-mechanics laboratory to remote-access mode”. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 11-18.

This assertion was quoted from:

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.

48. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z.K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education. Journal of Engineering Education July 2009, 283-293. Retrieved June 26, 2012 from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/5412/1/nagy.pdf

49. Seniow, K., Nefcy, E., Kelly, C., & Koretsky, M. (2010). Representations of Student Model Development in Virtual Laboratories Based on a Cognitive Apprenticeship Instructional Design. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This concept was drawn from the paper:

Shavelson, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Wiley, E.W. (2005). Windows Into the Mind. Higher Education. 49, 413-430.

50. Olowokere, D., Ayodele, K.P., Kehinde, L.O., Jonah, O., Ajayi, T.O., & Akinwunmi, O.O. (2008). Realistic Looking Interfaces: In Search of the Best Ergonomic Metaphors for Remote and Virtual Laboratory Interfaces. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

51. Deniz, D.Z., Bulancak, A.,& Oczan, G. (2003). A Novel Approach to Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

The table modified in the main text, has been drawn from Table 1 on page T3E-9.

52. Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote vs. hands-on labs: a comparative study. Proceedings of 34th Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, 17-21.

53. Papers supporting this assertion were cited in:

Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

These papers cited included:

Hurley, W., & Lee, C. (2005). Development, Implementation, and Assessment of a Web-Based Power Electronics Laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 567-573.

Lindsay, E., & Good, M. (2005). Effects of Laboratory Access Modes on Learning Outcomes. IEEE Transactions of Education, V48(4), 619-631.

Ogot, M., Elliot, G., & Glumac, N. (2003). An Assessment of In-Person and Remotely Operated Laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 57-63.

54. Madhavan, K., Schroeder, J., & Xian, H. (2009). Evaluating the Effectiveness and Use of Cyber-Learning Environments in Engineering Education: A Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

55. Nippert, C., & Um, B.-H. (2011). A Comparison of Learning between Experiments using Virtual Reality and hands on experiments what is real enough? Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

56. Koretsky, M., Kelly, C., Harding, P., Gummer, E. (2009). Comparison of Student Perceptions of Virtual and Physical Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

Additional more recent research has been conducted on this topic and this is discussed in the following paper:

Nefcy, E.J., Harding, P.H., & Koretsky, M. (n.d.). Characterization of Student Model Development in Physical and Virtual Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

57. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer interface on learning outcomes in remote access laboratories. 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from asee.org through Paper and Publications and then Conference Proceedings link.

58. Shyr, W-J. (2011). Development and Evaluation of Mechatronics Learning System in a Web-based environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 89-96.

This paper is quoted in support of this issue:

Zhuang, H., & Morgera, S.D. (2007). Development of an undergraduate course internet-based instrumentation and control. Computers & Education, 49, 330-344.

59. Wasfy, H.M., Wasfy, T.M., Peters, J., El-Mounayri, H.A. (2012). Automated Online Process Training in a Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

60. Aldrich (2005) also noted in fact, that simulations (or virtual labs as mentioned earlier) could be subdivided into four different types, namely: branching stories where students make multiple-choice decisions; interactive spreadsheets; game-based models (such as computer based solitaire) and virtual labs/virtual products, which are the focus of this discussion.

Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

61. Long, J.M., Horan, B.P., & Hall, R. (2012). Undergraduate Electronics Students’ Use of Home Experiment Kits for Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

62. Cherner, Y., Khan, A.S., Karim, A., Mullett, G.J. (2011). Use of Adaptable Simulation-based Virtual Laboratories for Teaching Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation in Engineering & Technology Programs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

63. Belu, R. (2010). Virtual Laboratory for Study of the Electric Machines Parameters and Characteristics. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

64. Aziz, E.-S., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (May 2010). Design and Implementation of a Virtual Laboratory for Machine Dynamics. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(2). Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1184

65. Cherner, Y., Khan, A.S., Karim, A., Mullett, G.J. (2011). Use of Adaptable Simulation-based Virtual Laboratories for Teaching Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation in Engineering & Technology Programs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

66. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

67. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database. September 2006.

Magin, D. J., & Kanapathipillai, S. (2000). Engineering students' understanding of the role of experimentation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 351-358

68. Tebbe, P. (2006). A Review of the Current Status and Challenges of Virtual Experimentation. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Expo. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

69. Godoy, L. (2009). Developing a computer-based simulated environment to learn on structural failures. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings at asee.org.

The authors cite Roger Schank in their description of the basic pillars for active learning:

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world class e-learning: how IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

70. Cherner, Y., Khan, A.S., Karim, A., Mullett, G.J. (2011). Use of Adaptable Simulation-based Virtual Laboratories for Teaching Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation in Engineering & Technology Programs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

71. Koretsky, M., Kelly, C., Harding, P., Gummer, E. (2009). Comparison of Student Perceptions of Virtual and Physical Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

72. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Oktem, R., Kara, A., Alexandru, M., & Reiner, B. (2009). Requirements for Remote RF Laboratory Applications: An Educators’ Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770.

73. Deniz, D.Z., Bulancak, A.,& Oczan, G. (2003). A Novel Approach to Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

The quotation came from:

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).

74. Lindsay, E., Murray, S.& Stumpers, B.D. (2011). A Toolkit for Remote Laboratory Design & Development. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

75. Henry, J., Gasparyan, O., Serrano-Rosales, B., Ruja, I., Garcia-Zuba, J., Saliah-Hassane, H., & Montoya, J.C. (2011). Unique Remote Experiments in Engineering: USA, Armenia, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, Romania & Spain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education 2011. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://ineer.org/

76. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Oktem, R., Kara, A., Alexandru, M., & Reiner, B. (2009). Requirements for Remote RF Laboratory Applications: An Educators’ Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

This assertion was cited in the paper above from the following paper:

Gustavsson, I., (2002). Remote Laboratory Experiments in Electrical Engineering Education. Proceedings of 4th IEEE International Caracas Conference Devices, Circuits Systems, 1025-1–1025-5.

77. Ferreira, J.M.M., Nedić, Z., Machotka, J., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2010). International Collaborative learning using remote workbenches for 8-bit microcontroller courses. Proceedings of the 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education.

78. This was cited from:

Corter, J. et al. (2006). Constructing Reality: a study of remote, hands-on and simulated laboratories. Accepted for publication in ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction.

In the following paper:

Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis. C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

79. Aziz, E.-S., Wang, Z., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2011). Development of a Modularized Architecture for Remote-Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

80. Alhalabi, B., Hamza, M.K., Abu-El Humos, A. (n.d.). Distance Education: Remote Labs Environment. Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education Zone 1. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2008/professional/ASEE12008_0025_paper.pdf

81. The discussion about the different access points (or “entry points”) was contained on page. 187 of:

Gillet, D. Latchman, H.A. Salzmann, CH., Crisalle, O.D. (n.d.). Hands-On Laboratory Experiments in Flexible and Distance Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 187-191. Retrieved on November 12 2009 from the journal button on asee.org.

82. Ma and Nickerson (2006) suggested a few reasons why there is so much debate about the merits of each of the lab technologies. The first reason is that different objectives are used in the measurement and comparison process. They broke the educational goals for lab learning into four: conceptual understanding, design skills, social skills and professional skills. They found that for hands-on labs, all four educational goals were well catered for. Simulated labs research tended to focus on conceptual understanding and professional skills and remote labs emphasised professional skills and conceptual understanding (to the detriment of design skills which are important in hands-on labs).

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database.

83. Ma and Nickerson (2006) made the second point that in the modern hands-on lab, equipment is becoming increasingly mediated by computers. This means that what has been a traditional lab is in fact a variation of the remote lab as all the work is done through a computer. The only difference is the proximity of the learner and the lab equipment. This leads to the concept that what might matter is not so much the individual technology but the peculiar amalgam of hands-on labs, simulation and remotes labs in a specific context.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database. September 2006.

84. They (Ma and Nickerson (2006)) did point out that this belief should be supplemented by other factors such as motivation, peer collaboration, error-corrective feedback and richness of the media to provide an effective lab setting. The final point made is that the degree to which students using remote labs collaborate and make sense (“sensemaking”) of the data whilst working with each other will affect what they learned from the lab.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database.

85. Ma and Nickerson (2006) noted that simulated labs were considered to be at least as effective as traditional hands-on labs. However Magin and Kanapathipillai (2000) believed that simulation could result in some disconnection between the real and simulated or virtual worlds. An additional problem was the often significant costs of a simulation system (in some cases, more than the physical lab).

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from ACM database.

Magin, D. J., & Kanapathipillai, S. (2000). Engineering students' understanding of the role of experimentation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 351-358.

86. Lunce (2004) felt that computer simulations were critical in distance education as they provided an opportunity for more interactivity. Typical advantages he noted, were easing the “interactive practice of real-world skills”; communicating difficult scientific concepts, assisting the learner in predicting the course and results of actions taken, providing feedback and flexible learning, reducing the risk of possible hazards and expense.

He also listed some of the disadvantages of simulations being: they can take longer than a normal experiment, coaching is an important additional requirement to make simulations effective, they can oversimplify the real situation and they may be very expensive and require extensive planning. In conclusion, Lunce (2004) believed that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that simulations could provide benefits to the student; however recommended further research in identifying the extent to which this technology can be applied to distance education. In another study, Akpinar and Ergin (2007) demonstrated with Grade 6th students in a study of static electricity that a well designed computer simulation improved the pupils’ knowledge and their attitude to the subject. They quoted a number of other studies (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004; Ronen & Eliahu, 2000; Williamson & Abraham, 1995; Windsehitl & Andre, 1998) which supported this assertion.

Lunce, L. M. (2004). Computer simulations in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(10). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_04/article02.htm.

Akpinar, E., & Ergin, O. (2007). The effect of interactive computer animations accompanied with experiments on grade 6th students' achievements and attitudes towards science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(2), 1-6. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/86/65.

Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasises molecular representation on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.

Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation - a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14-26.

Williamson, V., & Abraham, M. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145-160.

Windsehitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the role of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145-160.

87. De Capua, Liccardo and Morello (2005) expressed some doubts about simulations noting that they were simply the implementation of a mathematical model or “solving of equations” (p. 1692) and as they were always successfully completed they might impact on a student’s assessment ability. Also due to the defined outputs which always occurred on a specific sequence of inputs, there was no room for practical experimental issues such as uncertainty and electrical noise. These sentiments were echoed by Jochheim and Roehrig (1999) in the preamble to their description of their omnidirectional vehicle remote lab.

De Capua, C., Liccardo, A., & Morello, R. (2005). On the web service-based remote didactical laboratory: Further developments and improvements. IMTC 2005 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from the IEEE database.

Jochheim, A., & Roehrig, C. (1999). The virtual lab for teleoperated control of real experiments. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://prt.fernuni-hagen.de/rsvl/cdc99/cdc99.pdf

88. J.O., Bourne, J.R., Mosterman, P.J., & Brodersen, A.J. (2002). The Effectiveness of Learning Simulations for Electronic Laboratories Campbell. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2002, 81-87.

89. An application using Netmeeting as the web conferencing tool and Electronics Workbench is described here. This was presumably done in the early part of the first decade of 2000, and hence some of the limited bandwidth and reliability problems with Netmeeting wouldn’t be such an issue today.

Netmeeting as a Distance Learning Tool for Electronics by Tisdale, E. Ball State University Session 2663, downloaded from the conference section of the asee.org site on the 19th October 2009.

90. Cooper (2003) noted three main reasons for remote labs:

•  When the students are studying at a significant distance from the institution. In the past experimenter’s kits have been provided or residential schools are undertaken as part of the course. But these have not been satisfactory alternatives.

•  When the lab equipment is very expensive. There has been an increasing need to provide state-of-the-art lab equipment; and a remote lab makes for a possible solution here. Ewald and Page (2000) supported this assertion.

•  When the number of students makes for a difficult allocation of lab time. Here it is possible to open up the lab facilities on a 24/7 basis.

Another often not considered benefit with remote labs, are ease of use for students who are disabled.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL -Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

91. Esche (2005) listed the benefits of the remote labs for students as follows:

• A more comprehensive experimental experience

• A more accurate representation of a hands-on experience

• Optimises their imagination and enthusiasm

• An asynchronous approach allows for more flexibility with instructors and students not being required at the same time

• Promotes self learning on the part of the student

• It allows for a more integrated self assessment approach

Insofar as the instructors (and their institution) are concerned, the benefits can be:

• They can easily add lab demonstrations into their instruction

• They can monitor the lab performance of students more rigorously

• Less scheduling problems due to excessive student numbers

• Fewer lab personnel required

• More flexible financial planning for expensive equipment is now possible

• Greater levels of safety can be achieved

• Distance education can be enhanced with a hands-on lab component

Esche, S. K. (2005). On the Integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories - pedagogical approach. International Journal of Instructional media, 32(4). Retrieved on 5 January 2007, from the Academic Research Library database.

92. The Pros and Cons of Remote Labs. Retrieved on September 15 2009 from http://www.preal.ece.cmu.edu/pubs/HP_Educator.pdf.

93. The comparison between online and classical labs is examined in:

S.A.Brown, Lahoud, H.A. (2005). An examination of Innovative Online Lab Technologies. SIGITE ’05.

94. Riman, C., El Hajj, A., & Mougharbel, I. (2011) A Remote Labs Experiments Improved Model. iJOE, 7(1). Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1460.

95. Rock, M.M., Marx, H., Kane, S.M., Garrick, R., Urdaneta, L.A.V., & Lee, J.H.(2011). Effectively Utilizing Local and Remote Thermofluids Laboratory Experiments to Enhance Student Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 20, 2011 fromwww.asee.org through the links: Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

96. Hesselink, L., Rizal, D., Bjornson, E. (n.d.). CyberLab: Remote access to laboratories through the world-wide web. Retrieved November 5, 2011 from http://www.jce.divched.org/hs/journal/issues/2004/Dec/clicSubscriber/JCESupp/JCE2004p1814W.pdf

97. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z.K. (December 6-9, 2009) Sharing a Process Control Experimental Rig Online. Adelaide, Australia. Proceedings of the AaeE 2009 Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from aaee.org

98. Nafalski, A., Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., Göl, Ö., Scarino, A., Crichton, J., Gustavsson, I., Ferreira, J.M., Lowe, D., & Murray, S. (n.d.). International Collaboration in Remote Engineering Laboratories: an Approach to Development. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/media/img/international_collaboration_remote_labs.pdf

99. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Oktem, R., Kara, A., Alexandru, M., & Reiner, B. (2009). Requirements for Remote RF Laboratory Applications: An Educators’ Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

100. Selmer, A., Kraft, M., Moros, R., & Colton, C.K. (2007). Weblabs in Chemical Engineering Education. Transactions Institution for Chemical Engineers, D(2).

101. Selmer, A., Kraft, M., Moros, R., & Colton, C.K. (2007). Weblabs in Chemical Engineering Education. Transactions Institution for Chemical Engineers, D(2).

102. Restivo, M.T., & Silva, M.G. (2009). Portuguese Universities Sharing Remote Laboratories. Proceedings from the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1090

103. Cooper (2003) felt that clear learning objectives were a critical part of introducing remote experiments to the learner and the original objectives used in a traditional lab may have to be modified significantly as they may not be achievable in a remote lab situation. The other issue he listed as being important is that the learner does not get sidetracked into focusing on user interface software (to the remote lab). It was imperative that they focused on the learning activity and that the user interface conveys a sense of presence to the remote lab with clear evidence to the learner that they are indeed using real equipment, as opposed to a simulation. He indicated that this can be done by using extensive real time video of the experiment, progress bars to indicate that a command from the learner had been executed (with auditory feedback) and a status bar at the bottom of the display.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

104. Jain, P.K., Gu, Y., & Rizwan-Uddin, (2008). Broadcasting Engineering Laboratories – Audio/video and data– in real time over the internet. Advances in Engineering Education, Summer 2008.

105. The Pros and Cons of Remote Labs. Retrieved on September 15, 2009 from http://www.preal.ece.cmu.edu/pubs/HP_Educator.pdf.

106. Campbell, J. Mosterman, J.P. Rassai, R. (2004). Cost-effective distributed learning with electronic labs. JALN, 8(3), 5-10.

107. S.A.Brown, (2005). The comparison between online and classical labs is examined in: An examination of Innovative Online Lab Technologies. SIGITE ’05.

108. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

109. Henry, J. (2001). Session 2213: Laboratory Remote Operation: Features and Opportunities. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved on November 10, 2009 from the conference link at asee.org.

110. Albu, Holbert, Heydt, Grigorescu and Trusca (2004) pointed out remote labs were not as effective for training engineering students for the following reasons: minimal experience is provided in handling real equipment; there are less real world problems such as loose wiring and electrical contacts and the student is shielded from connecting equipment up incorrectly. They thus suggested considering using these remote labs as a prelude to real laboratories.

Albu, M. M., Holbert, K. E., Heydt, G. T., Grigorescu, S. D., & Trusca, V. (2004). Embedding remote experimentation in power engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19(1), 139-143. Retrieved from the IEEE Xplore database.

111. Cooper et al. (2003) reported that in comparing the remote and local labs that the students still felt that a real electronics lab was preferable to the limited remote lab arrangement, mainly due to the delays in communications and the lack of immediate access to a tutor.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

112. Auer et al. (2003) noted that one drawback with online remote labs is that the experiments are pre-determined and the variation limited. They suggested, as a result, that the learner’s metacognition skills are not as well developed by remote labs as his knowledge and skills, for example.

Auer, M., Pester, A., Ursutiu, D., & Samoila, C. (2003). Distributed virtual and remote labs in engineering. Paper presented at the ICIT 2003.

113. Agelidis and Armarego (2005) indicated that an increasing number of engineering teaching institutions were using online learning and remote lab technologies for providing practical training, but they felt this was a compromise approach. Agelidis and Armarego felt that the use of remote virtual lab environments may not be the best way for training engineers as it distances the student from the field environment and introduces another software layer between reality and the student. They indicated that problem and project-based learning approaches have been successful in providing a good engineering education in many countries and a hybrid approach of the above, referred to as an engineering studio approach, has been adopted at the School of Engineering and Science at Murdoch University, Australia and had shown particular promise.

Agelidis, V. G., & Armarego, J. (2005, July). Pioneering Initiatives for the training and education of instrumentation and control engineers at Murdoch University, Western Australia. National IICA Conference 2005: From Sensors to the Boardroom.

114. Herrera, O.A., & Fuller, D.A. (2011). Collaborative Model for Remote Experimentation laboratories used by non-hierarchical distributed groups of engineering students. Proceedings of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 428-445.

This assertion was cited from:

Dewhurst, D.G., Macleod, H.A., & Norris, T.A. (2000). Independent student learning aided by computers: An acceptable alternative to lectures? Computers & Education, 35(3), 223-241.

DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less work? American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 6-20.

115. Bonatti, Peretto, and Tinarelli (2005) described a remote lab that they had constructed comprising a student’s PC and server. They asserted that engineering subjects such as instrumentation and measurement require lab activities. They questioned whether a student using only a web browser (and no physical equipment), as proposed by various researchers (Arpaia, Baccigalupi, Cennamo, & Daponte, 1997; Gustavsson, Olsson, Akesson, Zakrisson, & Hakansson, 2005; Taylor, Honchell, & DeWitt, 1996) could really achieve proper pedagogical results.

As an alternative to remote labs, Bonatti, Peretto, and Tinarelli (2005) suggested using a low-cost set of hardware devices that could replicate the more expensive instrumentation. They created a remote lab with a client unit comprising PC, appropriate software and web pages, an intelligent breadboard, associated microprocessor based control circuitry and individual electrical and electronic components which the student would have to configure. This connected through the internet to a web server which also controls the lab instruments. This approach allowed the student to experiment with physical cables, electronic components and instrumentation as if he were in the real lab with the instruments.

Arpaia, P., Baccigalupi, A., Cennamo, F., & Daponte, P. (1997). A remote measurement laboratory for educational experiments. Measurement, 21(4), 157-169.

Bonatti, D., Pasini, G., Peretto, L., & Tinarelli, R. (2005, May 17-19). An interactive measurement system for remote laboratory activities. Paper presented at the IMTC 2005 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Ottawa, Canada.

Gustavsson, I., Olsson, T., Akesson, H., Zakrisson, H., & Hakansson, L. (2005). A remote electronics laboratory for physical experiments using virtual breadboards. 2005 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.

Taylor, K. D., Honchell, J. W., & DeWitt, W. E. (1996). Distance learning in courses with a laboratory. Proceedings of the IEEE FIE'96.

116. Aliane, N., Pastor, R., & Mariscal, G. (2012). Limitations of Remote Laboratories in Control Engineering Education. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org

117. Pop, D., Zutin, D.G., Auer, M.E., Henke, K., & Wuttke, H.-D. (2011). An Online Lab to Support a master Program in Remote Engineering. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

118. Muggli, D.S., & Tande, B. (2011). A Model for Initiating ABET-Accredited Engineering Degree Programs Using Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Expo and Conference. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from asee.org.

Support for this assertion is cited from the following paper:

Feisel, L.D., Peterson, G.D. (2002). ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 4531-4542.

119. Restivo, M.T., & Silva, M.G. (2009). Portuguese Universities Sharing Remote Laboratories. Proceedings from the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1090

120. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

121. Thames, J.L., Hyder, A., Wellman, R., & Schaefer, D. (2009). An Information Technology Infrastructure for Internet-enabled Remote and Portable Laboratories. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009.

122. Hernández-Jayo, U., Garcia-Zuba, J. (2012). Reconfigurable electronics remote lab from the experiments and instruments point of view. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://fie2012.org/

123. Consonni, D., Azevedo, M.F., Neto, O.B., & Rogeri, R.C. (2004). Applications of Virtual Instruments in Electrical Engineering Education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education and Research “Progress through Partnership”, 1075-1088.

124. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

125. Yu, J.Q., Brown, D.J., & Billet, E.E. (2009). Development of a Virtual Laboratory Experiment for Biology. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved June 14, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=195

126. Henry, J., & Zollars, R., (2003). Assessment of Remote Experiments and Local Simulations: Student experiences, Satisfaction and Suggestions. ASEE Annual Meeting, 2003. Retrieved on November 3, 2009 from Jim Henry’s website at: http://chem.engr.utc.edu/jim-henry/jmh-references.htm.

127. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24.

128. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The following paper was cited in the paper above:

Lindsay, E.D., Good, M.C. (2005). Effects of Laboratory Access Modes Upon Learning Outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48, 619-631.

129. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The following paper was cited in the paper above:

Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote Versus Hands-on Labs: A Comparative Study. Proceedings of 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

130. Josceanu, A.M., Postelnicescu, P., Dumitrescu, A.M., Plesu, V., & Stefan, C. (2009). Remote Control Experiments in Chemical Engineering Education. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 18. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from http://www.aidic.it/cet/09/18/126.pdf.

131. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

132. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The following was cited in the paper above:

Tzafestas, C.S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M. (2006). Virtual and Remote Robotic Laboratory: Comparative Experimental Evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, 360-369.

133. Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote Laboratories Versus Virtual and Real Laboratories. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 31, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2003/index.htm

134. Cooper (2003) noted that solutions in the past to distance learning students requiring lab work had been home experimenter kits and intensive residential sessions on the university campus.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

135. An example with this was the application discussed by Hong et al. (2004). Hong et al. designed and implemented an online course for Digital Signal Processing where the hands-on experience was provided using a development kit at the student’s site. The students indicated that they were satisfied with the lab exercises. This course used streaming video with synchronized slides. Some of the conclusions that were drawn from the course were that the audience needed to be carefully assessed to ensure the material is correctly targeted; a rich mixture of video/slide/self test questions/hands-on exercises and interaction made for an excellent experience; preparation of the lectures required considerable time and use of dedicated assistants to improve the course on a continuous basis was critical.

Hong, P. S., Anderson, D. V., Williams, D. B., Jackson, J. R., Barnwell, T. P., Hayes, M. H., et al. (2004). DSP for practicing engineers: A case study in Internet course delivery. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47(3), 301-310.

136. Durfee, W. Li, P. Waletzko, D. (2005) At-Home System and Controls Laboratories, Session 1526. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org site on the 29th October 2009.

137. Hoole, D., & Hoole, S.R.H., (2002). Green chemistry for Chemical Engineers in the Third World: Interplay between the environment, the Digital Divide and Democratisation, Session 2002-2360. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded 30th October 2009 from the asee.org site under the conferences link.

138. Chao, N. (2003). Online e-learning Environment for Delivering Real Hands On Laboratory Experiments. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 19, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

139. Kim, C., Chouikha, M., & Thomas, V. (2008). A Mobile Studio Experience of Experiential Learning in Electrical Engineering Class. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 2, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This concept was introduced by Don Millard at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with his Mobile Studio with the first generation in 2004 comprising Tablet PC, breadboard and data acquisition interface.

140. Long, J.M., De Vries, L.L., Hall, R.M., & Kouzani, A.Z. (2008). A New H.E.L.P. Kit for Teaching Practical AC Electronics to Undergraduate Distance Students. Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/

141. Long, J.M., Horan, B.P., & Hall, R. (2012). Undergraduate Electronics Students’ Use of Home Experiment Kits for Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

142. Wild, G., Swan, G., & Hinckley, S. (2011). Computer based experiments for off-campus teaching and learning of AC electricity. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

143. Ladeji-Osias, J., Abimbola, K., Astatke, Y., & Scott, C. (2011). Teaching a Sophomore Course with a Laboratory Component Online. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education MidAtlantic Section Fall Conference. Retrieved January 17, 2012 from the asee.org through the links Resources and Sections & Zones.

144. Connor, K.A., Newman, D.L., Deyoe, M.M., Scott, C.J., Chouikha, M.F., & Astatke, Y. (2012). Mobile Studio Pedagogy, Part 1: Overcoming the barriers that Impede Adoption. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

145. Connor, K.A., Newman, D.L., & Deyoe, M.M. (2012). Mobile Studio Pedagogy, Part 2: Self-Regulated Learning and Blended Technology Instruction. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

146. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

There are some interesting surveys and comparisons between on-campus and commercially assembled lab kits on pages 64 and 65 of the book noted above.

147. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

148. Gustavsson, I., Olsson, T., Åkesson, H., Zackrisson, J., Håkansson, L. (2005). A Remote Electronics Laboratory for Physical Experiments using Virtual Breadboards. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

149. Kennepohl, D. (2007) Using home-laboratory kits to teach general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Journal of The Royal Society of Chemistry, 8(3), 337-346.

150. Jouaneh, M.K., & Palm, W.J. (2012). Control System Experiments at Home. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 14, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/

151. Ursutiu, D. (2011). Innovative Education with MicroLAB and MicroWebLAB. REV 2011 Conference. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://www.inexglobal.com/photos.php?type=REV2011

152. LaMeres, B., Plumb, C., & Cady, F. (2010). Improved Student Learning of Microprocessor Systems through hands-on and online experience. 2010 Conference & Expo of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

153. LaMeres, B.J., & Plumb, C. (2011). A Comparison of Hands-on Versus Remote Laboratory Experience for Introductory Microprocessors courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

154. Soma, M., Ngo, B., Yan, J., Christie, R., & Riskin, E. (2004). Hands-on Circuit Design and Test Laboratory for Distance Learning in Electrical Engineering. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retreived March 10, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

155. Martinez, A., & Warren, S. (2007). RASCL: A Portable Circuit Prototyping Laboratory. Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and Conference Proceedings.

156. Warren, S., & Yao, J. (2010). Portable Cyber-Laboratories for Electrical Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

Typical labs (extracted from p.12 of the reference paper) conducted using RASCL revision 2.0 and 3.0 included:

•  Complex numbers and sinusoids

•  Natural Response of RLC circuits

•  2nd Order Butterworth/Chebyshev Active Filters; audio filtering

•  Fourier series

•  Signal sampling and aliasing; discrete Fourier Transforms

•  Sensor calibration and measurement theory

•  Amplifier Design; instrumentation amplifiers (Electrocardiography)

•  Biosignal spectra; filtering (photoplethysmogram; Electrocardiogram; Audio)

•  Learning Kit Introduction

•  Thevenin/Norton Equivalent Circuits

•  Voltage/Current Division

•  Single-time-constant circuits; RC Filters

•  Op Amps

•  Temperature Alarm Design. MATLAB Model of a Wheatstone Bridge Circuit; linearization; temperature alarm circuit integration and test

•  Oil level sensor design; Parallel copper plates calibration; 555 oscillating circuits; LabVIEW data acquisition, processing and display; Sensor characterisation and specification.

Another associated paper was:

Warren, S., & Yao, J. (2009). Work in Progress – Updates to a Mobile Circuits-and-Signals Learning Kit that Incorporates a USB Data Acquisition Unit Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/.

157. Yao, J., Limberis, L., & Warren, S. (2011). Using Electronics Experiment Kits For Electronic Courses in a General Engineering Program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved September 24, 2011 from asee.org through the links: Papers and Publications, and Conference Proceedings.

158. Meehan, K., Quesenberry, J., Olinger, J., Diomedi, K., Clark, R., Hendricks, R., & Doolittle, P. (2010). Hands-on Distance-learning Laboratory course using Internet Video Tools. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from www.asee.org from links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

159. Meehan, K., Hendricks, R.W., Martin, C.V., Doolittle, P., & Olinger, J. (2011). Lab-in-a-box: Online Instruction and Multimedia materials to Support Independent Experimentation on Concepts from Circuits. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

160. The ABET/Sloan Foundation defined the thirteen objectives for a lab experience.

Feisel, L., & Peterson, G. (2002). A colloquy on learning objectives for engineering education laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference.

This was cited in the paper by Pintong below:

Pintong, K.P., & Summerville, D.H. (2011). Transitioning a Lab-based Course to an Online Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from asee.org through Papers and Publications and then Conference Proceedings link.

161. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

162. Davies, C. Learning and Teaching in Laboratories. (2008). An Engineering Subject Centre. The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre. Retrieved March 26, 2012 from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/guides/learning-and-teaching-in-laboratories

163. Some excellent pictures showing examples of using Powerpoint are in this easy-to-read paper.

Cliver, R.C. (n.d.). Using Power Point in Distance Learning Laboratories. Rochester Institute of Technology. Paper downloaded on the 21st October 2009 from the conference link of asee.org site American Society for Engineering Education.

164. Hackworth, J.R., & Jones, R.L. (2004). Assessment Methods for Comparison of On-Campus and Distance Learning Laboratory Courses in an Engineering Technology Program. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on February 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

165. Considine, C.L. Lewis, V.W. (2001). Session 2647: Assessment Methods for Virtual Laboratories in Civil Engineering Technology. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on December 20 2009 from the conference link on asee.org.

The second paper listed below examined the results achieved in the examinations on the the same lab sessions as in the first paper above and indicated that the video taped course delivery is not as effective as the on-site sessions in the delivery of the “how and why” concepts..

Lewis, V.W. Considine, C.L (2005). A CET Videotaped Laboratory in Materials Testing – An Evaluation and Comparison with On-campus Delivery Methods. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on December 20, 2009 from the conference link on asee.org.

166. Zivi, E. and Piepmeier, J. A (n.d.). The Implementation of a Classroom Laboratory Paradigm (No. 1320). ASEE. Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from the conference link at asee.org.

Chapter 9

1. Sipeky, A., & Ivanyi, A. (2008) Virtual Laboratory for Magnetic Measurements. .ICEE International Conference on Engineering Education. "New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century" 27-31. Retrieved November 2, 2011 from http://iceehungary.net/download/fullp/full_papers/full_paper260.pdf.

2. Mosterman, P.J., Dorlandt, M.A.M., Campbell, J.O., Burow, C., Bouw, R., Brodersen, A.J., Bourne, J.R. (1994). Virtual Engineering Laboratories: Design and Experiments. Proceedings of the Journal of Engineering Education, 279-285.

3. Gardner, T.Q., Kowalski, S.E., & Kowalski, F.V. (2011). Interactive Simulations Coupled with Real Time Formative Assessment to Enhance Student Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 21, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

4. Herring, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.

5. Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 65-84.

6. Alexiou, A., Bouras, C., Giannaka, E., Kapoulas, V., Nani, M., & Tsiatsos, T. (2004). Using VR technology to support e-learning: The 3D virtual radiopharmacy laboratory. Paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops - W7: EC (ICDCSW'04). Retrieved March 10, 2006, from ACM Database.

7. Kluj, S. (2005). A diagnostic simulator applied to engineering training. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 9(2), 149-154.

The quotation came from p.149.

8. Kamlaskar, C. H. (2007). Development and evaluation of an interactive multimedia simulation on electronics lab activity: Wien bridge oscillator. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(3). Retrieved May 20, 2007 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_07/article02.htm.

9. Burian, S., Kalyanapu, A., Houdeshel, D., Judi, D., & Pomeroy, C. (2009). A Web-based Virtual Laboratory for Water Resources Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

10. García, A., Duro, N., Dormido, R., & Dormido, S. (2010). The Reaction Wheel Pendulum: An Interactive Virtual Laboratory for Control Education. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 6(3). Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1348

11. Johnson, B.K., Wilson, R.E. (n.d.). Session 2533: The Use of Computer Relay Models to Teach Power System Protection in a Distance Education Setting. ASEE. Retrieved on November 15, 2009 from the conference section of the The American Society for Engineering Education Conference website, asee.org.

12. Belu, R. (2010). Virtual Laboratory for Study of the Electric Machines Parameters and Characteristics. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

13. Chen, X., Jiang, L., Shahryar, D., Kehinde, L., & Olowokere, D. (2009). Technologies for the Development of Virtual and Remote Laboratories: A Case Study. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Expo, Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

14. Hodge, H., Hinton, H.S., & Lightner, M. (2001). Virtual Circuit Laboratory. Proceedings of Journal of Engineering Education, 507-511.

15. Miguel-de-Prego Paz-Soldán, A.J.M. (2010). A Teaching and Learning Tool for Logic Circuit Design in Introductory Courses using Interactive Tutorials, Virtual Breadboard, and Virtual Environments. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

16. This “belief” factor of students resulted in a reported 91.2% rejecting the virtual lab in favor of a hands-on remote or classical lab. This is discussed on page 291.

Abdulwahed, M. and Nagy, Z.K (2009). Applying Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 283-293.

17. Cooley, W.L. (1997). A “Distance Education” Simulated Electronics Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 1997 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

18. Al-Zoubi, A.Y., Ata, O., & Hasan, O. (2012). Microwave Engineering Education over the Web. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://fie2012.org/

19. An associated survey on the student’s impressions of the virtual labs was unfortunately not available with the paper.

Li, C., Toderick, L., Li, P., Mohammed, T., & Lunsford, P. (2008). AC 2008-1578 Networking Lab Simulation using Virtual Technologies. ASEE. Retrieved November 14, 2009 conference link on the American Society for Engineering Education, 2008, asee.org.

20. Nankivell, K. (2009). The Role of Virtual Laboratory Technologies in Technology Education. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

The definition of the virtual lab (as quoted above) is accessed from:

Canessa, E., Fonda, C., & Radicella, S.M. (2002). Virtual laboratory strategies for data sharing, communications and development [Electronic version]. Data Science Journal, 1, 248-256.

21. Javidi, G.,& Sheybani, E. (2006).Virtual Engineering Lab. Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=4116981

22. Cherner, Y., Khan, A., Karim, A., Rubanchik, V., & Mullett, G. (2008). Using Simulation-based hybrid and Multilevel Virtual Labs for Fiber Optics, Photonics and Telecom Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

23. Cherner, Y., Wallman, S.S., & Bryans, M. (2011). Virtual and Blended Liquid Chromatography Laboratories for Chemical and Biological Engineering Education.

Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

24. Kodym, O. (2004). Virtual Reality Lab in Education of Automation. Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education and Research “Progress Through Partnership”, 903-910.

Although this paper is dated 2004, newer items of hardware can surely be identified from the detailed list provided (such as Head Tracker Intertrax2).

25. Bednarz, T.P., Caris, C., & Dranga, O. (2009). Human-computer interaction experiments in an immersive virtual reality environment for online learning applications. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, 834-839.

26. Bhargava, P., Cunningham, C., Tolomeo, M., Zehnder, A. (2003). Session 1168: Virtual Labs, Real Data for Statics and Mechanics of Materials. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org website on the 29th October 2009.

Some further information on a simulated environment is contained in this paper:

Preston, J.A. (2012). Using a Virtual Gaming Environment in Strength of Materials Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

27. Wasfy, H.M., Wasfy, T.M., Peters, J., El-Mounayri, H.A. (2012). Automated Online Process Training in a Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

28. Velankar, Y. , Brophy, S., Okutsu, M., & Delaurentis, D. (2012). Serious Gaming for Aerospace Engineering Design: Exploring Learning Potential and Students’ Readiness. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The statistics were drawn from:

Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video Games, and Civics. New York: Pew Research.

29. Chang, Y., Aziz, E.-S., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2012). A Game-based Laboratory for Gear Design. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

30. Lindsay, E., & Good, M. (2006). Virtual and Distance Experiments: Pedagogical Alternatives, Not Logistical Alternatives. Proceedings of 2006 The American Society for Engineering Education Expo and Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings links at asee.org.

31. Goeser, P., Johnson, W., Hamza-Lup, F. Sopin, I., Sanchez, C., Hager, P. (2009). AC 2009-616: A Different View: Virtual Interactive Engineering on the web. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2009 Conference. Retrieved on November 20, 2009 from the conference link at asee.org

32. Chaturvedi, S.K., McKenzie, R., Akan, O.A., & Priyadershini, A. (2004). Mapping of Thermo-Fluids Laboratory Experiments into Web-Based Experiments. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

33. Chaturvedi, S., Akan, O., Bawab, S., Abdel-Salam, T., & Venkataramana, M. (2003). A Web-based Multimedia Virtual Experiment. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

34. Stanley, R., & DiGiuseppe, G. (2012). An Efficient Way to Increase the Engineering Student’s Fundamental Understanding of Thermodynamics by Utilizing Interactive Web Based Animation Software. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2010 Conference and Expo. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

35. Cherner, Y., Lotring, A., Klein, R., & Campbell, T. (2006). Innovative Simulation-based Online System for Learning Engineeering and Training Sailors’ Technical Skills. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

36. This was referred to as a virtual lab in the paper; however it is felt that this tool is more of a series of video clips with appropriate supporting explanatory text.

Hashemi, J., Anderson, E.E., & Chandrashekar, N. (n.d.). Development of an interactive web-based environment for measurement of hardness in metals. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from the conference link on asee.org.

37. Malali, P., Bais, P., Choate, R., & Chaturvedi, S. (2010). Uncertainty Analysis and Instrument Selection using a Web-Based Virtual Experiment. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

38. Aziz, E.-S., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2010). Design and Implementation of a Virtual Laboratory for Machine Dynamics. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(2). Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1184

39. Herias, F.A.C., Bravo, C.A.J., & Medina, F.T. (2006). Flexible virtual and remote laboratory for teaching Robotics. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education. Formatex, 1959-1963.

40. Stuckey-Mickell, T.A., Stuckey-Danner, B.D. (2007). Virtual Labs in the Online Biology Course: Student Perceptions of Effectiveness and Usability. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 105-111.

41. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A list of well known recommended simulation labs (from Chapter 7–The Art of Incorporating Lab Assignments) is as follows–with the field of interest in parentheses:

Late Nite Labs (chemistry and biology) www.latenitelabs

Woodfields Virtual ChemLab (chemistry and organic chemistry) http://esminfo.prenhall.com/vcl/

Model Science Software (chemistry, biology and physics) http://modelscience.com

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (biology) www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/vlabs/index.html

Biology Labs online (biology) http://www.biologylab.awlonline.com

Bioquest (biology) http://bioquest.org/BQLibrary/library_result.php

Whitman College (virtual pig dissection) www.whitman.edu/biology/vpd/main.html

PhET (physics, chemistry, biology and earth science) http://phet.colorado.edu/index.php

Physics Lab (physics) www.physicslab.co.uk

PhysicsLessons.com iPhysics (physics and science) www.physicslessons.com/iphysics.htm The Virtual Physics Laboratory (physics) www.colpus.me.uk/vplabd

Physlets (physics) http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html

42. Wasfy, H.M., Wasfy, T.M., Peters, J., & Mahfouz, T.M. (2012). Online Automated Interactive Undergraduate Physics Course and Lab. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering 2012 Conference. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and then Conference Proceedings.

43. Serdar, T., Aziz, E-S., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2011). Educational Use of Virtual Worlds for Engineering Students. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from asee.org through the links: Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

44. Crowe, T.J. Wicks, E.M. Budiman, H. (n.d.) Interactive Multimedia: An Alternative to Manufacturing Laboratories. University of Missouri - Columbia Session 3557. Downloaded from the conferences link of the American Society for Engineering Education, www.asee.org on the 27th October 2009.

The requirement for graduates to have lab experience is from:

ABET, (2005). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. ABET: Baltimore, MD. These documents were referenced in:

Mohtar, A.A. (2009). A remote Laboratory for Testing Microelectronic Circuits on Silicon Wafers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of South Australia. Adelaide.

Cherner, Y., Khan, A.S., Karim, A., Mullett, G.J. (2010). Web-based Interactive Virtual Laboratories for Electrical Engineering and Manufacturing Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

45. Rosen, W. (2011). A New Online Laboratory-based Engineering Technology Course in Networks for the Industrial Environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education ASEE MidAtlantic Section Fall Conference 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012 from asee.org

46. Wasfy, H.M., Wasfy, T.M., Peters, J., El-Mounayri, H.A. (2012) Automated Online Process Training in a Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

47. Finkelstein, N., Adams, W., Keller, C., Perkins, K., & Wieman, C. (2006). High-Tech Tools for Teaching Physics: The Physics Education Technology Project. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(3).

48. Guralnick, D.A. (2008). Putting the Education into Educational Simulations: Pedagogical Structures, Guidance and Feedback. Proceedings of ICL 2008 Conference.

Chapter 10

1. Pastor, Martin, Sanchez and Dormido (2005) described a remote lab application with control of a servo motor. They indicated their reservations with using simulation software to train saying that real world experimentation with a real plant is essential for good training. They suggested that “Practical education needs to be based on errors and irregularities, as occurs in mechanical, electrical or chemical systems, as opposed to the ideal icons and environments represented on a computer display” (p. 173). This provided the student with the real world situation. They indicated that most universities created their own virtual and remote labs without reusing the software or hardware developed by others. They stated that three words summarised their hands-on open lab: “reusability, simplicity, and flexibility” (p. 181).

Pastor, R., Martin, C., Sanchez, J., & Dormido, S. (2005). Development of an XML-based lab for remote control experiments on a servo motor. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42(2), 173-184.. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals.

2. Luntz (2005) noted that University of Melbourne scientists have been operating the electron microscope in Sydney remotely using the principle of telepresence. As Vangelova (1996) remarked, telepresence occurs when a user manipulates and observes a real and distant object. This enabled the scientists to work with samples that may be difficult or dangerous to transport and gave them easy access to an expensive piece of equipment and near realtime visual and audio feedback as well as the appropriate data.

Luntz, S. (2005). Network opens the global lab. Australasian Science, 26(7), 12. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from the ProQuest Education Journals.

Vangelova, L. (1996). Virtual reality turns inside out. Government Executive, 28(63). Retrieved November 23, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database

3. Cennamo et al. (2004) gave an example of a wind tunnel where the instructor and students connected from a remote site and executed various tests without any operators being present on site. This is useful for those organisations that do not have these type of experimental facilities. Although they did not give any indication of the pedagogical significance of the learning experience they claimed that the site was robust and could be significantly expanded.

Cennamo, F., Fusco, F., Inverno, M., Masi, A., & Ruggiero, A. (2004). A remotely controlled measurement system for education and training of experiments in wind tunnel. Paper presented at the IMTC 2004 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference.

4. Lahoud and Tang (2006) designed a lab for experimenting with Intrusion detection (IDS) and intrusion prevention (IPS) technologies with a maximum of 24 students; hence with only 16 lab hosts they broke the students into two groups who had different lab schedules (Sunday to Wednesday and Thursday to Saturday). They found due to the bandwidth requirements that at minimum a broadband-based service was required. Some other challenges were that students needed to reset (or clean) their machines after use.

Lahoud, H. A., & Tang, X. (2006). Information security labs in IDS/IPS for distance education. Paper presented at the SIGITE'06, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

5. Fujii and Koike (2005) described the construction of a lab for an electronic hardware design course where the students used their own computers to interface to the expensive lab equipment and software in “a remote multi-user and time-sharing” (p. F3J-11) mode.

Fujii, N., & Koike, N. (2005). Work in progress - A new time-sharing remote laboratory e-Learning system for hardware design and experiment of digital circuits. Paper presented at the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from IEEE database.

6. In the construction of a remote vehicle lab (incorrectly referred to as a virtual lab), Jochheim and Roehrig (1999) pointed out that additional safeguards had to be built into the system (in the software) to protect the lab hardware from any damage.

Jochheim, A., & Roehrig, C. (1999). The virtual lab for teleoperated control of real experiments. Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://prt.fernuni-hagen.de/rsvl/cdc99/cdc99.pdf

7. Finkelstein (2006) described an application of using a live online telescope with a student’s (Paul Stacey) comments about the experience with his astronomy lecturer: “…Ron used application sharing to show me how to use the Web interface that controls the telescope….I set the shutter speed and snapped pictures ! The live nature of the session allowed us to examine each picture right on the spot” (pp. 27-28). Finkelstein remarked that immediate support and feedback from the instructor to the learner with hands-on interesting activities made for an outstanding online learning experience.

Finkelstein, Jonathan. Learning in real time: synchronous teaching and learning online. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A John Wiley & Sons Imprint, 2006.

8. Nabielec (2004) designed a data logger which gathered various items of meteorological data (air temperature, humidity and wind speed) and could be accessed by students situated remotely using the Modbus protocol. They expressed some concerns about verification of the student’s resultant knowledge and practical skills.

Nabielec, J., & Wojtasinski, P. (2004, 18-20 May). Internet aided education system. Paper presented at the IMTC 2004 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from the IEEE database.

9. Esche (2005) discussed the establishment of a remotely accessible lab setup proposed for the undergraduate engineering program at Stevens Institute of Technology. The traditional lab had a procedure that involved the student undertaking some preparation for the lab work, a brief performance assessment of the student’s ability to work in the lab from a safety and competence stand point, the hands-on experimental work and finally the data analysis and report.

He felt one of the disadvantages with the traditional lab was the inability of the student to return later to the lab to do further tests. And often there is an excessive amount of unnecessary time spent in setting up the equipment for the experiments which often are recipe-type investigations. Often a lab session is simply impractical due to cost or logistics issues or safety concerns for the students. Hence the Stevens Institute of Technology had set up a remote access lab which could be “accessed anywhere and at any time”. The procedure followed can be similar to that of a traditional lab described above, but with much of the inefficiencies such as setting up equipment minimised. The students have been enthusiastic about the remote labs and requested that the program be extended to other courses.

Esche, S. K. (2005). On the Integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories - pedagogical approach. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4). Retrieved on 5 January 2007, from the Academic Research Library database.

10. This experiment is described by Alhalabi, B. Hamza, M.K., Aoudi, S. and Abul-Humous, A. (2001). International Conference on Engineering Education, 6B1-1-6B1-3.

11. The authors discuss a remote lab using a remotely controlled robotic arm. They discuss the peculiar requirements of an engineering education compared to that of the other offerings.

N.D. Asimopoulos, K.I. Nathanail, V.I. (2007). A Network-based Electrical Engineering Laboratory. Mpatzakis International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 41-53

12. Chen, S.H., Chen, R., Ramakrishnan, V., Hu, S.Y., & Zhuang, Y. (n.d.). Development of Remote Laboratory Experimentation through Internet. Retrieved November 3, 2011 from http://discoverlab.com/References/vlabhksrc99

13. Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

14. Thames, J.L., Hyder, A., Wellman, R., & Schaefer, D. (2009). An Information Technology Infrastructure for Internet-enabled Remote and Portable Laboratories. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009.

15. Richter, T., Tetour, Y., & Boehringer, D. (2011). Library of Labs. A European Project on the Dissemination of Remote Experiments and Virtual Laboratories. SEFI Annual Conference 2011, 555-562. Retrieved August 14, 2012 from http://www.lila-project.org/resources/Documents/index.html

16. Nafalski, A., Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., Göl, Ö., Scarino, A., Crichton, J., Gustavsson, I., Ferreira, J.M., Lowe, D., & Murray, S. (2010). International Collaboration in Remote Engineering Laboratories: an Approach to Development. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/media/img/international_collaboration_remote_labs.pdf

17. Diponio, M., Lowe, D., & de la Villefromoy, M. (2012). Supporting Local Access to Collections of Distributed Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

18. Uhlig, R., Viswanathan, S., Watson, J., & Evans, H. (2007). AC 2007-2815: Effective Instruction of an Online Engineering Course, 2 – 11. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site. American Society of Engineering Education.

19. Lindsay, E., Murray, S.& Stumpers, B.D. (2011). A Toolkit for Remote Laboratory Design & Development. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

20. Auer, M., & Zutin, D.G. (2010). Work in Progress: A Global Grid of Educational Online Labs based on the MIT iLabs Shared Architecture. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Washington DC. Retrieved June 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/.

21. Tawfik, M., Sancristobal, E., Martín, S., Gil, C., Pesquera, A., Losada, P., Díaz, G., Peire, J., Castro, M., Garcia-Zubia, J., Hernández, U., Orduña, P., Angulo, I., Lobo, M.C.C,, Marques, M.A., Viegas, M.C., Alves, G.R. (2011). VISIR Deployment in Undergraduate Engineering Practices. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

22. Tetour, Y., Richter, T.& Boehringer, D. (2010). Integration of Virtual and Remote Experiments into Undergraduate Engineering Courses. Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010.

23. Ball, E. (n.d.). Netmeeting as a Distance Learning Tool for Electronics. Session 2663. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from the conference section of asee.org.

24. A. Bagnasco, G. Parodi, D. Ponta, A.M. (2005). A Modular and Extensible Remote Electronic Laboratory. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE).

Scapolla Manuscript received on May 25, 2005.

25. A review is done here a client-server methodology to set up a remote lab between a remotely situated user and a server PC that is located in a lab with an FPGA board attached. The paper written is:

Hashemian, Reza and Pearson, T.R. (2009). A Low-Cost Server-Client Methodology for Remote Laboratory Access for Hardware Design. Prepared for the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 2E-1.

26. In conclusion, Peretto, Rapuano, Riccio and Bonatti (2006) remarked that there are considerable cost savings to be effected in training in instrumentation (industrial automation) by the sharing of remote laboratories and their expensive resources. Distance learners can achieve the appropriate level of practical experience by having access to these remote laboratories.

They suggested that the current methods of teaching instrumentation courses area by web-based lectures, online learning support for classical university courses, simulation of the experiments on the learner’s computer at home and remote laboratories. They noted that online learning technology has evolved with the following sequence of activities available: Online self study, online course with static visuals, audio/videoconferencing in the presentation of courses, interactive synchronous online learning classes, simulation of experiments and finally the highest level being practical experiments (presumably using remote laboratories and real equipment) (Peretto et al., 2006).

Peretto, L., Rapuano, S., Riccio, M., & Bonatti, D. (2006). Distance learning of electronic measurements by means of measurement set-up models. Measurement, Article in Press.

27. Pradarelli, B., Latorre, L., & Nouet, P. (2009). Integrated Circuits Testing: Remote Access to Test Equipment for Labs and Engineering. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(1).

28. Lo, D.C.-T., Qian, K., Quan, G., & Hong, L. (2012). Work in Progress: Enhance CS/CE Student Learning in Computer Architecture and Organization through a Remote Instrument control Lab with Mixed Reality. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://fie2012.org/

29. Eslami, A. Williams, A., Krauss, K., & Rezaei, A (2009). A Remote-Access Robotics and PLC Laboratory for Distance learning Program. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from the American Society for Engineering Education website conference link asee.org.

30. RNaghedolfeizi, M., Arora, S., & Henry, J (2001). Session 2150: Remote Laboratory Operation: Web Technology Successes. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org site.

31. Abu-aisheh, A., & Eppes, T. (2010). Remote and Virtual Instrumentation Platform for Distance Learning. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering, 6(3), 59-61. Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1278.

32. Eppes, T., Schuyler, P., & Oruganti, T. (2005). Session 2550: Pilot Test Results of a New Distance Laboratory Platform. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on October 22, 2009 from the conference link at asee.org.

An earlier discussion document from a year earlier, has also been written by the same authors.

Eppes, T., & Schuyler, P. (2004). Session 2426: A Robust and Scalable Distance Laboratory Platform. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on October 18, 2009 from the asee.org.

33. Genis, V., Brownlowe, W., & Kwon, Y. (2006). Video Conference Teaching for Applied Engineering Technology Students. Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from the American Society for Engineering Education site via the conference link on asee.org.

34. McKenna, E., Direen, R., Barnes, F., Gurkan, D., Mickelson, A., & Benhaddou, D. (2005). E-learning Environmental Design of a Distributed Online Laboratory for Optical Circuits courses. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from the conference link on asee.org.

35. Benhaddou, D. Gurkan, D., Kodali, H., McKenna, E. Mickelson, A., & Barnes, F. (2006). Online Laboratory for Optical Circuits Courses: Effective Concept Mapping. Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference Southern University and A & M College. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers & Publications and conference proceedings.

36. Melkonyan, A., Akopian, D., & Chen, C.L.P. (2009). Work in Progress - Real-Time Remote internet-based Communication Laboratory. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 23, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2009/

37. Guran-Postlethwaite, Y., Pocock, D.N. and Dutton, D. (2005). Web-Based Real Electronics Laboratories. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link at the asee.org site on the 12th October 2009.

38. Parker, G.G., Agostini, M.J. Devarakonda, M.N. and Zenner, P.F. (2004). Development of a Remote Systems and Controls Laboratory. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org site on the 29th October 2009.

39. This paper gives considerable detail in the laser and fiber optics technology program for distance learning with considerable effort put into the remote labs.

Lieberman, D., & Cheung, T. (2001). Distance Learning and Remote Controlled Laboratories for Photonics Technology. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org site on the 29th October 2009.

40. Auer, M., Al-Zoubi, A.Y., Zutin, D.G., & Bakhiet, H. (2008). Design of Application-specific Integrated Circuits for Implementation in a Network of Remote Labs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved November 3, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

41. Das, T. Imbertson, P., & Mohan, N. (2007). Collaborative Learning in Laboratory-oriented courses using Web conferencing for shared control of physical laboratory experiments. Conference proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2007. Downloaded from the asee.org site via the conference link on the 30th November 2009.

42. Asumadu, J.A., Tanner, R., Fitzmaurice, J., Kelly, M., Ogunleye, H. Belter, J., & Chin, S. (2002). Nuts and Volts: A Web-based hands-on Electrical and Electronics Remote Wiring and Measurement Laboratory (RwmLAB). Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2002 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

43. Chan, C., & Fok, W. (2009). Evaluating learning experiences in virtual laboratory training through student perceptions: a case study in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Hong Kong. Engineering Education, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.engsc.ac.uk on January 10, 2011.

44. Franzl, R., Gurkan, D., Benhaddou, D. (2006). E-learning Laboratories for Optical Circuits: Separation of Imperfections in Technology and Teaching Methodologies. Proceedings of the 2006 IJME-INTERTECH Conference. Retrieved February 22, 2011 from http://www.tech.uh.edu/rock/publications.php.

45. Casini, M., Prattichizzo, D., & Vicino, A. (2003). E-Learning by Remote Laboratories: a New Tool for Control Education. Preprints 6th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education, 95-100.

46. Huang, G., Gampe, A. Melkonyan, A., Pontual, M., & Akopian, D. (2012). Remote Experimentation for Communication: From Remote Desktops to Gateways. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

47. Machotka, J., Nedic, Z., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2009). A Remote Laboratory for Collaborative Experiments. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

48. Deniz, D.Z., Bulancak, A.,& Oczan, G. (2003). A Novel Approach to Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

49. Edinbarough, I., & Martinez, J. (2009). Web-Based Control for Mechatronics Laboratory Experiments. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

50. Colace, F., De Santo, M., & Pietrosanto, A. (2004). Work in Progress - Virtual Lab for Electronic Engineering Curricula. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

51. Chen, X., Zhang, Y., Kehinde, L.,& Olowokere, D. (2010). Developing virtual and remote undergraduate laboratory for engineering technology. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

There are additional discussions on creating a scheduler Web Server where the user schedules a future time slot for a listed remote lab experiment. At the appropriate time of the experiment, the user is then allocated a (personaliised) direct link to access the experiment. This is discussed in the paper:

Zhang, Y., Li, L., & Chen, Xuemin. (2011). Virtual and Remote Functionality Development for undergraduate Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 11, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

52. Yasin, M., Karam, L.J.,& Spanias, A. (2003). Online Laboratories for Image and Two-dimensional Signal Processing. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

53. Eppes, T., & Schuyler, P. (2004). Work in Progress - A Distance Laboratory System Using Agilent Test Equipment. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2004/papers/1192.pdf.

54. Mounsey, L., Archer, G., & Hungwe, K. (2011) New Directions In Engineering Education: The Development Of A Virtual Lab Course In Electronic Circuits At Michigan Technological University. Conference Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 26, 2011 at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

55. Harward, V.J., Tickodri-Togboa, S.S., Ayodele, K.P., Gikandi, S., Jiwaji, A., del Alamo, J.A., Hardison, J., Harrison, B.& Mwambela, A. (2009). Collaborative Development of Remote Electronic Laboratories: The ELVIS iLab. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 22, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

56. Soumare, H., Shroff, R., Hardison, J.L., del Alamo, J.A., Harward, V.J., Bailey, P.H., & DeLong, K.K. (2009). A Versatile internet-Accessible Electronics Workbench with Troubleshooting Capabilities. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5(1).

57. Riman, C. (2011). A Remote Robotic Laboratory Experiment Platform with Error Management. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(1).

58. Shyr, W-J. (2011). Development and Evaluation of Mechatronics Learning System in a Web-based Environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 89-96.

59. Sell, R., & Otto, T. (2009). Online Engineering for Future Factory. Proceedings of the 20th International DAAAM Symposium: Intelligent Manufacturing & Automation: Theory, Practice & Education.

60. Moon, I., Han, S., Choi, K., Kim, D., Jeon, C., Lee, S., & Woo, S. (n.d.). A Remote Laboratory for Electric Circuit using Passive Devices Controlled. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://icee2008hungary.net/download/fullp/full_papers/full_paper64.pdf.

61. Gustavsson, I., Nilsson, K., Zackrisson, J., & Håkansson, L. (2010). Open your Laboratories for Remote Access to offer Experimenting for Students On-campus or Off-campus 24/7. Proceedings of 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education.

62. Tawfik, M., Sancristobal, E., Martín, S., Gil, C., Pesquera, A., Losada, P., Díaz, G., Peire, J., Castro, M., Garcia-Zubia, J., Hernández, U., Orduña, P., Angulo, I., Lobo, M.C.C,, Marques, M.A., Viegas, M.C., Alves, G.R. (2008). VISIR Deployment in Undergraduate Engineering Practices. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

63. Gustavsson, I., Olsson, T., Åkesson, H., Zackrisson, J., & Håkansson, L. (2005). A Remote Electronics Laboratory for Physical Experiments using Virtual Breadboards. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

64. Kypuros, J.A., & Connolly, T.J. (2005). Collaborative Experimentation and Simulation: A Pathway to Improving Student Conceptualization of the Essentials of System Dynamics and Control Theory. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering. Retrieved on October 29, 2009 from the asee.org.

65. Drutarovsky, M., Saliga, J., Michaeli, L.& Hroncova, I. (2009). Fundamental and Applied Metrology. XIX IMEKO World Congress.

66. Mohtar, A., Nedic, Z., & Machotka, J. (2008). A Remote Laboratory for Microelectronics Fabrication. Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2008/.

67. Elawady, Y.H., & Tolba, A.S. (2011). Analysis, Design and Implementation of a General Framework for Remote Lab. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887), 14(1).

68. Saliah-Hassane, H., Saad, M., Ofosu, W.K., Djibo, K., Mayaki, H.A., & Amadou, M.M.D. (2011). Lab@Home: Remote Laboratory Evolution in The Cloud Computing Era. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

69. Olmi, C., Cao, B., Wang, H., Chen, X., & Song, G. (2011). A Unified Framework for Remote Laboratory Experiments. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

70. Cao, B., Song, G., Chen, X., & Osakue, D. (2012). Platform Independent Interface for Remote Laboratory Experiments. Proceedings of the American Society For Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

71. Astatke, Y., Scott, C.J., & Ladeji-Osias, J.K. (2011). Electric Circuits Online: Towards a Completely Online Electrical Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

72. Ayodele, K.P., Akinwale, O., Kehinde, L., Osasona, O.O., Ajayi, E.O.B., & Akinwunmi, O.O. (2009). Advanced Digital Laboratory: An FPGA-Based Remote Laboratory for Teaching Digital Electronics. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved June 25, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

73. Pradarelli, B., Latorre, L., & Nouet, P. (n.d.) Remote Access to Test Equipment. A Solution for Industrial Test Trainings and Engineering Support. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://www.date-conference.com/date09/files/file/09-ubooth/Session2/S21.pdf.

74. Li, L., Deng, J., Li, K., & Fei, M. (2008). A Novel E-Laboratory for Remote Monitoring and Control. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress, The International Federation of Automatic Control.

75. Ferreira, J.M.M., Nedi , Z., Machotka, J., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2010). International Collaborative learning using remote workbenches for 8-bit microcontroller courses. Proceedings of the 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education.

76. Abu-aisheh, A.A., Eppes, T.E., Al-Zoubi, A. (2010). Implementation of a Remote Analog and Digital Communications Laboratory for E-learning. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 6(2). Retrieved March 20, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1273

77. Zimmer, T., Billaud, M., & Geoffroy, D. A. (2006). Remote Laboratory for Electrical Engineering Education. Proceedings of the IMCL2006 Conference. Retrieved April 1, 2012 from www.real-lab.org/papers/imcl06.pdf

78. Thai, C.N., & Upchurch, B.L. (2002). Tele-Experimentation for Machine Vision Course Using NetMeeting Software. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

79. Karmakar, S., Roy, N.K., Nafalski, A., & Kumbhakar, P. (2009). A remotely operated high voltage laboratory for impulse voltage testing. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 7(1).

80 Candelas, F.A., Gil, P., Torres, F., Ortiz, F.G., Puente, S.T., & Pomares, J. (n.d.). Virtual Remote Laboratory for Teaching of Computer Vision and Robotics in the University of Alicante. Retrieved May 24, 2012 from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/2587/1/CandelasPI-Virtual_remote_laboratories-IFAC-IBCE04.pdf

81. Niederstätter, M., Klinger, T., & Zutin, D.G. (2010). An Image Processing Online Laboratory within the iLab Shared Architecture. Proceedings of iJOE.5(2), 37-40. Retrieved October 23, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/issue/view/88

82. Mikhail, G.R., & Choi, S.J. (n.d.) Innovative Remote Experiments using Virtual Instruments for Effective Engineering Education. Korea University of Technology and Education, Korea.

83. Moon, I., Han, S., Choi, K., Kim, D., Jeon, C., Lee, S., & Woo, S. A (2008). Remote Laboratory for Electric Circuit using Passive Devices Controlled. ICEE 2008 International Conference on Engineering Education, "New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century”. Retrieved November 10, 2011 from www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2008/full_papers/full_paper129.pdf

84. Alhalabi, B., Hamza, M.K., & Abu-El Humos, A. (n.d.) Distance Education: Remote Labs Environment. Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education Zone 1. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2008/professional/ASEE12008_0025_paper.pdf

85. Kutlu, A., & Taşdelen, K. (2010). Remote Electronic Experiments using LabVIEW over Controller Area Network. Scientific Research and Essays, Vol 5(13), 1754-1758.

86. Karadimas, D., & Efstathiou, K. (April 2007). An Integrated Educational Platform Implementing Real, Remote Lab-Experiments for Electrical Engineering Courses. Journal of Computers, 2(2).

87. Ko, C.C., Chen, B.M., Hu, S., Ramkrishnan, V., Cheng, C.D., Zhuang, Y., & Chen, J. (August 2001). A Web-Based Virtual Laboratory on a Frequency Modulation Experiment. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C. Applications and Reviews, 31(3), 295-303.

88. Ko, C.C., Chen,B.M., Chen, J., Zhang, J., & Tan, K.C. (2005). A Web-Based Laboratory on Control of a Two-degrees-of-Freedom Helicopter. Proceedings of the International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1017-1030.

89. Oros, R.G., Jinga, V., Alexandru, M., & Ursuţiu, D. (n.d.) New Technologies in Telecommunications Laboratories. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from http://pdf.qpsk.com/New_technologies_in_telecommunciations_labs.pdf

90. Chung, K.C., & Chen, B.M. (2008). Web-based Laboratories for internet Remote Experimentation at the National University of Singapore. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 5(3-4), 301-314.

91. García-Zubia, J., Angulo, I., Irurzun, J., Orduña, P., Ruiz, J., Hernández, U., Castro, M., & Sancristobal, E. (2010). Easily Integrable Platform for the Deployment of a Remote Laboratory for Microcontrollers. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 6(3). Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1310

92. Kara, A., Aydin, E., Ozbek, M.E., & Cagiltay, N. (n.d.). Design and Development of a Remote and Virtual Environment for Experimental Training. Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 194-200. Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

93. Garcia-Zuba, J., Orduña, P., Angulo, I., Hernandez, U., Dziabenko, O., Lopez-Ipiña, D., & Rodriguez-Gil, L. (2011). Application and User Perceptions of Using the WebLab-Deusto-PLD in Technical Education. Proceedings of 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

94. Al-Sharif, L., Saleem, A., Ayoub, W., & Naser, M. (2011). Teaching Control System Principles Using Remote Laboratories over the Internet. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2011, II. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2011/

95. Alparslan, N.C., Cagiltay, N.E., Ozen, M., & Aydin, E. (2008) Teaching Usage of Equipments in a Remote Laboratory. Proceedings of TOJET, 7(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

A more extensive definition of electronic performance support systems is cited from Gloria Gery’s book:

“An Electronic Performance Support System is an integrated electronic environment that is available to and easily accessible by each learner and is structured to provide immediate individualized on-line access to the full range of information, software, guidance, advice and assistance, data, images, tools, and assessment and monitoring systems to permit job performance with minimal support and intervention by others.”

Gery, G. (1995). Electronic performance support systems: how and why to remake the workplace through the strategic application of technology. Boston: Weingarten Publications. (Original work published 1991).

96. Clifton, J. (2010). Remote Real-time Testing Tool. University of Wisconsin-Platteville. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.cs.uwec.edu/MICS/papers/mics2010_submission_8.pdf

97. Hutzel, W. (Purdue University) & Furter, R. (HTA Lucerne). (2006). 2006-2: International Partnership for Evaluating Heat Recovery Equipment. ASEE. Retrieved on November 12, 2009 from the conference link on the asee.org site.

98. This paper is useful for the detailed diagrams and graphics which unfortunately couldn’t be reproduced in the book. Whilst the lab has been well designed, we have some problems with the seemingly predictable nature of the results in Figure 7 (Excel chart of another device’s power-displacement characteristic). However, perhaps getting the students to do anything more challenging such as writing a program may be risky in terms of achieving an appropriate outcome.

Diong, B. Smith, J. Kolesar, E., & Cote, R. (2009). AC 2009:1053 Remote Experimentation with MEMS Devices. ASEE. Retrieved on November 10 2009 from asee.org.

99. Ogot, M. Elliot, G., & Glumac, N. (2002). Hands-on Laboratory Experience via Remote Control: Jet Thrust Laboratory. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on November 10 2009 from the conference link at asee.org

100. Fidan, I. Pinkstaff, A., & Taban, F. (2008). Innovative Delivery of MIT 4450 – Rapid Prototyping Course. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference. Retrieved on October 28, 2009 from the American Society for Engineering Education conference link on the site: asee.org

101. Wong, H, Kapila, V., & Tzes, A. (2001). Session 1526. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, NY, Mechatronics/Process Control Remote Laboratory,

102. Read, E., Hanson, B., & Levesley, M. (2008). Using weblabs as a tool to support a culturally diverse student cohort. Engineering Education, 3(1). Retrieved on 20th December 2010 from the engsc.ac.uk website.

103. Fidan, I., Yildiz, F.,& Bahadir, E. (2009). Remote Laboratory Collaboration. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

104. Genis, V.,& Zagorski, M. (2008). Remote Non-destructive Testing Educational Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 22, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Conferences and Publications.

105. Hutzel, W.J., Cooper, H.L., & Leach. S.E. (2005) Evaluating a Remotely Accessed Energy Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

106. You, Y. Li, X. Alungbe, G., & Mason, S. (2008). Development of an Online Laboratory for Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

107. Chen, X., Olmi, C., & Song, G. (n.d.) A Remote Bridge Experiment with Vibration Control, 844-849. Retrieved August 8, 2012 from http://vr-lab.engineeringtech.tsu.edu/publications/docs/128.pdf

108. Chiou, R., Kwon, Y., Tseng, T.-L., Kiziran, R., Kizirian, R., & Yang, Y.-T. (2010). Enhancement of Online Robotics Learning Using Real-time 3D Visualisation Technology. Proceedings of the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. 8(3), 46-51. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/SCI/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS8803

109. Tan, A.C.C., Tang, T., & Paterson, G. (2008). Web-based Remote Vibration Experimental Laboratory. Retrieved August 31, 2011 from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2008/full_papers/full_paper11.pdf

110. Rock, M.M., Marx, H., Kane, S.M., Garrick, R., Urdaneta, L.A.V., & Lee, J.H. (2011). Effectively Utilizing Local and Remote Thermofluids Laboratory Experiments to Enhance Student Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from asee.org through the links: Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

111. Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

112. Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

An additional remote lab, described in this paper, was examining frequency responses of electronic circuits. This involved simulating a circuit using PSPICE and obtaining the various parameters. This circuit was then sent through to a lab technician at the lab site who would construct the circuit which would then be tested by the remotely located student using a range of settings of amplitudes and (sinusoidal) frequencies on the signal generator. The results on the electrical circuit would then be measured using a data acquisition device.

113. Aziz, E.-S., Chassapis, C., Esche, S., Dai, S., Xu, S.,& Jia, R. (2008). Online Wind Tunnel Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

And

Aziz, E.-S., Wang, Z., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2011). Development of a Modularized Architecture for Remote-Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

114. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

115. Michaelides, I.M., & Eleftheriou, P.C. (2009) On the Effectiveness of Learning Through the use of the web based Laboratories – the experience of using the solar e-lab. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference of the International Network for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 28, 2011 from ineer.org

116. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2008). Remote Access Laboratories for Engineering Education. Proceedings of the ICEE 2008. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://publicationslist.org/m.g.helander

117. Cox, D., Meric, Z., Bartz, R., & Ctistis, C. (2010). Complementary Simulation and Remote Laboratory Experiences to Hands-on Control Systems Curriculum. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education ICEE-2010.

118. Satsangee, S.P., Mohd, R., & Gandhi, R. (2011). Remote Electroanalytical Laboratory. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 7(1). Retrieved February 2, 2011 fromhttp://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1420.

119. Selmer, A., Kraft, M., Moros, R., & Colton, C.K. (2007). Weblabs in Chemical Engineering Education. Transactions Institution for Chemical Engineers, D(2).

120. Kennepohl, D., Baran, J., Connors, M., Quigley, K., & Currie, R. (2005). Remote Access to Instrumental Analysis for Distance Education in Science. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3).

121. Jain, P., Stubbins, J., & Uddin, R. (2006). Broadcasting Nuclear Engineering Laboratories–video and data–in real-time over the Internet. Society for Engineering Education. Downloaded via the conference link from asee.org on the 24th October 2009.

122. Jain, P.K., Gu, Y., & Rizwan-Uddin, (2008). Broadcasting Engineering Laboratories–Audio/video and data– in Real time over the Internet. Advances in Engineering Education.

123. DeLong, K., Harward, V.J., Bailey, P., Hardison, J., Kohse, G., & Ostocsky, Y. (2011). Three Online Neutron Beam Experiments based on the iLab Shared Architecture. International Journal of Online Engineering, 7(1). Retrieved August 14, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1484

124. Jacobson, D. (2004). Teaching Information Warfare with Lab Experiments via the internet. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

125. The construction of the lab is described in some detail in this paper. And other concepts such as self-directed and teacher-directed learning discussed and assessed. Future research was outlined to investigate some of the unexplored issues.

Böhne, A. , Rütters, K., & Wagner, B (2004). Evaluation of Tele-tutorial Support in a Remote Programming Laboratory. Session 2426: Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from the conference link on the asee.org site on the 14 November 2009.

126. Li, P., Jones, J.M., & Augustus, K.K. (2011). Incorporating Virtual Lab Automation Systems In IT Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 24, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

127. Tang, X., & Li, K. (2005). Developing an Efficient Remote Lab Environment for Online IDS Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

128. Watson, J.L., Bibel, G., Ebeling, K., Erjavec, J., Salehfar, H.,& Zahui, M. (2004). On-line Laboratories for Undergraduate Distance Engineering Students. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

129. The Educause Learning Initiative. 7 Things you should know about....Remote Instrumentation. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7013.pdf.

130. Albon, S.P., Cancilla, D.A., & Hubball, H. (2006). Instructional Design and Assessment. Using Remote Access to Scientific Instrumentation to Create Authentic Learning Activities in Pharmaceutical Analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2006, 70 (5), Article 121.

131. Ferri, B., & Auerbach, J. (2010). Work in Progress – A Program to Incorporate Portable Labs Into Lecture-based Electrical and Computer Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/.

132. Khachadorian, S., Scheel, H., de Vries, P., & Thomsen, C. (2009). A Practical Approach for Managing Online Remote Experiments (ONPReX). European Journal of Engineering Education, 00(00), 1-14.

133. Jeschke, S., Scheel, H., Richter, T., & Thomsen, C. On Remote and Virtual Experiments in eLearning. Journal of Software, 2(6).

134. Anwar, S., LeClair, J., & Peskin, A. (2010). Development of Nanotechnology and Power Systems Options for an Online BSEET Degree. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Annual Conference and Expo. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

135. Tetour, Y., Richter, T., & Boehringer, D. (2010). Integration of Virtual and Remote Experiments into Undergraduate Engineering Courses. Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference.

Tetour, Y., Boehringer, D., & Richter, T. (2011). Integration of Virtual and Remote Experiments into Undergraduate Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

136. Fornaro, P., Guggisberg, M., Gyalog, T.,Wattinger, C., Meyer, E., & Güntherodt, H.-J. (2004) A remote Controllable and Programmable Atomic Force Microscope based on LabVIEW. Retrieved January 3, 2012 from http://www.nano-world.org/nano/People/Martin.Guggisberg/vip2004.pdf

137. D. Boehringer, S. Jeschke, T. Richter (2009): LiLa: A European Project on Networked Experiments. REV 2009 Conference.

138. Hesselink, L., Rizal, D., Bjornson, E. (n.d.) CyberLab: Remote access to laboratories through the world-wide web. Retrieved November 5, 2011 from http://www.jce.divched.org/hs/journal/issues/2004/Dec/clicSubscriber/JCESupp/JCE2004p1814W.pdf

139. Jurčević, M., & Hegeduš, H., & Golub, M. (2009). Generic System for Remote Testing and Calibration of Measuring Instruments: Security Architecture. Proceedings of Measurement Science Review, 10(2).

Chapter 11

1. Azad, A.K.M. (2010). internet Accessible Remote Experimentation: Setting the Right Course of Action. International Journal of Online Engineering 6(3). Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1380/1437

2. Colwell et al.(2002) reported that Cooper (2000) felt that in some respects the PEARL system was not able to “reproduce the gestalt of working on real experiments in the laboratory”. He did feel however that it should be able to achieve many of the learning objectives for lab work.

Colwell, C., Scanlon, E., & Cooper, M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers and Education, 38, 65-76.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

3. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

4. Pratap, P., Hunter, A., & West, A. (n.d.) Remote Instrumentation. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/04_ILD_Pratap.pdf

5. Andria et al. (2006) indicated that it was important for students to achieve good practical training in a real working environment with instruments. They indicated that due to their high cost, labs are not as available as they should be and remote labs offered a good solution. They also described the typical architecture of a remote lab.

Andria, G., Baccigalupi, A., Borsic, M., Carbone, P., Daponte, P., De Capua, C., et al. (2006). Remote didactic laboratory "G.Savastano": The Italian experience for the e-learning at the technical universities in the field of the electrical and electronic measurements, architecture and delivered services. Paper presented at the IMTC 2006 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from IEEE database.

6. Herrera, O.A., & Fuller, D.A. (2011). Collaborative Model for Remote Experimentation laboratories used by non-hierarchical distributed groups of engineering students. Proceedings of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 428-445.

7. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2008). Remote Access Laboratories for Engineering Education.

Proceedings of the ICEE 2008. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://publicationslist.org/m.g.helander

8. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis. C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

9. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

10. Azad, A.K.M. (2010). Internet Accessible Remote Experimentation: Setting the Right Course of Action. International Journal of Online Engineering, 6(3). Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1380/1437

11. Riman, C., El Hajj, A., & Mougharbel, I. (2011) A Remote Labs Experiments Improved Model. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 7(1). Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i- joe/article/view/1460.

12. Brink, D. (2011). Secure Remote Access: From the Outside In, to the Inside Out. Aberdeen Group. Research Brief. Retrieved August 4, 2012 from http://www.aberdeen.com/Aberdeen-Library/6954/RA-secure-remote- access.aspx

13. Melkonyan, A., Akopian, D., & Chen, C.L.P. (2009). Work in Progress - Real-Time Remote internet-based Communication Laboratory. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 23, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2009/

14. Hernández-Jayo, U., Garcia-Zuba, J. (2012). Reconfigurable electronics remote lab from the experiments and instruments point of view. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://fie2012.org/

15. Wu, L., Cartes, D., & Shih, C. Web-based Flow Control of a Three-Tank System. (2004). Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Vol.2, No. 1. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/Contents.asp?var=&previous=ISS3079

16. Maiti, A. (2010). Time Scheduling Schemes in Online Laboratory Management Systems. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 6(4). Retrieved October 14, 2012 from http://www.online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1361

17. These two papers are quoted in this doctoral thesis:

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3):7.

And

Biocca, F. (2001). Inserting the Presence of Mind into a Philosophy of Presence: A Response to Sheridan and Mantovani and Riva, Presence. Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(5), 546-556.

The doctoral thesis is as follows:

Mohtar, A.A. (2009). A remote Laboratory for Testing Microelectronic Circuits on Silicon Wafers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of South Australia. Adelaide.

18. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

This research was reported in this paper:

Corter, J. et al. (2006). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on and simulated laboratories. Accepted for publication in ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction.

19. Lindsay, E. (2005). The Impact of Remote and Virtual Access to Hardware upon the learning outcomes of Undergraduate Laboratory Classes, Doctoral Thesis, The University of Melbourne.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J.V., (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3).

These two documents were referenced in:

Mohtar, A.A. (2009). A remote Laboratory for Testing Microelectronic Circuits on Silicon Wafers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of South Australia. Adelaide.

20. Machet, T., & Lowe, D. (2012). Integrating Real Equipment into Virtual Worlds. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

21. Lowe, D., Murray, S., Lindsay, E., Liu, D., & Bright, C. Reflecting Professional Reality in Remote Laboratory Experiences. Proceedings of the REV2008 Conference. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/media/img/reflecting_remote_lab_experiences.pdf

22. Garcia-Zuba, J., Orduña, P., Angulo, I., Hernandez, U., Dziabenko, O., Lopez-Ipiña, D., & Rodriguez-Gil, L. (2011). Application and User Perceptions of Using the WebLab-Deusto-PLD in Technical Education. Proceedings of 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

23. Kostulski, T., & Murray, S. (n.d.). Student Feedback from the First National Sharing Trial of Remote Labs in Australia, 1-8. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/media/img/student_feedback.pdf.

24. Frangu, L., & Chiculita, C. (2002). Remote Laboratory Allowing Full-range Student-designed Control Algorithm. Proceedings from 9th International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems, 3, 1235-1238

25. Alhalabi, B., Hamza, M.K., & Abu-El Humos, A. (n.d.) Distance Education: Remote Labs Environment. Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education Zone 1. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2008/professional/ASEE12008_0025_paper.pdf

26. Böhne, A., Faltin, N., & Wagner, B. (2003). Synchronous Tele-tutorial Support in a Remote Laboratory for Process Control. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

27. Olowokere, D., Ayodele, K.P., Kehinde, L.O., Jonah, O., Ajayi, T.O., & Akinwunmi, O.O. (2008). Realistic Looking Interfaces: In Search of the Best Ergonomic Metaphors for Remote and Virtual Laboratory Interfaces. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

28. Lowe, D., Murray, S., Weber, L., de la Villefromoy, M., Johnston, A., Lindsay, E., Nageswaran, W., & Nafalski, A. (2009). LabShare: Towards a National Approach to Laboratory Sharing. Proceedings of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2009 Conference. Retrieved May 5, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences.html

29. Lin, J.-W. (November 2009). An Auto-Adjustment Video Mechanism for Steadily Monitoring of Remote Laboratory. Proceedings of International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(4). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/977

30. Lowe, D., Berry,C., Murray, S., & Lindsay, E. (2009). Adapting a Remote Laboratory Architecture to Support Collaboration and Supervision. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/images/site/5.%20Adapting_a_remote_laboratory_architecture_to_support_collaboration_a nd_supervision.pdf

31. Maiti, A. (May 2010) NETLab: An Online Laboratory Management System. Proceedings of International Journal of Online Engineering, 6(2). Retrieved April 3, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i- joe/article/view/1292

32. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33. Gadzhanov, S., & Nafalski, A. (20101). Pedagogical Effectiveness of remote laboratories for measurement and control. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 8(2).

34. Restivo, M.T., & Silva, M.G. (2009). Portuguese Universities Sharing Remote Laboratories. Proceedings from the International Journal of Online Engineering, 5. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://www.online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1090

35. Nafalski, A., Nedić, Z., Machotka, J., Göl, Ö., Ferreira, J.M.M., & Gustavsson, I. (2010). Student and Staff Experiences with international collaboration in the remote Laboratory NetLab. Proceedings of the 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education.

36. Aravena, M.A., & Ramos, A.A. (n.d.). Use of a Remote Network Lab as an Aid to Support Teaching Computer. CLEI Electronic Journal, 12(1), paper 6.

37. Eikaas, T.I., Schmid, C., Foss, B.A., & Gillet, D. (2003). A Global Remote Laboratory Experimentation Network and the Experiment Service Provider Business Model. Modeling, Identification and Control, 24(3), 159-167. Retrieved February 16, 2012 from http://www.mic-journal.no/PDF/2003/MIC-2003-3-2.pdf

38. Benhaddou,D., & Mickelson, A.R. (2009). Assessment of Remote "Optical Circuits" Laboratory Using Embedded Measurement Techniques. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

39. Hagigat, C.K. (2003). Maintaining Accreditation of an Accredited Program After Addition of a Distance Learning Degree Option. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2003 Annual Conference and Expo.

40. Kara, A., Ozbek, M.E., Cagiltay, N.E., & Aydin, E. (n.d.) Maintenance, Sustainability and Extendibility in Virtual and Remote Laboratories. Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

Two papers cited (in the paper above) that discuss the lack of sustainability of remote and virtual labs are:

Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2007). Challenges in Remote Laboratory Sustainability. International Conference on Engineering Education, 1-6.

And

Eikaas, T.I., Schmid, C., Foss, B.A., Gillet, D. (2003). A Global Remote Laboratory Experimentation Network and the Experiment Service Provider Business Model and Plans. Modeling Identification and Control, 24(3) 159-168.

41. Lindsay, E., & Liu, D., Murray, S., & Lowe, D. (2007). Remote Laboratories in Engineering Education: Trends in Students’ Perceptions. Proceedings of the 2007 AaeE Conference. Retrieved April 1, 2012 from http://www.labshare.edu.au/resources/conference/

42. Omli, C., Chen, X., & Song, G. (2011). A Framework for Developing Scalable Remote Experiment Laboratory, Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (E-Learn 2011), 2045-2050, Retrieved August 6, 2012 from http://vr- lab.engineeringtech.tsu.edu/publications/index.php

43. Maxwell, A., Noble, K., Kist, A.A., Fogarty, R., Gibbings, P., & Midgeley, W. (2011). Exploring a cross- disciplinary research initiative with Remote Access Laboratories: Robot RAL-ly as a stimulus for consideration of Engineering pathway. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

44. Pawan, P., Pepic, S., Sin, I.J.,Wong, K., & Gulak, G. (n.d.) Lab On the Web. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://www.linkedin.com/in/iansin

45. Ursutiu, D., Iordache, D., Cotfas, P.A., Cotfas, D.T., Samoila, C. (2009). Web Development Techniques and Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(1). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from http://www.online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/906

46. The authors describe setting up a remote lab at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga and performing the experiments from Washington State University. There were considerable logistic problems such as multiple students trying to log onto the lab simultaneously and some downtime in the lab equipment. They tried to improve this process by pairing students at both universities so that the one student would do the local experiment and the remote one at Washington State University would send a request and analyse the resultant data. This process was also characterised by a last minute rush so wasn’t successful.. The final solution was to break the Washington State University students into teams and use simulation software locally. This was workable and the students preferred this approach even though it was a simulation (with perhaps less “real” data).

Henry, J. and Zollars, R. (2006). Learning-by-doing and communications within a Process control Class. Retrieved on September 18 2009 from the conferences link on asee.org.

47. Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

48. Anwar, A. H. M. F., Lindsay, E., & Sarukkalige, P. R. (2011). Key factors for determining the suitability of converting a fluid-mechanics laboratory to remote-access mode. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 11-18.

49. Li, Y., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2007). An Architecture for Real-Time remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

50. Zulueta, E., & Calvo, I. (2010). A Framework to Simplify the Creation of Remote Laboratories. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5(2). Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1226

51. Fiore and Ratti (2006) noted the advantages of remote labs being practical assistance for distance learners in gaining appropriate skills and knowledge, improving safety due to avoidance of hazardous lab situations, distributing expensive equipment to many users and thus minimising on costs, and an improvement in quality and effectiveness due to concentration of resources in one location. A final attribute of a remote lab, they suggested, was to attract researchers who needed the specialised instrumentation and equipment. This would then transform the remote lab into a centre of excellence.

They made some suggestions about future developments with remote labs. Firstly, participants need to have a strong theoretical background on the subject matter before commencing work in a remote lab. Secondly, the training phase must be planned carefully with the instructor being closely involved and collaborative efforts emphasized with other learners. Thirdly, the level of interactivity should be increased with more experimental control and monitoring of the experiments being possible. Finally, there should be a thorough assessment of the learners at the conclusion of the work.

Fiore, L., & Ratti, G. (2007). Remote laboratory and animal behaviour: An interactive open field system. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1299-1307.

52. Schaefer, D., Post, B., & Hyder, A. (2009). A Framework For Developing A Cohesive Set Of Remote Laboratories For Distributed Distance Learning Settings. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 30, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

53. Mikhail, G.R., & Choi, S.J. (n.d.) Innovative Remote Experiments using Virtual Instruments for Effective Engineering Education. Korea University of Technology and Education, Korea.

54. Cooper (2003) described four successful remote labs that were conducted as part of the PEARL project. These included setting up and running a spectrometer, a digital electronics lab, a computer vision system and a transmission electron microscope (TEM). Some additional comments from the learners using the digital electronic lab were that remote experimentation should not be considered a substitute for real experimentation and that real practical tasks were the most enjoyable ( as opposed to developing code). Colwell et al. (2002) described the five main components underpinning these labs:

• The student’s PC with a user interface and the remote lab client software

• A collaboration server (videoconferencing, application sharing, whiteboarding)

• A web server

• A lab server (control of the lab equipment and interfacing to the client)

• The remote lab software and hardware

Cooper et al. (2003) noted the lessons learned were the importance of usability testing of the system before releasing it to a wider audience, the necessity for administrative software for multiple users (registration and booking of lab resources), collaborative communications software for multiple students at different locations working on a lab, and real time access to a lab as opposed to an off-line queued approach.

Colwell, C., Scanlon, E., & Cooper, M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers and Education, 38, 65-76. Accepted November 16, 2001.

Cooper, M., Amaral, T., Colwell, C., Kontoulis, J., Judson, A., Donnelly, A., et al. (2003). PEARL - Practical experimentation by accessible remote learning: Open University.

55. Zulueta, E., & Calvo, I. (2010). A Framework to Simplify the Creation of Remote Laboratories. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5(2). Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1226

56. The Pros and Cons of Remote Labs. Retrieved from http://www.preal.ece.cmu.edu/pubs/HP_Educator.pdf on September 15 2009. See page 9.

57. Schaefer, D., Scott, D.W., Molina, G.J., Al-Kalaani, Y., Murphy, T., Johnson, W., & Thamburaj Goeser, P. (2008) Integration of Distance learning Technology into Traditional Engineering Physical Laboratory Exercises. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.srl.gatech.edu/Members/dschaefer/Publications/Final.RP2008044SCH.pdf.

58. Ianace (2005) also listed the requirements for successful video collaboration systems and referred to these as demonstrating telepresence. Applications included remote surgery and mining in inhospitable environments. These requirements included ease of use, complete portability of all equipment, control of remote objects, collection of large amounts of data from the remote site, and archiving of the interaction. He believed that future collaboration applications should demonstrate true interactivity between local and remote sites.

Lahoud and Tang (2006) defined the requirements of the remote lab for their application as follows:

• Every PC in the lab must be able to monitor all network traffic and communicate with each other

• Students must be able to access all PC’s and control all resources remotely

• The network configuration must be durable to be able to withstand a student’s handling

• The instructor should be able to manage all lab resources easily and effectively

• Remote access must be simple and software resource requirements minimal for the students

According to Bertocco et al., industry requires continuous education and online learning is an ideal way to provide this (2004). However where online learning is generally deficient, is the lack of provision of adequate practical or hands-on activities. They indicated that there are five items that are required to ensure that practical activities performed remotely from the lab are of adequate quality. These are:

• Responsiveness of the test equipment to the commands issued and data returned to the participant in the remote site.

• Flexibility in terms of altering the configuration of the instrumentation set up.

• Portability of the remote system so that the different hardware and software systems used by the instrumentation can be seamlessly supported.

• Availability of the test equipment to the remote participants.

• Extensibility to the practical exercises should be easily implemented.

Bertocco, M., Cappellazzo, S., Corbellini, S., Parvis, M., Pegoraro, P., & Vallan, A. (2004, 18-20 May 2004). E- learning in instrumentation and measurement courses. Paper presented at the IMTC 2004 - Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference.

Ianace, P. (2005). Video collaboration anytime. Communication News, 42(12), 32. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Lahoud, H. A., & Tang, X. (2006). Information security labs in IDS/IPS for distance education. Paper presented at the SIGITE'06.

59. Henry, J., Gasparyan, O., Serrano-Rosales, B., Ruja, I., Garcia-Zuba, J., Saliah-Hassane, H., & Montoya, J.C. (2011). Unique Remote Experiments in Engineering: USA, Armenia, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, Romania & Spain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education. Retrieved on January 5, 2012 from http://ineer.org/

This comment was cited from other papers such as:

Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Esche, S.K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing Reality: A Study of Remote, Hands-on, and Simulated Laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(2).

60. Thames, J.L., Hyder, A., Wellman, R., & Schaefer, D. (2009). An Information Technology Infrastructure for internet-enabled Remote and Portable Laboratories. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009.

This requirement is cited above from the following paper:

Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2007). Challenges in Remote Laboratory Sustainability. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

61. This discussion about requirements for implementation of remote laboratories was contained on page 190 of:

Gillet, D., Latchman, H.A., Salzmann, CH., & Crisalle, O.D. (n.d.) Hands-On Laboratory Experiments in Flexible and Distance Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 187-191. Retrieved on November 12 2009, from the journal button on asee.org.

62. Khachadorian, S., Scheel, H., de Vries, P., & Thomsen, C. (2008). A Practical Approach for Managing Online Remote Experiments (ONPReX). European Journal of Engineering Education, 00(00), 1-14.

The key paper that was referred to in terms of authentic learning was:

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, C. (2003). Patterns of Engagement in Authentic Online Learning Environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.

This discussion of authentic attributes doesn’t map directly to the later paper by Herrington and Kervin quoted elsewhere in this book.

63. García-Zubia, J., Orduña, P., López-de-Ipiña, D., & Alves, G.R. (2009). Addressing Software Impact in the Design of Remote Laboratories. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 56(12).

64. Dutta, S., Prakash, S., Estrada, D., & Pop, E. (2010). A Web Service and Interface for Electronic Device Characterization. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

65. Bartz, R., & Cox, D. (2011). Design Aspects of a database for Remote Laboratory Management. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved November 12, 2012 from asee.org

Messrs Bartz and Cox were kind enough to allow us to reproduce the details of their very comprehensive and well thought through use cases for remote labs.

66. Mohtar, A.A. (2009). A remote Laboratory for Testing Microelectronic Circuits on Silicon Wafers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of South Australia. Adelaide.

67. Olowokere, D., Ayodele, K.P., Kehinde, L.O., Jonah, O., Ajayi, T.O., & Akinwunmi, O.O. (2008). Realistic Looking Interfaces: In Search of the Best Ergonomic Metaphors for Remote and Virtual Laboratory Interfaces. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

68. There is a very useful discussion on graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Nielsen, J. (2005). Ten Usability Heuristics. Retrieved September 2, 2011 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

Further supporting information is contained in these papers:

Molich, R., & Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue, Communications of the ACM33, 338-348.

Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of the ACM CHI'90 Conference, 249-256.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of the ACM CHI'94 Conference, 152-158.

Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation, in Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

A notable book from the author is:

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, Ind.: New Riders.

69. Orduña, P., Garcia-Zuba, J., Irurzun, J., Sancristobal, E., Martin, S., Castro, M., López-de-Ipiña, D., Hernández, U., Angulo, I, & González, J.M. (2009). Designing Experiment Agnostic Remote Laboratories. Conference Proceedings of REV 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2012 from https://www.weblab.deusto.es/web/images/publications/designing_experiment_agnostic_remote_laboratories_rev2009. pdf

70. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

71. Kist, A. (2012). Barriers to Adopting Remote Access Laboratory Learning Activities. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

72. Azad, A.K.M. (2010). Internet Accessible Remote Experimentation: Setting the Right Course of Action. International Journal of Online Engineering, 6(3). Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://online- journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1380/1437

There are further discussions on this topic in this paper:

Azad, A.K.M. (2011). Learning from Remote Experimentations over the internet. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

73. Auer, M., Al-Zoubi, A.Y., Zutin, D.G., & Bakhiet, H. (2008). Design of Application-specific Integrated Circuits for Implementation in a Network of Remote Labs. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved November 3, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

74. Tuttle, S.W., Lowe, D.B., & Moulton, B. (2011). A Survey of Issues and Approaches to Remote Laboratory Adoption by Teacher-Academics. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

75. Emami, M.R., & Helander, M.G. (2009). The Effects of Computer Interface on Learning Outcomes in Remote Access Laboratories. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

76. NetLab Academy Edition Case Study. Net Development Group. Retrieved July 18, 2011 from netdevgroup.com.

Success Through the Innovative Use of NETLAB+ Stanly Community College. Net Development Group. March 23, 2009. Retrieved July 18, 2011 from netdevgroup.com.

77. A detailed design suggestion on handling the issues of network security is addressed in this paper.

Thames, J.L., Hyder, A., Wellman, R., & Schaefer, D. (2009). An Information Technology Infrastructure for internet- enabled Remote and Portable Laboratories. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009.

This assertion of lack of scalability is backed up by the paper:

Lindsay, E., Long, P., & Imbrie, P. (2007). Workshop – Remote Laboratories: Approaches for the Future, Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

78. Thames, J.L., Hyder, A., Wellman, R., & Schaefer, D. (2009). An Information Technology Infrastructure for Internet-enabled Remote and Portable Laboratories. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009.

79. Almgren and Cahow (2005) believed that the factors that were improving computer-based engineering education were a desire to increase active and discovery learning, to make lab facilities available to the wider community and to provide students with more meaningful practical experiences. They believed that the appeal for online labs is due “to the increasing demand for active learning and flexible education, and for the appeal of implementing techniques of learning via discovery” (Almgren & Cahow, 2005, p. 3). They noted the use of a single development environment such as LabVIEW, could enable the instructor to “quickly publish the front panel of any LabVIEW program for use in a standard Web browser” (Almgren & Cahow, 2005, page 3).

Almgren, R. C., & Cahow, J. A. (2005). Evolving technologies and trends for innovative online delivery of engineering curriculum. International Journal on Online Engineering, 1(1), 1-6. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://www.i-joe.org/ojs/viewarticle.php?id=5&layout=abstract.

80. Brown and Lahoud (2005, p. 69) noted the online remote labs offered the most “practical and real world experience.” They continued: “ …they seem to value the functionality and real world experience gained from using online labs. These labs offer both the look and feel of a real world environment, but do so at a cost that is reasonable to the online learner” (p. 69).

Brown, S. A., & Lahoud, H. A. (2005). An examination of innovative online lab technologies. Paper presented at the SIGITE '05. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from ACM database.

81. Gillet, D., Latchman, H.A., Salzmann, CH., & Crisalle, O.D. (n.d.) Hands-On Laboratory Experiments in Flexible and Distance Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 187-191. Retrieved on November 12 2009, from the journal button on asee.org.

82. There is a list of possible opportunities for expanded engineering education in using remote web-based labs in this paper.

Henry, J. (n.d.). Session 3613 24x7: Lab Experiments Access on the Web All the Time. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Retrieved on October 22 2009 from the conference link on asee.org.

83. Zare (2000) remarked that one can get a useful education from an online university but he believed that it devalued the instructor in the learning process. He believed that it was imperative for the teacher to inspire the students by motivating them to learn and to place the materials into a larger context. He also doubted whether online learning would be able to totally replace the hands-on exercises conducted in laboratories. He concluded with the following comment: “Which is better: face-to-face learning or computer aided instruction?” is the wrong question. The right question is “How do you best combine both approaches?” (p. 1106). Naef (2006) echoed these conclusions by remarking on an analytical chemistry experiment using a gas chromatograph he did with students. He felt that a judicious combination of real, virtual and remote laboratories was the optimum approach.

Naef, O. (2006). Real laboratory, virtual laboratory or remote laboratory: What is the most efficient way? International Journal of Online Engineering, 2(3), 1-7. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.i- joe.org/ojs/viewissue.php?id=5#Papers.

Zare, R. N. (2000). On the love of teaching and the challenge of online learning: A few reflections. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(9), 1106.

84. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Oktem, R., Kara, A., Alexandru, M., & Reiner, B. (2009). Requirements for Remote RF Laboratory Applications: An Educators’ Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

85. Gadzhanov, S., & Nafalski, A. (2010). Pedagogical Effectiveness of remote laboratories for measurement and control. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 8(2).

86. The Pros and Cons of Remote Labs. Retrieved from http://www.preal.ece.cmu.edu/pubs/HP_Educator.pdf on the 15 September 2009

87. Ball, E. (n.d.). Netmeeting as a Distance Learning Tool for Electronics. Session 2663. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from the conference section of asee.org.

88. Ferreira, J.M.M., Nedić, Z., Machotka, J., Nafalski, A., & Göl, Ö. (2010). International Collaborative learning using remote workbenches for 8-bit microcontroller courses. Proceedings of the 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education, Pattaya, Thailand.

89. Finally, in considering the nexus with the associated lectures to the labs, Zimmer, Billaud and Geoffroy (2006) noted that for success in this endeavour, it was important that there was a high quality tie up between the equipment or instruments, the PC-based servers and software and the pedagogical environment comprising courses and tutorials.

Zimmer, T., Billaud, M., & Geoffroy, D. (2006). A remote laboratory for electrical engineering education. International Journal of Online Engineering, 2(3), 1-4. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://www.i- joe.org/ojs/viewarticle.php?id=2067&layout=abstract.

Supplementary reading on remote and virtual labs

Due to the inevitable pressure on space, the paper below was not discussed in the main text but is worth reviewing.

A well known exponent on remote labs, Ingvar Gustavsson describes a novel application on remote labs for researching how vehicles must navigate past obstacles in the direction of a guiding light. This involves testing a remote camera and ultra sound transducers.

Gustavsson, I. (2002). A Remote Laboratory for Electrical Experiments. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Session 2359. Retrieved on October 29, 2009 from the conference link on the website asee.org.

Chapter 12

1. This assertion is backed up by research conducted by Slavin who is quoted in Ubell (below). In referring to collaborative learning, Slavin goes so far as to state that “it is perhaps one of the greatest success stories in the history of education” (p.46, Ubell).

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

2. Waldorf, D.J.,& Schlemer, L.T. (2011). The Inside-out classroom: A Win-win-win strategy for teaching with technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The following reference was cited in support of this observation:

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2).

3. Edwards, S.H., & Hodge, D.M. (2003). Lessons Learned by Comparing On-line Education Strategies across Disciplines. Proceedings of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics Journal, 2(6), 1-6. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/sci/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS5294

4. This is noted on p.6 and 7 of the book:

Ubell, R. (ed). (2010). Virtual Teamwork. mastering the Art and Practice of Online Learning and Corporate Collaboration. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.. Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James-Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

5. Bruckman, A. (2002). The Future of E-learning communities. Communications of the ACM, 45(4).

Papert, S. (1991) Situating constructionism in I. Harel and S.Papert, (Eds.), Constructionism. New Jersey: Albex Publishing.

6. Macintyre, R., & Macdonald, J. (May, 2011) Remote from What? Perspectives of Distance Learning Students in Remote Rural Areas of Scotland. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(4).

7. Colwell, J.L., & Jenks, C.F. (2004). Using Peer Evaluations and Teams in Online Classes. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Savannah, GA.

8. Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B.(1999). Engagement Therory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved August 25, 2011 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm. 4th May 1999.

The authors also cite supporting papers and research and a selection are:

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174.

Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1980).Problem based learning: An approach to medical education.. New York: Springer.

Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Kearsley, G. (1997, October). The Virtual Professor: A Personal Case study. Lecture conducted at University of Alberta. Alberta. http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/virtual.htm.

Shneiderman, B. (1994). Education by Engagement and Construction: Can Distance Education be Better than Face-to- Face? [http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/EVE/distance.html].

9. Perhaps a more technically sharper definition of a virtual team from Mike Ryan is contained on p. 17 of:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

10. Allen, S., Ure, D., & Evans, S. (2003). Virtual communities of practice as learning networks: Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University.

11. Woodill, G. (n.d.). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning in Education and Training: The Business Brief. Brandon-Hall Research Report, 1 -24.

12. Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

13. Nystrom, H.E. (2001). University of Missouri-Rolla Integration of On-campus and distance students into Teams. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from the website at asee.org on the 24th November 2009.

14. Machotka, J., Nedić, Z., & Göl, Ö. (2008) Collaborative Learning in the Remote Laboratory NetLab. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 6(3), 22-27. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/sci/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS5294

15. Jordan, L. (2009). Transforming the student experience at a distance: designing for collaborative online learning. Engineering Education, Journal of the Higher Education Academy 4(2). Retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/index.php/ee/article/viewArticle/134/172

16. These suggestions came from Elaine Lehecka Pratt in her chapter on Virtual Teams in Very Small Classes (pages 91-109). The two perspicacious comments are from:

Fast Company, Editor (2005). The Rules of Business: 55 Essential Ideas to Help Smart People (and Organizations) Perform at their Best. Doubleday Business, 159.

And

Is Your Team Too Big? Too Small? What's the Right Number? - Knowledge@Wharton. (n.d.).Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved June 14 2012, from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

17. These suggestions came from Richard Dool in his very readable (and might we add, amusing) chapter 4 on Mitigating Conflict (pages 65–90). There are some excellent examples of documents such as Learning Contracts and a Team Charter in this chapter.

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

18. These suggestions came from Christine Uber Grosse contained in the chapter on Global Corporate Virtual Teams (pages 193-209) in:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

In the discussion on diversity she also quoted from:

Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M., & Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.

19. This section was distilled from Paul Resta and Haekyung Lee, authors of the chapter: Peer and Self- Assessment (pages 45-64) in the book, noted below. However, their paper online is easier to read. This was retrieved August 16, 2011 from: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/cscl/2010/readings/Resta_Lee.pdf

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

20. Delson, N. (2012). RateMyTeamMate.Org: A Proposal for an Online Tool for Team Building and Assessment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

21. This paper focuses on the transformation of a traditional face-to-face class in Engineeirng statics into a web- based course using live 2-way interactive television. Although, the technology is different, the key learning points from using this technology are applicable to web conferencing software.

Ssemakula, M.E. (2001). Implementing Collaborative Learning in a Distance Education Setting. Division of Engineering Technology Wayne State University Session 1647 in 2001 of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved on 10 November 2009 from the conferences section of asee.org.

22. Two useful chapters were referred to in this discussion. These were Chapter 6 (Choosing Online Collaborative Tools) with authors Phlise Banner, M.Katherine (Kit) Brown-Hoekstra, Brenda Huettner, and Char James-Tanny and Chapter 7 (Communication Technologies) with authors Anu Sivunen and Maarit Valo from the book:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

23. The paper referenced was:

Scott, C.R., & Timmerman, C.E. (1999). Communication Technology use and multiple workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 42(4), 240-260.

And this was referred to in the book:

Ubell, R. (2010). Virtual teamwork mastering the art and practice of online learning and corporate collaboration. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Other contributors who were referred to were: Banner, P., Brown-Hoekstra, M.K., Dool, R., Huettner, B., James- Tanny, C., Pratt, E.L., Lee, H., Resta, P.E., Rutkowski, A.-F., Ryan, M., Saunders, C.S., Sivunen, A., Tai, L., Grosse, C.U., Valo, M., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Volchok, E.

24. Edwards, J.T., & Baker, C. (2009). A Case Study: Google Collaboration Applications as Online Course Teaching Tools. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4).

25. Huff, M., William, E., Gupta, V., & Hess, H. (2010). Students Tailor a Practical Web Content Management System for Effective Communications and Coordination among Integrated Project Teams of Industry, Government, and Academic Researchers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

26. These four papers immediately below were cited in the Loh and Smyth paper at the end of this list.

Becker, D., & Dwyer, M. (1998). The impact of student verbal / visual learning style preference on implementing groupware in the classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 61-69.

Black, G. (2002). Student assessment of virtual teams in an online management course. Journal of Business Administration Online, 1. http://jbao.atu.edu/Fall2002/black.pdf.

Haythornwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_2haythornwaite.asp.

Hiltz, S.R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., & Turoff, M. (1999). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 103-125.

Loh, J., & Smyth, R. (2010). Understanding Students’ Online Learning Experiences in Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 335-342.

27. The definition of a social network was cited by Alderton et al (below) in the paper from:

Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boy.ellison.html.

Alderton, E., Brunsell, E., & Bariexca, D. The End of Isolation. (2011). Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 354-365.

28. Alderton, E., Brunsell, E., & Bariexca, D. The End of Isolation. (2011). Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 354-365.

29. Gandhi, L. (2009). Breaking the Ice: Cutting Through Geographic, Cultural, and Time-zone barriers to effectively lead in a global environment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

30. Kavianpour, A., & Layton, D. (2012). Online Teaching of Senior Projects. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering 2012 Conference. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and then Conference Proceedings.

31. Herrera, O.A., & Fuller, D.A. (2011). Collaborative Model for Remote Experimentation laboratories used by non-hierarchical distributed groups of engineering students. Proceedings of the Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 428-445.

This paper is cited on mechanisms in building up knowledge through collaboration:

Dillenbourg, P.& Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the internet. Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction, ICCAI 95. Retrieved 20 May 2011 from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html

32. Gilsinn, J., Rippey, W., Falco, J., Quinn, T., Russell, R., & Stouffer, K. (1999). A Welding Cell that Supports Remote Collaboration. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer Technology in Welding. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from http://www.isd.cme.nist.gov

33. Minichiello, A., Blake, T.D., Goodridge, W.H., & Sam, D.D. (2011). Team Teaching that goes the Distance: Team Instruction for a Broadcast Introductory Engineering Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved September 18, 2011 from asee.org through the links: Paper and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

A book cited in the paper above related to the andragogical approach to instructing (as espoused by Malcolm Knowles):

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

This discussed the issue that adults learn more effectively using experiential techniques such as group discussions, practical exercises, case studies and problem solving in the context of their real working lives.

34. Machotka, J., Nedi , Z., & Göl, Ö. (2008) Collaborative Learning in the Remote Laboratory NetLab. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 6(3) 22-27. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/sci/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS5294

Chapter 13

1. Lawton, D., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Richey, M.C., Dang, V.T., & French, D.E. (2010). Learning Science Principles for Effective Online Learning in the Workplace. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

The study comparing summative and formative assessments was cited from:

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment And Classroom Learning.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

2. Branoff, T.J., & Scales, A.Y. (2010). Understanding How Students in a Face-to-Face Engineering Graphics Course Utilize Online Instructional Resources. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education, 65th Midyear Meeting Proceedings. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://edgd.asee.org/conferences/proceedings/65th%20Midyear/Branoff_Scales_Understanding_Student_Utilization_R esources.pdf

3. Thereran, P. Almanza, O., & Mendoza, H. (2009). Assessment 100% supported by ICT: Possibilities Offered and Risks. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 5(3). Retrieved November 10, 2009 from www.i-jet.org site.

4. The research on quizzes was conducted with students at the Dublin Institute of Technolog’s Bachelor of Electrical/Electronic Engineering Honours degree program.

Dorran, D., & Bowe, B. (2011). Use of Unsupervised Online Quizzes to Support Core Competency Development. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://ineer.org/

5. Warren, S., Tare, N., & Bennett, A. (2008). Lessons Learned from the Application of Online Homework Generation Modules in a Signals and Systems Course. Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2008/

6. Lapp, M., Ringenberg, J., & Fleszar, T.J. (2010). Engineering Online Gateway System – Ensuring and Evaluating Student Learning through Automated, Milestone Examinations. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2010 Conference and Expo. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

7. Cooper, S.T., Tyser, R.W., & Sandheinrich, M.B. (2007). The Benefits of Linking Assignments to Online Quizzes in Introductory Biology Courses. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 214-221.

8. Pai, B.K. (2012). Using Online Quizzes and Discussion Forums to Enhance Learning Numerical Methods. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

9. Sergeyev, A., & Alaraje, N. (2012). Online Electrical Machinery Course Development for University- enrolled Students and Industry Representatives. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

10. Callan, V., & Clayton, B. (2010). E-assessement and the AQTF: Bridging the divide between practitioners and auditors. February 25, 2010. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/files/Eassessment_AQTF_final.pdf

11. Uhomoibhi, J., & Ross, M. (2010). Trends in the Development of E-learning in Engineering and Computing Education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education ICEE 2010, Gliwice, Poland.

12. The software package, WeBWork, was for online assessment of calculus at a two-year college.

Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Ivanov, I. (2008). Online Assignments and Interactive Classroom Sessions: A Potent Prescription for Ailing Success Rates in Calculus. Proceedings of MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 515-525.

13. Malik, M. (2010). Supporting Exam Revision Using Google Talk and Examopedia Wiki, Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 27-30, 2010, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

14. Davis, S. (2009). Creating Appropriate Online Assessment for Quantitative Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the 2009 AAEE Conference, University of Technology, Sydney. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from aaee.com.au

The research on students performing better (as cited above) was reported in the following paper:

Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S.J. (2002). Improving Student Performance through Computer-based assessment: insights from recent research. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5) 475-479.

15. A few typical (mainly biologically based) questions are given on page 99 but an excellent summary of how to go about this is contained in:

Marks, B. (2002). Web-Based Readiness Assessment Quizzes. Journal of Engineering Education 97-102.

16. Mehrabian, A., Ali, T., & Rahrooh, A. (2008). Crafting online Exams in Engineering and Technology: Latest Challenges, Methodologies, and Trends. 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from asee.org from links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

References quoted in this paper which support open book examinations are as follows:

Azad, A., & Song, X. (2006). Internet-based Physical Experiments: Application within a Laboratory Course. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference.

Mehrabian, A., Alvarado, K., & Nahmens, I. (2007). Application of Technology in Project-based distance learning. EISTA 2007.

The Team workability assessment approach referred to in this review is detailed here:

Mehrabian, A., Alvarado, K., & Nahmens, I. (2007). Application of Technology in Project-based distance learning. EISTA 2007.

17. Mehrabian, A., Buchanan, W., Rahrooh, A., Ali, T., Moslehpour, S. (2010). Faculty Practices in Effective Online Student Assessment in Engineering and Technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo.. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The term "honest, open book, open mind" has been quoted in the literature from:

Azad, A., & Song, X. (2006). Internet-based Physical Experiments: Appplication Within a Laboratory Course. America Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference.

Mehrabian, A., Alvarado, K., & Nahmens, I. (2007) Application of Technology in Project-based Distance Learning. EISTA 2007.

18. Williams, J.B., & Wong, A. (2007). Closed Book, invigilated exams vs. open book, open web exams, An Empirical analysis. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org/au/conferences/singapore07/proces/williams-jb.pdf.

19. Saleh, A., Li, J., & Lucas, J. (2011). Internet-hosted assessment system for effective teaching and enhanced learning for engineering subjects. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

20. Aravinthan, T., Lokuge, W., & Manalo, A. (2011) Effectiveness of formative online quizzes in learning and teaching a structural engineering course. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

21. Devine, J., & Lokuge, W. (2012). Engaging Distance Students Through Online Tutorials. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference, Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

The two references that were cited were:

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which Assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.

(the source of the eleven conditions for assessment supporting students’ learning)

Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment For Learner Self-regulation: Enhancing Achievement In The First Year Using Learning Technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335-352.

22. Dirksen, J. (2012). Research for Practitioners: How to Improve Knowledge Retention. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved December 27, 2012 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1080/?utm_campaign=lsmag&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lsm- news

The supporting research cited in this paper is located at:

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping. Science, 331(6018) 772-775. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/772.abstract?sid=3a378ac2-ba8f-4cab-82b7-4ebfe4eb3b07

23. Whittington, J., & Colwell, J. (2009). Should a Cyberethics class be required? Plagiarism and Online Learning, 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from asee.org through the Papers and Publications and then conference link.

24. This comment is cited in:

Pintong, K.P., & Summerville, D.H. (2011). Transitioning a Lab-based Course to an Online Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from asee.org through Papers and Publications and then Conference Proceedings link.

From a paper by:

Harmon, O., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online Exams an Invitation to Cheat? Journal of Economic Education, Heldref Publications.

25. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This survey with 50% admitting cheating was cited in the abovementioned book and is from:

Kleiner, C., & Lord, M. (1999, November 2). The cheating game: “Everyone’s doing it.“ From grade school to graduate school. US News & World Report, pp. 55-66.

26. Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. (2012). Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. Ithaka S+R. Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://www.ithaka.org/about- ithaka/announcements/ithakasr-gates.pdf

27. Bailie, J.L., & Jortberg, M.A. (2009). Online Learner Authentication: Verifying the Identity of Online Users. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 197-207.

The Fraud Triangle cited in the paper by Bailie and Jortberg (above) is discussed in the following book:

Wells, J. T. (1997). Occupational fraud and abuse. Austin, Texas: Obsidian Pub. Co: Austin. TX.

Research on the perceptions of students as to it being easier to cheat online cited in the paper by Bailie and Jortberg above came from the following paper:

King, C.G., Guyette, R.W., & Pietrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Kingetalpaper.pdf.

28. Ramzan, R. (2007). Phishing and Two-Factor Authentication Revisited. Message posted to https://forums2.symantec.com/t5/Online-Fraud/Phishing-and-Two-Factor-Authentication-Revisited/ba-p/306184#A50.

The site above was cited in the paper below:

Bailie, J.L., & Jortberg, M.A. (2009). Online Learner Authentication: Verifying the Identity of Online Users. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2) 197-207.

29. Blauch, A.J. (2003).Online Assessments in an Introduction to Digital Systems Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2003 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

30. Bailie, J.L., & Jortberg, M.A. (2009). Online Learner Authentication: Verifying the Identity of Online Users. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 197-207.

31. Tilsley, A. (2012). Paying for an A. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/21/sites-offering-take-courses-fee-pose-risk-online-ed

32. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33. Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012). Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

34. Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2006). Online student portfolios for demonstration of engineering graduate attributes. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who's learning? Whose technology? The University of Sydney, 623-632. Retrieved May 5, 2012 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p108.pdf

35. Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012). Edited by Diana G. Oblinger. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/books

36. Janet Clarey, (2009). E-learning 101 An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies. Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale. Retrieved on 19 August 2009 from from brandon-hall.com.

In the paper above, Janet Clarey discusses Brandon Hall Research’s approach to Online learning evaluations. It would appear that this evaluation is mainly intended for an asynchronous environment or at least a recording of a synchronous presentation (e.g. “Can users determine their own way through the program? Is there an exit option? Is there a course map ?...”)

37. Thongsamak, S., Scales, G., & Peed, C. (2007). Development and Implementation of a Balanced Scorecard for Engineering Distance Learning Programs at Virginia Tech. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education 2007 Conference and Expo. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

More details of the Balanced Scorecard approach are detailed in:

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1998). The balanced scorecard – Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, 123-145. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

38. Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2008). Is Off-campus Engineering Study off the Agenda? Professional Accreditation and Distance Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning 2008(II) 1–9, European Distance and E- learning Network, Budapest, Hungary.

Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2008/Palmer_Hall.htm

39. Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2006). Online student portfolios for demonstration of engineering graduate attributes. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who's learning? Whose technology? The University of Sydney 623-632. Retrieved February 26, 2012 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p108.pdf

40. Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2008). Is Off-campus Engineering Study off the Agenda? Professional Accreditation and Distance Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning 2008(II) 1–9, European Distance and E- learning Network, Budapest, Hungary.

Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2008/Palmer_Hall.htm

Carnevale is quoted and is referenced as follows:

Carnevale, D. (2002). Engineering Accreditors Struggle to set Standards for Online Lab Sessions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(25), A33.

41. An analysis was conducted in this paper on how remote labs fit into the accreditation criteria enunciated by Engineers Australia. A reasonably detailed criterion-by-criterion assessment was conducted to show that appropriate application of remote labs can have a positive impact on the assessment criteria.

Lindsay, E., & Stumpers, B. (2011). Remote laboratories: enhancing accredited engineering degree programs. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

42. Marcus, J. (n.d.). Cap and gown learning on a shoestring budget | General | Times Higher Education. Times Higher Education - Education news and university jobs.

Retrieved February 26, 2012 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419088&c=2

43. Shank, R. (1998). Horses for Courses. Communication of the ACM, 41(7), 23-25.

This was cited in Swan, K. (2001). Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction And Perceived Learning In Asynchronous Online Courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

44. Lorenzetti, J. P. (n.d.). A Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs | The Sloan Consortium. The Sloan Consortium | Individuals, Institutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education. Retrieved June 15, 2012 from http://sloanconsortium.org/quality_scoreboard_online_program

Chapter 14

1. A discussion on this issues is contained in the paper listed below referring to page 37 from:

Feyten, C. M., & Nutta, J. W. (1999). Virtual instruction issues and insights from an international perspective. Englewood, Colo: Libraries Unlimited.

Gray, J.R., Clemmer, G. (2008). Master of Science in Technology via Distance Learning: Distance Learning Leaders, Benchmarks and Policies. Session 3247. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from conference link of asee.org.

2. Azemi, A. (2008). AC 2008-1944 Enhancement of Traditional and distance learning through hybrid e- learning approach. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from conference link of asee.org.

3. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

There is a excellent detailed set of procedures and policies contained on pages 68-73 of the book mentioned above.

4. Lightfoot was cited in the paper below:

Lightfoot, J. (2006). A Comparative Analysis Of E-mail And Face-to-face Communication In An Educational Environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 217-227.

Ozan, E., Tabrizi, M., Wuensch, K., Aziz, S., & Kishore, M. (2007). Learning Effectiveness as a Function of the Technologies Employed in Online Learning Settings. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

5. 1080 Group, LLC (2008). Five Keys to Getting Started with Interactive Online Training (A 1080 Group White Paper Prepared for Citrix Online in March 2008).

6. Cohen, M.S., & Ellis, T.J. (2006). Defining the Requirements for the Next Generation Asynchronous Computer Mediated Communications System for Use in Online Education: A Faculty Perspective. Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2006/index.html

7. Zvacek, S.M. (2009) Creating Engaging Online Courses. Proceedings of the International Journal of Online Learning (iJOE), 5(2) 8-9. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-joe/article/view/1093

8. Peslak, A.R. (2003). Teaching Computer Information Systems via Distance Education: A Researched and Personal Perspective. Information Systems Education Journal, 1(12).

Supporting commentary from the second paragraph come from:

Roblyer, M., & Marshall, J.C. (2003) Predicting success of virtual high school students: preliminary results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 35(2). 241-255.

9. Scott, C.J., James, P.A., Astatke, Y., & Ladeji-Osias, J.O. (2012). Useful Strategies for Implementing and Online Undergraduate Electrical Engineering Program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

10. Everson, M. (2009). 10 Things I've Learned About Teaching Online. eLearn,2009(9), 2.

11. Landay, S. D. (2009). Tips And Tools For Fostering A Creative E-Learning Class.eLearn, 2009(9), 3. Retrieved on 23 September 2009 from elearn.org magazine.

12. Bozarth, J. (n.d.). Nuts and Bolts: The 10-Minute Instructional Design Degree by Jane Bozarth: Learning Solutions Magazine. Learning Solutions Magazine: Home. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/739/?utm_campaign=lsmag&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lsm- news.

13. Schmidt, K., Garcia, J., & Webber, M. (2009). Creators, Participants, and Observers: Clickers, Blogs, and Podcasting offer students more than just a seat in the Classroom. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from asee.org Papers and Publications and thence conference links.

14. Fletcher, M.L., & Bjerkaas, A.W. (2012). Structured Design Approach for Converting Classroom Courses for Online Delivery. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

15. Scherrer, C., & Butler, R. (2009). Developing a Standard Student Interface for Online courses thought Usability Studies. Conference Proceedings from 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

16. Batts, D., Monroe, R., Pagliari, L., Jackson, S., & McFadden, C. (2007). Preparation for Online Teaching and Actual Practices for Technology Oriented Courses. Conference. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

They quote from Ehrman and Hewett on: ‘Instructors cannot transplant their understandings, strategies, and skills from face-to-face to online teaching environments’.

Ehrman, C., & Hewett, B. (2005). Designing a Principles-based Online Training Program for Instructors. Distance Learning 2, 9-13.

17. Bower, B. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4, 1-6.

This was referred to in the paper by:

Batts, D., Monroe, R., Pagliari, L., Jackson, S., & McFadden, C. (2007). Preparation for Online Teaching and Actual Practices for Technology Oriented Courses. Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

18. These comments are quoted from two papers:

Wolf, P. D. (2006). Best Practices In The Training Of Faculty To Teach Online.Journal of Computing in Higher Education,17(2), 47-78.

Schoenfield-Tacher, R., & Persichitte, K.A. (2000). Differential Skills and competencies required of faculty teaching distance education courses. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 22. Retrieved October 20, 2006 (http://smi.curtin.edu.au/ijet/v2n1/schoenfield-tacher).

19. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.) (1987). Seven Principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 38(7) 3-7.

20. A few suggestions for instructors This paper was cited:

Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-Learner Interaction In Online Courses: The Relative Perceived Importance Of Particular Instructor Actions On Performance And Satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.

From within this one:

Ozelkan, E.C., & Galambosi, A. (2011). Perception and Preferences of Faculty for Online Learning. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Exposition. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from www.asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and then Conference Proceedings.

Orabi, I.I. (2008). Comparison of Student Performance in an Online with Traditional Based Entry Level Engineering Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Middle-Atlantic Section Spring- 2008. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from asee.org through the link http://www.asee.org/papers-and- publications/papers/section-proceedings/middle-atlantic/spring-2008

21. Murray, S.L., Enke, D., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2004). Successfully Blending Distance Students into the On- Campus Classroom. Conference Proceedings from the American Society of Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

22. Devine, J., & Lokuge, W. (2012). Engaging Distance Students Through Online Tutorials. Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference, Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012

23. Miertschin, S., Goodson, C., & Schroeder, S. (2010). Online Tutoring Support System for STEM. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Conferences and Conference Proceedings.

24. Power, C., & Dunphy, K. (2010). Peer facilitated learning in Mathematics for Engineering: a case study from an Australian university. Engineering Education, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.engsc.ac.uk on January 10, 2011.

25. McPherson, M., & Nunes, M.B. (2004). The Role of Tutors as an Integral Part of Online Learning Support. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=105

Berge suggested four main roles (as cited above) in his book:

Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations From the Field. Educational Technology. 35(1) 22-30.

26. Karlsson, G., Johannesson, C., Thorbiornson, J., & Hellstrom, M. (2007). Net Based Examination: Small Group Tutoring, Home Assignments, and Large Group Automatic and Peer Assessment. iJOE International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. Manuscript 25, 2007. Paper presented at the IDBL2007 conference, Florianololis, Brazil, May 2007.

27. Lewis, V. (2008). Effective Execution of Surveying Laboratories in Distance Learning Using Local Mentors. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

28. Wolfe, C. (2009). 10 Ways To Ensure Distance Learning Success. eLearn,2009(12), 6. Retrieved from elearn.org under the Best practice Link on the 23 December 2009.

29. Jackson, S., & Jackson, A. (2009). Documented Differences in Student preferences regarding assignment due dates in distance-education (DE) courses. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 21, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

30. Liberatore, M.W. (2011). Improved Student Achievement In Material and Energy Balances Using Personalized Online Homework. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition, Retrieved February 27, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

31. Manning, K.S. (2010). Work in Progress – Outsourcing the Lecturing in an Engineering Physics Class. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

32. Chivikula, V.S., Shur, M., & Liu, K. (2009). Remote Experimentation Lab for Learning Disabled Students. Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference, University of Adelaide, 6-9 December 2009.

33. Wiak, S., Jeske, D., Krasuski, M., & Stryjek, R. (2012). An innovative interactive e-learning platform. 1st WIETE Annual Conference on Engineering and Technology Education. Pattaya, Thailand, 22-25 February 2010.

34. Liberatore, M.W., Vestal, C.R., & Herring, A.M. (2012). YouTube Fridays: Student led development of engineering estimate problems. Advances in Engineering Education Winter 2012. American Society for Engineering Education.

35. Miertschin, S.L., Goodson, C.E., & Stewart, B.L. (2012). Managing Time in Online Courses: Student Perceptions. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

A widely accepted definition of time management was quoted from:

Lakein, A. (1973). How to get control of your time and your life. New York: Peter H. Wyden.

Support for the assertion that time management skills and grade point average are associated was quoted from:

Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects Of Time-management Practices On College Grades.. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405-410.

36. In her report E-learning 101: An Introduction to E-learning, Learning Tools and Technologies (Janet Clarey, Brandon-Hall Research, Sunnyvale downloaded from the website: brandon-hall.com on the 15 August 2009, pp.28-29), Janet Clarey, discussed the various emerging technologies and trends.

37. Fisher, T., Worley, W.L., Fernandez, E. (2012). Using Web 2.0 and Social Networking Technologies in the Classroom: A Comparison of Faculty and Student Perceptions. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

38. Loch and McDonald noted the comments from others (Guimaraes, Barbastefano, & Belfort, 2002).

Loch, B., & McDonald, C. (2007). Synchronous Chat and Electronic Ink for Distance Support in Mathematics. Retrieved from The Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova Southeastern University accessed February 5, 2007 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=374

Guimaraes, L. C., Barbastefano, R., & Belfort, E. (2002). Tools for Synchronous Distance Learning in Geometry. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on the teaching of Mathematics, Hersonissos, Crete.

39. Jones, R.C. World Expertise and Oberst, B.S (2004). Electronic Conferencing for Faculty Continuing Development. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved on 21st October from the asee.org site.

40. Mutter, B. (2009). AC 2009-1752: Development of a Web-based course in miner safety training. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved on 10th November 2009 from the asee.org site.

41. Brooke Broadbent from e-learninghub.com gives a detailed description of handling negativity with online learning implementations.

Broadbent, B. (2005). Facing Resistance to Change: the Dark Side of Your e-Learning Project. E-Learning Hub. Accessed in June 2005.

42. Azemi, A (2009). AC 2009-2216: Designing an Effective Distance Course Using a Synchronous and Hybrid e-Learning Approach. American Society for Engineering Education. Downloaded from the asee.org site conferences site on the 10 October 2009.

43. Azemi, A (2009). AC 2009-2216: Designing an Effective Distance Course Using a Synchronous and Hybrid e-Learning Approach. American Society for Engineering Education. Downloaded from the asee.org site conferences site on the 10 October 2009.

44. The focus here would appear to be mainly asynchronous as is stated in the Abstract. However it does have relevance to synchronous presentations as this is briefly alluded to and indeed, Dr Trippe, also presents a blended course where (synchronous) classroom sessions are used.

Trippe, A.P. (2002). A Methodology for Planning Distance Learning Courses. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Rochester Institute of Technology Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering Technology Department. Retrieved on 16 October 2009 from the conferences section of the asee.org site.

45. Dadvidson, B., Davidson, R., Gay, G., Ingraffea, A., Miller, M., Nozick, L., Zehnder, A., Sheckler, R., & Rath, C. (2002). Distance Design Collaboration Through an Advanced Interactive Discovery Environment. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Session 1302. Retrieved from the conferences section of the asee.org site on the 23 September 2009.

46. Klosky, J. Hains, D., Evers, J.A. Erickson, & J.B. Ressler, S. (2006). 2006-1450: Aim for Better Student Learning: Best Practices for Using Instant Messaging and Live Video to Facilitate Instructor-student Communication. American Society for Engineering Education. US Military Academy. Downloaded from the conferences link on the asee.org site on the 18th November 2009.

47. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48. Mason, H-A.& Najafi, F.T. (2004). Technology Based Distance Learning at the University of Florida, College of Engineering - Graduate Engineering Education on Demand. Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

49. Trippe, A.P. (2002). Training for Distance Learning Faculty. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

50. Trippe, A.P. (2002). Training for Distance Learning Faculty. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

Research in terms of reducing student attrition is derived from the following paper:

Thomerson, J. D., & Smith, C. L. (1996). Student Perceptions Of The Affective Experiences Encountered In Distance Learning Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 37-48.

51. Frisbee, M.D., & Sharer, D.L. (2003). Providing Additional Support to Internet-Based Learning by Applying Supplemental Instruction Techniques. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 24, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

52. Colwell, J.L. (2005). Are Student Perceptions of the Instructor Muted in Online Classes? Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 19-22, 2005, Indianapolis. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2005/index.htm.

53. Yu, R. (n.d.). eLearning's Benefits Are Obvious: Why Don't They Like It? Learning Solutions Magazine: Home. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/674/elearnings-benefits-are- obvious-why-don’t-they-like-it.

54. Collier, L. (n.d.). Online Education for Instructional Designers: Picking the Right Program by Lorna Collier: Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/670/online- education-for-instructional-designers-picking-the-right-program.

55. Lambert, S., & Corrin, L. (2006). Moving Towards a University-wide Implementation of an ePortfolio Tool. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite conference: Who's learning? Whose technology? The University of Sydney, 441-450.

The purposes of ePortfolios are referred to in the following paper:

Barrett, H. (2001) Electronic Portfolios, Retrieved July 28, 2006 from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/encycentry.pdf.

56. Aziz, S.M. (2011). ePortfolios to empower students in providing evidence of learning and professional development. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

57. Chivukula, V.S., Veksler, D., & Shur, M.S. (2008). Work in Progress - Remote Experimentation Lab for Students with Learning Disabilities. Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. October 22-25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2008/index.htm.

58. Barnes, F.S. (2003). A New Frontier in Engineering Education: Importing courses. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, Co. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2003/index.htm.

59. A well-known commentator in the online learning sphere is Carol Twigg; and some of the commentary cited here arises from her article on the subject:

Twigg, C. A. (n.d.). NCAT: Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials?.NCAT Homepage. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from www.thencat.org/Monographs/Whoowns.html

Masson, S.R. (2010). Online Highway Robbery: Is your Intellectual Property Up for Grabs in the Online Classroom? Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6(1), March 2010.

60. Hooper, J., Pollanen, M., & Teismann, H. (2006). Effective Online Office Hours in the Mathematical Sciences. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 2(3).

The free software package, called enVision, referred to in this paper can be downloaded from xiom.org. It has to be installed on a web server and this can be a little challenging for the neophyte.

61. Santarelli, K.W. (2010). An Evolving Model for Delivering Engineering Education to a Distant Location. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Zone IV Conference. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications & Conference Proceedings.

62. Batts, D., Dunn, C., & Friend, S. (2010). Reflection and Results of a Pilot Project on the Scalability of Large Online Courses. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 27-30, 2010, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

Chapter 15

1. Nilssen, A., & Greenberg, A. (May 2008). The Evolving Role of Web Seminars and On-line Events in the Marketing Mix: Applications & Results from a Sales and Marketing Perspective. Wainhouse Research. Duxbury, MA. Downloaded from wainhouse.com.

2. Although one would question the relevance of this research for engineers and technicians, it would appear that the points made here for marketing and sales professionals are likely to have a similar impact as they are focusing on the technology issues. The Wainhouse Research Whitepaper is entitled:

Nilssen, A., & Greenberg, A. (May 2008). The Evolving Role of Web Seminars and On-line Events in the Marketing Mix: Applications & Results from a Sales and Marketing Perspective. Wainhouse Research. Duxbury, MA. Downloaded from wainhouse.com.

3. This was discussed by Elliot Masie in his email message of August 30, 2011 entitled: Webinar No-Show Rates ? From his series of emails Learning TRENDS No. 680 - Updates on Learning, Business & Technology. http://www.masieweb.com/trends/subscribe-to-trends

The MASIE Center, PO Box 397, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 USA

4. How to use Fewer, More Relevant Webinars to Get Better Results: 6 Steps Lift Attendance 422%. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from MarketingSherpa.com

5. This whitepaper is a useful document to read about marketing your webinar. It does perhaps focus more on activities which are looking to sell a product or service rather than education and training, but the principles are similar.

GotoMeeting Corporate. (2009). The Definitive Webinar Marketing eGuide: A Quantum Leap Marketing eGuide. Philadelphia, PA: GotoMeeting Corporate. Downloaded from the link entitled marketing tips on the website yourcuttingedgemarketingtips.com on 19th February 2010.

6. This whitepaper is a useful document to read about marketing your webinar. It does perhaps focus more on activities which are looking to sell a product or service rather than education and training, but the principles are similar.

GotoMeeting Corporate. (2009). The Definitive Webinar Marketing eGuide: A Quantum Leap Marketing eGuide. Philadelphia, PA: GotoMeeting Corporate. Downloaded from the link entitled marketing tips on the website yourcuttingedgemarketingtips.com on 19th February 2010.

7. 11 Webinar Mistakes You Need to Avoid. (n.d.). Salesopedia - The World of Sales from A to Z - Times are a Changing. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://www.salesopedia.com/sales-tips-sales-tips/2430-11-webinar- mistakes-you-need-to-avoid.

8. Richman, H.S (November 2012) Stay in Touch Marketing: How to use Newsletters to Propel an eLlearning Consulting Practice. Elearning Mag. Retrieved from www.elearnmag.org 10th January 2011.

9. Robertson, J. (2011). Who, What, Where, Why, Webinar? WTGNews. Retrieved March 29, 2011 from http://www.wtgnews.com/2011/01/who-what-where-why-webinar-2/

Some commentary on this survey was ably provided by Ken Molay who runs a very informative blog on web conferencing technologies and techniques at http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/ made some additional comments.

10. Granoff, J. (2008). MarketingProfs Research Insights. 9 Management Practices for Exceptional Webinars. Proven Strategies to build a lead-generation engine. Retrieved May 2, 2011 from marketingprofs.com via search engine.

11. Hanson, R. (2011). Using Social Media to Advance Your Online Training Program eGuide: A Quantum Leap Marketing eGuide. Quantum Leap Marketing. Philadelphia, PA.

12. Montague, D., Parker, M., Hanson, S., & Chastain, C. (2007). Numbers: Using Innovative Online Course Support Strategies to Raise College Course Enrollment. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 3(4), 429-436.

Chapter 16

1. A detailed description of how to apply Moodle to your laboratory work is given in:

Daku, B. (2009). Individualized Laboratory Using Moodle. 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference October 18-21, 2009, San Antonio, Texas. A high quality Moodle book can be downloaded from the moodle.org site.

This is written by

Cole, J. R. (2005). Using Moodle: teaching with the popular open source course management system. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Community Press.

2. A description of the laboratory is discussed in this paper. There were no dates on the document but they would appear to be done on or before 2000.

Salzmann, Gillet, D. Latchman, H.A., & Crisalle, O.D. Session 2532. Retrieved from the conference section of the asee.org site on the 16 October 2009.

3. Rajagopal, C (2008). Distance Learning Delivery of a Web-based Degree in Electrical / Electronics Engineering Technology, which Incorporates Hands-on Laboratory Experiments and Real Time Video. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from Conference section of the American Society for Engineering Education. AC 2008-2925. asee.org on the 12 September 2009.

4. This is an interesting and recent (2008) paper giving some useful diagrams of layout of the classroom, equipment required, budgeting and a survey of students on their experience with web conferencing.

Plett, M., Peter, D., Parsons, S., & Gjerding, B (2008). AC 2008-281: The Virtual Synchronous Classroom: Real Time Off-campus Classroom Participation with Adobe Connect. American Society for Education Engineering. Retrieved on 5 November 2009 from the asee.org.

5. Edirisingha, P., & Fothergill, J. (2009) Balancing e-Lectures with Podcasts: A Case Study of an Undergraduate Engineering Module. Engineering Education 4(2). Retrieved from engsc.ac.uk on January 10, 2011.

6. Uren, M., & Uren, J. (2009). eTeaching and eLearning to Enhance Learning for a Diverse Cohort. Engineering Education 4(2).

Retrieved from engsc.ac.uk on January 10, 2011.

7. Hsiung, S.C. (2007). Managing a Distance Learning EET Laboratory Course Using Collaboration Software. Proceeding of the 2007 Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from Paper and Publications/Conference papers link on asee.org

8. Blanton, W.H. (2004). Distance Learning Opportunities for Electronic Engineering Technology Graduates of Community Colleges. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Paper and thence Conference Proceedings.

9. Yaprak, E., & Anneberg, L. (2003). Laboratory-oriented Distance Learning. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

10. Yaprak, E. (2006). Integrating Teaching and Technology Using Coelive. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2006 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers, and Conference Proceedings.

11. Dhillon, H., & Anwar, S. (2007). A Framework for the Assessment of Online Engineering Technology Courses: A Case Study. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved January 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 in the paper above provide a really useful way of measuring quality of an online education program and could be effectively used to measure the success or otherwise of your programs.

12. Brown, C., Lu, Y-H, Meyer, D., & Johnson, M.C. (2008) Hybrid Content Delivery: Online Lectures and Interactive Lab Assignments. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

13. Reid, K.J. (2006). Study of the Success or Failure of Changing Freshman Engineering Technology Courses to an Online Format: Did it Work? Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE, Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28-31, San Diego, CA.

14. Belu, R., & Korain, D. (2010). Development Of An E Learning System And A Virtual Laboratory For Renewable Energy Sources. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

15. Pop, D., Zutin, D.G., Auer, M.E., Henke, K., & Wuttke, H.-D. (2011) An Online Lab to Support a Master Program in Remote Engineering. Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/.

16. Mwikirize, C., Asiimwe, A.T., Musasizi, P.I., Tikodri-Togboa, S.S., Katumba, A., & Butime, J. (2010). New Dimensions in Teaching Digital Electronics: A Multimode Laboratory Utilising NI ELVIS II, LabVIEW and NI Multisim. Proceedings of iJOE, 6(4).

17. Kukula, E.P., & Elliot, S.J. (2007). The Challenges Associated with Laboratory-based Distance Education. Proceedings of EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1).

18. Buechler, D.N., Sealy, P.J., & Goomey, J. (2011). Use of Technology to Assist and Assess Distance Students in Integrated Electrical Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

19. Rosen, W.A., & Carr, M.E. (2011). An Online Laboratory-based Graduate Engineering Technology course in Programmable Devices and Systems. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

20. Jackson, J.R., Barnwell, T.P., Schafer, R.W., Williams, D.B., Hayes, M.H., & Anderson, D.V. (2001). Online DSP Education: DSP for Practicising Engineers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2001 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

21. (Harrison, R & Dupuis, R., personal communication, June 15, 2012)

22. Charlotte, T. (2007). Online Learning: Anywhere, Anytime, Radically Altering Education for Engineers. SWE Spring 2007, 30-38.

23. Although somewhat dated (2001), this is a successful example of a remote laboratory and distance education course. One would be a little concerned about the economics of the distance learning with the few students; but this is not assessed in the whitepaper.

Gurocak, H. (2001). e-Lab: An Electronic Classroom for Real-Time Distance Delivery of A Laboratory Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 90 (4), pp. 695-705.

24. Shelley, J.S. (2010). Technology to the Rescue! Lessons Learned from the forced on-line streaming of Dynamics Class. Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Zone IV Conference. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications & Conference Proceedings.

25. Diong, B. Smith, J. Kolesar, E., & Cote, R. (2009). AC 2009-1053 Remote Experimentation with MEMS Devices. Retrieved from American Society for Engineering Education asee.org on the 10th November 2009.

26. McAfee, L.C. (2008). Distance Education for Microsystems Courses and Degrees. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education “New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century”. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2008/full_papers/full_paper216.pdf

27. Chen, J. (2009). The Effectiveness of Asynchronous Podcasting of Classes. Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from asee.org through Paper and Publications and then Conference Proceedings link.

28. Peterson, W., Petersen, H., & Goebel, A. (2009). AC 2009-932 Online Manufacturing Engineering Technology Courses: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. Retrieved February 5, 2011 from asee.org under conference proceedings.

29. Paredes, J., Atkins, D., Schrage, D. Wittenborn, D., & Richey, M. (2009). Using Distance Learning for CAD- based training and PLM Education of Incumbent Engineers. 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from Paper and Publications /Conference papers link on asee.org.

30. Hartman, N.W., & Springer, M.L. (2011) A Distance Learning Hybrid Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Certificate Program in Technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

31. Badjou, S. (2011). Integrating Online Learning to Junior-Level Electromechanical Design. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Expo Vancouver, B.C. Canada. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Conference Proceedings and Papers and Publications.

32. Brown, A., Hughes, O., McCue, L. , Neu, W., & Tretola, B. (2007).

Distance Learning in the Graduate-Level Ocean Engineering Curriculum. 2007 ASEE Conference and Exposition.

Retrieved February 4, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Publications and Papers and Conference Proceedings.

The Eduventures study referred to is:

Porter, J.R. (2006). Employers favor online training of workers for its flexibility and brevity, survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education. 53(15), A27.

The Scales et al research is referred to:

Scales, G.R., Peed, C.A., Hagerty, N.W., & Farrar, G.R. (2006). Market Research Study Virginia Tech Distance Learning Program, College of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

33. Baker, J., Capece, V., & Rouch, K. (2010). Effective use of Screencasting Software in Engineering Courses. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 22, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

34. Drushel, R., & Gallagher, J. (2008). The Virtual Classroom Environment of a www-based Autonomous Laboratory: Factors Affecting Student Participation, Communication and Performance. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

35. Klosky, J.L.,& Ressler, S. (2007). The Remote Classroom: Asynchronous Delivery of Engineering Courses to a Widely Dispersed Student Body. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

36. Wroblewski, D.E., & Lawton, M.D. (2002). Redesign of an Introductory Mechanics Course for Online Delivery. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

37. Rosul, B., Latif, N., Zahraee, M.A., & Sikoski, A. (2011). Modular Curriculum Development for Mechatronics Technicians. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Expo and Conference. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

38. Waldorf, D.J.,& Schlemer, L.T. (2011). The Inside-out Classroom: A Win-win-win Strategy for Teaching with Technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 23, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

39. Clauss, M., Allison, B., Reuber, M., Birmingham, S., & DiStasi, V. (2008). A Successful Model for Engineers Studying Abroad: A Foreign Study Center with Concurrent Instruction. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

40. Chakrabarti, S., & Hunsinger, K.A. (2012). Developing a Successful Framework for Online Delivery of Non- Credit Engineering Short Courses to Global Aerospace Professionals. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

41. Kim, S., & Fasse, R. (2006). Blend It! Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Conference & Expo. Retrieved on March 16, 2011 from the asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings

42. Smyser, B., & DiBiasio, D. (2010). Converting Existing Lecture courses to Distance Learning. 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings & Expo. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

43. Luks, C.P. (2009) Blended Online Learning with a Traditional Course. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

44. Hesser, T., & Collura, M.(2009). Web-Based Classes for Enhancement of Pre-laboratory Lectures. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 19, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

45. Brun, G.W., & Vargas, R.M.F. (2004). The Construction of a Virtual Learning Environment in Fluid Mechanics in an Undergraduate School. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education and Research “Progress Through Partnership”.

46. This paper examines a distance learning approach to both undergraduate and graduate education. It doesn’t explore some of the more difficult issues such as laboratories and whether it is a really a 100% distance learning course (with tutorials on campus it would appear not to be the case). One could also argue about the precise structure of the graphs that are drawn making an interesting point about the intensity of study (Figures 1, 2 and 3).

Grant, C.D., & Dickson, B.R. (2009). New Approaches to Teaching and Learning for Industry-based Engineering Professionals. Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Strathclyde Paper 2213. Downloaded from the conferences section of asee.org on the 12 September 2009.

47. One can never be quite sure of the precise enrolment figures and resultant success of this online initiative by Learningtree International, but they are promoting it aggressively and they do note in their financial report (which would have to be accurate) in February 2010, that it is going well with thousands of enrollments.

Learningtree. Learningtree International. Anyware™ software web page. Retrieved February 20, 2010 from the Learningtree Anyware link on learningtree.com site.

Berbary, D.F. (January 2011). Virtual Learning and Class Participation in Real Time. Training + Development. Retrieved November 29, 2011 from learningtree.com site.

48. An interesting survey was conducted with detailed graphs on the result of a graduate level computer engineering course to a mixture of mainly on-campus students with a smaller percentage of mature age (“off-the-the-main-campus”) students.

DaSilva, L.A. (2001). Large-scale Synchronous / Asynchronous Collaborative Distributed Learning in a Graduate Level Computer Engineering Course. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Session 1658.

Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Downloaded from the asee.org site on the 14 November 2009.

49. A detailed set of instructions on how to set up and run the internetworking lab as well as a useful table on how this lab complies with the US ABET Engineering Accreditation Criteria is given in this paper.

Kazan, W., Jabbour, I., & Hayek, A. (2006). 2006-1824 Remote Internetworking Laboratory Jabbour, I., Stanford University. Downloaded from the conference link from the American Society of Engineering Education 23 October 2009 at asee.org

50. We had some difficulty unravelling the precise definitions used here for blended, hybrid or flexible online learning delivery. It would appear that the two different forms of blended learning are as follows: Hybrid online learning consisted of virtual synchronous presentations supplemented by asynchronous online learning courseware. Flexible delivery comprised synchronous online together with traditional face-to-face presentations.

Azemi, A. (2008). AC 2008-1944 Enhancement of Traditional and Distance Learning Through Hybrid e-Learning Approach. Pennysylvania State University. Downloaded from conference link of asee.org of the American Society of Engineering Education 2008 on the 20th October 2009

51. Chaya, H. (2008). Distance Learning with Limited Bandwidth. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 18, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Paper and thence Conference Proceedings.

52. Rockland, R., Kimmel, H., Hirsch, L., Carpinelli, J.,& Burr-Alexander, L. (2010). Technology and Learning Objects in the Engineering Technology Classroom. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The definition of a learning object is quoted from:

Polsani, Pithamer R. (2003) Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning Objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4).

53. Farook, O., Sekhar, C., Agrawal, J., & Bouktache, E. (2010). Designing of a Course Content Server for the Distance Learning Delivery Format. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

54. Ariyapperuma, S., & Minhas, K. (2004). Web-Based Curriculum as a Pedagogic Tool for E-learning in Network Security. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Savannah, GA.

55. El-Sheikh, E.M. (2009). Techniques for Engaging Students in an Online Computer Programming Course. Proceedings of the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 7(1), pp. 1-12. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/Contents.asp?var=&Previous=ISS7701

56. Rajala, S., & Miller, T. (2007). The Development of Undergraduate Distance Education Engineering Programs in North Carolina. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2007 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

57. Note that the material on germane cognitive load was cited from:

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251-296.

In

Impelluso, T. (2009). Distance Learning and Cognitive Load Theory to Improve Traditional and Non-Traditional Student Learning of Computer Programming for Mechanical Engineers: Quantitative Assessment. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

58. Dong, J., & Guo, H. (2012). Improving Project-based Learning via Remote OPNET-based Lab Sequence in Undergraduate Computer Networking Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

59. Azemi, A., & D'Imperio, N. (2009). New Approach to teaching an Introductory Computer Science Course. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved on February 10, 2011 from asee.org via Papers & Publications and thence Conference Proceedings.

60. Memon, A., Shih, L.& Thinger, B. (2006). Development and Delivery of Nuclear Engineering Technology On-line Courses The Excelsior College Experience. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

61. Hines, J.W., Miller, L.F., Pevey, R.E., Townsend, L.W., Upadhyaya, B.R., & Dodds, H.L (2002). The Use of Information Technology in the University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering Distance Education Program. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Nuclear Engineering Department, The University of Tennessee Downloaded from the conference link on the asee.org website on the 16 November 2009.

62. Hall, S., Amelink, C.T., & Hu, D. (2012). Designing and Implementing an Online Offering of a Nuclear Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

63. Huguet, M.-P., Haley, T.& Danon, Y. (2010). Hands-on Nuclear Engineering Education: A blended Approach. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Conference & Expo. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

64. Koch, D., & Joseph, O. (2009). Graduate Education in Construction Management: Success Online. 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from asee.org from links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

65. Shaurette, M., & Orczyk, J. (2011). Overcoming the Challenges of Distance Education Delivery of a Master of Science Degree in Construction Management. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

66. Kuprenas, J.A., & Nasr, E.B. (November 2009). Performance Assessment of Distance Education Network (DEN) Methods. Proceedings of the First Kuwait Conference on e-Systems and e-Services, Kuwait University.

67. Aravinthan, T., & Manalo, A. (2011). Student Performance in an Online Postgraduate Course on Fibre Composites for Civil Engineers. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from aaee.com.au/conferences/2011/papers/index.html

68. Holdhusen, M. James-Byrnes, C., & Rodriguez, L (2008). AC 2008-741 Lesson Study for a Distance Education Statics Course. Downloaded from the American Society for Engineering Education Conference link for 2008 asee.org on the 15th November 2009.

69. This paper has an additional title to the one below of: “Developing a Distance Learning Program in Industrial Technology”.

Austin, D. (2007). AC 2007-2782 A Web-based Program in Industrial Technology. The American Society for Engineering Education. Downloaded from the conference link on the website of asee.org on the 23 October 2009.

70. Sener, E., & Lucas, L.(2001) Ensuring Quality Articulation for Enhancement of Construction Workforce Education. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Session 1421. Downloaded from the asee.org site on the 29th October 2009.

71. Ray Tolhurst from the Illawarra Institute outlined the program in the book

Tolhurst, R. (2003). Blended Learning – 3 – The Exemplars. National Training Authority. ISBN 1 877057215.

72. Mutter, B. (2009). Development of a Web-based Course in Miner Safety Training. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Expo. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from asee.org at links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

73. Edmonson, C.P., & Segalewitz, S (2005). A blended On-line Engineering Technology Course using Web Conferencing Technology. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Downloaded from the asee.org site on 10 August 2009.

74. Rodriguez-Marek, E., Koh, M.-S., Talarico, C., & Nyathi, J. (2011). Distance Education Program in Electrical Engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference and Expo. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from asee.org through the links: Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

75. Petersen, H., & Peterson, W., AC 2009-938: Converting Face-to-face Classes to Web-based On-line College Classes. Downloaded from the conference section of the asee.org site on the 15th October 2009.

76. Some good graphical displays of use of an interactive whiteboard and use of Windows Journal in working effectively with engineering formulas are shown in the paper:

Crofton, J., Rogers, J., Pugh, C., & Evans, K. (2007) AC 2007-350: The Use of Elluminate Distance-learning Software in Engineering Education. Downloaded from the asee.org site on the 3 November 2009. The first two authors were lecturers from Murray State University and the latter two were students at the University of Kentucky.

77. This is a topic not normally discussed much but with distance learning operating globally these days, it is an important topic. It would have been useful, if they had made suggestions about how one needs to apply this knowledge. This paper quotes from O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (GlobalWork, Bridging Distance, Culture, and Time (1994) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers) who state”that when at least two cultures get together and collaborate successfully a ‘Third Way’ is found in which the team members find a way to balance out their cultural differences that works for them as a multicultural team.”

Fruchter, R (Project Based Learning Lab–Stanford University)., & Townsend, A. (Learning Design and Technology Program–Stanford University) (2002). Impact of Multi-Cultural Dimensions on Multi-Modal Communication in Global Teamwork. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Session 2793. Downloaded from the conference link asee.org

78. Hodson, R.F., Doughty, D.C., & Heddle, D.P. Combining Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Networks in Engineering. Christopher Newport University Session 1532. Downloaded from the American Society for Engineering Education conference link at asee.org on the 23 October 2009.

79. Endean, M., Weidman, G., Armstrong, A., Moffat, J., Nixon, T., & Reuben, B. (2008). Team Project Work for Distance Learners in Engineering - Challenges and Benefits. Engineering Education 3(2), 11-20. Retrieved from engsc.ac.uk on January 10, 2011.

80. Azemi, A. (2009). Designing an Effective Distance Course using a Synchronous and Hybrid e-Learning Approach. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from asee.org under conference proceedings.

81. Kellog, S.D., & Lovsandondov, O. (2004). A Cooperative Delivery System for Distance Learning in Mongolia. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from asee.org through links at Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

82. Jackson, J.R., Hayes, M.H., Saad, A., & Barnwell, T.P. (2002) Framework for Cooperative Synchronous and Asynchronous Distributed Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from asee.org at the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

83. Whiteman, W., & Mathews, B. (2007) Is it Real or is it Memorex: A distance Learning Experience. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved March 3, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

84. Khan, S. Farahmand, F.& Moslehpour, S. (2010). A LabVIEW-based Integrated Virtual Learning Platform. 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition Conference Proceedings. Retrieved on February 12, 2011, from asee.org through the Papers and Publications and then conference proceedings link.

85. Murphy, D., & Stanton, L. (2004). Distance Education Technology Empowers the Fire Service. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

The research justifying the andragogical framework in the learning process is from:

Lindeman, E.C. (1926). The Meaning of Adult Education. New York: New Republic

86. Asgill, A.B., & Bellarmine, G.T. (2003). Delivering Technical Education Through Interactive Distance Delivery Instruction. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

87. Edmonson, C. (2008). A Method of Pacing On-line Courses: Blending Asynchronous Assessments and Recorded Lectures with Synchronous Lectures. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

88. Mehrabian, A., Alvarado, K., & Nahmens, I. (n.d.) (2011) Application of Technology in Project-based Distance Learning. Academia. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://daytonastate.academia.edu/AliMehrabian/Papers/392812/Application_of_Technology_In_Project- Based_Distance_Learning.

89. Edmonson, C.P., & Summers, D.C.S. (2003). Distance Learning: Things to be Aware of or Wary of When Combining a Resident Course With a Distance Learning Course. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

90. Groves, J.F., Caraballo, S.A., Hobson, R.S., Scales, G.R., & Vahala, L. (2010). Work in Progress: Transitioning an Established Engineering Distance Learning Program Infrastructure to an On-line Instructional Setting. Proceedings of 40th ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Washington DC, Retrieved April 14, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/papers/1588.pdf.

91. Leone, D., Hadad, A. Coleman, S., Alnajjar, H.& Elsaghir, H. (2005). Teaching Introduction to Geographic Information Systems, Including Laboratory Sessions, using a Combination of Distance Learning and Distance Teaching Techniques. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

92. Barnes, D.G., Fluke, C.J., Jones, N.T., Maddison, S.T., Kilborn, V.A., & Bailes, M. (2008). Swinburne Astronomy Online: Migrating from Powerpoint on CD to a Web 2.0 compliant delivery infrastructure. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(5), 505-520.

93. Pferdehirt, W., Russell, J., Nelson, J.,& Shenot, A. (2008). Design and Delivery of a Graduate-level Project Management Course for Experienced Engineering Professionals: Collaborative, applied Learning for Distributed Teams. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 21, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

94. Shaer, B., & Fuchs, A. (2008). Work in Progress: Student Learning Outcomes in an Engineering Distance Education Setting. 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY. Retrieved May 15, 2011 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2008/index.htm.

95. Agarwala, R., Jackson, A.& Sherion, J. (2009). Effectively Deploying Distance-Education (DE) Laboratory Components in an Engineering Technology Set up. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2009 Conference & Expo. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference

Proceedings.

96. Jeschofnig, L., & Jeschofnig, P. (2011).Teaching lab science courses online resources for best practices, tools, and technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

97. Zhao, W., Li, X., & Manns, F. (2011). Medical Imaging Teaching Software and Dynamic Assessment Tracking System for Biomedical Engineering Program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Expo and Conference. Retrieved from asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

98. Herdiana, R., & Shafie, A. (JULY 2008). Moodle: Tool to Manage Probability and Statistics Course in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education: “New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century”. Pécs, Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from http://www.iceehungary.net/download/fullp/index.html

99. The review of the WileyPlus online assessment platform was discussed in this paper.

Shafie, A., & Janier, J.B. (October 2009). Attitude towards Online Assessment in Probability and Statistics course at Universiti Teknologi Petronas. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research and Education in Mathematics, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

A paper cited in the above paper suggests that a successful strategy for teaching large classes is the use of a Learning Management System with online resources and discussion boards.

This paper is:

Teaching and Educational Development Institute, University of Queensland, Teaching Large Classes Project 2001, Report. 2003.

100. Morse, L.C. (August 2011). Distance Education Today. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education. Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://ineer.org/

101. Thai, C.N., Morita, K., & Iwasaki, K. (2004) Development of a Synchronous Distance Education Project Between UGA and Kagoshima University. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2004 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved June 28, 2012 from asee.org through the links Papers, Publications and Conference Proceedings.

102. Dickrell, P.L. (2011). Optimizing Quality and Resources for Worldwide Online Delivery of Engineering Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Exposition, Retrieved February 20,2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

103. Richards, L.G. (October 27-30, 2010). Work in Progress: Asynchronous On-Line Learning: Design and Assessment of a Graduate Statistics Course. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2010/

104. Salehfar, H., Watson, J., Johnson, A., Krenelka, L., McCartney, T., & Faul, D. (2004). Using Information Technology to Offer Undergraduate Distance Engineering Degree Programs On-line. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2004 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

105. Muggli, D.S., & Tande, B. (2011). A Model for Initiating ABET-Accredited Engineering Degree Programs Using Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Expo and Conference. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from asee.org.

Evidence is cited on the equivalence of online to traditional education from:

Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education 94(131), pp. 131-146.

106. Popov, O. (June 2009). Teachers’ and Students’ Experiences of Simultaneous Teaching in an International Distance and On-Campus Master’s Programme in Engineering. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).

107. Welch, R.W., & Farnsworth, C.B. Using the ExCEEd Model for Distance Education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2011 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from http://www.asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

108. James-Byrnes, C.R., & Holdhusen, M.H. (2012). Online Delivery of a Project-Based Introductory Engineering Course. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

109. Auer, M.E., Pop, D.V.,& Zutin, D.G. (2012). Outcome of an Online Laboratory to Support A Master Program in Remote Engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

110. Grasman, K., Long, S., & Schmidt, S.M. (2012). Hybrid Delivery of Engineering Economy to Large Classes. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Conference & Expo. Retrieved September 14, 2012 from asee.org through the links Publications, Papers and Conference Proceedings.

111. Ozelkan, E.,& Galambosi, A. (2009). Benchmarking Distance Education In Engineering Management Programs. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

112. Belwal, R., Kassa, D.A., & Asgedom, M.G. (December 2010). The Challenges of the Curtin-AVU-AAU Distance Learning Program in Ethiopia: A Case Study. Proceedings of the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6(4).

The comments about the long term competitiveness of Australian higher education were cited in the paper below and were drawn from:

Mazzarol, T., & Hosie, P. (1996). Exporting Australian Higher Education: Future Strategies In A Maturing Market.Quality Assurance in Education, 4(1), 37-50.

Chapter 17

1. Uskov, V. (July 18-22. 2010). Transforming Web-Based Education: From Web 2.0 to Web 4.0. Powerpoints presented at conference Gliwice, Poland. International conference on Engineering Education, ICEE-2010.

2. Matchett, S. (August 9, 2012). Universities: On the Cusp of Irrelevance. The Australian. Retrieved August 9, 2012 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/universities-on-the-cusp-of-irrelevance/story-e6frgcjx- 1226446128307

3. Aziz, E-S., Esche, S.K., & Chassapis, C. (2009). Review Of The State Of The Art In Virtual Learning Environments Based On Multiplayer Computer Games. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from asee.org at links Publications and Papers and thence Conference Proceedings.

The paper listing the key game elements that need to be incorporated into a virtual learning environment and quoted is:

Arango, F., (2007), Tools and Concepts to Transform a Multi-player Computer Game into a Virtual Laboratory Environment. Master’s thesis, Stevens Institute of Technology.

The key game elements that need to be built into a virtual learning environment are as follows:

• Ensure the game is built from a first person perspective to increase the presence of the student to the real experience.

• Dress the avatars up in casual attire to bring them closer to the student.

• Challenge the student with tasks.

• Build in collaboration.

• Change over from simplified to detailed interfaces.

• Exaggerate physical interactions such as test tubes exploding or balls bouncing off surfaces.

• Allow the student to have VCR access with pause / speed up / slow down and replay.

• Build up communities of interest.

• Allow multiple skill levels that can be selected so as to challenge students appropriately.

4. Dziabenko, O., Garcia-Zubia, J.,& Lopez-de-Ipina, D. (2011). Remote Experiments and Online Games: How to Merge Them? iJEP 1(1). Retrieved May 10, 2011 from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i- jep/article/viewArticle/1601.

Some features of successful games include challenge and risk; another author suggested fantasy, curiosity, challenge and control.

"Challenge and risk" are quoted from the paper:

Baranauskas, C. C., Neto, N. G., & Borges, M. A. (2001). Learning At Work Through A Multi-user Synchronous Simulation Game. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 11(3), 251.

"Fantasy, curiosity, challenge and control" are quoted from the paper:

Malone, T.W. (1981). What makes Computer Games Fun? Byte 6(12), 258-277.

A few suggestions were made on creating a good educational game around remote labs:

• Assess what model of learning you will use and how you expect students to learn from it.

• Build in teaching and learning support.

• Consider the limitations of the remote lab experiments.

• Build in an appropriate story with an interesting plot.

• Ensure the game is balanced with consistency, fairness, without dominant strategies, challenges and constant motivation.

• Optimize the cognitive load especially by eliminating unnecessary multimedia elements and providing an easy-to-grasp user interface.

5. Michaelides, I.M., & Eleftheriou, P.C. (2009) On the Effectiveness of Learning Through the Use of the Web- Based Laboratories: The Experience of Using the Solar e-Lab. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference of the International Network for Engineering Education. Retrieved November 28, 2011 from ineer.org

6. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Kara, A., Erdem, C., & Ozbek, M.E. (2011) Virtual or Remote Laboratory: Why? European Remote Radio Laboratory, 3772-3777. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

7. Cagiltay, N.E., Aydin, E., Oktem, R., Kara, A., Alexandru, M., & Reiner, B. (February 2009). Requirements for Remote RF Laboratory Applications: An Educators’ Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1). Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://errlmoodle.atilim.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=770

8. De Waard, I. (July 25, 2011). Explore a New Learning Frontier: MOOCs. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from learningsolutionsmag.com.

9. Lewin, T. (March 4, 2012). Instruction for Masses Knocks Down Campus Walls. New York Times. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/education/moocs-large-courses-open-to-all-topple-campus- walls.html?_r=1&hpw

10. Marszal, A. (December 16, 2012). UK Universities to Launch Free Degree-style Online Courses. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 16, 2012 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9743703/UK- universities-to-launch-free-degree-style-online-courses.html

11. Kolowich, S. (June 5, 2012) Who Takes MOOCs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 6, 2012 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/05/early-demographic-data-hints-what- type-student-takes-mooc

12. Online Courses Attract Degree Holders, Survey Finds (November 20, 2013). Lewin, T. Retrieved December 1, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/education/online-courses-attract-degree-holders-survey-finds.html.

13. Trounson, A. MOOCs largely for the learned. The Australian, February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2014 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/moocs-largely-for-the-learned/story-e6frgcjx- 1226833066791#

14. Kolowich, S. (October 29, 2012). MOOCs for Credit. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/29/coursera-strikes-mooc-licensing-deal-antioch-university

15. edX Announces Option of Proctored Exam Testing Through Collaboration with Pearson VUE (Sept. 6, 2012). PR Newswire. Cambridge, Mass. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/prnewswire/press_releases/Massachusetts/2012/09/06/CG69085

16. Foerster, S.H. (September 9, 2012). Relax – Higher education won’t be killed by MOOCs. University World News (238). Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2012090414372781

17. Head, S.K. (September 23, 2012) MOOCs: The Revolution has begun, says Moody’s. University World News (240). Retrieved September 23, 2012 from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120920124146236

18. Free Education: Learning New Lessons (December 22, 2102). The Economist. Retrieved December 23, 2012 from http://www.economist.com/news/international/21568738-online-courses-are- transforming-higher-education-creating-new-opportunities-best

19. Top Ed-Tech Trends of 2012: MOOCs. (n.d.). Hack Education. Retrieved December 23, 2012 from http://hackeducation.com/2012/12/03/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-moocs/

20. Weston, C. (December 22, 2012). Free Education: Learning New Lessons. A Reader Comment to the Article in The Economist. Retrieved December 23, 2012 from http://www.economist.com/news/international/21568738- online-courses-are-transforming-higher-education-creating-new-opportunities-best/comments#comments

21. Laurillard, D., Five Myths about MOOCs. January 16, 2014. Times Higher Education. Retrieved January 18, 2014 from http://timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/five-myths-about-moocs/2010480.article

22. Lewin, T. (February 6, 2013). Five Online Courses are Eligible for College Credit, The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/education/five-online-courses-are-eligible-for- college-credit.html?src=recg

23. Higgins and Keightley (2007) made a few further suggestions on how online learning will develop in the future. These included:

• Increase in numbers of learners and courses.

• Decrease in costs to develop online learning

• Greater synergies between business and traditional educational institutions in terms of provision of online learning solutions

• Greater mobility with increased broadband access, wireless and use of personal data assistants (PDA’s)

• Improved quality and personalisation of online learning

Bonk, Kim and Zeng (Bonk & Graham, 2006) felt that there were ten key trends with blended learning. First, there would be more use of Personal Data Assistants in driving more mobile learning. There was no mention of this in any of the qualitative comments. Second, there would be more use of visualization and hands-on activities (as espoused in this thesis). This was emphasized in the qualitative comments. Third, the learning would be more learner driven and oriented. Fourth, there will be considerably more collaboration and learning with one’s peers. This was also mentioned many times in the results as an important method of learning. Fifth, there would be more enthusiasm for real world experiences. Again, this was mentioned many times in the commentary of respondents to the survey. Sixth, work and learning would be interlinked. The importance of on-the-job training was mentioned as a key learning approach for engineers and technicians by many respondents and linking online learning and blended learning to the training process would be most effective. Seven, time scheduling of training would be less important. This was perhaps too abstract for more respondents to follow as this was not mentioned. Eight, blended learning would be the main designation for all learning. Again, not much was known about blended learning; hence this was only mentioned occasionally. Nine, the instructor would move from a sage on the stage to a guide on the side (as the cliché goes). This was emphasized by many respondents, in driving their own learning and discovery. Finally, the suggestion was that there would emerge blended learning specialists, resources and sites. There was not much evidence of this in the research, as this concept is relatively foreign to most engineers and technicians.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Higgins, N., & Keightley, D. (2007). Practical Guide to e-Learning in Industry. Brisbane: The Australian Flexible Learning Framework - The Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, at http://industry.flexiblelearning.net.au.

24. This was put together by Steed (1999) who listed what he believed would be the top ten training trends. Steed, C. (1999). Web-based training. Aldershot, England: Gower.

25. Cox, D., & Sanner, B. (January 2012) Industry Buying Plans & Trends for 2012: Social Learning, Video Training, Mobile Learning and Web Conferencing. Cox eLearning Consultants, LLC.

26. Bersin, J. (November 2011). Strategic Human Resources and Talent Management: Predictions for 2012. Driving Organizational Performance amidst an Imbalanced Global Workforce. Bersin & Associates Research Report. Oakland, CA.

Appendix A

Gonzales, R.F. A. (2004), Dynamic Model for Delivering Distance Learning Curriculum via Interactive Peripherals, The 2004 Annual ASEE Conference. Retrieved from the American Society for Engineering Education site asee.org through the links Papers and Publications and Conference Proceedings.

Appendix B

Maier, C., & Niederstätter, M. (2010). Lab2go – A Repository To Locate Online Laboratories. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 6(1),

Retrieved from

(Pretorius, S., & Celenza, P., personal communication.) Communications discussed the Moodle Learning Management System. Credit and thanks goes to these two individuals for writing the core materials for the Moodle Learning Management System which formed part of this Appendix.

Appendix C

(Pretorius, S., Langazov, E., & Buchan, J., personal communication.) Communications discussed the Electromeet Web conferencing package. Credit and thanks goes to these two individuals for writing the core materials for the web conferencing package which formed part of this Appendix.

Appendix D

(Langazov, E., & Buchan, J., personal communication.) Communications discussed the Remote labs portion of the Electromeet web conferencing package. Credit and thanks goes to these two individuals for writing the core materials for the remote labs which formed part of this Appendix.

Appendix E

(Langazov, E., & Buchan, J., personal communication.) (2013). Communications discussed the Electromeet proctoring package. Credit and thanks goes to these two individuals for writing the core materials for the proctoring package which formed part of this Appendix.