Infrastructure for laboratory distribution

Though laboratories are an important element in student education, the development of effective labs is impeded by several factors: (i) the present academic reward system does not encourage or promote laboratory development time; (ii) there is no mechanism in place to distribute labs; and (iii) there is no mechanism in place to review or recognize appropriate lab assignments. We propose a laboratory distribution system that allows labs to be developed by faculty members at different universities, reviewed by an external review board, and then cataloged and stored for use by faculty at other universities. This system benefits the author of the labs (recognition, feedback), the other faculty that use the lab assignments (decreased preparation time), and the review body (fosters cooperative environment among universities, insures laboratory “quality control”). 1. Problem Statement Labs are an important element in student learning. Effective laboratory exercises can spark learning in students, correct conceptual misunderstandings, and help students adjust quicker to the work environment. (If a student has already used specific hardware and software tools in a university, then he/she will not need to be trained to use them on the job.) Though laboratories are an important element in undergraduate (and graduate) education, development of effective labs is hindered by a number of factors. First, there are competing, and at times overwhelming, demands on professors’ time. The promotion and tenure system rarely, if ever, rewards time spent developing and revising undergraduate laboratories. Second, there is not an agreed-upon method of distributing/publishing laboratory exercises. For course content, there is textbooks. For research, there is refereed journals. But there is nothing comparable for labs. There is no way to contribute and share educational materials. A corollary is that there is no common format/publishing standard for labs. Thus, even if someone wanted to share lab modules, there is no mechanism for publishing or distributing the information. Third, there is not a uniform method of recognizing and reviewing undergraduate labs. Labs are not “reviewed” to ascertain (i) their applicability to the material, (ii) their educational/learning value, (iii) what resources are required, (iv) the time involved (pre-lab, during lab, and post-lab), and (v) their stimulus for creative thought on the part of the student. Hindrances to development of effective labs Lack of reward for professor’s development time No mechanism for distribution No mechanism for review 2. Proposed solution A proposed laboratory distribution methodology is given in Figure 1. The process starts with faculty from different universities creating laboratory assignments. The assignments can be designed to conform to a style standard set forth by the review organization. The standard might require sections like: goals, skills developed/learned, prerequisite background required, equipment (hardware/software) required, problem statement, expected results, etc. The review organization that develops the standard would be a committee (or committees) of volunteers operating under the auspicies of the IEEE or similar national organization. Faculty developing labs can then submit their labs to an external review board whose task it is to insure the quality of laboratory assignments and enforced the style standard. This system is essentially the same as a peer review system for research/journal paper submission. Accepted labs are then sent to a publisher who catalogs the labs and stores them in a database. Lab catalogs are made available to instructors allowing them to select labs pertinent to their curriculum. The publisher will then assemble lab manuals for use in the classroom and distribute them for sale. Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Microelectronics Systems Education (MSE '97) 0-8186-7996-4/97 $10.00 © 1997 IEEE