Abstract
Higher education institutions are using virtual telepresence systems to engage in collaborative course redesign and research projects. These systems hold promise and challenge for inter-institutional work in STEM areas. This paper describes a case study involving two universities in the 4-VA consortium, and the redesign of a shared STEM lab. The purpose of this study was to investigate pedagogical needs across related content areas, and to use findings to make informed lab design recommendations that support beliefs and best practices involving knowledge acquisition. The researchers used several data collection points involving human subjects, site visits and technology testing and evaluation. Results emphasize the need for remote presence in the student-centered and distributed space. Design recommendations are organized into the following categories: general lab space, projection and display, storage, cable management and outlets, videoconferencing, use and management of the lab, computing and mobile devices, software, and training. Further research is proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apple, Inc. (2013). Apple Thunderbolt Display. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/displays/
Chism, N. 2006. Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/Xc--Linking_Evidence--Fairweather.pdf
Fuchs, H. (2012). Toward Transparent Telepresence. Presented July 2012 at IEEE ICME 2012. Retrieved from http://videolectures.net/icme2012_fuchs_telepresence/
Hannafin, M. J. & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.001
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. doi: 10.1007/BF02300500
Khare, R., Sahai, E., & Pramanick, I. (2013). Remote Mentoring Young Females in STEM through MAGIC. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.7547.
Leap Motion. (2013). https://www.leapmotion.com/product
Leap Motion Forum. (June, 2013). LEAP: Thread: use with a projector. Retrieved from https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?2208-use-with-aprojector&highlight=projector
Leiboff, M.D. (2010). Studio classroom: Designing collaborative learning spaces. Campus Technology, 05/19/10. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/05/19/studio-classroom-designingcollaborative-learning-spaces.aspx
Logdlund, U. (2010). Constructing learning spaces? videoconferencing at local learning centres in sweden. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(3), 183-199. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.517993
MacPhee, L. (2009). Learning spaces: A tutorial. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(1) Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/EQM0917
Mantovani, G. and Riva, G. (1999). “Real” Presence: How Different Ontologies Generate Different Criteria for Presence, Telepresence, and Virtual Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 8(5), 540-550. doi: 10.1162/105474699566459
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer?. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 2-16.
Milne, A.J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experiences. In D. G. Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). Learning spaces (pp. 142-156). EDUCAUSE. Retrieved online May 21, 2013 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf
Mong, C. J. & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Addressing STEM education needs: The case for adopting a PBL approach. Educational Technology, 53(3), 13-21.
Norstrom, P. (2013). Engineers’ non-scientific models in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9184-2
Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning spaces (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 34(4), n4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Estes, M.D., Liu, J., Zha, S. et al. Designing for problem-based learning in a collaborative STEM lab: A case study. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 58, 90–98 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0808-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0808-8