Content uploaded by S. Sivakumar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by S. Sivakumar on Mar 05, 2013
Content may be subject to copyright.
586 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
A Web-Based Remote Interactive Laboratory for
Internetworking Education
Shyamala C. Sivakumar, Member, IEEE, William Robertson, Senior Member, IEEE,
Maen Artimy, Student Member, IEEE, and Nauman Aslam, Student Member, IEEE
Abstract—A Web-based remote interactive laboratory (RIL) de-
veloped to deliver Internetworking laboratory experience to geo-
graphically remote graduate students is presented in this paper.
The onsite Internetworking program employs hands-on laborato-
ries in a group setting that correlates with the constructivist and
collaborative pedagogical approach. This paper discusses the ped-
agogical and technical considerations that influence the design and
implementation of the remote laboratory environment given the
constraints of the special hardware and learning outcomes of the
program. For wide-ranging usability, the remote Internetworking
(INWK) laboratory uses de facto networking standards and com-
mercial and broad-band Internet connectivity to ensure real-time
secure interaction with equipment. A four-tier role architecture
consisting of faculty, local facilitators, remote facilitators, and stu-
dents has been determined appropriate to maintain academic in-
tegrity and ensure good quality of interaction with the remote lab-
oratory. A survey employing a five-point scale has been devised to
measure the usability of the remote access INWK laboratory.
Index Terms—Online laboratory learning methods, online net-
working education, remote interactive laboratory (RIL), remote
laboratory facilitation.
I. INTRODUCTION
T
HE MODERN university needs to extend lifelong learning
opportunities to its students anytime and anyplace to be
successful in the global educational marketplace [1]. Online
learning is made possible by advancements in network infra-
structure and development of voice/multimedia protocols for
seamless transport of information [2]. However, the developer
of an e-learning system faces several challenges in designing an
online laboratory learning environment that ensures strong, ef-
fective, accessible, and secure student interaction that best re-
places the face-to-face interaction that takes place in on-site
laboratories, especially in courses involving high-tech content,
such as in an Internetworking
1
(INWK) laboratory environment,
which extensively uses networking hardware and computer/sim-
ulation software tools. In addition to considering knowledge-do-
main requirements, the developer must ensure good pedagogy
Manuscript received July 24, 2004; revised August 12, 2005.
S. C. Sivakumar is with the Computing and Information Systems program,
Department of Finance, Information Systems and Management Science, Sobey
School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS B3H 3C3, Canada
(e-mail: ssivakumar@smu.ca).
W. Robertson, M. Artimy, and N. Aslam are with the Internetworking Pro-
gram, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3J 1L1, Canada.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2005.858393
1
Internetworking, as used in this paper, references a program leading to the
Master’s of Engineering in Internetworking—a program at Dalhousie Univer-
sity, Halifax, NS, Canada.
and learning practices given technical constraints with regard to
bandwidth, quality of service, real-time interactions, multiple
users, and security.
Remote laboratories have been successfully used in elec-
trical engineering education to interact with spectroscopy,
measurements, control systems, and simulation laboratories
[3]–[10]. However, none of the reported work has addressed the
specific issues pertaining to pedagogy, facilitation, scalability,
usability, and security within a technical framework, other than
mapping the instructional content to appropriate technologies.
Examples of such mapping include remote instrumentation
[3], [8] use of Java servlets [5], user-friendly interface de-
sign [4], [7] and use of broad-band communication [6], [10].
Although such experiences cannot be directly applied to the
INWK laboratory, the essential elements of improved learning
spaces can be adapted to develop an online laboratory learning
system that meets the requirements of scalability, accessibility,
interactivity, and modularity. This paper builds on and signifi-
cantly contributes to existing e-laboratory education research
[6], [11]- [12] by demonstrating the feasibility of designing
e-laboratory systems for strong student interaction with re-
mote equipment. The e-learning laboratory design framework
employs secure, real-time, interactive laboratories and incorpo-
rates effective online laboratory learning strategies, including
appropriate pedagogy, facilitation, and skill-building tech-
niques to impart knowledge and meet instructional outcome.
Pedagogical and instructional-level knowledge conducive to
active and collaborative remote online laboratory instruction,
incorporating effective remote-site facilitation that mimics the
face-to-face interaction in the onsite laboratory, is considered.
Integrated authentication and access control that is reusable
across geographically distributed educational applications is
demonstrated. In addition, the special requirements of online,
synchronous, INWK laboratory-based e-education are consid-
ered in detail.
The curriculum of a Master’s of Engineering in INWK
program includes the following: study of transmission of
multimedia information over communication networks;
characteristics of transmission media; architecture, routing
technologies, and infrastructure of different types of networks;
interconnection of disparate networks (internets); evolution of,
and influences on, network design; and services, applications,
and future trends in such networks [13]. These programs are
expected to expand online using a remote INWK equipment
laboratory that is accessible by remote students through the In-
ternet. The remote INWK laboratory must be designed to offer
0018-9359/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 587
TABLE I
B
RIEF COURSE
DESCRIPTION,EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENT, AND
LEARNING ACTIVITY
TYPE FOR THE
INWK–M.ENG.P
ROGRAM
a high quality of online student interaction with the faculty and
the laboratory equipment and enable students to work in virtual
teams [14]–[16]. An integrated design approach is undertaken
that promotes student interaction with good infrastructure
management that can ensure effective learning, better student
performance, and achievement of pedagogical goals.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives the
pedagogical features of onsite INWK laboratory education.
Section III discusses the research framework for the design of
the RIL. Section IV discusses how the traditional onsite wiring
strategies have been modified and tailored for online delivery.
Section V describes the online laboratory architecture, imple-
mentation issues, and how technical constraints, pedagogy, and
instructional goals influence the design and implementation of
the Web-based RIL. Section VI discusses the authentication
and access control issues in the remote laboratory. Section VII
discusses facilitation, and Section VIII discusses instructional
strategies employed in the remote laboratory. Section IX
presents results that demonstrate the usability of the remote
laboratory. Section X provides conclusions and directions for
future research.
II. P
EDAGOGICAL FEATURES OF ONSITE INTERNETWORKING
LABORATORY EDUCATION
In Table I, the course outline, laboratory equipment used,
and the learning approach employed in the INWK program
is summarized. Table I clearly indicates the emphasis placed
on laboratory based INWK education, which accounts for
approximately 40% of the overall program content. Lectures
account for 50% of course content, and collaborative activities
such as case studies and projects account for the remaining
10%. Comprehensive, “hands-on” laboratory experience is
provided by employing networking equipment, simulators,
and other hardware to immerse the student in a constructive
learning environment that employs collaborative activities
[17]–[19]. Authentic activities, such as hands-on configuration
of INWK equipment, increase student engagement with the
subject matter resulting in better knowledge retention [20].
Since most network engineering activities in an enterprise are
conducted in a collaborative setting, the laboratory activities
are designed to be carried out by students interacting in groups.
The hands-on interaction helps apply INWK principles and
theories in a practical networking context to teach students
588 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
troubleshooting techniques and problem-solving skills [19].
Such situated learning transforms the novice students into
experts in the context of the INWK community in which they
will work [19].
Description of the Onsite INWK Laboratory: The onsite
laboratory equipment consists of personal computers (PCs) and
servers; networking devices, including routers and switches
from vendors such as Cisco Systems,
2
and Nortel Networks
3
local area network/wide area network (LAN/WAN) network
analyzers, and network simulation software OPNET.
4
The
networking equipment is placed on several racks with each
rack having an identical set of routers, switches, and hubs.
The equipment consists of Ethernet, token-ring, frame relay
(FR), and asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technologies.
The laboratory has access to a DMS-100 telephone switch that
provides ISDN and telephone connections. Various network
topologies are built by simply connecting pairs of nodes using
the appropriate cables. A network of cables and patch panels
between equipment racks are used for inter-rack connections.
To configure a network device using a command line interface
(CLI) and monitor its activities, a PC is attached to the device’s
console port using an RS-232 cable allowing the student to
establish a connection with the device.
III. R
ESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR
REMOTE INTERACTIVE
LABORATORY
DESIGN
The e-learning research framework proposed by Alavi and
Leidner [21] urges study within the context of pedagogical
strategies and learning processes. At the intersection of these
strategies and processes are the methods of instructional
delivery that can be viewed from student-centric, univer-
sity-centric, and technology-centric perspectives. E-learning
system designers and universities use these metrics to guide
the design, development/adoption, and implementation of
learn-ware, assessment of e-learning system infrastructure, and
measurement of the usability of the system. Specifically, issues
in the design of the pedagogical strategy that implements a
student-centric learning process in a Web-based remote INWK
laboratory system must [22] be able to achieve the following:
• encourage student interaction by employing networking
equipment/simulators [1], [23];
• provide real-time response from equipment to engage stu-
dents actively in achieving learning outcomes;
• provide a collaborative learning environment for group
interaction at a remote site;
• match the characteristics of the instructional delivery
medium to specific learning outcomes and processes,
including the provision of feedback and guidance [25],
[26];
• improve system usability to ensure repeat student
interaction;
• track student performance to meet learning outcomes.
The university-centric issues in implementing instructional
delivery methods include the following [24]:
2
http://www.cisco.com
3
http://www.nortel.com
4
OPNET Network Simulation, http://www.opnet.com
• curriculum quality;
• instructional pedagogy employed in the remote
laboratory;
• technical infrastructure management for delivering
learning material;
• system scalability to handle increases in student
enrollment;
• continuous student assessment for grading purposes.
From the technology-centric viewpoint, the instructional de-
livery framework must be able to do the following [24]:
• use de facto networking standards and free software to
connect the remote site to the central equipment facility;
• use secure interaction between the remote site and equip-
ment facility;
• deliver laboratory notes and other relevant material such
as wiring information and diagrams to students at remote
locations over the Internet;
• identify the student at the time of initial access to labora-
tory resources.
A detailed study of the above factors is given in [23] and [24].
The design of the RIL is aimed at delivering an effective remote
laboratory experience moderated by the laboratory facilitators.
The technical design of the RIL given in Sections IV–VI re-
flects the progress made by the program in reworking the onsite
INWK laboratory to enable students to interact online with the
devices at the central equipment facility.
IV. T
AILORING LABORATORY
WIRING STRATEGIES FOR
ONLINE EDUCATION
Students learn fundamental theoretical concepts in lectures.
In addition, the lectures discuss and describe the functional
and physical features of hardware used in the laboratory. The
laboratory description listed in Table I shows that most courses
require students to interact with the networking devices enabling
them to implement and, thereby, better understand networking
concepts. The laboratory component of the various courses
requires that students learn how to configure equipment, such
as serial, synchronous and asynchronous connections between
routers, virtual local area networks, and virtual private net-
works; configure routing protocols in routers/Layer 3 switches;
build, implement, and configure Ethernet/token-ring networks,
FR, ATM, and integrated service digital networks; and set up
voice/video-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) networks etc.
Issues in Web-Accessed Remote INWK Laboratory: A key
issue with the remote delivery of the INWK laboratory is to
convert the onsite student interaction (discussed in Section II)
with the devices in the laboratory into online, real-time interac-
tion. To allow remote configuration of the networking devices,
each rack is equipped with a terminal server. The terminal server
acts as a link between the Internet and the student rack and
provides users with a single entry point to all devices. A stu-
dent can now establish a connection to any networking device
through the Internet to configure these devices using a command
line interface. However, students would still have to build their
topologies manually by interconnecting devices with cables, a
step that would necessitate their presence in the onsite labora-
tory. Thus, a second key requirement is for remote students to
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 589
Fig. 1. Logical architecture for remote delivery of INWK laboratories.
build various network topologies without having physical ac-
cess to the equipment; therefore, the INWK devices must be
wired in a manner that allows construction of different network
topologies with no change to the physical wiring connections.
In this paper, the solution employed uses virtual LAN (VLAN)
techniques for Ethernet networks and permanent virtual circuits
(PVCs) for WAN networks, employing ATM and FR technolo-
gies as explained in the Sections V and VI.
V. A
RCHITECTURAL ISSUES IN THE REMOTE
INTERACTIVE LABORATORY
The Internetworking laboratory network (INWKNet) consists
of a number of enterprise- and carrier-level INWK devices, such
as routers and switches. A good strategy to achieve fixed wiring
is to group the devices logically and physically into a backbone
network and an access network. The backbone network consists
of special purpose devices that are commonly found in carrier
networks and is configured in a fixed topology. The laboratory
backbone network is called the LabNet and resembles a minia-
ture “Internet” that is always available to carry ATM, FR, and
Ethernet data traffic. The other INWK devices are organized into
a number of student racks, each containing an identical set of
devices to be accessed by students, called the StudentNet. The
StudentNet devices are used to build topologies similar to the
ones found in an enterprise network. The INWKNet mimics a
typical network scenario, where small enterprise LANs repre-
sented by the StudentNet are connected to a carrier’s WAN rep-
resented by the LabNet. The logical architecture of INWKNet
is shown in Fig. 1.
A. LabNet Architecture
Fig. 2 shows the logical architecture of the LabNet, which is
built around three Passport 7440s, multiservice routers. These
multiprotocol routers switch data packets over ATM, FR, and
Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) networks and allow the building of mul-
tiple independent logical networks using the same physical de-
vices. Each logical network is assigned its own physical inter-
faces, set of protocols, and addressing schemes. The following
paragraphs explain how the LabNet devices are used to build
Ethernet, ATM, and FR backbones.
Ethernet Backbone: The Ethernet backbone consists of a
P8600 multilayer switch that is connected to other LabNet
devices as shown in Fig. 2. The P8600 is also connected to each
student rack via either 100-Mb/s or 1-Gb/s links. VLANs are
used to create multiple Ethernet segments on the student racks.
The P8600 backbone switch routes traffic among these student
VLANs.
ATM Backbone: When used for constructing ATM networks,
the Passport 7440 devices are interconnected as shown in Fig. 2
and represent the public ATM network. A private ATM back-
bone is constructed using a Light Stream 1010 ATM switch with
eight ports. Six ports on the LS1010 connect to the student racks.
Two ports are connected to the P7440 devices in the backbone.
Frame Relay Backbone: The FR backbone consists of the
P7440 switch, which supports both FR and ATM technologies
and Cisco FR emulator. As with ATM, various FR topologies
can be constructed in the student racks using PVCs.
ISP Services: As shown in Fig. 2, the Shasta 5000 BSN device
is employed to model several logical Internet service providers
590 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
Fig. 2. Logical architecture of LabNet.
(ISPs) and is connected to the other backbone devices via ATM
links. The routers in the student rack are connected to the Shasta
using ATM or point-to-point protocol (PPP) over Ethernet links.
The Shasta 5000 also offers services including firewalls, traffic
management, Web caching, and virtual private network services
and delivers Internet services via dial-up, digital subscriber line
(DSL), cable, or direct connections.
B. StudentNet Architecture
The StudentNet consists of equipment placed on eight racks
in the central equipment facility. The design of the StudentNet
supports multiple simultaneous interactions with the equipment
and can be accessed remotely by students through the Internet.
Remote access to laboratory hardware in the student racks is
achieved by equipping each student rack with a terminal server
that connects a device’s port to the Internet. The access to the
INWK devices, e.g., switches, routers, and protocol analyzers,
is through a Web interface. Web pages are used for logging
on and accessing the hardware. The terminal servers limit ac-
cess to authorized users by verifying that the user name and
password given by a specific user matches the ones stored in a
central database. The StudentNet architecture is designed to be
modular with similar equipment in each rack and, hence, highly
scalable. Scalability is essential to maintain interoperability and
address increases in student enrolment. Each student rack con-
sists of several Cisco 36xx routers, Cisco 3550 switches, Nortel
Passport 1100 multilayer switches, and Ethernet and token-ring
hubs. Additional student racks can be added without signifi-
cantly impacting performance and with minimal changes to the
LabNet networking equipment or its cabling.
Fig. 3. Ethernet connections in a student rack.
C. Configuring Network Topologies in the StudentNet
A description of how various Ethernet, FR, and ATM network
topologies are built using the StudentNet equipment is given in
this subsection.
Configuring Ethernet LANs in the StudentNet: In Fig. 3, the
dotted area represents equipment in each student rack. Equip-
ment outside this area is located in the LabNet. Each student
rack has four routers R1–R4, a local switch, and an Ethernet
hub that allows groups of students to use them independently.
A key instructional requirement in Ethernet laboratories is
to be able to construct both port-centric and segment-centric
LANS. Therefore, all routers are connected to a 10-Mb/s hub
via one port on each router, and all 10/100base-T ports on three
of these routers are directly connected to a local Ethernet switch
in that rack. Arbitrary Ethernet network topologies can be built
by attaching nodes to ports on an Ethernet switch and assigning
them to appropriate VLANs. The architecture shown in Fig. 3
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 591
Fig. 4. Various Ethernet topologies using VLANs: Physical and logical connections.
Fig. 5. Frame-relay network in a single student rack: hub-and-spoke and mesh
topologies.
allows novice students in early courses of the program to build
networks with minimal configuration of the routers, while ad-
vanced students are able to create complex topologies using
VLANs.
Fig. 4 shows an Ethernet network that spans two student
racks. The network topology is translated into VLANs, which
are configured in the local switch of each rack. The diagram
shows that any two or more routers in the laboratory can be
linked via a VLAN that spans two switches at most.
Configuring Frame-Relay Networks: As shown in Fig. 5, a
local FR network can be built in each student rack by employing
the routers in that rack and is achieved by using PVCs and con-
figuring one router to act as an FR switch. Small hub-and-spoke
or meshed topologies can be built within each student rack. As
shown in Fig. 6, a laboratorywide FR network can then be built
by connecting a single router in each student rack to the global
P7440 FR switch in LabNet.
Configuring ATM Networks: Fig. 7 illustrates the connection
of the global LS1010 ATM and Shasta 5000 ISDN switch to
the routers in a student rack. As shown in Fig. 8, six ports on
the LS1010 ATM switch are connected to a router from each
student rack to form a private ATM network. The connection
between the LS1010 and the P7440 models a typical ATM net-
work scenario where a private ATM campus network is con-
nected to a large public-carrier network. The campus LS1010
ATM backbone is used to carry either ATM traffic or IP packets
over ATM between the student racks. With purely ATM traffic,
various topologies can be created by configuring PVCs in the
student racks. In the case of IP over ATM, the P7440 device for-
wards IP traffic between Ethernet ports using multiprotocol over
ATM.
D. StudentNet Interface Issues: CLI versus GUI
Onsite students access and configure the devices in the labo-
ratory using a CLI or a graphical user interface (GUI). For on-
line student interaction, the laboratories have been redesigned to
enable students at the remote sites to access the CLI of most net-
working devices using the Internet. The CLI was chosen over a
GUI because students need feedback from the central equipment
facility in near real time and transmitting information using a
GUI is relatively slower than CLI. In addition, the CLI is a re-
liable, direct, and simple method of executing network oper-
ating system commands on equipment. Since all options and
operations are invoked in a consistent manner, the CLI allows
greater flexibility and control and is, therefore, easier to learn
and use. In addition, the CLI can be easily used to write scripts
to automate repeated configuration procedures. In addition, re-
motely accessing the CLI requires a communication channel
with moderate bandwidth such as that provided by commer-
cial ISPs and, thus, is extremely suitable for use in regions with
modest Internet infrastructure.
Some laboratories in the program require the use of
LAN/WAN analyzers located at the equipment site to ana-
lyze the LAN/WAN traffic. The LAN/WAN analyzers cannot
be accessed using the CLI. Similarly, simulation tools such
592 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
Fig. 6. A laboratorywide FR networks.
Fig. 7. ATM and ISDN connections.
as OPNET use a GUI. Remote students access these an-
alyzers/simulators at the equipment facility, using Virtual
Network Client (VNC) software on the remote site PCs.
However, VNC use at the remote site requires a minimum
broad-band access capability of at least 56 kb/s per PC.
VI. R
EMOTE
STUDENT AUTHENTICATION AND
ACCESS CONTROL ISSUES
Two key issues to ensure secure interaction with the e-labo-
ratory system are 1) verifying the identity of enrolled students
and 2) restricting access to educational resources. The au-
thentication, authorization, and accountability features are
integrated into one security subsystem that is well suited to
securing laboratory equipment accessed through the Internet
by a large number of students. Authentication mechanisms
identify users, while centralized access control is achieved by
restricting remote access to terminal servers using an access
control server (ACS) at the equipment facility. All remote users
wishing to gain access to laboratory resources are authenticated
against the ACS internal database and an external database
located in a secure Linux server. The Terminal Access Con-
troller Access Control System Plus
TACACS protocol is
used as it encrypts the entire body of the packet, including the
password, thus making the communication with the ACS server
secure. Remote students use Tera Term Secure Shell (TTSSH)
software
5
to connect to the terminal servers at the equipment
site. TTSSH, a free Windows-based terminal emulator and
5
Tera Term, http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA002 416/teraterm.html
telnet client software, has been chosen because the university
needs to balance the conflicting metric of finding a cost-ef-
fective solution, taking into consideration student concerns
regarding security and privacy. TTSSH provides secure access
by encrypting the communication between the equipment and
the student. Fig. 9 illustrates the student authentication system
architecture and outlines the steps involved in authentication
and authorization. Also included are accounting functions
such as tracking user connections and logging system users.
The terminal server reports user activity to the ACS in the
form of accounting records. Each record contains information,
including user name, network device accessed, login/logout
time information, and authentication status.
VII. R
EMOTE SITE FACILITATION
ISSUES
The characteristics of a media used in communication can
be assessed using media synchronicity theory (MST). The
characteristics include the medium’s capacity to provide feed-
back, symbol variety, instruction of multiple students, ability to
tune message content, and the capacity to reprocess a message
and unambiguousness [25], [26]. MST, when applied to the
problem of remote laboratory learning, helps online education
designers to match the characteristics of media to specific
laboratory learning activities, outcomes, or processes. MST
suggests that face-to-face communication supports only a low
level of one-to-one interactions but facilitates useful feedback
that is helpful in arriving at a group consensus [25], [26].
Most onsite students benefit from face-to-face interaction with
instructors in a laboratory environment. Similarly, online grad-
uate-level professional development courses offered to teams
of teachers have used online facilitation to mimic success-
fully onsite face-to-face interaction [27]. In the remote INWK
laboratory, facilitation is used in a remote learning scenario
to maintain the quality of the educational experience without
sacrificing educational standards [1]. This goal is accomplished
by appropriately modifying the three-tier role hierarchy of the
traditional onsite laboratory, consisting of faculty, laboratory
assistants, and students into a four-tier architecture, in which
the Tier-2 laboratory assistants are replaced with local-site
facilitators at the central equipment facility and remote-site
facilitators at the remote site. Facilitation is employed to foster
strong student interaction and to maintain academic integrity
by a strong demarcation of roles at the equipment site and the
remote site. In this architecture, at the university end, Tier-1
consists of the director, administration, and faculty; Tier-2 con-
sists of local-site facilitators at the central equipment facility;
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 593
Fig. 8. Connecting a private ATM network to a public ATM network.
Fig. 9. Remote student authentication and access control architecture.
Tier-3 consists of remote-site facilitators; and Tier-4 consists
of the students. In Tier-1, the administrators handle enrolment,
registration, and other functions associated with disseminating
program information, and the faculty are the sole course content
providers in charge of designing an expert INWK curriculum.
The faculty administer tests, examine and assess students, and
provide feedback on student competencies. The local-site fa-
cilitators maintain and update laboratory notes for each course,
test and configure the devices in the INWK laboratory for
proper use, and create and maintain user account information.
The local facilitators are doctoral students or candidates with
the INWK program. In addition, they are guided by the faculty
to help maintain a dynamic and engaging electronic-laboratory
environment that is easy to use. The remote facilitator moder-
ates the face-to-face communication between the students to
speed up understanding of new information and in arriving at
a consensus. The remote facilitators are former students of the
program and have an M.Eng. degree in INWK. Trained ade-
quately, they support, maintain, and upgrade network services
on servers and workstations at the remote site and verify that
the central equipment facility is remotely accessible.
VIII. R
EMOTE SITE
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Students typically work in groups of two to three per group
in the introductory and intermediate laboratory experiments. In
advanced laboratory experiments, such as border gateway pro-
tocol (BGP) or open shortest path first (OSPF) in network archi-
tecture, they still have to configure the networking equipment by
group and then have to interact across groups. The remote- site
laboratory design must make use of active learning strategies in
a collaborative environment [17], [20]. The activities in the re-
mote laboratory are modeled to implement the nine instructional
steps as outlined by Gagne
et al. [28], [29]: 1) gain student atten-
tion; 2) inform students of the objective; 3) recall prior learning;
4) present stimuli; 5) provide learning guidance; 6) elicit perfor-
mance; 7) provide feedback; 8) assess performance; and 9) en-
hance retention. A typical scenario for remote-laboratory work
is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Provide wiring information: The wiring diagrams for labora-
tory equipment is available form the program website [31].
Activities that capture the student’s attention, inform student
of laboratory objectives, and recall prior learning: The remote
student is given the laboratory handout a week ahead of ac-
tual performance of the laboratory experiments. The labora-
tory handout informs the students of the objectives, learning
outcomes, and results to be submitted (Gagne’s steps 1 and
594 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
2) and helps each student identify skill-building activities for
the experiment. This stage of laboratory learning consists of
one-on-one interaction between the student and learning content
and is employed to teach students the commands used in con-
figuring equipment before actual interaction with networking
equipment (Gagne’s step 3). Students individually answer ques-
tions regarding the physical fixed wiring of laboratory, actual
steps used in achieving an outcome, techniques employed to
measure/record output or simulation results, and the correct/ex-
pected output (Gagne’s step 6).
Active remote interaction with INWK equipment—Present
stimulus, provide guidance, and elicit performance: The re-
mote and local facilitators ensure that the remote students can
interact in real-time with the equipment at the central facility.
Active, remote, equipment interaction involves two parts: the
first part involves acquiring component skills based on simple
tasks, and the second part involves acquiring comprehensive
skills based on more advanced concepts. The first part consists
of one-on-one interaction between a student and piece of
equipment. The second part consists of a group of two to three
students interacting with equipment. During the one-on-one
interaction, the student has already acquired some knowledge
(outlined in previous paragraph) and is ready to configure
a particular device interface appropriately (Gagne’s steps 4
and 6). The student practices under the guidance of remote
facilitator (Gagne’s step 5), who then provides correct feedback
(Gagne’s step 7). The student submits results to the remote
facilitator who keeps track of the acquired individual skills
(Gagne’s step 6).
The student is now ready to proceed to the second and more
advanced experimental stage involving group student interac-
tion with equipment and intragroup teamwork (Gagne’s steps
4 and 6). This stage of experiment can be thought of as being
“directed” by the remote facilitator (Gagne’s step 5) and in-
volves collaborative learning strategies. Specifically, the col-
laborative approach is advantageous when more advanced peer
students explain difficult learning concepts or demonstrate ad-
vanced equipment configuration to less knowledgeable students,
exploiting the power of learning by observation, resulting in
better retention [30] (Gagne’s step 9). The remote facilitator ver-
ifies that the student–group has acquired the aggregate skill sets
(Gagne’s step 6).
Verifying learning outcomes—Assess performance: The
remote facilitator helps to verify that the student has accom-
plished the experimental outcome and moderates intragroup
and intergroup discussion on the results (Gagne’s step 6) to
achieve learning process convergence [27].
Troubleshooting techniques—Provide guidance and feed-
back: The remote facilitator identifies the stages of the experi-
ment that are problematic to the students, using an analysis of
the evaluation criteria not met by most students, and conveys
this information to the local facilitator. To remedy the situation,
the local facilitator, in consultation with the faculty, provides re-
medial guidance by demonstrating troubleshooting techniques
using video conferencing from the equipment site (Gagne’s
step 7). According to Gagne, such corrective feedback is an
effective teaching strategy to enhance learning and long-term
retention (Gagne’s step 9). Video conferencing is used since
this medium has high concurrency and moderate feedback char-
acteristics. Video conferencing easily allows remote students to
interrupt and seek clarification from the local facilitator and is
suitable for conveying information unambiguously to multiple
students.
Tracking student progress—Enhance retention and transfer:
The remote facilitator collects both individual student and group
outcome measures and forwards them to the local facilitator for
evaluation purposes (Gagne’s step 8). Evidence of student com-
petency in the laboratory include the following:
1) answers to questions;
2) appropriate response from configured equipment;
3) plots and printout of graphical output from simulators;
4) time in which experimental objectives are accomplished;
5) the context in which steps 1–4 are accomplished;
6) analysis and discussion of results.
Teaching and assessment methods that enhance knowledge re-
tention are outlined in [20] (Gagne’s step 9). Accordingly, fac-
ulty at the central equipment site assess students for competency
based on their 1) understanding component skills, 2) aggrega-
tion of component skills into comprehensive skills, 3) applica-
tion of comprehensive skills to solve problems, and 4) analysis
and critique of the proposed solution. On obtaining student as-
sessment from the faculty/local facilitator, the remote facilitator
may generate a graphical skill map which outlines the compe-
tency acquired by the student to motivate the student to acquire
the desired competency level.
An example of a typical remote online INWK laboratory ex-
ercise requires students to configure, analyze, and troubleshoot
the performance of the routing information protocol (RIP). Each
group is assigned INWK devices in the StudentNet for config-
uration. The RIP experiment first requires each student to learn
how to configure RIP on a router. In addition, each student cap-
tures and analyzes data packets using sniffers or protocol an-
alyzers. The advanced part of RIP experiment consists of ob-
serving and analyzing the convergence of the RIP protocol by
intentionally generating a link failure event in the network. The
convergence of RIP is of prime interest with each student group
capturing and analyzing the routing protocol updates on their
routers.
IX. RIL U
SABILITY MEASUREMENTS
The usability of an e-laboratory system is a function of system
design and is determined by factors, including ease of use, inter-
activity with the system, system accessibility, system reliability,
availability of online help (including laboratory handouts and
wiring diagram information), support for multiple simultaneous
interactions, system responsiveness, appropriateness of system
response to student input, authenticity and student perceptions
about the “state-of-the-art” networking environment, feedback
from the laboratory instructor, and hands-on feeling. A survey
questionnaire that has been developed based on these 12 issues
is summarized in Table II.
Students were asked to rate the usability of the online remote
equipment laboratory on a five-point scale, as follows: 1—very
poor; 2—poor; 3—satisfactory; 4—good; and 5—very good.
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 595
TABLE II
Q
UESTIONNAIRE USED TO
MEASURE THE
USABILITY OF THE
REMOTE INTERNETWORKING
LABORATORY
TABLE III
U
SABILITY:PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT VERSUS RATINGS
TABLE IV
U
SABILITY:M
EAN,STANDARD DEVIATION,
AND CONFIDENCE MEASURES
The survey was conducted as an anonymous postcourse eval-
uation of the RIL environment design, organization, and perfor-
mance. Of a sample size of 65 students over two years, a total
of 53 students took part voluntarily in the survey once. In de-
termining the sample size, the factor that played a major role
was the student enrollment, consisting of 32 to 33 students each
year. Table III gives the percentages of students who rated the
12 different aspects of the online laboratory as very good, good,
or satisfactory. Table IV gives the mean rating, the standard de-
viation, and the confidence measure for the 12 aspects of the
remote laboratory.
Tables III and IV show that the students are highly satis-
fied with the technical design of the RIL environment as re-
flected by the results for ease-of-use, reliability, accessibility,
authenticity, response time, and system response characteristics.
Over 90% of the students rated these technical characteristics
of the INWK networking equipment to be satisfactory, good,
or very good. The networking environment was perceived to be
“state-of-the-art” by 87% of students who rated this aspect to be
satisfactory, or good, or very good. In addition, the students are
highly satisfied with the format of the online wiring information
and laboratory handouts since 90% of students rated them to be
596 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
TABLE V
O
NSITE ISSUES AND
THEIR
CORRESPONDENCE TO
ONLINE USABILITY
MEASURES
TABLE VI
O
NSITE VERSUS
ONLINE SURVEYS:M
EAN,S
TANDARD DEVIATION,
AND CONFIDENCE
MEASURES
satisfactory, good, or very good. The level of interactivity is gen-
erally considered a key indicator of quality [20]. As indicated in
Tables III and IV, although 81% of students rated the interac-
tivity with laboratory components to be satisfactory, good, or
very good, only 77% of students rated the level of “hands-on”
feeling experienced in laboratory sessions to be satisfactory,
good, or very good. Hence, the program needs to improve stu-
dent interactivity with laboratory equipment and the “hands-on”
feeling experienced by the student to improve the quality of in-
teraction between the student and the equipment. In addition,
only 79% of students rated the feedback from the laboratory fa-
cilitator to be satisfactory, good, or very good, and this aspect
showed the most variability. The program needs to train the re-
mote facilitator better in providing timely and useful feedback
to the student.
Comparing the online and onsite laboratories: Onsite stu-
dents were asked to respond on a five-point scale (1—very poor;
2—poor; 3—satisfactory; 4—good; and 5—very good) to the
following aspects of the onsite equipment laboratory: the phys-
ical access to equipment, the suitability of the networking equip-
ment, their experience using the laboratory, and the help labora-
tory experiments gave them in understanding networking con-
cepts. Of a sample size of 60 students over two years, a total
of 50 students took part voluntarily in the survey once. Specific
questions of the online survey were more detailed and refined
than that of the onsite survey. However, as shown in Table V, the
four onsite issues can be mapped to one or more corresponding
online questions to enable comparison.
Table VI lists the mean, standard deviation, and confidence
measures for the four onsite issues shown in Table V, used to
measure the design and implementation of the onsite laboratory
survey and compares these measures with the corresponding fig-
ures for the online laboratory survey.
Table VI indicates that, on average, onsite students are more
satisfied with the physical accessibility to the equipment than
their online counterparts. Similarly, students in the onsite pro-
gram are more aware of the suitability of the networking equip-
ment employed in the laboratory. The online students consis-
tently rated the authenticity of the networking environment to
be lower and perceived the networking environment to be less
state-of-the-art than their onsite counterparts. In addition, the
onsite students were marginally more satisfied than the online
students when asked whether the laboratory equipment helped
them understand networking concepts better. However, the on-
line students were more satisfied with their online laboratory
experience than the onsite students, and this satisfaction may
be attributed to the flexibility that the remote access provides
to online students. For example, online students can access the
laboratory at a time and from a place convenient to them to per-
form the laboratory experiments at a suitable pace.
X. C
ONCLUSION
This paper demonstrates the feasibility of designing e-lab-
oratory systems for strong student interaction with remote
equipment. The Web-based, remote interactive laboratory
(RIL) environment allows remote students to access and uti-
lize Internetworking (INWK) equipment located at a central
equipment facility. The architectural design of the RIL and the
instructional strategies employed are tailored to accommodate
the special hardware and software requirements of the INWK
program. The RIL’s technical design is implemented using
existing technologies, de facto networking standards, free
software, and commercial Internet browser to support multiple,
simultaneous real-time interactions, and secure information
SIVAKUMAR et al.: A WEB-BASED REMOTE INTERACTIVE LABORATORY FOR INTERNETWORKING EDUCATION 597
transfer between the remote sites and the central equipment
facility. The unique pedagogical and laboratory-based instruc-
tion requirements of the INWK program motivate the use of
effective remote-site facilitation to mimic the face-to-face inter-
action that takes place in onsite laboratories. The RIL’s four-tier
role architecture consisting of faculty and local site facilitators
at the equipment facility, remote site facilitators, and remote
students have well-defined duties and help maintain academic
integrity. The RIL’s technical design, instructional strategy,
and role architecture model a synchronous, constructivist,
collaborative, and directed-learning environment. The RIL is
accessible, reliable, easy to use, responsive, and scalable. The
RIL helps achieve the pedagogical and instructional goals of
the program while continuing to offer quality interaction. Se-
curity considerations motivate the design of the access control
system employed to limit access to educational and laboratory
resources only to authenticated students. Survey results used
to measure the usability of the remote laboratory demonstrate
the success achieved in designing and implementing a remote
access INWK laboratory. Survey results also indicate that the
online laboratory is perceived to be easier to use and more
flexible than the onsite laboratory because of the former’s
remote-access capability. However, the online laboratory is per-
ceived to be less physically accessible and less interactive than
the onsite laboratory. Additional work is planned to address
improving the student interactivity with equipment and better
facilitator training. Based on the feedback from the faculty
who were involved in both the onsite and the online programs
and the students’ historical performance measures, including
grades, switching to the online remote laboratory format has not
resulted in any degradation of the expected learning outcomes.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the many anonymous re-
viewers whose insightful suggestions have helped improve
the quality of this paper. The authors also would like to thank
S. Caines, Program Administrator for the Internetworking
Program, in collecting the student responses to the remote in-
teractive laboratory usability measurements and Cisco Systems,
Nortel Networks, and Aliant Nova Scotia for their generous
donation of Internetworking equipment to the program.
R
EFERENCES
[1] “The e-learning e-volution in colleges and universities,” The Advisory
Committee for Online Learning, Council of Ministers of Education and
Industry Canada (CMEC&IC), 2001.
[2] J. Bagi and S. M. Crooks, “Synchronous WWW-Based course-support
systems: Tools for facilitating online constructivist learning,” Educ. Dis-
tance, vol. 15, no. 4, 2001.
[3] P. Arpaia, A. Baccigalupi, F. Cennamo, and P. Daponte, “A measurement
laboratory on geographic network for remote test experiments,” IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 992–997, Oct. 2000.
[4] M. Casini, D. Prattichizzo, and A. Vicino, “The automatic control
telelab: A user-friendly interface for distance learning,” IEEE Trans.
Educ., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 252–57, May 2003.
[5] A. Ferrero, S. Salicone, C. Bonora, and M. Parmigiani, “ReMLab: A
Java-based remote, didactic measurement laboratory,” IEEE Trans. In-
strum. Meas., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 710–715, Jun. 2003.
[6] M. C. Dorneich, “A system design framework-driven implementation
of a learning collaboratory,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst.,
Humans, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 200–13, Mar. 2002.
[7] D. C. L. Ngo, L. S. Teo, and J. G. Byrne, “Evaluating interface aes-
thetics,” Knowl. Inf. Syst., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 46–79, Jan. 2002.
[8] M. Joler and C. G. Christodoulou, “Virtual laboratory instruments and
simulations remotely controlled via the Internet,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Symp. Antennas Propagation Soc., vol. 1, 2001, pp. 388–391.
[9] M. Llamas, L. Anido, and M. J. Fernandez, “Simulators over the net-
work,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 24–24, May 2001.
[10] T. Kikuchi, S. Fukuda, A. Fukuzaki, K. Nagaoka, K. Tanaka, T. Kenjo,
and D. A. Harris, “DVTS-Based remote laboratory across the pacific
over the gigabit network,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 26–32,
Feb. 2004.
[11] M. J. Safoutin, C. J. Atman, R. Adams, T. Rutar, J. C. Kramlich, and J. L.
Fridley, “A design attribute framework for course planning and learning
assessment,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 188–199, May 2000.
[12] Y. Shang et al., “An intelligent distributed environment for online
learning,” ACM J. Educ. Resources Comput., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–17,
2001.
[13] S. C. Sivakumar and W. Robertson, “The full cost recovery master’s
level degree program in internetworking education at Dalhousie Uni-
versity in Atlantic Canada,” in Proc. Atlantic Schools Business Conf.,
Halifax, NS, Canada, 2001, pp. 229–238.
[14] R. M. Palloff and K. Pratt, The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to
Working With Online Students, ser. The Jossey–Bass higher and adult
education. New York: Wiley, 2003.
[15] A. G. Picciano, “Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence and performance in an online course,” J. Asynchron. Learning
Netw., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21–40, Jul. 2002.
[16] T. Janicki and J. O. Liegle, “Development and evaluation of a framework
for creating web-based learning modules: A pedagogical and systems
perspective,” J. Asynchron. Learning Netw., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 58–84, May
2001.
[17] S. R. Hiltz, N. Coppola, N. Rotter, M. Turoff, and R. Benbunan-Fich,
“Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effective-
ness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach,” J. Asynchron.
Learning Netw., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 103–125, Sep. 2000.
[18] D. H. Jonassen, K. L. Peck, and B. G. Wilson, Learning With Tech-
nology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill,
1999.
[19] E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Iden-
tity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
[20] K. A. Meyer, “Quality in distance education: Focus on on-line learning,”
ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 29, pp. 1–121, 2002.
[21] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, “Research commentary: Technology-medi-
ated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research,” Inf. Syst.
Res., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2001.
[22] S. C. Sivakumar and W. Robertson, “Development of an effective remote
interactive laboratory for online internetworking education,” in Proc.
37th Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences (HICSS), 2004, pp. 10–10.
[23] S. G. Schar and H. Krueger, “Using new learning technologies with mul-
timedia,” IEEE Multimedia, pp. 40–51, Jul.–Sep. 2000.
[24] S. C. Sivakumar, “A user interaction framework for e-learning,” in
Proc. 6th Annu. Conf. Southern Assn. Information Systems, 2003, pp.
388–396.
[25] A. R. Dennis, J. S. Valacich, C. Speier, and M. G. Morris, “Beyond
media richness: An empirical study of media synchronicity theory,” in
Proc. 31st Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences (HICSS), 1998, pp. 48–57.
[26] A. R. Dennis and J. S. Valacich, “Rethinking media richness: Toward a
theory of media synchronicity,” in Proc. 32nd Hawaii Int. Conf. System
Sciences (HICSS), 1999, pp. 1–10.
[27] G. Collison, B. Elbaum, S. Haavind, and R. Tinker, Facilitating Online
Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood
Publishing, 2000.
[28] R. M. Gagne, Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1987.
[29] R. Gagne, L. Briggs, and W. Wager, Principles of Instructional Design,
4th ed. Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers, 1992.
[30] A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
[31] Fixed wiring diagram. [Online]. Available: http://inwk01.inwk.dal.ca/
info/INWK_lab_info_site-Wiring.htm
598 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 48, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005
Shyamala C. Sivakumar (M’01) received the B.Eng. (Electrical) degree from
Bangalore University, Bangalore, India, in 1984 and the M.A.Sc. (Eng.) and
Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical Uni-
versity of Nova Scotia (now Dalhousie University), Halifax, NS, Canada, in
1992 and 1997, respectively.
From 1997 to 1999, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow and, from 1996 to 2000, an
Assistant Professor with the Internetworking Program at Dalhousie University,
Halifax, NS, Canada. She is currently an Associate Professor of Computing and
Information Systems at the Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, NS, Canada. Her research interests include the design of multimodal
biometric authentication systems and the use of Internet-working technology
for innovative applications in e-education and e-commerce.
Dr. Sivakumar is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of
Nova Scotia.
William Robertson (M’75–SM’96) received the B.Sc. (Eng. Hons.) degree
and the M.Sc. (Eng.) degree from Aberdeen University, Scotland, U.K., both
in 1967, and the Ph.D. degree from the Technical University of Nova Scotia
[(TUNS), now Dalhousie University], Halifax, NS, Canada, in 1986.
Since 1983, he has held various positions at TUNS and Dalhousie Univer-
sity and is currently the Director of the Internetworking Program—a program
leading to the Master’s of Engineering in Internetworking. His research in-
terests include signal processing and networking—QoS, routing, and wireless
applications.
Dr. Robertson is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of
Nova Scotia.
Maen Artimy (S’98) received the B.Sc. degree in computer engineering from
Al-Fateh University, Tripoli, Libya, in 1990 and the M.A.Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada in 1999. He is cur-
rently working toward the Ph.D. degree at Dalhousie University.
He is currently a Research Assistant/Instructor with the Internetworking Pro-
gram at Dalhousie University. His research interests include Internet switching
and routing technologies and mobile ad hoc networks.
Mr. Artimy is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of
Nova Scotia.
Nauman Aslam (S’05) received the B.Sc. (Eng.) degree from the University
of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, in 1994 and the Master’sof
Engineering degree in Internetworking from Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS,
Canada, in 2003. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at Dalhousie
University.
He is currently a Research Assistant/Laboratory Coordinator for the Internet-
working Program at Dalhousie University. His research interests include wire-
less ad hoc and sensor networks.
