Advertisement

Mobile Cyber-Physical Labs: Integration of Mobile Devices with System and Control Laboratories

  • Jared A. Frank
  • Anthony Brill
  • Vikram KapilaEmail author
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed the adoption of mobile devices to deliver valuable interactive learning experiences to students. Although prior efforts have led to the development of mobile applications that enhance access to virtual and remote laboratories, research has not yet explored the comprehensive integration of mobile technologies into traditional laboratory activities. In this chapter, we present the development of mobile cyber-physical laboratories (MCPLs) in which hardware and software of mobile devices are leveraged in measurement, control, monitoring, and interaction with physical test-beds in the laboratory. Two separate approaches for realizing cost-effective and portable educational test-beds are proposed that utilize the sensing, storage, computation, and communication (SSCC) capabilities of mobile devices to facilitate inquiry-based educational experiences. In the first approach, smartphones are mounted directly to test-beds to allow inertial- and/or vision-based measurement and control of the test-bed. In the second approach, tablets are held such that their rear-facing cameras allow vision-based measurement and control of the test-bed. By developing mobile applications that incorporate interactive plots and augmented reality visualizations, unique and engaging learning experiences are provided from learners’ personal mobile devices. The implementation and evaluation of each approach is discussed with a motor test-bed used to teach concepts of dynamic systems and control. Results of investigations indicate that by intimately linking concrete physical and cyber representations of phenomena through interactive, visually engaging interfaces, the MCPLs allow learners to make connections necessary for deep conceptual understanding and to engage in activities that hone their design skills.

Keywords

Augmented reality Dynamic systems Mobile learning Mixed-reality learning Virtual reality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation awards RET Site EEC-1542286 and EEC-1132482, ITEST DRL: 1614085, DRK-12 DRL: 1417769, and GK-12 Fellows DGE: 0741714, and NY Space Grant Consortium grant 76156-10488.

References

  1. Alexander, K. (2015). Instruments in your pocket. Mechanical Engineering Magazine, 137(9), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andujar, J., Mejías, A., & Marquez, M. (2011). Augmented reality for the improvement of remote laboratories: An augmented remote laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apkarian, J. (1995). A comprehensive and modular laboratory for control systems design and implementation. Toronto: Quanser Consulting.Google Scholar
  5. Aroca, R. V., Péricles, A., de Oliveira, B. S., & Marcos, L. (2012). Towards smarter robots with smartphones. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop in Applied Robotics and Automation, Bauru (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  6. Aziz, E.-S., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2007). On the design of a virtual learning environment for mechanical vibrations. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee (pp. F2H-7–F2H-12).Google Scholar
  7. Blosser, P. E. (1983). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 83(2), 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnington, C. (2015). In less than two years, a smartphone could be your only computer. Wired. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/smartphone-only-computer/. Accessed 10 Feb 2015.
  9. Brill, A., Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2016a). Visual servoing of an inverted pendulum on cart using a mounted smartphone. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Boston (pp. 1323–1328).Google Scholar
  10. Brill, A., Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2016b). Using mounted smartphones as a platform for laboratory education in engineering. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, New Orleans (10.18260/p. 27153).Google Scholar
  11. Brill, A., Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2016c). Using inertial and visual sensing from a mounted smartphone to stabilize a ball and beam test-bed. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Boston (pp. 1335–1340).Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. M. (1990). The nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, J., Pachler, N., & Bradley, C. (2008). Bridging the gap? Mobile phones at the interface between informal and formal learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 4(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  16. Copolo, C. E., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. da Silva, J. B., Rochadel, W., Marcelino, R., Gruber, V., & Bilessimo, S. M. S. (2013). Mobile remote experimentation applied to education. In O. Dziabenko, & J. García-Zubia (Eds.), IT innovative practices in secondary schools: Remote experiments (pp. 281–302). Bilbao: University of Deusto.Google Scholar
  19. de Lima, J. P. C., Rochadel, W., Silva, A. M., Simão, J. P. S., da Silva, J. B., & Alves, J. B. M. (2014). Application of remote experiments in basic education through mobile devices. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Istanbul (pp. 1093–1096).Google Scholar
  20. Desai, A., Lee, D. J., Moore, J., & Chang, Y. P. (2013). Stabilization and control of quad-rotor helicopter using a smartphone device. In Proceedings of SPIE Conference (Vol. 8662); Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision XXX: Algorithms and Techniques, Burlingame (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  21. Dorf, R., & Bishop, R. (2008). Modern control systems. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. El-Gaaly, T., Tomaszewski, C., Valada, A., Velagapudi, P., Kannan, B., & Scerri, P. (2013). Visual obstacle avoidance for autonomous watercraft using smartphones. In Proceedings of the Autonomous Robots and Multirobot Systems Workshop, Saint Paul (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  23. Feisel, L., & Rosa, A. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., et al. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1, 010103-1–010103-8.Google Scholar
  25. Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2014). Development of mobile interfaces to interact with automatic control experiments [Focus on education]. IEEE Control Systems, 34(5), 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2016a). Towards teleoperation-based interactive learning of robot kinematics using a mobile augmented reality interface on a tablet. In Indian Control Conference, Hyderabad (pp. 385–392).Google Scholar
  27. Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2016b). Using mobile devices for mixed-reality interactions with educational laboratory test-beds. Mechanical Engineering, 138(6), 52–56.Google Scholar
  28. Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2017). Mixed-reality learning environments: Integrating mobile interfaces with laboratory test-beds. Computers & Education, 110, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frank, J. A., Gómez, J. A. D., & Kapila, V. (2015). Using tablets in the vision-based control of a ball and beam test-bed. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, Colmar (pp. 92–102).Google Scholar
  30. Frank, J. A., Brill, A., & Kapila, V. (2016a). Interactive mobile interface with augmented reality for learning digital control concepts. In Indian Control Conference, Hyderabad (pp. 85–92).Google Scholar
  31. Frank, J. A., Brill, A., & Kapila, V. (2016b). Mounted smartphones as measurement and control platforms for motor-based laboratory test-beds. Sensors, 16(8), 1331, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franklin, T., & Peng, L. W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Froehlich, J., Dillahunt, T., Klasnja, P., Mankoff, J., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., et al. (2009). UbiGreen: Investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston (pp. 1043–1052).Google Scholar
  34. Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gillett, F. (2012). Why tablets will become our primary computing device. Forrester. http://blogs.forrester.com/frank_gillett/12-04-23-why_tablets_will_become_our_primary_computing_device/. Accessed 27 Aug 2016.
  36. Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2–11.Google Scholar
  37. Haralick, R. M., Joo, H., Lee, C. N., Zhuang, X., Vaidya, V. G., & Kim, M. B. (1989). Pose estimation from corresponding point data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(6), 1426–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hesser, T., & Schwartz, P. (2013). iPads in the science laboratory: Experience in designing and implementing a paperless chemistry laboratory course. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 14(2), 5–9.Google Scholar
  39. Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In: Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., Jonassen, D.H., and Welsh, T.M. (eds.) Designing environments for constructive learning. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Hu, X., Chu, T. H. S., Chan, H. C. B., & Leung, V. C. M. (2013). Vita: A crowdsensing-oriented mobile cyber-physical system. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 1(1), 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hürst, W., & Van Wezel, C. (2011). Multimodal interaction concepts for mobile augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of International Multimedia Modeling Conference, Taipei (pp. 157–167).Google Scholar
  42. Hutchinson, S., Hager, G. D., & Corke, P. I. (1996). A tutorial on visual servo control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 12(5), 651–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J. M., Anzolone, G., & Oppliger, D. E. (2014). The RepRap 3-D printer revolution in STEM education. In ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis. https://peer.asee.org/23175.
  44. Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). Making it real: Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10(3–4), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khan, W. Z., Xiang, Y., Aalsalem, M. Y., & Arshad, Q. (2013). Mobile phone sensing systems: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(1), 402–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kim, Y. H., Kim, D. J., & Wachter, K. (2013). A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention. Decision Support Systems, 56, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klein, P., Gröber, S., Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2014a). Video analysis of projectile motion using tablet computers as experimental tools. Physics Education, 49(1), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klein, P., Hirth, M., Gröber, S., Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2014b). Classical experiments revisited: Smartphones and tablet PCs as experimental tools in acoustics and optics. Physics Education, 49(4), 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives – the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Associated Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kuhn, J., & Vogt, P. (2013). Applications and examples of experiments with mobile phones and smartphones in physics lessons. Frontiers in Sensors, 1(4), 67–73.Google Scholar
  52. Kuhn, J., Molz, A., Gröber, S., & Frübis, J. (2014). iRadioactivity: Possibilities and limitations for using smartphones and tablet PCs as radioactive counters. The Physics Teacher, 52(6), 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lane, N. D., Miluzzo, E., Lu, H., Peebles, D., Choudhury, T., & Campbell, A. T. (2010). A survey of mobile phone sensing. IEEE Communications Magazine, 48(9), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leijdekkers, P., & Gay, V. (2006). Personal heart monitoring and rehabilitation system using smart phones. In International Conference on Mobile Business, Copenhagen (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  56. Libman, D., & Huang, L. (2013). Chemistry on the go: Review of chemistry apps on smartphones. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu, W., Cheok, A. D., Mei-Ling, C. L., & Theng, Y.-L. (2007). Mixed reality classroom: Learning from entertainment. In International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, Perth (pp. 65–72).Google Scholar
  58. Liu, C., Huot, S., Diehl, J., Mackay, W., & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2012a). Evaluating the benefits of real-time feedback in mobile augmented reality with hand-held devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin (pp. 2973–2976).Google Scholar
  59. Liu, J., Hu, S., Thiagarajan, J. J., Zhang, X., Ranganath, S., Banavar, M. K., et al. (2012b). Interactive DSP laboratories on mobile phones and tablets. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Kyoto (pp. 2761–2764).Google Scholar
  60. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maiti, A., & Tripathy, B. (2012). Different platforms for remote laboratories in mobile devices. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 4(5), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. May, D., Terkowsky, C., Haertel, T., & Pleul, C. (2012). Using e-portfolios to support experiential learning and open the use of tele-operated laboratories for mobile devices. In International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation, Bilbao.Google Scholar
  64. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., et al. (2002). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nguyen, L., Barton, S., & Nguyen, L. (2015). iPads in higher education: Hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Noor, A. K. (2016). The HoloLens revolution. Mechanical Engineering Magazine, 138(10), 32–37.Google Scholar
  68. Núñez, M., Quirós, R., Núñez, I., Carda, J. B., & Camahort, E. (2008). Collaborative augmented reality for inorganic chemistry education. In Proceedings of the WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Engineering Education, Heraklion (pp. 271–277).Google Scholar
  69. Orduña, P., García-Zubia, J., Irurzun, J., López-de-Ipiña, D., & Rodriguez-Gil, L. (2011). Enabling mobile access to remote laboratories. In Global Engineering Education Conference, Amman (pp. 312–318).Google Scholar
  70. Pearce, J. M. (2012). Building research equipment with free, open-source hardware. Science, 337(6100), 1303–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rajkumar, R., Lee, I., Sha, L., & Stankovic, J. (2010). Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. In Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference, Seattle (pp. 731–736).Google Scholar
  72. Ranganath, S., Thiagarajan, J. J., Ramamurthy, K. N., Hu, S., Banavar, M., & Spanias, A. (2012). Work in progress: Performing signal analysis laboratories using Android devices. In Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle (pp. 1–2).Google Scholar
  73. Rose, G. (2006). Mobile phones as traffic probes: Practices, prospects and issues. Transport Reviews, 26(3), 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sanderson, A. C., & Weiss, L. E. (1983). Adaptive visual servo control of robots. In: Pugh, A. (ed.) Robot vision (pp. 107–116). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schweitzer, D., & Brown, W. (2007). Interactive visualization for the active learning classroom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sha, L., Gopalakrishnan, S., Liu, X., & Wang, Q. (2009). Cyber-physical systems: A new frontier. In: Yu, P.S. and Tsai, J.J.P. (eds.) Machine learning in cyber trust (pp. 3–13). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thilmany, J. (2014). Working away. Mechanical Engineering Magazine, 136(1), 40–43.Google Scholar
  79. Venkataraman, B. (2009). Visualization and interactivity in the teaching of chemistry to science and non-science students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(1), 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vogt, P., & Kuhn, J. (2013). Analyzing radial acceleration with a smartphone acceleration sensor. The Physics Teacher, 51(3), 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vogl, W., Ma, B. K.-L., & Sitti, M. (2006). Augmented reality user interface for an atomic force microscope-based nanorobotic system. IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, 5(4), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Williams, A., & Pence, H. (2011). Smart phones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6), 683–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Woods, E., Billinghurst, M., Looser, J., Aldridge, G., Brown, D., Garrie, B., et al. (2004). Augmenting the science centre and museum experience. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, Suntec City (pp. 230–236).Google Scholar
  85. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechatronics, Controls, and Robotics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringNYU Tandon School of EngineeringBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options