See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224153366

Current Trends in Industrial Electronics Education

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · November 2010

DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2010.2057235 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

63 836

3 authors:

J.J. Rodriguez-Andina Luis Gomes

University of Vigo Universidade NOVA de Lisboa
129 PUBLICATIONS   1,370 CITATIONS    205 PUBLICATIONS   1,970 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seta Bogosyan
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,709 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Petri-Rig - A Petri net based framework for embedded systems engineeRInG View project

FISIOROB - Robot Platform for Rehabilitation of Post-stroke patients View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J.J. Rodriguez-Andina on 29 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BELOW YOU MAY FIND THE ACCEPTED VERSION OF THE ARTICLE:

J.J.Rodríguez Andina, L.Gomes, S.Bogosyan, “Current trends in industrial electronics

education”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 3245-3252,
Oct. 2010.

DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2010.2057235

THE PUBLISHED VERSION IS AVAILABLE IN IEEE Xplore, AT:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5504840
 Current Trends in Industrial Electronics
Education
Juan J. Rodriguez-Andina, Senior Member, IEEE, Luís Gomes, Senior Member, IEEE, and Seta
Bogosyan, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Technology development creates many challenges
in the education of Industrial Electronics-related subjects. At
the same time, it allows new educational paradigms to be
implemented. The main contribution of this paper is to initiate
a discussion for the needs and challenges of Industrial
Electronics education both at university level and in life-long
learning, in order to meet the requirements of the emerging
technologies of the 21st century. Educational challenges and
opportunities are first identified and analyzed. Afterwards, an
overview of state-of-the-art learning methodologies and tools is
presented. New educational paradigms and future directions
are also identified.
Index Terms—Cooperative Learning, Learning Systems,
Multidisciplinary Education, Lifelong Learning.
I. INTRODUCTION
I NDUSTRIAL Electronics (IE) systems are the center
piece of all industrial systems, with common applications
in, but not limited to, robotics, motion control, industrial
automation, electrical, hybrid electrical vehicles, or
unmanned vehicles. The IE technologies assert themselves
not only in the power electronics, motor drive,
microcontroller, or signal conditioning aspects of such
systems, but also in the sensing, monitoring, diagnostic,
control and communication processes involved with such
systems and many other industrial practices. The field has
certainly moved far beyond traditional electronics, which
used to be the final product at one time, and has been the
driving force towards larger scale industrial systems with
more recent extensions in mechatronics and cyberphysical
systems. These emerging technologies of 21st century bring
along the need for IE engineers who have knowledge and
expertise in a plethora of technical areas mentioned above.
This issue is currently well-recognized at all educational
levels, and despite the lack of a coordinated educational plan
at the moment, there are considerable efforts to bring IE
education even to high schools; i.e. through Project Lead the
Way programs and First Robot Challenge competitions in
USA for example, where the students are faced with IE-
related challenges for the proper control of autonomous
robotics systems.
Manuscript received June 18, 2010. Accepted for publication June 30,
2010.
Copyright © 2010 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permission@ieee.org
J.J. Rodriguez-Andina is with the Department of Electronic Technology,
University of Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain (e-mail: jjrdguez@uvigo.es)
L. Gomes is with the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Universidade
Nova de Lisboa, and also with the Center of Technology and Systems,
UNINOVA, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal (e-mail: lugo@ieee.org)
S. Bogosyan is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering
Department, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5915, USA (e-
mail: sbogosyan@alaska.edu)
As for the more common arena of IE education, the
current trend in university education worldwide is the
teaching of IE areas in individual courses for each area
listed above. This approach hardly provides the student with
the multidisciplinary perspective required and demanded by
IE systems, where the main issue is the integrated operation
of the system, hence calling for a revised engineering
education system that puts IE experts (and not only experts
in individual areas) and state-of-the-art, specially equipped
laboratory facilities into the service of engineering students
to offer a solid understanding of each area individually,
while also providing a strong hands-on perspective for the
operation, evaluation, diagnosis and maintenance of the
integrated system as a whole.
As IE systems gain more and more weight in the
emerging technologies of mechatronics and cyberphysical
systems, continued education and lifelong learning in IE
also gain importance as many of engineering professionals
may not be equipped with a working knowledge of state-of-
the-art in IE technologies. Due to the predominantly hands-
on requirements of IE, combined with temporal and spatial
restrictions associated with lifelong learning, virtual and
particularly remote laboratories may be regarded as practical
solutions to address this issue. The problem with this
solution appears to be the lack of remote physical labs that
can offer the full range of experiments provided in an actual
lab. Most existing labs still provide a limited and more of a
passive experimentation capacity via allowing the user to
monitor sensor outputs only, or to tweak some system
parameters and observe the result.
The main contribution of this paper is to initiate a
discussion for the need and challenges of IE education both
at university level and in life-long learning in order to meet
the needs of the emerging technologies of the 21st century.
Educational challenges and opportunities are first identified
and analyzed. Afterwards, an overview of state-of-the-art
learning methodologies and tools is presented. New
educational paradigms and future directions are also
identified.
II. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN IE EDUCATION
A. Challenges
Significant technological advancements in many areas
related to IE are continuously being reported. At the same
time, many “classical” approaches in these areas are still
very important in terms of the practical applications where
they are advantageous.
Digital electronic circuits for industrial control are a clear
example of this fact. Given the distributed nature of many
current industrial control systems [1], different processing
structures may be used for the different nodes of the same
system, according to their requirements. Configurable
devices, namely Field Programmable Gate Arrays, have
emerged in the last years as a very suitable implementation
platform in an increasing number of industrial applications
[2][3]. At the same time, microcontrollers [4], DSPs [5], and
PCs [6] provide very efficient solutions in many cases.
Moreover, the resources included in currently available
devices (e.g., peripherals in microcontrollers) are very
diverse [7].
Another field in which similar “overhead” of required
educational content can be identified is power electronics,
given the increasing importance of the new concepts
associated to renewable energy sources and their integration
in transmission grids [8], distributed generation [9], micro-
grids [10], energy storage [11][12], as well as new converter
topologies and control techniques for high-power / power-
quality applications [13][14], or, last but not least, hybrid
and electric vehicle technology [15][16].
From an educational point of view, this means that new
contents need continuously to be added to courses, whereas
much of the existent content still needs to be kept. This has
to be achieved without increasing the (usually very limited)
time available. In some cases, this time is being even
reduced, like, for instance, in some European countries,
because of the implementation of the so-called Bologna
process.
In addition, the fast pace at which technological
innovations are being produced, implies that engineering
education cannot be restricted to a given period of time, but
it extends through the whole professional life of engineers,
so concepts related to lifelong learning are open for
discussion and analysis [17][18].
Many universities need to adapt to this new (at least for
them) scenario, in which students come on an irregular
temporal basis, and in some cases demand the possibility to
access to education without the need for being actually
present. Specific educational methodologies and tools are
required to efficiently address these issues, taking into
account the strong requirements of engineering education
regarding practical experimentation. Effective safety and
security mechanisms related to remote access to shared
resources [19], user authentication (for granting access to
sensitive contents such as tests or personal/private records,
or copyrighted material) [20], protection against
manipulation or denial of service attacks [21], etc., need to
be implemented.
Another significant challenge of IE education is that
many of the target topics are interdisciplinary. Microsystems
[22] and robotics [23] are clear examples of this, but others
can be easily identified, even when dealing with a single
technology, as engineering products must not only solve
real-life problems, but do it according to realistic
constraints, such as economic or environmental [24]. Let us
consider the case of electronic circuits for industrial control
[25]. Information from a physical process is first obtained
by means of sensors, whose characteristics determine the
kind of conditioning circuit required. Analog-to-Digital and
Digital-to-Analog interfaces are necessary whenever dealing
with analog measurements or actuations, which is the case
in many real systems. Processors are required, having
enough computation capabilities as well as human-machine
interface, storage and communication resources, to deal with
data processing and visualization tasks, and with storage /
transfer of information (e.g., charts, reports or alarms). For
designers to be able to successfully develop complete
electronic control systems, they need to be aware of many
different subjects dealing with physical processes, control
theory, and electronics engineering, just to mention the
technological side of the problem, only.
In order for these challenges to be efficiently addressed
within the educational process, several requirements have to
be taken into account:
1) Cooperative efforts are needed at two levels. On one
hand, instructors from different fields must cooperate in the
development of (at least some) course materials and
educational tools [26]. On the other hand, cooperation
among students to solve practical problems must be
promoted, including comparative peer analysis [27],
highlighting the importance of (and the current need for)
teamwork. It has also been proposed that students actively
collaborate among them in various phases of the
examination process, by designing exam questions,
answering questions designed by their peers, and grading
answers to the questions they authored [28].
2) A change of educational paradigm is necessary, from
the situation where the focus is on how well teachers teach
(mainly through lectures), to a student-centric approach,
where instructors act mainly as facilitators: once provided
with the suitable tools, students are responsible to make the
necessary efforts to acquire the target abilities and
competencies (a somewhat diffuse term demanding clear
conceptualization [29]). As a consequence, motivating the
students becomes one of the fundamental tasks of educators
[30]. In particular, the materials for courses to be taught
during the initial years of the IE-related degrees have to be
developed as to make basic science and engineering
concepts interesting for students [31][32], trying to link
them to practical problems more directly related with the
field of study actually chosen by students [33][34]. It is also
necessary to strengthen the interest of high school students
in engineering subjects [35].
Learning Objects (modular didactic units, designed
following specific learning objectives [36]) are basic
elements of this new paradigm. Particularly in the case of
lifelong learning, they allow students to adapt the learning
pace to the time they can devote to study. The availability of
Learning Object Repositories [37] allows students to search
for educational contents fitting their specific interests.
In this context, Project- and Problem-Based Learning
methods have been also proven to be effective in increasing
the interest of students in subjects, like power electronics
[38], which they usually considered particularly difficult. In
these approaches, projects or problems are proposed in such
a way that students need to get acquainted with some
important concepts before solving them. Problem
formulation should be motivating enough as for students to
be really interested in learning the required concepts on their
own.
3) The way in which students, and the education process
itself [39], are evaluated, needs to be adapted, not only to
reflect this change of paradigm, but also taking into account
that in an increasing number of situations students will not
attend lectures, labs, or even tests (rising issues about
authentication and plagiarism [40]), in person.
4) It is very important that educational tools can be
adapted to the level of knowledge of students, so that the
same type of tools can be used through the whole
educational process. In this way, students do not need to
spend a significant part of their time focusing on how to use
new educational tools, but on effectively learning the
important concepts instead. For instance, the combination of
reconfigurable hardware and virtual instruments can provide
significant advantages in this regard [41]. This has to be
balanced with the need for engineering students to become
acquainted with the equipment and techniques used in
professional environments.
B. Opportunities
At the same time that technological advancements pose
significant educational challenges, they also enable new,
more efficient, methodologies and tools to be developed. In
addition to this direct, positive, impact of technology on
education, there are also indirect opportunities for
advancement, coming from social changes caused by
globalization.
Many advantageous features provided by current
educational platforms are enabled by recent technological
developments:
1) The ubiquitous availability of technology allows a
more flexible access to educational content [42],
contributing to improve the efficiency of the learning
process. Adaptive learning environments can be developed,
where both students and teachers can perform individual or
collaborative activities in different contexts, which can be
dynamically managed [43]. The concept of m-learning
(mobile learning) arises as a new stage in the development
of distance learning and e-learning [44], with the added
flexibility provided by the possibility to access educational
resources from mobile devices. The trend towards social
learning environments (in analogy with social networks),
which should help learners to find the right content and
connect with the right people (where what right means
depends on the context, the learner, and his/her purpose), is
discussed in [45].
2) Widespread access to high-speed Internet connections
boosted the development of remote laboratories. In IE-
related areas (such as control engineering, mechatronics,
power electronics, electrical machines and drives, or
robotics), the cost associated to educational laboratories is
usually high, both in terms of setup and of maintenance. In
this context, one of the major advantages of remote
laboratories is that they allow resources (and costs) to be
shared among different institutions through off-site
experimentation. Another evident advantage of remote labs
(in any area) is that they can provide 24/7 access to
experimentation to regular students or lifelong learners.
Sharing of resources implies the need for resource
management, in order for exclusive access to only one
active user at a time to be granted. In many cases, this is
solved by using booking systems, in conjunction with user
authentication and control access techniques [25]. Recently,
a simpler approach has been proposed, which can be used
for carrying-out experiments that, once launched, do not
require user interaction until the results are obtained. The
idea is to set up in real time a queue of requested
experiments, whose results are asynchronously sent to the
students once available [46]. This approach is particularly
suitable for short-time experiments, as for instance electrical
measurements in dc-to-dc converters, because students in
fact hardly realize any delay in getting the results, even
when several users are simultaneously active.
3) Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulation techniques can
be advantageously applied in Project-Based Learning. In
this way, students can design and test controllers for
complex systems, without the need for accessing the actual
plant, which simplifies the educational process and
eliminates safety concerns. For instance, platforms exist that
allow a controller, physically implemented in an FPGA, to
be tested in conjunction with a Matlab/Simulink model of
the plant, running on a PC. There are also actuator-load
emulator based HIL simulators, as in [47][48], capable of
providing real-time simulations for any given mechatronics
configuration without the need for the physical system in the
lab.
4) Using physics-based simulation and data-driven
methods for generating realistic animations in computer
graphics can be a very suitable approach to generate
learning content [49]. Such systems not only provide an
entertaining educational environment for the programming,
modelling and sensing aspects of IE, but also introduce the
students to the main concept of emerging CPS technologies.
Globalization has changed advanced societies in many
senses. From an educational point of view, two main
implications of these changes are:
1) Cooperation among nations (not only in educational
subjects) is increasingly perceived as a fundamental need in
many areas. Programs like Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, or
ISEP provide an excellent framework for IE students to
work on M.Sc. projects or Ph.D. thesis in foreign
universities. Joint degrees are being developed among
universities from different countries and continents. To
highlight only a few initiatives, within the European project
PEMCWebLab, a network of remote laboratories distributed
across Europe has been developed [50]; a multinational
project aimed at better understanding the sociotechnical
infrastructure required to support cross-national teaching
and learning models is presented in [51]; the issues related
to the expansion of Georgia Tech campus worldwide are
reported in [52]; and a multilingual remote laboratory
platform allowing students from different countries to gain
access to measurement on real instrumentation is described
in [53].
2) Education is increasingly perceived as the key aspect
for the integration of groups of people at risk of social
exclusion: disabled people [54][55][56], unemployed [57],
people in underdeveloped regions or countries [58], etc.
III. LEARNING METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS
A. The advent of new learning methodologies
Concepts of learning and teaching appear sometimes
mixed, the common use being mostly based on who is at the
center of the process: the teacher or the student. In the same
direction, it is possible to distinguish between e-learning and
e-teaching, whenever information and computer
technologies are used [59].
Considering the excellent work of “edutainment”
(EDUcation plus enterTAINMENT), available through the
short film “Teaching teaching and understanding
understanding” [60], according to [61], during the last
quarter of the 20th century, several paradigm shifts occurred
within the learning processes. Roughly, before the 80’s the
emphasis was on “What students are?” (leading to answers
classifying the students into “good students” or “bad
students”). Due to the increasing number of “bad students”
in comparison with the number of “good students”, the
paradigm was changed and the emphasis became on “What
teachers do?” (to handle so many “bad students” in the
University). Considering this attitude, the teacher becomes
partly an entertainer, in order to grab students’ attention.
Unfortunately, being a good entertainer does not assure at
all that the students will acquire the expected learning
outcomes.
In this sense, a new paradigm appears emphasizing “What
students do?” and the student-centric teaching approach.
This paradigm shift is in line with lifelong learning as well.
On the other hand, continuing to have as reference the
works from John Biggs [61], the “three levels of thinking
about teaching” were identified. Level one teachers are
associated with “good student – bad student” dichotomy,
present when using the “what students are?” attitude; this is
also known as the "blame the students" approach to
teaching. Similarly, considering the question “what teachers
do?” one will find the “good teacher – bad teacher”
dichotomy, also known as the "blame the teachers"
approach. A level two teacher can emphasize the entertainer
aspect of teaching at different levels, but in the end, this
usually results in passive students. To get students actively
involved in the learning process, it is necessary to
emphasize the “what students do?” question. This is related
with the level three teacher, who is more concerned with the
learning outcome of the teaching process, through
systematic observation of what the student does before,
during, and after teaching.
Complementing the referred shifts in terms of the learning
methodologies paradigms, a similar shift arises in terms of
the kinds of tools and techniques that are available to
support those new learning methodologies. As a matter of
fact, as pointed out earlier in [62], it seems that the
development of models of learning has historically
coincided with new technological developments.
In this sense, availability of computer-based learning
environments has been supporting methodology paradigm
shift and changing the traditional roles for teachers and for
students. Instead of being sole orators, teachers need to
focus on student’s guidance of their learning and become
organizers of the learning activities. Instead of focus their
activity on grading students, teachers need to prepare and to
be prepared for student-based learning allowing interaction
and flexible learning [63].
B. The role of Project- & Problem-Based Learning
Being good representatives of new emergent pedagogic
attitudes that have been increasingly used in engineering
education, it is important to mention Project-Based Learning
[64] and Problem-Based Learning [65]. These
methodologies also support collaborative work, as in [66],
contributing to put the student in the center of its own
learning process.
Within IE education, as well as in engineering education
in general, the role of Project- and Problem-Based learning
could be particularly important, as these methods contribute
to emphasize the usage of a set of theories to a specific
application to be solved, which is the main motivation for
engineering work.
C. The role of Learning & Content Management Systems
Computer-based learning environments group several
types of solutions. Among them, Learning Management
Systems (LMS) and Content Management Systems (CMS)
have been widely used to support new learning
methodologies and pedagogic experiments.
LMS and CMS integrate a set of tools allowing several
types of interaction: one-to-one communication, one-to-
many communication, many-to-one communication, and
many-to-many communication. Any of these
communication patterns would impose a decrease in face-to-
face activities, which long term consequences are still not
completely clear.
Computer-mediated learning tools, through LMS and
CMS platforms, become a support for interaction, where
information and computer technologies mediate
communication between individuals or groups of
individuals, allowing Computer Supported Cooperative /
Collaborative Work (CSCW) [67]. According to [68],
“Cooperative work is accomplished by the division of labor
among participants, as an activity where each person is
responsible for a portion of the problem solving...”, and
collaboration focus on “mutual engagement of participants
in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together”.
Differentiation between cooperation and collaboration is on
the role and type of participation of individuals in the
activity.
New ways of interacting are available within LMS and
CMS. One example is the possibility to create forums for
discussion around a specific subject. Other examples are
emails, chats, blogs, and wikis. On the other hand, several
types of devices for user interfaces are available, including
fixed, mobile, and ubiquitous. These lead to a decentralized
and asynchronous interaction among all participants in the
learning process (teachers and learners). Even with current
unknown impact within “regular” engineering courses
delivered by academia, the impact within lifelong learning
activities looks very promising.
Expandability is also a key feature of current LMS and
CMS, normally supported by meta-data characterization and
standards for interoperability, as SCORM - Shareable
Content Object Reference Model, and IEEE-1484 Learning
Objects Metadata (IEEE LOM). Use of such kind of
standards allows different types of resources and materials
to be integrated and different types of media to be
supported, including CD-ROMs, DVDs, and on-line
delivery using web servers and browsers.
One key aspect that is expected to be emphasized in LMS
and CMS platforms is the adaptability to the learner profile
and needs. This is particularly sensitive when considering
lifelong education, where background of learners could be
diverse and the LMS should provide some built-in (and
invisible) guidance to assure a fast and secure path to
achieve the new learning goals, considering initial skills of
the learner. This goal is assured through the integration of a
tutorial system that will guide the learner along the process
as a consequence of previous achievements [69].
D. The Role of Experimentation
Unsurprisingly, no controversy arises if considering that
engineering education strongly relies on experimentation.
Hands-on laboratories are the traditional form to support
experimentation, requiring, most of the time, step-by-step
guidance by the teacher, in order to avoid damage to the
learner as well as malfunctions or damage to the equipment
involved. However, hands-on labs are also associated to
high costs. This is one reason to consider some alternatives
to hands-on labs, as simulation and remote labs. Each type
of lab has firm advocates and detractors, as referred in a
recent literature survey [70], which also provides
comprehensive discussions on the pros and cons of the
different types of labs.
A balanced education curriculum in engineering needs to
offer a reasonable blend of physical experiments and
simulations to provide students with a good understanding
of the physical laws and hands-on familiarity with analysis /
design procedures.
The combined use of e-learning environments integrating
remote, virtual (simulation-based) and hybrid laboratories is
encountered nowadays in a notable variety of
multidisciplinary applications, namely within IE-related
areas. An example from the basic electronics and digital
systems, illustrating the formal dichotomy between physical
experimentation and simulation can be found in [71]. Other
relevant examples illustrating benefits of hybrid laboratories
can be found in [72] for a virtual networking laboratory and
in [73] for a control laboratory.
Considering different constraints and goals, physical
experimentation and simulation can both contribute for a
balanced IE engineering education curriculum and can both
be integrated within the same computer-based environment,
the e-learning management system.
In the following subsections special attention is devoted
to the potential contributions of remote labs and simulation-
based environments.
E. The Role of Remote Labs
Remote laboratories can provide remote access to
experiments (either physical or simulation), and can allow
learners to have access to experiments without time and
location restrictions, providing the necessary guidance and
assuring a safe and secure operation for both the equipment
and staff in charge.
Recent state-of-the-art papers [19][74] provide an updated
discussion associated with remote labs. Several recent
books also provide a systematic view to the area
emphasizing the remote access to experimentation [75][76]
[77].
Complementary to the usage of the remote labs, it is also
important to address their development and technologies
used for their implementation, as the lack of proper software
design degrades their quality, usefulness and impact within
the learning processes. An updated overview of available
technologies supporting client/server architectures is
available in [78]. This is an area where evolution on web
technologies will directly benefit effectiveness and
robustness of remote laboratories. Among them, it is worth
to mention potential impact from developments associated
with video conferencing for small groups allowing
replication of physical laboratory constraints even if the
learners are at different locations having access to the same
remote laboratory.
F. The Role of Simulation
Virtual laboratories, based on simulators, can be accessed
locally or remotely, isolated or integrated in e-learning
management systems. Simulators are often seen as practical
and affordable alternatives to physical experimentation
addressing the same kind of problems and concerns related
to physical experimentation.
Being dependent on models, the accuracy of the result
from the simulator is associated with the accuracy of the
model. This is a major concern when dealing with virtual
laboratories. However, models with adequate level of
accuracy are normally available to almost all systems and
devices of interest within IE engineering education. One
example of a very successful case is described in [79], in the
area of digital systems, where simulators are used to support
virtual experimentation at introductory digital systems, as
well as introductory microprocessor systems courses.
Another successful example is presented in [80], where the
integration of virtual labs (as well as remote labs) with e-
learning management systems is achieved.
Even for theories with some complexity, simulators can
fill the gap between practice and theory. Using simple
applications with animations of the system or integration of
these ingredients to develop educational games is a common
practice with successful results [81]. In some areas,
integration of 2D and 3D modeler applications provides
additional insights and a very effective support for the
learner to successfully fill the gap between the models and
reality. This is the case for robotics and manufacturing
systems, where full integration of CAD systems can
visualize robot arm animation as in [82], as well as advance
problems allowing detection of collisions and other
mechanical problems.
G. Success Cases
This section is intended to refer to some reference sites
delivering e-courses for engineering. As the number of good
references is tremendous large, only a very few examples
will be provided having the focus on sites that emphasize
the role of experimentation, either physical hands-on or
simulated lab environments using remote or local access, in
IE-related areas.
The VISIR (Virtual Instrument Systems in Reality)
initiative is an Open Source Software Initiative for
Distributed Online Laboratories [83][84] at Blekinge
Institute of Technology, Sweden, providing remote access to
online lab workbenches containing an experiment connected
to specific lab instruments like oscilloscopes, multi-meters,
power supplies, and waveform generators. A relay switching
matrix is remotely controlled to properly set-up the
experiments. The components are displayed on the client
web browser close to a virtual breadboard where the student
draws the desired circuit. VISIR recommends usage of
Interchangeable Virtual Instrument, a de-facto standard
supported by the IVI Foundation [85], and hardware
platforms such as PXI (PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation)
[86] and LXI (LAN eXtensions for Instrumentation) [87].
The IVI standards define open driver architectures, a set of
instrument classes, and shared software components.
Presentation of a second example of a remote laboratory
fully integrated with an e-learning management system
(Moodle), using booking system to avoid collisions when
accessing the remote lab and with several simulators can be
found in [88]. The learner may remotely exercise the
experiment, while getting visual feedback through a web
cam, as well as numerical and graphical output information
on the results of the experiment (which can also be received
by e-mail).
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper aims to initiate a discussion for novel
approaches and methodologies in industrial electronics
education due to the ubiquitous use of the related
technologies in almost all industrial practices, as well as its
significance for emerging technologies such as mechatronics
or cyberphysical systems.
The discussion draws attention to the interdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary nature of the field which is the main
reason underlying the need for a modified engineering
education approach that addresses the requirement in a
concurrent manner, as required by the systems in
consideration, whether robotics, automotive or factory
automation ones. The common approach taken to address
this need currently is via individual course-lab combinations
that educate the students on individual IE components,
which rarely exposes them to the involved theory and
practice in a concurrent manner. This paper discusses
possible methodologies to be adapted by teachers in the
preparation of the IE courses as well as those to be
implemented in class (on-site or remotely) for effective
learning in IE. The multidisciplinary nature of the field calls
for ample teamwork both from teachers and students
perspective more than any other engineering field has ever
needed. The constant changes and emerging technologies
which build on IE also call for lifelong learning, bringing
along the need for remotely accessible virtual and physical
experimentation platforms as well as web based courses and
forums among professionals for their development in the
face of temporal and spatial limitations of professional life.
The paper provides a concise discussion of recent
literature on IE applications, as well as interesting and
effective educational efforts in support of IE. With the
discussion of this individual and yet effective activities,
authors aim to initiate ideas for a modified, well-structured
and coordinated engineering education methodology that
can address the needs of IE education adequately and
contribute to the development of a strong IE engineering
workforce equipped with all the tools required to take IE
related technologies far and beyond where they already are.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Tianjian, Y. Fujimoto, “Control System with High Speed and Real-
Time Communication Links”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1548-1557, Apr. 2008.
[2] E. Monmasson, M.N. Cirstea, “FPGA Design Methodology for
Industrial Control Systems—A Review”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1824-1842, August 2007.
[3] J.J. Rodriguez-Andina, M.J. Moure, M.D. Valdes, “Features, Design
Tools, and Application Domains of FPGAs”, IEEE Trans. on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1810-1823, August 2007.
[4] J. H. Lee, H. S. Bae, and B. H. Cho, “Resistive Control for a
Photovoltaic Battery Charging System using a Microcontroller”,
IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2767-2775,
Jul. 2008.
[5] I. Baturone, F. J. Moreno-Velo, V. Blanco, and J. Ferruz, “Design of
Embedded DSP-Based Fuzzy Controllers for Autonomous Mobile
Robots”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp.
928-936, Feb. 2008.
[6] M. Jager, S. Humbert, and F.A. Hamprecht, “Sputter Tracking for the
Automatic Monitoring of Industrial Laser-Welding Processes”, IEEE
Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2177-2184, May
2008.
[7] L. Costas, J. Farina, J.J. Rodriguez-Andina, “A Configurable
Framework for the Education of Digital Electronic Control Systems”,
in Proc. 3rd IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in
Industrial Electronics, ICELIE '09, pp. 7-12, 2009.
[8] M. Liserre, T. Sauter, and J. Y. Hung, “Future Energy Systems:
Integrating Renewable Energy Sources into the Smart Power Grid
Through Industrial Electronics”, IEEE Industrial Electronics
Magazine, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 18-37, Spring 2010.
[9] J. M. Guerrero, F. Blaabjerg, T. Zhelev, K. Hemmes, E. Monmasson,
S. Jemei, M. P. Comech, R. Granadino, and J. I. Frau, “Distributed
Generation: Toward a New Energy Paradigm”, IEEE Industrial
Electronics Magazine, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 52-64, Spring 2010.
[10] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, M. Castilla, L. G. de Vicuna,
“Control Strategy for Flexible Microgrid Based on Parallel Line-
Interactive UPS Systems”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol.
56, no. 3, pp. 726-736, Mar. 2009.
[11] F. Baalbergen, P. Bauer, and J. A. Ferreira, “Energy Storage and
Power Management for Typical 4Q-Load”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1485-1498, May 2009.
[12] S. M. Lukic, Jian Cao, R. C. Bansal, F. Rodriguez, and A. Emadi,
“Energy Storage Systems for Automotive Applications”, IEEE Trans.
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2258-2267, June 2008.
[13] L. G. Franquelo, J. Rodriguez, J. I. Leon, S. Kouro, R. Portillo, and
M. A. M. Prats, “The Age of Multilevel Converters Arrives”, IEEE
Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 28-39, Summer
2008.
[14] J. D. Barros, and J. F. Silva, “Optimal Predictive Control of Three-
Phase NPC Multilevel Converter for Power Quality Applications”,
IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 3670-3681,
Oct. 2008.
[15] A. Emadi, Young Joo Lee, and K. Rajashekara, “Power Electronics
and Motor Drives in Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no.
6, pp. 2237-2245, Jun. 2008.
[16] Z. Amjadi and S. S. Williamson, “Power-Electronics-Based Solutions
for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Energy Storage and Management
Systems”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp.
608-616, Feb. 2010.
[17] J. Kay, “Lifelong Learner Modeling for Lifelong Personalized
Pervasive Learning”, IEEE Trans. on Learning Technologies, vol. 1,
no. 4, pp. 215-228, Oct.-Dec. 2008.
[18] J. L. De Coi, P. Karger, A. W. Koesling, and D. Olmedilla, “Control
Your eLearning Environment: Exploiting Policies in an Open
Infrastructure for Lifelong Learning”, IEEE Trans. on Learning
Technologies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 88-102, Jan.-Mar. 2008.
[19] L. Gomes, and S. Bogosyan, “Current Trends in Remote
Laboratories”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics,, vol. 56 , no.
12, pp. 4744-4756, Dec. 2009.
[20] A. Moini and A. M. Madni, “Leveraging Biometrics for User
Authentication in Online Learning: A Systems Perspective”, IEEE
Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 469-476, Dec. 2009.
[21] N. H. M. Alwi and Ip-Shing Fan, “Information Security Management
in E-learning”, in Proc. International Conference for Internet
Technology and Secured Transactions, ICITST, 2009.
[22] S. L. Firebaugh and J. A. Piepmeier, “The RoboCup Nanogram
League: An Opportunity for Problem-Based Undergraduate Education
 in Microsystems”, IEEE Trans. on Education, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 394-
399, Aug. 2008.
[23] Min Jou, Chien-Pen Chuang, Din-Wu Wu, and Shih-Chi Yang,
“Learning Robotics in Interactive Web-based Environments by PBL”,
in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and its
Social Impacts, ARSO, 2008.
[24] D. Braun, “Teaching Sustainability Analysis in Electrical Engineering
Lab Courses”, IEEE Trans. on Education, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 243-247,
May 2010.
[25] L. Costas-Perez, D. Lago, J. Farina, J.J. Rodriguez-Andina,
“Optimization of an Industrial Sensor and Data Acquisition
Laboratory Through Time Sharing and Remote Access”, IEEE Trans.
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2397-2404, June 2008.
[26] R. Rabb, J. Rogers, and D. Chang, “Course Development in
Interdisciplinary Controls and Mechatronics”, in Proc. 38th Annual
Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2008, pp. T3F-11 - T3F-15,
2008.
[27] C. Tan, and Yuen-Yan Chan, “Knowledge Community: A
Knowledge-Building System for Global Collaborative Project
Learning”, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1049-1061,
Jun. 2008.
[28] Jia Shen, S. R. Hiltz, and M. Bieber, “Learning Strategies in Online
Collaborative Examinations”, IEEE Trans. on Professional
Communication, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 63-78, Mar. 2008.
[29] M. Edwards, L. M. Sanchez-Ruiz, and C. Sanchez-Diaz, “Achieving
Competence-Based Curriculum in Engineering Education in Spain”,
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 97, no. 10, pp. 1727-1736, Oct. 2009.
[30] F. P. Lopes, P. S. Oliveira, L. P. Reis, and R. E. Araujo, “An electric
wheelchair as a tool for motivating students in power electronics”, in
Proc. International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical
Drives, Automation and Motion, SPEEDAM 2008, pp. 481-485, 2008.
[31] E. Montero and M. J. Gonzalez, “Student Engagement in a Structured
Problem-Based Approach to Learning: A First-Year Electronic
Engineering Study Module on Heat Transfer”, IEEE Trans. on
Education, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 214-221, May 2009.
[32] K. Muñoz, J. Noguez, P. McKevitt, L. Neri, V. Robledo-Rella, and T.
Lunney, “Adding Features of Educational Games for Teaching
Physics”, in Proc. 39th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference,
FIE '09. 2009.
[33] B. Parhami, “Puzzling Problems in Computer Engineering”,
Computer, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 26-29, Mar. 2009.
[34] A. Behrens, L. Atorf, R. Schwann, B. Neumann, R. Schnitzler, J.
Balle, T. Herold, A. Telle, T. G. Noll, K. Hameyer, and T. Aach,
“MATLAB Meets LEGO Mindstorms—A Freshman Introduction
Course Into Practical Engineering”, IEEE Trans. on Education, vol.
53, no. 2, pp. 306-317, May 2010.
[35] R. W. Y. Habash and C. Suurtamm, “Engaging High School and
Engineering Students: A Multifaceted Outreach Program Based on a
Mechatronics Platform”, IEEE Trans. on Education, vol. 53, no. 1,
pp. 136-143, Feb. 2010.
[36] A. Balestrino, A. Caiti, and E. Crisostomi, “From Remote
Experiments to Web-Based Learning Objects: An Advanced
Telelaboratory for Robotics and Control Systems”, IEEE Trans. on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 56 , no. 12, pp. 4817-4825, Dec. 2009.
[37] S. Ternier, K. Verbert, G. Parra, B. Vandeputte, J. Klerkx, E. Duval,
V. Ordoñez, and X. Ochoa, “The Ariadne Infrastructure for Managing
and Storing Metadata”, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 13 , no. 4, pp.
18-25, Jul.-Aug. 2009.
[38] L. S. Patil, K. D. Patil, and A. G. Thosar, “The Role of Computer
Modeling and Simulation in Power Electronics Education”, in Proc.
2nd International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Technology, ICETET 2009, pp. 416-419, 2009.
[39] Jungho Park, D. Parsons, and Hokyoung Ryu, “To Flow and Not to
Freeze: Applying Flow Experience to Mobile Learning”, IEEE Trans.
on Learning Technologies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 56-67, Jan.-Mar. 2010.
[40] B. Hayes and J. V. Ringwood, “Student Authentication for Oral
Assessment in Distance Learning Programs”, IEEE Trans. on
Learning Technologies, vol. 1 , no. 3, pp. 165-175, Jul.-Sep. 2008.
[41] J. Fariña, L. Costas, C. Quintáns, and J.J. Rodríguez-Andina,
“Application of a Reconfigurable Platform for the Education of
Electronic Control Loops”, in Proc. 2007 IEEE International
Symposium on Industrial Electronics, ISIE 2007, pp. 2972-2977,
2007.
[42] Shu-Hao Ye and Yen-Chu Hung, “The Study of Self-Seamless
Teaching Strategy for Ubiquitous Learning Environments”, in Proc.
6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and
Ubiquitous Technologies in Education, WMUTE 2010, pp. 182-186,
2010.
[43] E. Martin and R. M. Carro, “Supporting the Development of Mobile
Adaptive Learning Environments: A Case Study”, IEEE Trans. on
Learning Technologies, vol. 2 , no. 1, pp. 23-36, Jan.-Mar. 2009.
[44] T. Georgiev, E. Georgieva, and A. Smrikarov, “m-Learning—A New
Stage of e-Learning”, in Proc. 5th International Conference on
Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. IV.28-1 - IV.28-5, 2004.
[45] J. Vassileva, “Toward Social Learning Environments”, IEEE Trans.
on Learning Technologies, vol. 1 , no. 4, pp. 199-214, Oct.-Dec.
2008.
[46] A. Nogueiras-Melendez, A. Lago-Ferreiro, A. Montero, A. Otero, L.
Eguizabal, and C. Martinez, “A Course on dc-to-dc Converters
towards the ECTS using the B-Learning Methodology”, in Proc. 3rd
IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial
Electronics, ICELIE '09, pp. 13-18, 2009.
[47] H. Temeltas, S. Bogosyan, and M. Gokasan, “Hardware-In-the-Loop
Robot Simulators for On-Site and Remote Education in Robotics,"
International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 22, no.4, pp.
815-828, Oct. 2006.
[48] T. Singaraju, A. Turan, M. Gokasan, and S. Bogosyan, “Hardware-In-
the-Loop Simulation of PUMA 560 Via Internet”, in Proc. 32nd
Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
IECON’06, pp. 5426-5432, Nov. 2006.
[49] N. Kwatra, C. Wojtan, M. Carlson, I. Essa, P. J. Mucha, and G. Turk,
“Fluid Simulation with Articulated Bodies”, IEEE Trans. on
Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 70-80, Jan.-
Feb. 2010
[50] T. M. Wolbank, P. Bauer, P. Macheiner, and M. Vogelsberger,
“Distance Laboratory for Teaching Industrial Electronics - II”, in
Proc. 3rd IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial
Electronics, ICELIE '09, pp. 45-50, 2009.
[51] D. L. Cogburn, N. Levinson, A. U. Ramnarine-Rieks, F. K. E.
Vasquez, “A Decade of Globally Distributed Collaborative Learning:
Lessons Learned from Cross-National Virtual Teams”, in Proc. 43rd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1 – 11,
2010.
[52] G. AlRegib, M. H. Hayes, E. Moore, and D. B. Williams,
“Technology and Tools to Enhance Distributed Engineering
Education”, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 951-969, Jun.
2008.
[53] D. Cmuk, M. Borsic, T. Mutapcic, and S. Rapuano, “A Novel
Approach to Remote Teaching: Multilanguage Magnetic
Measurement Experiment”, IEEE Trans. on Instrumentation and
Measurement, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 724-730, Apr. 2008.
[54] N. Adamo-Villani and R. Wilbur, “Two Novel Technologies for
Accessible Math and Science Education”, IEEE Multimedia, vol. 15,
no. 4, pp. 38-46, Oct.-Dec. 2008.
[55] Wu Lan, Xu Jiacheng, and Qu Xueli, “Exploration of Moodle-Based
Collaborative Learning for the Deaf”, in Proc. International Forum
on Computer Science-Technology and Applications, IFCSTA '09, vol.
2, pp. 145-147, 2009.
[56] T. Pietrzak, A. Crossan, S. A. Brewster, B. Martin, and I. Pecci,
“Creating Usable Pin Array Tactons for Nonvisual Information”,
IEEE Trans. on Haptics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 61-72, Apr.-Jun. 2009.
[57] A. Rojko, D. Hercog, and K. Jezernik, “Realization and Experience of
Professional Mechatronics e-Training”, in Proc. 3rd IEEE
International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics,
ICELIE '09, pp. 151-156, 2009.
[58] U. P. T. Maldonado, G. F. Khan, Junghoon Moon, and Jae Jeung Rho,
“E-learning Motivation, Students' Acceptance/Use of Educational
Portal in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Peru”, in Proc.
Fourth International Conference on Computer Sciences and
Convergence Information Technology, ICCIT '09, pp. 1431-1441,
2009.
[59] M. Y. Ibrahim and C. Brack, “E-Teaching and e-Learning in
Engineering Course Design”, in Proc. 3rd IEEE International
Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics, ICELIE '09, pp.
145-150, 2009.
[60] C. Brabrand, “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”,
available at http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/
[61] J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University,
Open University Press/McGraw Hill, 3rd edition, 2007.
[62] W. Winn, “A Conceptual Basis for Educational Applications of
Virtual Reality”. University of Washington, Report TR-93-9, 1993,
available at http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-93-9/
[63] C. Arden-Close, “Conflict of Learning Styles: University Science
Lectures in the Sultanate of Oman”, Journal of Science Education and
Technology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 323-332, 1999.
[64] H. Hassan, C. Domínguez, J-M. Martínez, A. Perles, J. Albaladejo,
and J-V. Capella, “Integrated Multicourse Project-Based Learning in
 Electronic Engineering”, International Journal of Engineering
Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp 581-591, 2008.
[65] A. Kolmos, X.-Y. Du, M. Dahms, and P. Qvist, “Staff Development
for Change to Problem Based Learning”, International Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 4, pp 772-782, 2008.
[66] M. Helander and M. Emami, “Engineering eLaboratories: Integration
of Remote Access and eCollaboration”, International Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp 466-479, 2008.
[67] D. Müller and H. Erbe, “Collaborative Remote Laboratorios in
Engineering Education: Challenges and Visions”, in Advances on
Remote Laboratories and e-Learning Experiences, L. Gomes and J.
García-Zubía (eds.), University of Deusto, 2007.
[68] J. Roschelle and S. D. Teasley, “The Construction of Shared
Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving”, in Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning, C .E. O'Malley (ed.), Springer
Verlag, 1995, pp. 69-97.
[69] F. M. Schaf and C. E. Pereira, “Integrating Mixed-Reality Remote
Experiments Into Virtual Learning Environments Using
Interchangeable Components”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 4776-4783, Dec. 2009
[70] J. Ma and J. V. Nickerson, “Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote
Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review”, ACM Computing
Surveys, vol. 38, no. 3, article 7, Sep. 2006.
[71] G. Donzellini, D. Ponta, “The Electronics Laboratory: Traditional,
Simulated or Remote?”, in Advances on Remote Laboratories and e-
Learning Experiences, L. Gomes and J. García-Zubía (eds.),
University of Deusto, 2007.
[72] J. Prieto-Blazquez, J. Arnedo-Moreno, J. Herrera-Joancomarti, “An
Integrated Structure for a Virtual Networking Laboratory”, IEEE
Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2334-2342, Jun.
2008.
[73] F. Coito, P. Almeida, and L. B. Palma, “SMCRVI-A Labview/Matlab
Based Tool for Remote Monitoring and Control”, in Proc. 10th IEEE
International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory
Automation, ETFA 2005, pp. 1039-1044, 2005.
[74] C. Gravier, J. Fayolle, B. Bayard, M. Ates, and J. Lardon; “State of
the Art About Remote Laboratories Paradigms - Foundations of
Ongoing Mutations”, International Journal of Online Engineering,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 19-25, Feb. 2008.
[75] L. Gomes and J. García-Zubía (eds.), Advances on remote
laboratories and e-learning experiences, University of Deusto, 2007.
[76] S. G. Tzafestas (ed.), Web-Based Control and Robotics Education,
International Series on Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation:
Science and Engineering, vol. 38, Springer Verlag, 2009.
[77] T. A. Fjeldly and M. S. Shur, Lab on the Web – Running Real
Electronics Experiments via the Internet, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[78] J. Garcia-Zubia, P. Orduna, D. Lopez-de-Ipina, and G. R. Alves,
“Addressing Software Impact in the Design of Remote
Laboratorories”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no.
12, pp. 4757-4767, Dec. 2009.
[79] G. Donzellini and D. Ponta, “A Simulation Environment for e-
Learning in Digital Design”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3078-3085, Dec. 2007.
[80] G. Scutaru, E. Cocorada, L. Gomes, A.-M. Scapolla, M. Mustica, M.
Pavalache, D. Kristaly, and S. Cocorada, “Enhanced Individualized
Learning Environment’s Impact on the Learning Process”, in Proc. 3rd
IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial
Electronics, ICELIE '09, pp. 51-56, 2009.
[81] U. Munz, P. Schumm, A. Wiesebrock, and F. Allgower, “Motivation
and Learning Progress Through Educational Games”, IEEE Trans. on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3141-3144, Dec 2007.
[82] R. Marin, G. Leon, R. Wirz, J. Sales, J. M. Claver, P. J. Sanz, and J.
Fernández, “Remote Programming of Network Robots Within the UJI
Industrial Robotics Telelaboratory: FPGA Vision and SNRP Network
Protocol”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 12, pp.
4806-4816, Dec 2009.
[83] I. Gustavsson, J. Zackrisson, H. Åkesson, L. Håkansson, I. Claesson,
and T. Lagö; “Remote Operation and Control of Traditional
Laboratory Equipment”, International Journal of Online Engineering,
vol 2, no. 1, 2006.
[84] I. Gustavsson, J. Zackrisson, and L. Håkansson; “A new concept for
distributed laboratories based on open source technologies”, in
Advances on Remote Laboratories and e-Learning Experiences, L.
Gomes and J. García-Zubía (eds.), University of Deusto, 2007.
[85] http://www.ivifoundation.org/
[86] http://www.pxisa.org/
[87] http://www.lxistandard.org/home
[88] M. T. Restivo, J. Mendes, A. M. Lopes, C. M. Silva, and F. Chouzal,
“A Remote Laboratory in Engineering Measurement”, IEEE Trans.
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 4836-4843, Dec. 2009.
View publication stats
Juan J. Rodriguez-Andina (M’00–SM’04)
received the M.Sc. degree from the Polytechnic
University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in 1990, and
the Ph.D. degree (with honors) from the
University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain, in 1996, both in
electrical engineering. He is currently an
Associate Professor in the Department of
Electronic Technology at University of Vigo. His
research interests include implementation of
complex processing algorithms in FPGAs and
concurrent testing of complex systems, from
digital to industrial electronics.
Dr. Rodriguez-Andina has authored over 100 journal and conference
papers, and holds several Spanish, European, and US patents. He currently
serves as Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics and the IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, and has been
serving IEEE conferences in different positions, including General Chair
for the 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics,
ISIE’2007, and for the 3rd and 4th IEEE International Conference on E-
Learning in Industrial Electronics (ICELIE’2009 and ICELIE’2010). He is
currently a member of the Administrative Committee (AdCom) of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (IES), and Chair of the IES Education in
Engineering and Industrial Technologies Technical Committee.
Luís Gomes (M’96–SM’06) received his
Electrotech. Eng. degree from Universidade
Técnica de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, in 1981, and
a PhD degree in Digital Systems from
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, in 1997. He is a
professor at the Electrical Engineering
Department, Faculty of Sciences and Technology
of Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal and a
researcher at UNINOVA Institute, Portugal. From
1984 to 1987, he was with EID, a Portuguese
medium enterprise, in the area of electronic
system design, in the R&D engineering department. His main interests
include the usage of formal methods, like Petri nets and other concurrency
models, applied to reconfigurable and embedded systems co-design.
Dr. Gomes is author of more than 100 papers published in journals, books
and conference proceedings. He was co-editor of the books “Hardware
Design and Petri Nets” (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), “Advances
on remote laboratories and e-learning experiences” (University of Deusto,
2007), and “Behavioral Modeling for Embedded Systems and
Technologies: Applications for Design and Implementation” (IGI Global,
2009). Dr. Gomes has been serving in different roles for the organization of
conferences, namely as General Co-Chair for 2nd and 3rd IEEE
International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics
(ICELIE’2008 and ICELIE’2009), 2nd and 3rd International Symposium
on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES’2007 and SIES’2008), among other
events.
Seta Bogosyan (M’95-SM’06) has received her
B.Sc., M,Sc. and Ph.D degrees in electrical and
control engineering from Istanbul Technical
University, Turkey in 1981, 1983, and 1991,
respectively. She conducted her PhD studies at the
Center for Robotics in University of California at
Santa Barbara, where she worked as researcher
and lecturer between 1987 and 1991. Between
1992 and 2003, she worked as associate professor
at Istanbul Technical University and is currently
professor at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA.
Her research interests are nonlinear control and estimation techniques for
electromechanical systems with applications in direct-drive systems,
sensorless control of induction motors, high efficiency control of hybrid
electrical vehicles, and cyber-physical systems, such as bilateral robotics
and intelligent transportation systems. She has authored over 90 journal and
conference publications and a book on modeling and control of induction
motors. She has served as PI in several NSF, NATO, NASA, and EISG
grants. She is associate editor of International Journal of Intelligent
Automation and Soft Computing, IEEE Transactions of Industrial
Electronics and IES Magazine. Currently, she is member of IES TC on
Education in Engineering and Industrial Technologies and TC of Motion
Control, and general co-chair of ICM 2011 (International Conference on
Mechatronics).