1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2019
  4. MAS
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2019.mas.001

Towards the semi-automatic adaptation of simulated virtual laboratory experiments

  • a Athanasios Sypsas  ,
  • b Dimitris Kalles  
  • ab Hellenic Open University, Greece
Cite as
Sypsas A., Kalles D. (2019). Towards the semi-automatic adaptation of simulated virtual laboratory experiments. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Modelling and Applied Simulation (MAS 2019), pp. 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2019.mas.001
 Download PDF

Abstract

Since real-world problems are complex a system model is usually required in advance to be built for such a problem to be properly investigated. Virtual laboratories constitute a special category of simulations and are based on models of physical laboratories and the experimental processes carried out therein. Similar experiments can be adapted to suit various learners’ needs if they can be transformed to satisfy the expected learning outcomes for each audience. We compare such experimental procedures using the Activity Diagrams which correspond to these experiments, in order to detect differences between them. These differences are, then, used for the required transformation of the experimental steps. The algorithm implemented uses a uses a BFS-like traversal to detect the differences between Activity Diagrams. The evaluation of the distance between the Activity Diagrams is carried out by the user and the possible needed transformation is decided to meet the learning outcomes in the educational environment selected by the user, educator or learner.

References

  1. Banks, J., Nelson, B. L., Carson, J. S. and Nicol, D. M.,2010. Discrete-Event System Simulation.
    PrenticeHall International Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering, 640.
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1268124
  2. Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., … Hatala, R., 2013. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 35.
  3. De Jong, T. and Van Joolingen, W. R., 1998. Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179
  4. Ejiwale, J. A., 2013. Barriers To Successful Implementation of STEM Education. Journal of
    Education and Learning (EduLearn), 7(2), 63–74.
    https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220
  5. Hillston, J., 1995. A tool to enhance model exploitation.Performance Evaluation, 22(1), 59–74.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-5316(93)E0038-7
  6. Hucka, M., Bergmann, F. T., Hoops, S., Keating, S. M., Sahle, S., Schaff, J. C., … Wilkinson, D. J., 2015. The Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML): Language Specification for Level 3 Version 1 Core. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics (JIB), 12(2), 382–549. https://doi.org/10.2390/biecolljib-2015-266
  7. Law, A. M. and Kelton, W. D., 2000. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill
  8. Maoz, S. and Ringert, J. O., 2018. A framework for relating syntactic and semantic model differences. Software and Systems Modeling, 17(3), 753–777.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0552-y
  9. Maoz, S., Ringert, J. O. and Rumpe, B., 2011. A manifesto for semantic model differencing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
    and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6627 LNCS, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21210-9_19
  10. Maria, A., 1997. Introduction to modelling and simulation. Winter Simulation Conference, 7–13.
    https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.1997.640371
  11. Peng, D., Warnke, T., Haack, F. and Uhrmacher, A. M.,2016. Reusing simulation experiment
    specifications to support developing models by successive extension. Simulation Modelling
    Practice and Theory, 68, 33–53.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2016.07.006
  12. Ramat, E. and Preux, P., 2003. “Virtual laboratory environment” (VLE): A software environment
    oriented agent and object for modeling and simulation of complex systems. In Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 11, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-190X(02)00094-1
  13. Robinson, S., 2004. Simulation: the practice of model development and use. Journal of Simulation. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jos.4250031
  14. Robinson, S., Nance, R. E., Paul, R. J., Pidd, M. and Taylor, S. J. E., 2004. Simulation model reuse:Definitions, benefits and obstacles. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 12(7-8 SPEC.ISS.), 479–494.
  15. Rossiter, J. A., 2016. Low production cost virtual modelling and control laboratories for chemical engineering students. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(6), 230-235.
  16. Schützel, J., Peng, D., Uhrmacher, A. M. and Perrone, F., 2014. Perspectives on languages for specifying simulation experiments. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2836–2847. December 7-10, Savannah, (Georgia, USA).
  17. Smith, C. U., Llado, C. M. and Puigjaner, R., 2011. Model Interchange Format Specifications for
    Experiments, Output and Results. The Computer Journal, 54(5), 674–690.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxq065
  18. Sypsas, A. and Kalles, D., 2018. Virtual laboratories in biology, biotechnology and chemistry education: a literature review. Proceedings of the 22nd Pan- Hellenic Conference on Informatics pp. 70-75. 30 November 30-December 1, Athens, (Greece).
  19. Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S. and Jacotin, G., 2019. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019. OECD. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en
    [accessed 15 March 2019]
  20. Waltemath, D., Adams, R., Bergmann, F. T., Hucka, M., Kolpakov, F., Miller, A. K., … Le Novère, N,. 2011. Reproducible computational biology experiments with SED-ML - The Simulation Experiment Description Markup Language. BMC Systems Biology, 5(1), 198. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-5-198