Real-Time Power Electronics Laboratory to Strengthen Distance Learning Engineering Education on Smart Grids and Microgrids

In the science and engineering fields of study, a hands-on learning experience is as crucial a part of the learning process for the student as the theoretical aspect of a given subject. With the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, educational institutions were forced to migrate to digital platforms to ensure the continuity of the imparted lectures. The online approach can be challenging for engineering programs, especially in courses that employ practical laboratory methods as the primary teaching strategies. Laboratory courses that include specialized hardware and software cannot migrate to a virtual environment without compromising the advantages that a hands-on method provides to the engineering student. This work assesses different approaches in the virtualization process of a laboratory facility, diving these into key factors such as required communication infrastructure and available technologies; it opens a discussion on the trends and possible obstacles in the virtualization of a Real-Time (RT) laboratory intended for Microgrid education in a power electronics laboratory course, exposing the main simulation strategies that can be used in an RT environment and how these have different effects on the learning process of student, as well as addressing the main competencies an engineering student can strengthen through interaction with RT simulation technologies.

Examining Approach and Avoidance Valences of the 3 X 2 Achievement Goal Types on an Engineering Student Sample: A Validity Approach

Development of the 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire (AGQ) advanced approach and avoidance goals in three goal types within the achievement goal framework: task-, self-, and other-based. The purpose of the present study was to examine empirical support for the construct validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of factors on the questionnaire and compare model fit of the 3 × 2 configuration to other alternatives. In addition to validating some of the findings reported in earlier studies, especially the inclusion of task-based goal orientations, the study highlights a limitation and potential boundary of the 3 × 2 AGQ. While the 3 × 2 model was found to be structurally valid, we found multiple validity supports for a definition-based model of the AGQ scale, which does not differentiate between goal approach or avoidance. The study provides some indications that approach and avoidance goals can be indistinguishable to some respondents. Nonetheless, the scale was invariant across multiple groups making group comparison possible.