Developing an IoT Practical Kit to Support Student Learning
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to: 1) develop an Internet of Things (IoT) practical training kit; 2) determine the efficiency of the IoT practical training kit; and 3) study students’ learning achievement and satisfaction. The target group consisted of 20 undergraduate students in the Information Technology and Digital Economy Program, selected through purposive sampling. The research instruments included a practical training kit using ESP8266 boards, sensors, and other devices working together in the development of the IoT practical training kit, which was aligned with the Internet of Things course content, 13 practical worksheets, and a developed achievement test. The results of the efficiency test of the IoT practical training kit based on the worksheets showed that the kit had an efficiency of 98.46%, indicating good accuracy of operational results. The study of learning achievement using the IoT practical training kit showed that the post-test score analysis of the experimental group resulted in an efficiency value of the post-learning scores of the conventional learning group and the IoT practical training kit learning group as a percentage (E1/E2) of 88.50/81.60, which was higher than the specified criterion. In addition, the students’ overall satisfaction was at the highest level, with a mean score of 4.61 and a standard deviation of 0.57. The students reported the highest level of satisfaction in the aspect of developing circuit connection and coding skills.
Article Details
References
A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, and M. Ayyash, “Internet of Things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347–2376, 2015, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2444095.
J. Chin and V. Callaghan, “Educational living labs: A novel internet-of-things based approach to teaching and research,” in Proceedings of the 2013 9th International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Athens, Greece, 2013, pp. 92–99, doi: 10.1109/IE.2013.48.
J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
Y. Li, C. Li, Wang, and G. Teng, “Design and development of immersive 3D virtual simulation experiment teaching platform for internet of things,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–15, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-18151-w.
J. Lin, W. Yu, N. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Zhang, and W. Zhao, “A survey on Internet of Things: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1125–1142, 2017, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2017.2683200.
A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet of Things for smart cities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2014, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2014.2306328.
A. Dix, “Human-computer interaction in the early 21st century,” Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 1–142, 2017, doi: 10.1561/1100000062.
B. L. R. Stojkoska and K. V. Trivodaliev, “A review of Internet of Things for smart home: Challenges and solutions,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 1454–1464, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.006.
S. Li, L. Da Xu, and S. Zhao, “5G Internet of Things: A survey,” Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 10, pp. 1–9, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jii.2018.04.001.
J. Sweller, “Cognitive load theory,” Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 55, pp. 37–76, 2011, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8.
R. E. Mayer, Computer Games for Learning: An Evidence-Based Approach. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2019.
K. Rose, S. Eldridge, and L. Chapin, “The Internet of Things: An overview,” The Internet Society (ISOC), vol. 80, pp. 1–50, 2015.
