![]() Printer friendly version |
Abstract |
|
![]() |
![]() 1. Introduction A general interactive system for teaching electronics is depicted in Figure 1. In this system, there are two interactions, one professor/student and the other student/computer. The incorporation of the latter interaction has undoubtedly enhanced the way electronics is taught. In fact, circuit simulation through powerful programs such as PSpice has the following teaching advantages. a) The student's role turns from passive to active, which improves student attention. b) The student can visualize all circuit waveforms at once and relate cause and effect, which helps in the acquisition of concepts. c) Any voltage or current can be readily measured without the need for actually inserting measurement instruments, and d) the student can easily change a parameter value and investigate its effect on the circuit's behavior. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 1. Diagram of general interactive system. |
![]() |
1) Lack of didactic environment: Circuit simulators are, of course, created to simulate circuits, not to teach, and therefore, they do not provide a didactic environment to address specific circuits of design interest. 2) Class time allocated to teach computer programming: The student needs to learn how to code the simulator language, which consumes a significant portion of the available teaching time. The feature, programming by drawing the circuit ("clicking and dragging"), offered by modern simulators, is often mentioned as an easy way to overcome this problem. However, industrial job opportunities will favor graduates who possess the ability to write code, as a circuit schematic unnecessarily takes a considerable amount of computer memory. Furthermore, writing code is a more robust approach than drawing the circuit schematics, as an additional program is needed to translate circuit schematics into code. This program, according to the author's experience, often introduces errors of its own, of which the user is completely unaware. 3) Programming difficulties divert student's attention: Even if the student is proficient at writing code, programming subtleties can easily divert his/her attention from the main objective of computer simulation (which is to understand the circuit's operation). A typical example is the PSpice dysfunction that occurs when the programmer inadvertently leaves an extra space after the END command. 4) False sense of completion: Oftentimes inputting incorrect data yields a wrong simulation outcome. However, students who have not learned to develop a theoretical expectation for the result will feel completely satisfied with this wrong simulation outcome. It is apparent that a teaching method is needed which will preserve the advantages of simulation while eliminating its disadvantages. With this idea in mind we developed Interactive Lab. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 2. Diagram of developed educational system. |
![]() |
1) Didactic environment: Our laboratory system comprises a set of selected circuits for analysis and design. For each circuit Interactive Lab provides a complete description, consisting of circuit schematics, data, analysis questions, design specifications, and even design hints. 2) No need to allocate class time to teach computer programming: For each circuit, Interactive Lab utilizes a customized pre-written PSpice code, which is to be completed from component values entered by the student. Thus, time is not needed to teach PSpice coding during class. However, after class, once having designed and simulated the circuit, the student can peek at the code and attempt to relate it to the circuit's schematics and operation. By playing this detective game, the student, strongly driven by previous success, will be able to grasp PSpice by him/herself. It is our experience that, by repeating this procedure over time for each circuit under study, the student will progressively learn PSpice up to the point of becoming proficient in this language. 3) No programming difficulties to divert student's attention: Since the student does not have to write code in class, he/she can fully concentrate on the circuit under study. 4) No false sense of completion: Interactive Lab provides a "knowledge as a password" feature. This means that a student must enter reasonable values for the designed circuit components or else he/she will not be able to obtain any simulation outcome. This feature prevents a clueless student from obtaining simulation results that would be completely meaningless to him/her. Although technology can help significantly, it cannot and should not attempt to replace the mental effort needed in the learning process. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() 4. A Guided Tour through Interactive Lab |
![]() ![]() Require Shockwave plugin. |
![]() |
5. Measurement of Teaching
Advantages of Interactive Lab |
![]() |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() Table 1. Average course grades for students of the first author in Electronics 1 (E1) and Electronics 2 (E2). The system was first implemented in the spring 1997 semester. |
![]() |
With the idea of further quantifying the benefits of our teaching method, we incorporated the question "Was Interactive Lab helpful to learn electronics?" into the SUNY New Paltz Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) corresponding to E1 taught in the spring of 2001 by the first author. The answers were as follows. Strongly agree: 93%, Agree: 5%, Disagree: 2%, Strongly disagree: 0%. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |