2010 2nd International Congress on Engineering Education, December 8-9, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Teaching Microprocessor Course:

Challenges and Initiatives Hafizah Husain, Salina Abdul Samad & Aini Hussain

Department of Electrical, Electronics and Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,

Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia

Abstract- Identifying the correct approach to teaching

microprocessors concepts to Malaysian students is important so as to let them see how the concepts can be applied in practice. This course basically teaches the students on how to design microprocessor-based systems. The students have to understand in detail about the architecture of the microprocessor and learn how to write comprehensive assembly language programs. Teaching and learning the theory of programming is a challenging task

since it involves the abstract notions and logical thinking. In addition, they have to have the detailed knowledge on the hardware aspect of the processor. Unfortunately, most of these students adopt a surface approach and tend to accept information passively. They also tend to concentrate only on what will be asked in the examinations and prefer to memorize facts rather than reflecting on the purpose and analyzing the information. They need to adopt a deep

approach to learning and interact with the content critically in order to integrate both the hardware and software aspects in their design. This paper discusses the integrated, practical, and student-centered approach for teaching this important subject in the Department of Electrical, Electronics and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Although the results shown are favorable, continuous effort is needed to ensure students' comprehension on the concept is well established and sustainable.

Keywords - Microprocessor course, integrated learning

techniques.

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently, the microprocessor is playing an increasingly important role in a wide range of engineering applications. Engineers from all disciplines benefit from learning the power of the microprocessor in solving engineering problems. The main objective of teaching the microprocessor course is to allow the students to have a thorough practical knowledge of programming and interfacing of the Intel family microprocessors (Brey 2009). They are expected to acquire design skills and develop a microprocessor-based system that can not only solve engineering problems but also paying attention to the manufacturing and economic factors that influence the processor designs. In order to cultivate a comprehensive approach to learning the concept and acquire the skills, the conventional approach of chalk and talk limits the extent to which these students can explore in depth on the different design techniques of interfacing and programming the microprocessor.

978-1-4244-7311-3/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 215

Majority of Malaysian students are known to only concentrate on getting good marks in their examinations. Thus, they tend to memorize facts and rote learning without actually processing and integrating the facts into a wider body of knowledge (Fung 2010). These students who adopt a surface approach will not have a useful base for greater understanding of the content (Shale and Trigwell 2004). Instead, they should be encouraged to interact with the content critically, relate ideas with the previous knowledge, gain deeper understanding of the subject matter and explore all possibilities. On top of that, they should also be creative and able to address the manufacturing and economic factors in their designs.

Various learning strategies have been discussed in many literatures especially in teaching microprocessors. Among which, self learning, discovery learning flexible learning and cooperative learning have been extensively explored and used. According to the following study (Felder, 2003), the cooperative learning method has successfully improves students' achievements and at the same time promotes their generic growth in terms of motivation to learn, positive dependency, leadership, decision making skill, racial tolerance, trust among students and critical thinking ability. Skadron (2000) discusses on using seminars to consolidate students' knowledge and to expand this knowledge beyond the level of an advanced computer course. Barve et al (2001) claims that physical and virtual laboratory is the most important parameter and provide an efficient tool in science and technology education to promote self and discovery learning. Web-based learning as proposed by Mohandes et al (2002) was to provide an interactive, convenient, and self-paced, e-learning tool for teaching the fundamentals of the microprocessor course.

A. Course Overview

The course is off erred in the third year of study and introduces the various types of microprocessors( 4-bit to 16-bit) available in the market with special emphasise on Microprocessor 8086 by Intel. The students will be exposed to the fundamental knowledge of the microprocessor, internal architecture, programming model, functions and configuration of the pins. This will be followed by the programming concepts, in which the addressing modes and the instruction sets, machine and assembly languages and programming techniques will be taught in detail. This course will also introduce the students to memory addressing techniques and 1/0 devices. The students will also acquire the knowledge on the operations and applications of serial and parallel

peripherals, PPI and USART. Finally, the architecture of 8086 and the migration from 8-bit to 16-bit will be exposed to the students. The fourteen week course focuses on the following course outcomes:

I. Ability to identifY the basic architecture microprocessor and microcomputer systems and the relations between hardware and software.

2. Ability to describe the functions and basic concept of 8-bit and 16-bit microprocessors and understand the hardware and software design aspect.

3. Ability to apply the instruction sets in development of assembly language program and decoding of memory and VO devices in interfacing circuits.

4. Ability to interpret, analyze and troubleshoot assemly language programs.

5. Ability to develop assembly language program for specific applications.

6. Ability to design and develop a complete microprocessor-based microcomputer system to solve engineering problems

The course delivery and learning strategies include the conventional approach of lecture and laboratory sessions. In addition, the usage of virtual laboratory using open access simulation and emulator tools is highly encouraged via problem-based learning assignments and projects. To motivate the weaker students and promote team work skill, a cooperative learning strategy, namely the jigsaw technique that is based on specific procedure is implemented.

II. LEARNING STRATEGIES

The various teaching and learning strategies adopted in this course; self and discovery learning through virtual laboratory, motivational learning and working cooperatively in a small group to achieve common goals and formative assessment to encourage self-monitoring of one's achievement. All these strategies were extensively explored so as to create the operational awareness and design ability through a detailed study of an actual microprocessor system, rather than solely through a description of abstract design procedures.

A. Physical and Virtual Laboratory

The physical laboratory sessions in this course emphasize on the use of trainer board that incorporate 16-bit 8086 and 8088 Intel microprocessor. The students acquire the knowledge on interfacing and clocking control and able to practice writing assembly language programming techniques. It is important for students to come to grips with a real (and complete) microcomputer system at this level in order to meet the general learning objective of mastering technical complexity. It allows students to see and practice the application of basic ideas in circuits, electronics, digital systems, and computer architecture. The content of the laboratory exercises strive to provide a balance between fundamental concepts and practical implementation details on the target hardware.

216

The virtual laboratory fills the gap in the areas where the physical or real laboratories have limitations, primarily time and space constraints and the number of equipments available. Most of the time, the students are pressured to complete the laboratory work in a specified time but unable to do so due to untraceable faulty equipments and components. Thus, they are compelled to copy the results from their friends and nothing worthwhile is achieved from the exercise. Good students are usually very inquisitive and would like to experiment with different methods to solve problems posed in the laboratory works.

To address these problems, a simulator and emulator that mimic the exact operation of the microprocessor is introduced to the students. They will have unlimited time to explore all the programming techniques available and at the same time increases the understanding on the functions and operations of each instructions. This learning method is not only contained to a privileged few, but is also possible for majority of the students who own personal computers and notebooks. Figure 1 shows the emulator program that runs the simulation for stepper motor operation in virtual laboratory.

I�� �:!�: A L i

� 0 :88880b fi8 math debu;J '<'lew external vrtwIdeYices YituaI� �

.. H, •• " �

<a: I .:. I 41 I I . I C�] � 62 ���� ttepdelay ms: 0 63 IIIOU A L [ b x )( s il 61 out 7. Al " 66 inc si " 68 CIIIP si. 1 6'1 jb nelCt_step '79 1110 ... s i. " ?> ?2 inc c)( ?3 c .. p cx. steps_b,,£o .. ,,_di .. 74 jb next_step

ffiJ�� ,�. � . ..... ... ":,rJ

�I!ad'l' • • • 1 2 1 0

76S�3210 10000110

Figure 1 Virtual Laboratory

B. Cooperative Learning

In this course, jigsaw cooperative learning method is used to improve students' achievements and at the same time promotes their generic growth in terms of motivation to learn, positive dependency, leadership, decision making skill, racial tolerance, trust among students and critical thinking ability (Felder, 2003). In the beginning of the semester, the students are divided into groups of four. The students can choose their own partners but need to adhere to the conditions imposed: the academic performance, gender and race have to be balanced. According to Felder (2003), the cooperative learning method emphasizes structured learning in small groups to fulfil 5 criteria, which are positive dependency, responsibility, face to face interaction, appropriate utilisation of interpersonal skills and continual self­assessment towards group's interest. These criteria are the fundamental elements in the planning and management of cooperative learning method, which has been identified to affect students' learning process positively.

InitialIy, the jigsaw structure adopted in this course includes the following strategy: every student in a jigsaw group has their own individual strength and expertise.

Students with the same area of expertise will get together in an expert group and discuss a given related topic. These students will then go back to their respective jigsaw groups to present the topic to all the group members. The expert groups are formed to assist the students in mastering a particular topic or concept that they are accounted to and hence device the best strategy to teach and share the knowledge to the entire jigsaw group members. Over time, this approach is slightly modified due to feedbacks received from the students. Not all students are capable to teach and share their knowledge and results in some topics not adequately understood by the members. Now, each group member will work cooperatively to complete assignments, problem-based projects and virtual laboratory exercises. To ensure that the group meets regularly, they would have to produce minutes of meetings and submit together with the given assignments.

C. Formative Assessment

In this course, the formative assessment approach is adopted to gather information on the students' progress through frequent short quizzes and assignments and highlights their weaknesses. When incorporated into classroom practice, it provides the information needed to adjust teaching and learning while they are in progress. In this sense, formative assessment approach informs both teachers and students about student understanding at a point when timely adjustments can be made (Black et al 2003). These adjustments help to ensure students achieve the targeted standards-based learning goals within a set time frame. Feedback given as part of formative assessment helps these students to be aware of any gaps that exist between their desired goal and their current knowledge, understanding, or skill and guides them through actions necessary to obtain the goal. Usually, the feedback on the students' achievement will be conveyed to them but they are also encouraged to perform self evaluation.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The efficiency of the integrated learning approach was observed qualitatively and quantitatively based on the entry-exit tests, results for the mid-semester examination for the microprocessor and microcomputer course offered in semester 1 session 2009/2010 compared to the digital design course offered in semester 2 session 2008/2009 and comments given by the students. This comparison is made because the same set of students was being observed and the outcomes and objectives of these two courses are similar in nature. Using the jigsaw cooperative learning technique, the students were divided into 18 groups with the criteria as previously described and the distribution as shown in Table 1.

The students for the microprocessor course were also given short quizzes in the first four weeks and information on their performance was discussed individually. The formative assessment approach adopted is to ensure the students were forewarned of any misconception on the theories learned and for them not to repeat the same mistakes.

217

Table 1 Students' Distribution

Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 54 72.9% Female 20 27.1%

Race Malay 40 54.0% Chinese 32 43.0% India 2 3.0%

CGPA 3.00 -4.00 42 56.7% 2.00 -2.99 30 40. 5% 1.00 -1.99 2 2.7%

The virtual laboratory session begins in the first week where the students were briefed on the features available in the simulator provided on-line. They were then given simple assignments to be completed according to their cooperative group using the simulator. At the end of the semester, the students were required to work on a problem-based project in their jigsaw groups. In this project, they were asked to design a microprocessor-based system that can solve problems they encounter in the campus. They were required to perform simulations on the hardware and the software designs. The results of the simulations were presented in the report and during the project presentation.

The students' comments and analysis on the effectiveness of the jigsaw cooperative learning method are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Analysis on Jigsaw Cooperative learning

Jigsaw Group is effective

Jigsaw Group is ineffective

No. of Comments respondents

33 (92%) • Able to contribute good

3 (8%)

design ideas in a group

• Have deeper understanding on the topics learned

• Develop team work skills among members

• Should be incorporated in other courses

• Learn to be responsible to the other group members

• Improve skill

communication

• Teach clever students not to be selfish

• Ignites curiosity and effort on problem solving rather than pure spoon feeding.

• Some students do not contribute ideas in the discussion and are too dependent on others

Although the students have the privileged to choose their group members, the minutes of meeting revealed that some students were still not contributing to the team's effort. Consequently, the results of these students were found to be unsatisfactory. Group members who contribute significantly perform much better in their tests and examinations.

Entry and exit tests were given at the beginning and end of the semester to evaluate the general understanding of the microprocessor concepts. The same set of questions was given to the students but adequate control procedures have been taken to ensure validity. The findings indicate that almost 85% and 9% of the students show an increase and a decline in their understanding on the concepts, respectively and is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Result of the students' performance in the entry-exit test

Increment

No change

Decrement

Number of Percentage respondents

28

2

3

84.8

6.1

9.1

Comparison on the results for the mid-semester examination for the microprocessor and microcomputer course offered in semester 1 session 2009/2010 and the digital design course offered in semester 2 session 2008/2009 were made to observe the effectiveness of the integrated learning approach adopted in this study. Figure 2 indicates the difference in the students' performance between the microprocessor course and the digital design course. About 60 or 81 % of the students achieve higher marks in the microprocessor and microcomputer course compared to 14 or 19% who achieve lower marks. On the other hand,

60

40

-40

·60

Figure 2 The students' performance in Microprocessor course compared to Digital Design Course

IV. CONCLUSION

The integrated learning techniques have shown to produce good results. Based on the observations made on the students' learning behavior, they have remarkably benefited students in understanding the architecture, programming and interfacing of microprocessors. The students have shown to be developing explorative, multi­sensory approaches to solving problems that involve analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating the fundamental concepts. The virtual laboratory that provides flexible learning enhances their programming skills. In addition, the cooperative learning procedure has also promotes greater understanding and harmony between races and enhance their team work skills. However, a continuous effort has to be taken, especially to devise a proper procedure and well-structured activities to ensure the students' commitment and effective learning takes place.

218

References

[I] Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, c., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

[2] Brey, BB. 2009. The Intel Microprocessors: Architecture and Programming. Eight edition. Pearson International Edition

[3] Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. 2003. Designing and teaching courses to satisty ABET Engineering criteria. Journal on Engineering Education. 92(1): 7 - 25.

[4] Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. (2004). The ABC's of engineering education: ABET, Bloom's taxonomy, cooperative learning. American Soviety for Engineering Eduction. Session 1375.

[5] Fung, L Y. 2010. A Study on the Learning Approaches of Malaysian Students in Relation to English Language Acquisition. American Journal of SCientific Research. Issue 9(2010), pp.5-11

[6] Mohandes, M, et. al. 2002 Development of 8086 Microprocessor Course for Web-based learning. Guidelines for Course Implementation, Deanship of Academic Development, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.

[7] Shale, S., & Trigwell, K. (April 2004). Student approaches to learning. http://www.learning .0x.ac.uk/iauIlIAUL+ I +2.asp.

[8] Skadron, K, et. al. 1999. Branch prediction, instruction­window size, and cache size: Performance tradeoffs and simulation techniques. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48(11):1260-81, Nov. 1999.