TeachingElectronics:FromBuildingCircuits to Systems Thinking … · 2019-08-31 · tend to foster conceptual knowledge, for example, the change in electric ﬁeld and energy in a

Teaching Electronics: From Building Circuitsto Systems Thinking and Programming

Moshe Barak

AbstractThis chapter addresses a number of reforms in teaching electronics in school toreflect the technological changes and objectives of education in the twenty-firstcentury. One necessary reform in the electronics curriculum is the shift from thetraditional teaching of basic components and circuits to teaching electronicsystems such as sound, control, and communication systems, with a focus onunderstanding general technological concepts such as control, feedback, amplifi-cation, conversion, modulation, and filtering of electronic signals. A secondreform required in teaching electronics relates to highlighting the STEM view-point, particularly physics and mathematics, which are an integral part of elec-tronics. A third expected reform in teaching modern electronics is the transitionfrom using conventional electronics hardware to programmable devices such asthe field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or the Arduino microcontroller. Theuse of programmable controllers opens up tremendous possibilities for studentprojects, such as control systems and robotics, and for STEM-oriented studies,such as computerized physics and chemistry labs. A fourth change in the focus ofteaching electronics is placing greater emphasis on project-based learning (PBL)in the electronics class. However, one must take into consideration that the newtechnologies may also lead to “doing without learning,” and students mustacquire some basic knowledge and skills before being able to cope with advancedtechnologies and PB. In summary, electronics offers a rich, flexible, and friendlylearning environment for teaching technology and engineering in K-12 educationand for fostering students’ broad competences such as design, problem solving,creative thinking, and teamwork.

M. Barak (*)Department of Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, BeerSheva, Israele-mail: [email protected]

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017M.J. de Vries (ed.), Handbook of Technology Education, Springer InternationalHandbooks of Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_29-1

1

mailto:[email protected]

KeywordsSystem thinking • STEM • Simulation • Embedded engineering • Project-basedlearning • Task taxonomy • Teachers’ professional development

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2A Brief History of Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2From Component to Systems: Fostering Systems Thinking via Electronics Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 3From Electronics to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6From Hands-on to Computer Interactive Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9From Dedicated Circuits to Embedded Engineering and Programmable Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Embedded Engineering Learning Platform (E2LP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Arduino: A Simple Low-Cost Programmable Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

From Traditional Teaching to Project-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Examples of Projects in Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Obstacles in Introducing Project-Based Learning in the Electronics Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18The P3 Task Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Electronics Teachers: Aspects of Initial Training and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Electronics Teachers’ Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20The Need for Developing Teachers’ Pedagogical-Content Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Introduction

The term electronics has to do with almost every aspect of modern life, such as homeinstrumentation, communication systems, media, industry, transportation, aviation,medicine, and scientific research. In light of the central role electronics plays ineveryone’s lives, in the economy, and in society, it is almost unreasonable to talkabout technology and technology education without including electronics. But whatis electronics? What are the objectives of teaching this subject in K-12 education?How can teaching this subject reflect the electronics that children today encounter intheir daily lives? This chapter aims at partially addressing these questions byexamining the historical development of electronics and electronics today andsuggesting some reforms in teaching this field in the educational system.

A Brief History of Electronics

The history of electronics can be described briefly from a bird’s eye view through thefollowing time periods:

600 BC–1900 The investigation of electricity and magnetism and the invention of the firstwireless telegraph and radio systems

1900–1940 The invention of the vacuum tube, triode, and electronic amplifier, whichenabled the development of radio, television, and electronic control systems

(continued)

2 M. Barak

1940–1960 The invention of the semiconductor diode and transistor, which were the basisfor modern analog and digital electronic technologies

1960–1980 The invention of integrated circuits, very-large-scale integration (VLSI)technology, and the microprocessor, which pushed forward the development ofmicrocomputers, communication systems, medical equipment, video cameras,personal computers, and mobile phones

1980–2010 Further development of advanced microprocessors, microcontrollers, field-programmable gate array (FPGA) integrated circuits, and storage technologies,which made digital technology and communication devices available to anyone,anywhere

In view of the rapid development of the electronics world, and digital electronicsin particular, some questions arise, for example: How could teaching electronicscope with this rapidly developing field? What are the specific concepts and skillsstudents should gain by learning electronics?

A broader question that arises is to what extent and how could teaching electron-ics contribute to achieving the objectives of education in general, and technologyeducation in particular, including:

• Developing an individual’s personality and capabilities• Imparting to the school graduate the knowledge, skills, and motivation to inte-

grate into society and support him/herself• Attracting talented students to choose a career in science and engineering

This paper addresses some of these questions by suggesting innovativeapproaches for teaching electronics in K-12 education.

From Component to Systems: Fostering Systems Thinking viaElectronics Studies

In the past, an electronics course often started out with learning about specificcomponents – the resistor, diode, and transistor. In the lab, students were carryingout “experiments” to check a component’s properties or build simple analog anddigital circuits, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2.

In recent years, however, educators came to understand that teaching electronicsin this way is not very attractive to students because it takes months and years beforethey encounter practical electronic devices they know from their daily lives.

An alternative method is to commence an electronics course by teaching about afamiliar electronics system, such as the sound system shown in Fig. 3.

In the lab, the students can deal with assembling a system, checking its properties,or adding connections to listen to music from their smartphone. Later on, thestudents might learn about and test more closely specific components in the system,such as the microphone or the amplifier. Only students who major in electronics willlearn about electronic circuits and components later in detail.

Teaching Electronics: From Building Circuits to Systems Thinking and. . . 3

The change in the teaching method of electronics described above could bereferred to as adopting the paradigm of “from systems to components” instead ofthe traditional teaching method of “from components to systems.” The “systems”paradigm also includes describing a system using a block diagram, as illustrated inFig. 4.

Fig. 1 Basic analog electronic amplifier with discreet components

xIn

yIn

zIn

1

8

7

&

& &

&UC

C

GN

D

7400

14+6V

qOut

q=x+y'.z

Fig. 2 Basic digital circuit with logic gates (NOT/AND/OR) and integrated circuits

4 M. Barak

The system approach in teaching electronics described above has to do withteaching systems thinking – a central concept in technology and engineering (Frank2002; Frank and Elata 2005; Rossouw et al. 2010). Barlex and Steeg (2007)described “systems thinking” together with “programmable systems” and “commu-nication technologies” as the core electronics “big ideas” that underpinned theapproach taken by Electronics Education in Schools (EEiS) developed in England.Chan (2015) stated that the term “systems” relates not only to man-made systems butalso to systems in other areas such natural systems (Tripto et al. 2016) and manage-ment systems. Systems created by humans are put together to achieve a purpose,while the purpose imputed to natural systems serves man’s view of the world and hisrelationships with nature.

Systems thinking involves identifying and understanding a number of concepts,such as:

Fig. 3 A sound system

amplifiedelectricalsignal amplified sound

amplifier

power supplier

speakermicrophone

sound

lowelectricalsignal

Fig. 4 Block diagram of a sound system


• Parts and structure of a system• Factors that are important to an outcome• The big picture or “macro view”• System boundaries• Function and behavior• Feedback in a system• System dynamics• Nonfunctional properties, such as safety and reliability, which arise from inter-

actions between parts of a system

According to Chan (2015), systems thinking allows one to comprehend how allpieces of a system fit together to explain a phenomenon, or how all the parts act toproduce the intended effect. It is said that the ability of “seeing the forest for thetrees” could help an individual solve a problem in a balanced, holistic way, ratherthan narrowly focusing one only aspect of the problem.

The above examples of systems thinking in electronics demonstrate that teachingelectronics could be an effective platform for fostering technological systems think-ing, which is an essential factor in fostering design and problem-solvingcompetences.

From Electronics to Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics (STEM) Education

The term STEM education expresses the idea of teaching subjects in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics in an integrated approach, rather than asseparate subjects. An increasing number of reports and research papers have beenstressing that STEM education is crucial for twenty-first century citizens (NationalResearch Council 2011; Berlin and White 2010). However, as English (2016) pointsout, the STEM acronym is often used in reference to just one of the disciplines,commonly science. Although the integration of STEM disciplines is being increas-ingly advocated in the literature, studies that address multiple disciplines appearscant with mixed findings and inadequate directions for STEM advancement, and themethod or level of integrating the teaching of S, T, E, and M subjects seems vague toa great extent. English (2016) distinguished between four levels of integratingSTEM subjects:

1. Disciplinary – Concepts and skills are learned separately in each discipline.2. Multidisciplinary – Concepts and skills are learned separately in each discipline

but within a common theme.3. Interdisciplinary – Closely linked concepts and skills are learned from two or

more disciplines with the aim of deepening knowledge and skills.4. Transdisciplinary – Knowledge and skills learned from two or more disciplines

are applied to real-world problems and projects, thus helping to shape the learningexperience.

6 M. Barak

Electronics is a natural platform for the integration of STEM subjects in levels3 and 4 mentioned above, for several reasons. First, electronics is strongly based onphysics knowledge and concepts, for example, electrical charge, field, current,voltage, electromagnetism, sound waves, and electromagnetic waves. Second, elec-tronics is heavily based on mathematics, for example, algebra, geometry, trigonom-etry, logarithms, exponential functions, and differential equations. Third, electronicsis one of the major engineering fields, which involves using science and mathemat-ical tools for specification-based systems design, optimizing the use of materials andenergy, and analyzing products’ and systems’ safety and reliability. Fourth, electron-ics relates closely to control systems analysis and design, which is also basedcomprehensively on mathematics and physics. For example, Barak and Williams(2007) show a case of using mathematics and physics for analyzing dynamicprocesses in technological systems – temperature change vs. time in heating anobject and volume change and flow vs. time in filling water in a tank. These pointsare often learned in control systems courses and as analogies to electronic circuits.

The following example of analyzing the response of a resistor and capacitor(RC) circuit shown in Fig. 5 demonstrates the integration of physics and mathemat-ics in electronics studies.

Equations 1 and 2 below illustrate the relationship between current I(t) andcapacitor voltage Vc(t) in a circuit. Equations 3 and 4 show the circuit response,namely, the change of Vc(t) and I(t) vs. time, as illustrated in Fig. 6.

Eq1: I(t) = C � dVc(t)/dt The relationship between current I(t) and capacitorvoltage Vc(t)

Eq2: Vc(t) + RC � dVc(t)/dt = Vs Circuit equation

Eq3: Vc(t) = Vs(1 � e�t/RC) Change of capacitor voltage Vc vs. time

Eq4: I tð Þ ¼ VsR

� �e�t=RC Change of the current I vs. time

Students who take courses in both electronics and physics might study this circuittwice, with a different focus and often with different teachers. While physics teacherstend to foster conceptual knowledge, for example, the change in electric field andenergy in a capacitor, electronics teachers often stress procedural knowledge, forexample, calculating current, voltage, or response time in the circuit and using thiscircuit for creating a time delay in electronic systems. Mathematics teachers rarelyshow examples in the class from physics or electronics. However, small

Fig. 5 A typical RC circuitlearned both in physics andelectronics courses


modifications in teaching the theory, lab experiments, and students’ assignmentscould reduce this gap and turn this subject into an example of real STEM learning.

While the above example shows how small changes in the traditional electronics,physics, and mathematics curriculum could help in fostering STEM learning, there isalso room for developing STEM-oriented programs in the context of science andtechnology education for primary and middle school levels. Awad and Barak (2014)developed a 30-h course on “sound, waves, and communication systems” (SWCS)aimed at junior high school (middle school) classes. The course was designed toprovide junior high school students with scientific concepts such as transitive wave,longitude wave, period (T), frequency (f), wavelength (λ), amplitude (A), soundvelocity (v), and sound propagation on different materials or states of matter, as wellas technological concepts such as sound system, microphone, speaker, amplifier,analog to digital conversion, and digital sound.

In the lab, the students are engaged in the following activities:

• Testing the effect of air density on sound propagation by a vacuum jar• Connecting a temperature sensor to a computer and sampling the temperature

change versus time using the MultiLab software program• Constructing a magnetic microphone and lowed speaker• Connecting a microphone to a computer and measuring sound velocity using the

Audacity software program (Fig. 7)• Constructing and testing an electronic kit of an electronic tweet bell (Fig. 8)

The SWCS course described above presents an example of an integrated programfor learning STEM subjects with electronics at its center. Students take great pleasurein assembling a technological system or building small “personal” artefacts, which isdone easily in electronics. Using computers for simulation, signal measuring andanalysis also helps in learning and promoting students’ motivation, as will bediscussed in the following sections.

00 1 2 3

t(sec)

00

Vc(t) I(t)

I max = Vs/R

1 2 3t(sec)

Vc max = Vs

Fig. 6 Response of an RC circuit

8 M. Barak

From Hands-on to Computer Interactive Simulation

Promoting the use of information and computer technologies (ICT) for teaching andlearning is considered an important objective of education today. Teaching electron-ics goes hand in hand with using computer technologies because modern electronicsis strongly associated with digital technologies. According to Bing et al. (2016),electrical design automation plays an important role in today’s electronic industry.Swenson et al. (2016) show that using simulations has become an important tool intechnology, engineering, and design education classrooms. Many professional

Fig. 7 Connecting amicrophone to a computer andanalyzing sound waves usingthe Audacity softwareprogram

Fig. 8 Students working inthe lab


simulation software programs in electronics, suitable for use by students andteachers in K-12 education, are available on the network for free or at a low cost.

Following are some examples of using computer simulation for the design andanalysis of electronic circuits. Figure 9 shows an oscillator circuit design using theMicro-Cap simulation software program. The plot of the output signal shows thetransient response during which the oscillations are created and the steady-statesignal. The learner can easily change the values of the components in the circuit, forexample, the coil u or the capacitor c1, and explore the effect of these changes on theoutput signal.

Figure 10 shows the use of the Electronic Workbench (EWB) software programfor the simulation of a circuit including a resistor, coil, and alternating current source.The input and output signals are measured with an oscilloscope.

In the example shown in Figs. 10 and 11, a student can change parameters in acircuit, such as signal frequency or resistor and coil values, and examine how thesechanges affect signals in the circuit, such as the shift phase of the output voltage incomparison to the input signal.

Figure 12 illustrates a simulation of a logic circuit – one-bit full adders, using theLogicly software program. The software also automatically creates a truth table andKarnaugh map (logic circuit simplification) for the circuit.

Yusof et al. (2012) show the advantages of asking students pre-laboratory ques-tions in the form of computer simulation related to the experiment in order to assistthem in their preparation prior to entering the laboratory and to enable them tounderstand the experiment objectives. In a field study exploring the use of simulationin comprehensive high schools (Barak 2004), electronics teachers mentioned a rangeof possible applications of computer simulations in electronics studies, including:

• Demonstrating or “verifying” theoretical laws, such as Ohm’s law or Kirchhoff’slaw for solving electrical circuits

• Comparing the response of “practical” versus “ideal” components (which areavailable only in the simulation)

• Experiencing troubleshooting, such as finding a hidden fault in components orcircuit connections

• Investigating advanced electronic circuits or phenomena that are too complex fortheoretical analysis in high school, such as unstable circuits, noise effects,response of nonlinear circuits, or spectral analysis of AM and FM radio signals

In the interviews held with the students in the same schools, they were asked howthey used the simulation and how the simulation helped them in their electronicsstudies. The students seldom mentioned the kind of ideas their teachers hadsuggested but rather raised other points of using the simulation, such as:

• Confirming the results of their solutions for theoretical homework exercises• Drawing electronic circuits for preparing homework or laboratory reports• Preparing project portfolios, including circuit design and analysis

10 M. Barak

11.0

0

10.8

0

10.6

0

10.4

0

10.2

0

10.1

0

9.80

9.60

9.40

9.20

9.00 0.

00u

V(O

UT

) (V

)T

(S

ec)

Pel

tz.C

IR

71.0

8K

Mea

sure

d fr

eque

ncy

= F

requ

ency

(OU

T),

1,15

= 7

1.08

K

120.

00u

240.

00u

300.

00u

480.

00u

600.

00u

Fig.9

Sim

ulationon

anelectron

icoscillatorusingtheMicro-Cap

softwareprog

ram


It is worth mentioning that many sketches of incomplete circuits were found inthe students’ notebooks, such as circuits missing a connection to a power supply or a“ground” point. This shows that the students often used the simulation just as adrawing tool and did not always test the response of the circuit they had drawn.

A problematic point that came out in the above study was that using simulationgradually became a substitute for practical lab work. In this regard, the teachers hadthe following comments:

• The simulation draws the students away from the real electronics world.• The computer cannot replace physical contact with real components.

Fig. 10 Simulation of analternating current circuitusing the ElectronicWorkbench (EWB) softwareprogram

Fig. 11 Simulation of an oscilloscope using the Electronic Workbench (EWB) software program

12 M. Barak

• A real technician must from time to time sense the smell of a burnt resistor.• The electronics laboratory must again take on its central role in the school.

Although the abovementioned study took place more than 10 years before writingthis paper, the advantages and limits of using simulations in electronics studies arestill relevant today. Moreover, the increased use of programmable devices forelectronics applications, discussed in the following section, even worsened theproblem of excluding students from the practical side of electronics.

From Dedicated Circuits to Embedded Engineeringand Programmable Devices

As mentioned in the brief history of electronics at the beginning of this chapter,among the most important electronics developments since the 1980s were micro-processors, microcontrollers and in-place programmable (field-programmable)devices, and embedded systems. These are digital devices that are installed insystems such as robots or digital cameras that can be programmed or reprogrammedby the customer without disassembling the device or returning it to the manufacturer.This is often a very important feature, as it can reduce the cost of debugging orupdating a system. Today, many users are familiar with the process of downloadingand installing updates or a brand new operating system on their computers,smartphones, or digital televisions. In the past, in contrast, device firmware wasstored permanently in a system’s electronic circuit boards and could not be changedin the field. Following are two examples of field-programmable devices used largelyin the industry and education.

Fig. 12 Simulation of a one-bit full adder using the Logicly software program


The Embedded Engineering Learning Platform (E2LP)

Embedded engineering learning platform (E2LP) is a system for learning computerengineering and electronics developed by a consortium of nine partners fromacademia and industry in a research study supported by the European Commission(Kastelan et al. 2014; Szewczyk et al. 2016; see also Acknowledgments). The E2LPsystem shown in Fig. 13 was designed to enable lab work in learning a wide range ofsubjects in computer engineering and electronics, such as embedded microproces-sors and computer architectures programming, real-time digital signal processing(audio, video, and data), computer networks and interfaces, and system integration.

As seen in Fig. 13, the FPGA device can be programmed by the user via acomputer. The user writes the required program and downloads it to the FPGAdevice, which can run it independently. Programming through the computer can takeplace using different tools, such as very high-speed integrated circuits hardwaredescription language (VHDL).

The following simple example demonstrates how the logic circuit illustrated inFig. 14 is created by programming the FPGA device (Fig. 15).

The first part of the program defines two inputs, iA and iB, and internal variablesS and one output, oY.

The second part defines the logical operations.

S ¼ iA and iB:

Fig. 13 The embeddedengineering learning platform(E2LP)

14 M. Barak

oY ¼ not Sð Þ:Since the E2LP system described above might look relatively complicated for use

in K-12 education, it is worth showing a simpler option as well, as presented in thefollowing section.

Arduino: A Simple Low-Cost Programmable Device

Arduino is a simple, low-cost programmable microcontroller used increasingly forlearning electronics and control application in the tertiary, secondary, and middleschools (D’Ausilio 2012; Lee and Fish 2013).

Arduino boards are able to read digital and analog inputs, for example, from alight sensor, and control a number of outputs, for example, activating on/off a LED,as illustrated in Fig. 16. Programming the controller is done by Arduino program-ming language and software.

Arduino and similar devices are offering tremendous options for building elec-tronics and control systems at all educational levels. This method is also suitable forlearning science, for example, computerized physics and chemistry labs (Mabbott

IA

IB

sSoY

input ports output portsinternal signals

Fig. 14 The logical functionoY = not(iA and ib)

Fig. 15 An example ofprogramming the FPGAdevice


2014; Kubínová and Šlégr 2015a, b), in STEM learning mentioned earlier in thischapter, as well as project-based learning (PBL) discussed in the following section.

From Traditional Teaching to Project-Based Learning

Over the past few decades, science and technology education has increasinglyadvocated the advantages of problem-based learning and project-based learning(PBL) over traditional teaching in school (Thomas 2000). PBL is derived fromconstructivist learning theories emphasizing that learning is a process of knowledgeconstruction, not of passive acquisition of facts and roles (Von Glasersfeld 1988).Learning occurs when students address subjects meaningful for them in a real-worldsetting. The importance of active experience with objects as a means of developingthinking was stressed by Dewey (1963). Constructionism is a theory that expands onthe concept of constructivism by placing critical emphasis on the construction ofknowledge through designing and building artifacts and systems that are personallymeaningful and that can be shared with others (Papert 1980, 1990). Vygotsky’s(1978) sociocultural approach suggested that social and cultural interactions arecritical to cognitive functions. A constructivist learning environment engageslearners in knowledge construction through collaborative activities that embedlearning in a meaningful context and through reflection on what has been learnedfrom conversation with other learners.

Examples of Projects in Electronics

Preparing projects in electronics in general, and computer-based projects in particular,provides learners with endless options for developing new systems in subjects such asrobotics and control systems for use at home (“smart home”), industry, agriculture,transportation, or aides for people with special needs. Following is an example of a

Fig. 16 Using the Arduino programmable device to create a blinking LED application

16 M. Barak

project prepared by a pair of students at a high school in northern Israel in the summerof 2016. The students developed an alarm for leaving a baby in a car. Figures 17 and18 show that the system includes an ultrasonic sensor that detects a baby in a car bymeasuring the distance from the sensor to the baby or the backrest of the empty baby’sseat. The system is also connected to the car doors’ sensors and the motor computer.The controller is programmed to identify cases in which a baby is sitting in the car seat,the car doors are locked, or the engine is off. The controller sends signals to:

1. The car computer to open the car windows automatically2. Sound an alarm3. A local GSM cellular card (with a SIM), which makes a phone call to the car

owner

To develop the car alarm system described in Figs. 17 and 18, the students had tolearn about the problem the system had to solve, methods of detecting a baby in a car,ultrasonic sensors, the interface with the car computer, Arduino controller inputs andoutputs, and programming the device.

Arduinomicro-

controller

Ultrasonicsensor

Cardoors Sound

alarm

Carcomputer

Cellularcard

Fig. 17 Block diagram of an alarm for leaving a baby in a car

Fig. 18 Arduino connectedto a cellular card to call the carowner in case a baby is left inthe car


In the case described above, the students completed only part of the project, butone can see remarkable options for projects that students could develop in such aworking environment. Other students in the class also prepared projects using theArduino microcontroller, for example, a system that controls entering and exiting ofcar in a parking lot. The students collaborated in learning the Arduino microcon-troller with the teacher’s help. In the present study, as in a previous study that tookplace a decade ago (Barak 2005), it was found that students working on computer-based electronics projects tend to:

• Adopt flexible strategies, such as creating new ideas• Take risks• Improvise• Use trial-and-error methods for problem solving• Move rapidly from one design to another• Transfer knowledge between students• Jointly develop ideas

Students working on noncomputerized electronics projects, in contrast, are morelikely to progress along a linear path: planning, constructing, troubleshooting, andimproving.

Obstacles in Introducing Project-Based Learning in the ElectronicsClass

Although the literature broadly describes the advantages of PBL over traditionalinstruction, one must be aware of the difficulties of using this method in technologyeducation and teaching advanced technologies such as robotics in general, andelectronics in particular. The rapid development of this field and the appearancesof new chips and easy-to-use technologies, devices, and software tools, as describedthroughout this chapter, are attracting teachers and students to deal with relativelycomplex projects. However, if the students are not well prepared in using the newtechnologies, or do not have the time, knowledge, or skills to study these subjects indepth, there is a danger of engaging them in “doing” complex projects while onlylittle significant learning is taking place (Blumenfeld et al. 1991; Barak 2012).Booker (2007) uses the term “a roof without walls” to describe the desire to develophigher-order thinking skills (according to Bloom’s taxonomy) of children who havenot learned facts and gained substantive knowledge in a certain subject. A number ofauthors (Kirschner et al. 2006; Hushman and Marley 2015) write about the failure ofconstructivist-oriented instructional methods such as discovery, problem-based, andinquiry-based teaching because the notion of minimal guidance during learning doesnot work. Minimal guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than

18 M. Barak

instructional approaches that place strong emphasis on guiding the student learningprocess. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners havesufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal guidance.” Some supportersof PBL (Barak 2002; Hmelo-Silver 2004, Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007; Savery 2006)addressed this issue and mentioned that it is important to tailor the scope andcomplexity level of the assignments to the students’ prior knowledge and skillsand provide instruction and scaffolding in order to reduce cognitive load and enablestudents to learn in a complex domain. Crismond (2011) discusses in detail theconstructivist versus the direct instruction dilemma in PBL and suggests using ahybrid method that combines the two instructional methods. The P3 task taxonomydescribed in the next section can also help in this regard.

The P3 Task Taxonomy

To adapt the level of tasks presented to students in learning advanced technologicalsubjects and prepare students for PBL, it is suggested to distinguish between threelevels of student assignments:

• Practice: Exercises and closed-ended tasks in which the solution is known inadvance and the learners can check if they arrived at the correct answer.

• Problem solving: Small-scale, open-ended tasks in which students might usedifferent solution methods and arrive at different answers.

• Projects: Challenging tasks in which the problem is ill-defined. Students take partin defining the problem, setting objectives, identifying constraints, and choosingthe solution method.

An earlier version of this taxonomy was used for developing instructionalmaterials such as lab experiments and projects in the E2LP projects for learningembedded and computer engineering at the university level (Barak et al. 2016;Kastelan et al. 2014). Barak and Assal (2016) used the P3 taxonomy for designingstudents’ assignments in a robotics course delivered to junior high school studentsfrom heterogenic backgrounds in terms of prior learning achievements and motiva-tion. The teacher let each student decide whether he/she would choose to take an“easy-,” “medium-,” or “high”-level project and determine what these levels meantto them. Consequently, it was found that only some of the students preferred to dealwith preparing projects while others completed assignments only at the lower levels.

In summary, it is important to give students the opportunity to gain experience inhandling assignments at the “practice” and ‘problem-solving” levels (“mini pro-jects”) before engaging them in open-ended challenging projects or using theadvanced programmable devices mentioned above. It is also suggested to take intoaccount that some of the students need substantial help in coping with project work.


Electronics Teachers: Aspects of Initial Training and ProfessionalDevelopment

Electronics Teachers’ Background

Teaching electronics requires a strong background in subjects such as electricity,magnetism, electrical circuits, electric motors, power systems, control systems,sensors, electro-optics, communication systems, analog electronics, digital electron-ics, microprocessors, digital controllers, programmable devices, and programing. Asdescribed by Williams (2009), a significant amount of diversity exists in technologyteacher education programs around the world. Still, preservice training of electronicsteachers often consists of two parts: (1) 3 or 4 years of studies toward a Bachelor ofScience (BSc) in engineering, for example, electricity, electronics, mechanics, orcomputer engineering; and (2) 1 or 2 years of studies toward a teaching certificate ora Bachelor of Education.

A significant number of electronics teachers have some professional experiencefrom working in industry, either before becoming a teacher or in parallel to teachingin school. An important source of technology teachers, and electronics teachers inparticular, includes engineers and researchers retiring from work in advanced indus-tries, or the so-called high-tech industry, after the age of 40 or 50 and who havechosen to become teachers as a second career. On the one hand, these teachers canbring with them the spirit of industry into the schools, serve as role models for thestudents, and give real-world answers to students’ questions such as “why do weneed to learn all this?” (Resta et al. 2001; Saltmarsh et al. 2009). On the other hand,these teachers, as well as many of the veteran electronics teachers, lack the knowl-edge required for introducing progressive teaching and learning pedagogies, asdiscussed in the following section.

The Need for Developing Teachers’ Pedagogical-Content Knowledge

Shulman’s (1986) distinction between content knowledge, pedagogical knowledgeand pedagogical-content knowledge (PCK) is very helpful in the discussion ofelectronics teachers’ knowledge. In the present case, updating content knowledgehas to do with the teachers’ need to learn state-of-the-art electronics as a way of life.Pedagogical-content knowledge relates to introducing both new electronics subjectsand reform-based instructional methods into the class, such as project-based learning(PBL), and using ICT for teaching and learning. However, our experience shows thatpreservice and in-service training programs for electronics teachers often focus onupdating teachers’ content knowledge, while the need to change pedagogy is oftenleft behind. Barak (2010) reported on an effort to cope with this issue by providingan in-service course (seven sessions of 3 h each) to three groups of 45 experiencedelectronics teachers in the south, center, and north of Israel. The participants learnedsubjects such as fostering higher-order thinking skills in the technology class,Bloom’s taxonomy in the cognitive domain, an engineering-oriented problem-

20 M. Barak

solving taxonomy (PST), types of knowledge in technology (propositional, proce-dural, conceptual, and qualitative), metacognition, motivation, and self-efficacybeliefs. New criteria for evaluating students’ work in the spirit of fostering self-regulated learning (SRL) were also discussed. Of the 135 participants, only a fewsaid that they had been exposed previously to terms such as higher-order thinking,metacognition, or reflection. Some teachers explicitly said that this was the first timethey had participated in an in-service course that only dealt with pedagogical issues,instead of routinely learning new subjects in electronics or computers.

Summary and Conclusions

Electronics is definitely one of the central axes of modern technology. This field isunique in that hardware, software, computer simulation, and active real-time controlof technological systems are simultaneously part of the technology subject matterlearned and are tools for enhancing teaching and learning. The past distinctionbetween “technology education” and “educational technology” is less relevant toteaching and learning electronics. Learning in the ICT environment and usingcomputers to control electromechanical systems such as robots could help in devel-oping students’ broad learning skills, attracting them to learn technology, reducinggender or sociocultural gaps, and encouraging excellence among school graduates(Alha and Gibson 2003; Genlott and Grönlund 2016).

Since electronics is not a new subject in the school curriculum, it is important tohighlight some reforms required in teaching this subject to reflect both the techno-logical changes and objectives of education in the twenty-first century.

One necessary reform in teaching electronics is the need to stress the study ofelectronic systems rather than focus on learning basic analog and digital componentsand circuits, as is often found in schools. Today’s curriculum should comprise, forexample, learning about sound, control, and communication systems, with a focuson understanding general concepts in electronics and technology, such as control,feedback, amplification, conversion, modulation, and filtering electronics signals.There is still room for teaching specific discreet components such as the transistor,operational amplifier, or logic gates, either to demonstrate the theory or help inunderstudying the broader concepts mentioned above.

A second reform in teaching electronics is highlighting the STEM viewpointmuch more now than in the past. Physics and mathematics have always been anintegral part of learning electronics, but teachers emphasized this viewpoint onlylittle. Among the steps that could help in achieving this goal are increasing collab-oration between science, mathematics, and electronics teachers and developing aninnovative interdisciplinary curriculum oriented to highlight the interaction betweenSTEM subjects in technological class.

A third expected reform in teaching modern electronics is the transition fromusing conventional electronics hardware or dedicated integrated circuits to usingprogrammable devices such as the field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or theArduino microcontroller. The new generation of microcontrollers is programmed by


universal programming tools such as the very high-speed integrated circuits hard-ware description language (VHDL) or object-oriented programming languages suchas C++. An embedded engineering platform based on programmable micro-controllers often includes a range of digital and analog inputs and outputs forinterface with other systems or external components such as sensors. The program-mable controllers can be used easily for a wide range of applications, such as real-time control of electronic and mechanical systems, and for STEM-oriented studiessuch as physics and chemistry labs.

A fourth change in the focus of teaching electronics is placing greater emphasison project-based learning (PBL) in the electronics class. The new computer-basedtechnologies available today in schools are opening up unlimited possibilities forstudent projects in electronics and actually all technological areas. However, onemust take into consideration that the new technologies may become a cover-up ortrap of superficial learning; students still need to acquire some basic knowledge andskills before dealing with the development of advanced technological systems.

In summary, electronics offers a rich, flexible, accessible, safe, and friendlylearning environment for teaching technology and engineering in K-12 education.Teaching electronics is not only about attracting talented students to integrate intothese areas as a future profession but can also serve as one of the most advantageouslearning environments for developing technological and computer literacy andfostering broad competences such as design, problem solving, creative thinking,and teamwork of all school graduates.

Acknowledgments The E2LP research mentioned in this chapter received funding from theEuropean Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreementno. 317882.

References

Alha, K., & Gibson, I. S. (2003). Using ICT to improve the gender balance in engineeringeducation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 215–224.

Awad, N., & Barak, M. (2014). Sound, waves and communication: Students’ achievements andmotivation in learning a STEM-oriented program. Creative Education, 5(23), 1959–1968.

Barak, M. (2002). Learning good electronics, or coping with challenging tasks? Priorities ofexcellent students. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2), 20–34.

Barak, M. (2005). From order to disorder: The role of computer-based electronics projects onfostering of higher-order cognitive skills. Computers & Education, 45(2), 231–243.

Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Jour-nal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 381–401.

Barak, M. (2012). From ‘doing’ to ‘doing with learning’: Reflection on an effort to promote self-regulated learning in technological projects in high school. European Journal of EngineeringEducation, 37(1), 105–116.

Barak, M. (2004). The use of computers in technological studies: Significant learning or superficialactivity? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 329–346.

Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2016). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assign-ments according to the P3 task taxonomy – Practice, problem solving, and projects. InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education.

22 M. Barak

Barak, M., & Williams, P. (2007). Learning elemental structures and dynamic processes intechnological systems: A cognitive framework. International Journal of Technology and DesignEducation, 17(3), 323–340.

Barak, M., Kastelan, I., & Azia, Z. (2016). Exploring aspects of self-regulated learning amongengineering students learning digital system design in the FPGA environment – Methodologyand findings. In R. Szewczyk, I. Kastelan, M. Temerinac, M. Barak, & V. Sruk (Eds.), Advancesin embedded engineering education. Heidelberg: Springer.

Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2007). Developing engineers; The case of electronics education in Englishschools. Paper for the IEEE International Summit “Meeting the growing demand for engineersand their educators 2010–2020”, Munich, November 9–11.

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford,J. D. (1998). Doing With understanding: lessons from research on problem- and project-basedlearning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 271–311.

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2010). Preservice mathematics and science teachers in an integratedteacher preparation program for grades 7–12: A 3-year study of attitudes and perceptions relatedto integration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 97–115.

Bing, C., Gang, L., & Yuehai, W. (2016). SPICE engine analysis and circuit simulation applicationdevelopment. Telkomnika, 14(1), 64–71.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivatingproject-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist,26(3&4), 369–398.

Booker, M. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection ofAmerican education. Academic Questions, 20(4), 347–355.

Chan, W. T. (2015). The role of systems thinking in systems engineering, design and management.Civil Engineering Dimension, 17(3), 126–132.

Crismond, D. (2011). Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiryin project-based learning environments. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering humandevelopment through engineering and technology education (pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

D’Ausilio, A. (2012). Arduino: A low-cost multipurpose lab equipment. Behaviour ResearchMethods, 44(2), 305–313.

Dewey, J. (1963). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of

Stem Education, 3(1), 1–8.Frank, M. (2002). Characteristics of engineering systems thinking-a 3-d approach for curriculum

content. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C Applications and Reviews,32(3), 203–214.

Frank, M., & Elata, D. (2005). Developing the capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST) offreshman engineering students. Systems Engineering, 8(2), 187–195.

Genlott, A., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Closing the gaps – Improving literacy and mathematics byICT-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99(2), 68–80.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? EducationalPsychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement inproblem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006. Edu-cational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2015). Guided instruction improves elementary student learningand self-efficacy in science. Journal of Educational Research, 108(5), 371–381.

Kastelan, I., Lopez Benito, J. R., Artetxe, G. E., Piwinski, J., Barak, M., & Temerinac, M. (2014).E2LP: A unified embedded engineering learning platform. Microprocessors and Microsystems,38(8), 933–946.


Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction doesnot work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Kubínová, Š., & Šlégr, J. (2015a). ChemDuino: Adapting Arduino for low-cost chemical measure-ments in lecture and laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1751–1753.

Kubínová, S., & Šlégr, J. (2015b). Physics demonstrations with the Arduino board. PhysicsEducation, 50(4), 472–474.

Lee, K., & Fish, E. (2013). New tools for do-it-yourself projects. PC World, 31(1), 18.Logic.ly. – Software for teaching logic gates and digital systems. Available at http://logic.ly/Mabbott, G. (2014). Teaching electronics and laboratory automation using microcontroller boards.

Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1458–1463.National Research Council (U.S.). (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective

approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Papert, S. (1990). Constructionist learning. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Media Laboratory.Resta, V., Huling, L., & Rainwater, N. (2001). Preparing second-career teachers. Educational

Leadership, 58(8), 60–63.Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2010). Concepts and contexts in engineering and

technology education (CCETE): An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. Interna-tional Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–423.

Saltmarsh, D., McMaugh, A., Santoro, N., & Reid, J. (2009). Editorial. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 37(3), 229–230.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisci-plinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth un teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Swenson, R., Clark, A., Ernst, J., & Sutton, K. (2016). Design, test, redesign: Simulation intechnology, engineering, and design education classrooms. Technology & Engineering Teacher,75(7), 8–12.

Szewczyk, R., KaŠtelan, I., Temerinac, M., Barak, M., & Sruk, V. (Eds.). (2016). Embeddedengineering education. Switzerland: Springer.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael: Autodesk,National.

Tripto, J., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2016). The ‘what is a system’ reflectioninterview as a knowledge integration activity for high school students’ understanding ofcomplex systems in human biology. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4),564–595.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80(1),121–140.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, P. J. (2009). Teacher education. In A. T. Jones & M. J. De Vries (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 531–540). Rotterdam:Sense Publishers.

Yusof, Y., Sanusi, H., & Mat, K. (2012). Computer simulation as preparation for electronicslaboratory. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 60(2), 397–404.

24 M. Barak

http://logic.ly/

Documents

TeachingElectronics:FromBuildingCircuits to Systems Thinking … · 2019-08-31 · tend to foster conceptual knowledge, for example, the change in electric ﬁeld and energy in a