432

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

Design and Evaluation of a PBL-Based Course in Analog Electronics

Archana Mantri, Sunil Dutt, J. P. Gupta, and Madhu Chitkara
AbstractThe undergraduate program of electronics and communication engineering at the Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology (CIET), Punjab, India, has a course named Analog Electronics in its fourth semester. The usual approach has been to divide the course into lectures, tutorials, and practicals. The lecture plan is prepared beforehand by the faculty and the course duration in 1618 weeks. The drawbacks to this usual approach have been many, the primary ones being the lack of attention given to the missing application and design part. As an alternative to the traditional method, problem-based learning (PBL) was introduced and practiced in Analog Electronics. While the mode of external evaluation remains the samethat of the university holding end-of-semester theory and practical examinationsa unique strategy has been worked out which integrates PBL and the traditional approach of Lecture, Tutorial, and Practical (L/T/P) classes. This paper describes this new approach, the design of problems to cover the subject matter, the preparation of students for PBL, the evaluation strategy, and the feedback that students give in support of PBL. A signicant difference was seen between the attitudes of the treatment group (PBL based) and control group (L/T/P based). Additionally, presentation and teamwork skills were also greatly improved in the PBL class. Index TermsAmpliers, analog circuits, collaborative work, education technology, engineering education, problem solving.

I. INTRODUCTION INCE the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL) to engineering courses the world over, its positive effects have been widely reported in the literature [3][5]. In India, particularly in North India, where the Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology (CIET), Punjab, is situated, no instance of the use of PBL is known. CIET, with over 43 other engineering colleges and institutes across Punjab, is afliated with the Punjab Technical University [1] (hereafter, the University), Jalandhar, the degree-awarding institution for the combined regional annual intake of 16 000 students. The only method applied to impart technical education in degree courses for these students is the traditional Lecture, Tutorial, and Practical (L/T/P) approach. Encouraged by the success of PBL in engineering courses [6][8] elsewhere in the world, and considering the importance of analog electronics as a basic

subject in the curriculum of electronics and communication engineering, PBL was introduced in the CIET Analog Electronics course using a two threaded approach. The existing class of 132 students was split into two groups: the treatment group (TG) taught using PBL and the control group (CG) taught by L/T/P. Initially, 25 students were randomly selected for the TG. However, after one session, four of these students left and the TG nally had 21 students. The same tutor taught both the classes. The students in the TG did not know that they were being taught using PBL. Problems, not truly open-ended but broad enough to serve the purpose, were designed and authenticated by senior teachers, and given to students. The class room was redesigned to have circular tables, included a library of books, Internet access, and facilities for experimentation. The students were initially guided in forming groups, and given help on working in teams and giving presentations. The evaluation strategy for internal marks was redesigned to include aspects of PBL, and the course was given a head start. As the students gained experience in PBL and team work, progressive improvement in their knowledge, technical and communication skills, and attitude was observed and documented in periodic evaluations. At the end of the course, the performance of the two groups was compared by giving each group identical tests covering all aspects of course content, knowledge and skills. The difference in the performance of the TG and the CG is highlighted in this paper. II. SYLLABUS OF ANALOG ELECTRONICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES The course Analog Electronics has two partsEC202 (theory) and EC210 (practical) [1]. The theory component, EC202, is designed to cover the following topics: 1) high-frequency transistor; 2) large signal ampliers; 3) multistage ampliers; 4) feedback in ampliers; 5) oscillators; 6) regulated power supplies. The experiments in EC210 are structured to include the study of the following: 1) the characteristics of all types of large signal ampliers; 2) the response of all types of sinusoidal oscillators; 3) the function of a regulated power supply. III. TIME ALLOTMENT AND TEACHING PEDAGOGY FOR THE CG The present division of course time between lectures, tutorials, and practicals in this subject is given in Table I. This division is prescribed by the University, and must be followed by CIET.

Manuscript received March 6, 2007; revised September 19, 2007. Current version published November 5, 2008. A. Mantri is with Electronics and Communication Engineering, Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab Technical University, Patiala, Punjab 140401, India (e-mail: archana.mantri@chitkara.edu.in). S. Dutt is with Education and Educational Management, National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Chandigarh 160019, India. J. P. Gupta is with the Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201307, India. M. Chitkara is with the Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab Technical University, Patiala, Punjab 140401, India. Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TE.2007.912525

0018-9359/$25.00 2008 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS

433

TABLE I L/T/P DIVISION IN THE THEORY COMPONENT OF ANALOG ELECTRONICS

Multisim is a caputuring and simulation tool for Electronics Circuits from National Instrument. This course work is at the institute level and is not prescribed by the University. TABLE II EVALUATION SCHEME FOR THE THEORY EXAM IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS, FOR A TOTAL OF 100 MARKS

able to decide some of these learning objectives very vaguely, as they were never aware of all the issues involved in solving a problem. Therefore, the next step was for the facilitator/teacher to add supplementary learning objectives. Having a complete set of learning objectives was crucial in determining the direction of the work, acting as incentives both to reach the desired solution, and to acquire a range of knowledge and skills while moving towards this solution. Also, at times, more learning objectives were added while work was in progress. The teams were then encouraged to distribute the work amongst themselves, with team members performing tasks such as searching for information from various resources, compiling the data, doing calculations, performing experiments and nally recording the work done and preparing a presentation. Ideally these various tasks were rotated amongst team members. For each problem, the team was encouraged to elect a team leader, who would organize the work distribution. The teams were encouraged to discuss issues, decide their own theoretical, practical and software goals and explore these learning and mistakes. This encouragement was given by continuous monitoring, and by instructing them to record each relevant nding, any mistakes committed and the corrective action taken. Once they had reached the solution, they were also asked to frame similar kinds of problems and identify application areas. Throughout, they were guided and corrected by the roving facilitator who would guide students as they encountered difculties and help them to draw conclusions so as to nd the desired solution. They were also told that learning while exploring was as important as reaching at the correct solution. V. STUDENT EVALUATION As indicated previously, the overall division of marks between internal and external elements was decided by the afliating University, and could not be changed by CIET. The students were also required to take the external theory exams, as this external exam served to qualify them for the next semester. Therefore, only the internal component of 40 marks (theory) and 30 marks (practical) could be evaluated inhouse. For this purpose, the evaluation strategy was redened and reformulated. , which were otherwise assigned The total marks of to internal theory and internal practical evaluation, were distributed as shown in Table IV. The problem submission by the group was required to contain the following points in the order indicated: 1) the problem statement: the group attached the problem sheet handed out by the professor; 2) the learning objectives; 3) the methodology adopted; 4) work distribution; 5) solution to the problem under the headings: theoretical, practical and software used; the theoretical calculations, practical results and the printouts of MULTISIM were to be attached; 6) two similar problems (without the solutions). 1) Peer Evaluation: Each team member evaluated the other fellow team members on their contributions to the ve problems. A student did not have to evaluate himself. Each team member had to give one of the six evaluation levels, shown in Table V, to every other member of his or her team.

TABLE III EVALUATION SCHEME FOR THE PRACTICAL EXAM IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS, FOR A TOTAL OF 50 MARKS

A course plan is prepared beforehand which schedules these lectures, tutorials, and practicals. The evaluation scheme is also largely prescribed by the University, with a 40% component being evaluated by the afliated institute (here CIET), and a 60% component being evaluated by the University. This evaluation division for the theory examination is given in Table II, and that for the practical examination is given in Table III. IV. TIME ALLOTMENT AND TEACHING PEDAGOGY IN THE TG Since the total hours allotted to a particular course are xed, the total duration of eight hours per week was divided into four PBL classes of two hours each. The demarcation of L/T/P was removed and the students spent this time in their specially-designed classrooms, described previously. Quasi-open-ended problems were then framed in accordance with the topics in the syllabus. Although the teams were supposed to frame the learning objectives on their own, they were only

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

434

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

TABLE IV DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS FOR THE TG

TABLE V PEER EVALUATION SCHEME

2) Assignments: During the semester the tutor gave three assignments, each containing 15 questions, to the TG students. Each student was asked to select any ve questions from each assignment and submit their solutions. No two students in a group were allowed to select more than two of the same questions from the assignment. This ensured that while a group had solutions to all the 15 questions given, each one of them had practiced at least three questions on his or her own. VI. PROBLEMS GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS IN THE TG The tutor gave students an example of a small audio system, as per the block diagram given in Fig. 1. 1) Problem 1: In the front end section (A) of the audio system, a voltage amplier is to be designed. You are given a ready-made small signal amplier for this purpose, with a and , xed bias. The bias resistors are and , and the transistor to be used is BC107. Before proceeding further with the design you must determine the Q-point and draw the load lines; determine what happens if you change the values of various biasing resistors. The input signal available is 10 mV peak-to-peak (pp), 0 V dc.

Draw the output for the given conguration. Also, nd out what happens if you apply the input signal to transistors biased at cutoff and below cutoff. Comment on the current gain, voltage gain and power gain of such congurations. 2) Poblem 2: The last block (D) in the audio system is required to deliver 0.6 W of power to a 20-ohm speaker. The signal strength is 10 mV pp. Give as many circuit designs as possible with a transistor as the active device. Compare the designs with respect to their respective advantages, power dissipated, useful power being delivered to the load and their efciencies. 3) Problem 3: Even after the rst stage of voltage amplication, the processing circuit in the second stage (B) introduces a lot of attenuation, and the signal strength reduces to 10100 pp. To ensure that the rst stage drives the subsequent circuit properly, a voltage signal of at least 10 V pp, is required. You are using the circuit with a 15 V supply. Design a single stage amplier to develop the required output. Design a two/three stage amplier to have the same gain. Compare the previously mentioned designs with respect to the following: simplicity of design; stability of gain; methods of coupling multistage ampliers; saturation levels. 4) Problem 4: In the same audio system, when there is no signal at the input, self-sustained sinusoidal oscillations of 2 V pp amplitude and of following frequencies are to be generated: a) 200 Hz; b) 20 kHz; c) 20 MHz. Then, depending on the control circuit output, any one of these oscillations is to be selected and given as input to some other part of this audio system. Design circuits, which serve this purpose. What changes should you make in the circuits, so that ? the frequency can be varied in the range Give as many circuit variations as you can. Discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages. Of the designed circuits, which one has the best stability? 5) Problem 5: The rectier circuit which you are using for this audio system derives its input from 220 V ac and converts it into 15 V dc. However, because of poor regulation, any uctuation in the input ac volts causes the dc output to vary by as much as 1020 V. This variation causes a problem in the circuit . as the voltage variation, the circuit can tolerate is only Design a voltage regulator circuit (G) to control this uctuation. Explain the working principle of such a regulator and derive the expressions for line and load regulation. In all the previously mentioned cases, time limits were assigned that exactly matched those of the groups following the CG course plan. The solutions submitted by the groups in the TG were not acceptable unless each group veried them both on the software (Multisim) and experimentally. The rst topic of the syllabus, because of its theoretical nature, was taught by combining the students of both the CG and the TG in the traditional way.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS

435

Fig. 1. Block diagram of audio system.

VII. OBSERVATIONS The following observations were made. 1) Initially, the students in the TG faced problems working in groups and they had major reservations about including a peer evaluation factor in the overall evaluation. But by the time they had completed the rst problem, a majority of them were convinced of the utility of peer evaluation. 2) The students had problems identifying their learning objectives and putting them in words. Later on the tutor made a point of helping each group to identify their major learning objectives in the rst few hours of working on the solution. They later supplemented these initially-identied objectives with their own, as they progressed. 3) Initially, the students also had problems distributing work between group members, but they seemed to manage this easily after few sessions. 4) Wide-ranging discussions that took place in the PBL class polished the students communication skills, and helped their ability to convey information. The students also learned to record their ndings and to remember to refer to these in their solutions. 5) Even though no formal training was given to the students on using the Multisim software, the students not only became familiar with the software on their own, but also learned to take advantage of it to try out different combinations of circuits before actually wiring the circuits and verifying the results experimentally, which their counterparts in the CG never did. 6) While their counterparts in the CG used only text books prescribed in the syllabus, the students in the TG used any

book available to nd and understand the information required. They also used the Internet extensively to improve their solutions. 7) The TG students spent extra time in the class working towards solutions. If three or more students of a group came to work in the class at other than the scheduled time, their entry and exit times were recorded. This data showed that on an average the students spent 10 hours extra in the classapproximately 9% more than the scheduled time allotted to them. However, the students in the CG had 80% attendance on average, which means that they spent less time in the L/T/P combined. 8) The scores of the students in the CG and TG were compared and tabulated in the form of separate bar charts (Fig. 2) for internal and external evaluation components. In order to gauge the design and synthesis skills of the students, at the end of the term, a small project was given to all the students in the class. The students were given two separate wired circuits on bread boards, with a single fault introduced in each circuit. The students had to draw the circuit by tracing the connections, nd the faults, rectify them and make the circuits work. The TG students were allowed to work in their regular groups and the CG students were also allowed to form groups. Four hours were allocated for them to nd a workable solution. A team of four senior faculty members was then asked to evaluate the projects according to a predened strategy. Results showed that four of the ve groups in the TG scored more than 60% marks, while only one group in the CG scored more than 60% marks, a clear indication of

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

436

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

Fig. 2. Internal and external marks of the TG have (mean, standard deviation) as (86.6, 3.9) and (70.2, 3.9), respectively. Those of the CG have (70.6, 14.4) and (58.4, 10.8), respectively, indicating better knowledge gain of the TG over the CG. (a) TG students marks. (b) CG students marks. TABLE VI QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO STUDENTS OF THE ANALOG ELECTRONICS CLASS, ANSWERED ON A SCALE OF 110, WITH 1 BEING THE MOST NEGATIVE

improved skills acquired by the TG students, both in terms of team work and practical ability. 9) At the end of the course, a survey in the form of a simple questionnaire was circulated amongst all the students to gauge the level of satisfaction they had achieved in their respective classes. The questions, and the analyses of the responses received, are shown in Table VI and Figs. 39. 10) While the favorable results described previously were observed in the PBL-based TG group, experience indicates that the role of the facilitator in this type of class is more complicated and carries a lot more responsibility than that of a teacher in a traditional class. A lot more psychological issues are encountered in the PBL class. The design of the problems was the most difcult task, and guiding the students towards the solution while covering all aspects of the syllabus was also challenging. Sometimes the students had to be redirected from the learning path they were following, to facilitate their nding the problem solution while maximizing the number of learning objectives achieved. This guidance was important, because of the tendency of stu-

Fig. 3. Response to question What was your satisfaction level with the tutor of AE (assembling the circuits, wiring, troubleshooting, etc.)? indicated that the students of both TG (7.7, 1.6) and CG (7.5, 3.1) were satised with the tutor, making the study teacherindependent.

dents to try to nd shortcuts as they solve problems. While this is a valuable skill as an experienced engineer, during the leaning process it reduces the number of learning objectives to which they are exposed as the facilitator observed this happening, she would often redirect the stu-

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS

437

Fig. 4. Response to question How condent are you that you would be able to extrapolate the theoretical concepts and analytical skills learned in AE to other subjects in higher classes? indicated that TG students (6.0, 2.8) were more condent of being able to extrapolate concepts than their counterparts in CG (3.8, 3.4).

Fig. 8. Response to the question Did you enjoy attending the classes of AE? indicated a signicantly higher level of enjoyment in TG students (9.7, 1.2) than in CG students (6.9, 3.3).

Fig. 9. Response to the question Rate your practical skills in AE? indicated slightly better skills in TG (6.7, 1.8) than in CG (4.9, 2.8). Fig. 5. Response to the question On an average how much of the class time did you use effectively? indicated that the TG students (9.7, 1.4) used class time more effectively than CG students (5.6, 3.8).

dents approach by posing a thought-provoking question. At other times, when the students were found to be on a path that would not lead to a viable solution, the facilitator would provide them a clue to get them back on the path. Peer pressure played a key role in maintaining students drive throughout. VIII. CONCLUSION While many instances are cited of the use of PBL in nursing and medical education [2], the use of PBL is rare in engineering curricula in North India. Since the afliating University decides the pedagogy and evaluation, very little room is left for the CIET, or other afliated institutes, to employ PBL in various courses. Through this pilot project, a unique way of integrating PBL with the evaluation strategy of University has been initiated, implemented and evaluated. The knowledge evaluation conducted on the students, in terms of end-of-semester exams and internal written theory papers, show that there was signicant difference in the knowledge gain of the TG and CG students, with the TG students performing better in knowledge tests. The skill set acquired by the students in the TG was denitely greater than that acquired by the students in the CG, as was demonstrated by the results of the skill test conducted at the end of the semester. That PBL students spent more time in the class than did the traditional class students can have more than one interpretation. With respect to better knowledge gain, this difference may imply that the students in the TG had to spend more time in the class to gain a better level of knowledge. On the other hand, the extra time spent in the PBL class could be attributed to a greater level of the motivation in

Fig. 6. Response to the question Are you condent of performing well in the external exams? indicated that the TG students (5.3, 2.6) were as condent as CG students (5.4, 4.4).

Fig. 7. Response to the question Did you copy the assignments? indicated that TG students (2.9, 1.8) copied a slightly lesser number of assignments than CG students (3.1, 1.3).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

438

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

these students. The response to question 2 in Table VI clearly indicates better understanding level of the TG students, but this can only be substantiated after the TG students take up advanced courses that follow in higher semesters, and their results in these are compared. If the responses to questions 3, 6, and 7 in Table VI class are any indication of the productivity in terms of learning objectives, the scale denitely tilts in favor of PBL. However, the copying habits of the students could not be curtailed in either the PBL or the L/T/P classes. Overall the experiment with PBL education methodology in India, although with a small sample size, gave encouraging results and should be used on wider basis. However, before switching over completely from the traditional methodology to PBL, issues such as training faculty in handling PBL classes need to be addressed. REFERENCES [1] Punjab Technical Univ., Jalandhar, India, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.ptu.ac.in/syalbe/ece-03.pdf [2] M. D. Northwood and D. O. Northwood, Problem-based learning (PBL): From the health sciences to engineering to value-added in workplace, Global J. Eng. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 157164, 2003. [3] J. L. Cooper, New evidence of the power of cooperative learning, J. Coop. Learn. College Teach., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 12, 1997. [4] M. E. B. Sacre, C. J. Atman, and L. J. Shuman, Characteristics of freshman engineering students: models for determining student attrition and success in engineering, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 139149, 1997. [5] M. A. Albanese and S. Mitchell, Problem-based learning: a review of the literature on outcomes and implementation issues, Acad. Med., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 5281, 1993. [6] D. L. Maskell and P. J. Grabau, A multidisciplinary cooperative problem-based learning approach to embedded systems design, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 101103, May 1998. [7] A. Striegel and D. T. Rover, Problem-based learning in an introductory computer engineering course, in Proc. 32nd Frontiers in Education Conf., Boston, MA, Nov. 69, 2002, vol. 2, pp. FIG7FIG12. [8] N. Linge and D. Parsons, Problem-based learning as an effective tool for teaching computer network design, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 510, Feb. 2006.

Archana Mantri received the M.Tech. degree in digital communication from the National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India, in 1999. She is working toward the Ph.D. degree in electronics and communication engineering and education technology. She is currently Director of Academics at Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab, India. Her areas of interest include circuit theory and analysis, digital communication, and education technology.

Sunil Dutt received the Ph.D. degree in education from Punjab University, Chandigarh, India, in 1979. He has authored numerous articles in the psychology of adult learning and performance evaluation. His areas of specialization include research methodology, measurement and evaluation, and educational management.

J. P. Gupta received the M.Tech degree in electronics and communication engineering from the University of Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttar Pradesh, India and the Ph.D. degree in computer science and engineering from the University of Westminster, London, U.K. He is currently the Vice Chancellor at Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University, Noida, India. He is an academician and a former Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

Madhu Chitkara received the Ph.D. degree in education from Punjab University, Chandigarh, India, in 1984. She is the Director of the Chitkara Educational Trust, Chandigarh, India. Her areas of interest include education technology, pure mathematics, architecture, and governance. She is active in bringing revolutionary changes in the educational scenario in the region of Punjab, India, and was the recipient of the 2002 Rashtriya Nirman Ratna Award by the Economic Growth Society of India, New Delhi.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on January 18, 2009 at 22:23 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.