Abstract
This chapter addresses a number of reforms in teaching electronics in school to reflect the technological changes and objectives of education in the twenty-first century. One necessary reform in the electronics curriculum is the shift from the traditional teaching of basic components and circuits to teaching electronic systems such as sound, control, and communication systems, with a focus on understanding general technological concepts such as control, feedback, amplification, conversion, modulation, and filtering of electronic signals. A second reform required in teaching electronics relates to highlighting the STEM viewpoint, particularly physics and mathematics, which are an integral part of electronics. A third expected reform in teaching modern electronics is the transition from using conventional electronics hardware to programmable devices such as the field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or the Arduino microcontroller. The use of programmable controllers opens up tremendous possibilities for student projects, such as control systems and robotics, and for STEM-oriented studies, such as computerized physics and chemistry labs. A fourth change in the focus of teaching electronics is placing greater emphasis on project-based learning (PBL) in the electronics class. However, one must take into consideration that the new technologies may also lead to “doing without learning,” and students must acquire some basic knowledge and skills before being able to cope with advanced technologies and PB. In summary, electronics offers a rich, flexible, and friendly learning environment for teaching technology and engineering in K-12 education and for fostering students’ broad competences such as design, problem solving, creative thinking, and teamwork.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alha, K., & Gibson, I. S. (2003). Using ICT to improve the gender balance in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 215–224.
Awad, N., & Barak, M. (2014). Sound, waves and communication: Students’ achievements and motivation in learning a STEM-oriented program. Creative Education, 5(23), 1959–1968.
Barak, M. (2002). Learning good electronics, or co** with challenging tasks? Priorities of excellent students. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2), 20–34.
Barak, M. (2005). From order to disorder: The role of computer-based electronics projects on fostering of higher-order cognitive skills. Computers & Education, 45(2), 231–243.
Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal 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 Engineering Education, 37(1), 105–116.
Barak, M. (2004). The use of computers in technological studies: Significant learning or superficial activity? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 329–346.
Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2016). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 task taxonomy – Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
Barak, M., & Williams, P. (2007). Learning elemental structures and dynamic processes in technological systems: A cognitive framework. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3), 323–340.
Barak, M., Kastelan, I., & Azia, Z. (2016). Exploring aspects of self-regulated learning among engineering students learning digital system design in the FPGA environment – Methodology and findings. In R. Szewczyk, I. Kastelan, M. Temerinac, M. Barak, & V. Sruk (Eds.), Advances in embedded engineering education. Heidelberg: Springer.
Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2007). Develo** engineers; The case of electronics education in English schools. Paper for the IEEE International Summit “Meeting the growing demand for engineers and 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-based learning. 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 integrated teacher preparation program for grades 7–12: A 3-year study of attitudes and perceptions related to 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 application development. Telkomnika, 14(1), 64–71.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-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 of American 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 inquiry in project-based learning environments. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
D’Ausilio, A. (2012). Arduino: A low-cost multipurpose lab equipment. Behaviour Research Methods, 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). Develo** the capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST) of freshman engineering students. Systems Engineering, 8(2), 187–195.
Genlott, A., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Closing the gaps – Improving literacy and mathematics by ICT-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99(2), 68–80.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2015). Guided instruction improves elementary student learning and 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 does not 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 measurements in lecture and laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1751–1753.
Kubínová, S., & Šlégr, J. (2015b). Physics demonstrations with the Arduino board. Physics Education, 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: National Academies 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. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–423.
Saltmarsh, D., McMaugh, A., Santoro, N., & Reid, J. (2009). Editorial. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 229–230.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth un teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Swenson, R., Clark, A., Ernst, J., & Sutton, K. (2016). Design, test, redesign: Simulation in technology, engineering, and design education classrooms. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 75(7), 8–12.
Szewczyk, R., KaŠtelan, I., Temerinac, M., Barak, M., & Sruk, V. (Eds.). (2016). Embedded engineering 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’ reflection interview as a knowledge integration activity for high school students’ understanding of complex 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.), International handbook 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 electronics laboratory. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 60(2), 397–404.
Acknowledgments
The E2LP research mentioned in this chapter received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 317882.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Barak, M. (2017). Teaching Electronics: From Building Circuits to Systems Thinking and Programming. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_29-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_29-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education