Computer animation in electrical engineering education: Long-term effect on academic achievements

A. Gero & W. Zoabi

Technion – Israel Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Education in Technology & Science

Outline

Introduction Theory: Animation-Based Learning The Learning Unit Research Questions Methodology Findings Conclusions

Introduction A Practical Engineer occupies a position in industry that is

intermediate between the engineer and the technician

Practical engineering college teachers encounter difficulty when teaching the principle of operation of the BJT due to

The complexity of the device (Karmalkar, 1999)

Lack of adequate background among the students

We developed a new learning unit Tailored to the students’ background Qualitatively describes the processes occurring in the BJT Based on computer animation

Theory: Animation-Based Learning Static hypothesis (Mayer et al., 2005)

Better learning is achieved by using written text and static diagrams Static tools reduce the cognitive load imposed on the learner by presenting only

the key stages of the process learned

Dynamic hypothesis (Rieber, 2009)

Better learning is achieved by using animations Animation reduces the cognitive load imposed on the learner by presenting the

dynamic picture necessary to understand the process learned Animation creates interest leading to high levels of motivation

Studies have not produced any conclusive results indicating the advantages of one approach over another (Tversky et al., 2002)

The Learning Unit (1) Tailored to the students’ background Qualitatively describes the processes occurring in the BJT (Sedra & Smith, 2004)

Cut-off Forward-active Saturation

Based on computer animation, developed using Microsoft PowerPointin light of design principles (Kali & Linn, 2008)

Incorporate written text in spatial proximity to the animation Avoid the use of excess items distracting the learner from the point

Presented by the teacher accompanied by his explanations

The Learning Unit (2)

Research Questions

What are the academic achievements of students who studied the subject of the BJT through animation compared to their peers who studied the subject using static diagrams

At the end of an introductory electronics course? At the end of advanced electronics courses?

Methodology (1) Participants

41 students who in 2011-2012 were studying towards a practical engineering degree in electronics at a leading college in Israel

The students attended three successive mandatory courses on electronics, a basic course (Course 1) and two advanced courses (Courses 2 & 3)

Methods At the onset of Course 1, the students were randomly assigned into two

groups: An experimental group of 21 students A control group of 20 students

Members of each group were examined in an identical preliminary achievement test on the subject of the diode (Test 0)

Methodology (2)

The experimental group learned the structure and principle of operation of the BJT through animation, while the control group learned these subjects using static diagrams drawn on the blackboard

Members of each group were examined in an identical final achievement test on the subject of the BJT (Test 1)

In the following courses, Courses 2 & 3, the two groups were united and studied the advanced topics using static diagrams together

At the end of each advanced course, the students took a final achievement test (Test 2 and Test 3, respectively)

Five semi-structured interviews with students in the experimental group were carried out

Methodology (3) Instruments

Each test was validated by two experts from the field of education in electrical and electronics engineering

Each test did not include the name of the examinee but rather only his identification number

The tests from both groups were mixed together and graded by two independent reviewers in random order

Findings – Quantitative: Basic Course

GroupTest 0 Test 1

M SD t p-value M SD t p-value

Experimental 67.95 23.540.31 n.s.

78.24 11.133.37 <0.001

Control 65.80 20.30 66.15 11.86

A significant gap of more than 10 points (out of 100) on average

Findings – Quantitative: Advanced Courses

GroupTest 2 Test 3

M SD t p-value M SD t p-value

Experimental 87.64 7.70

2.15 <0.0591.36 8.62

1.93 <0.05

Control 74.40 18.07 79.90 16.86

The significant gap was maintained throughout the advanced courses

Findings – Qualitative Animation promotes understanding since, unlike static diagrams, it

presents a dynamic picture of the process being learned

In the diagrams [on the subject of the diode] you see it [an electron]... but you cannot see it moving... In the animation I can see the whole process... the path of the electrons' movement... So it helps me understand...

Animation-based learning promotes retention and transfer

[During the basic course] we saw in the animation that only a small fraction of electrons moves towards the base contact [of a BJT in its active mode]… Therefore, I think that in this complex device [taught during an advanced course] I can also neglect the base current of

the transistor…

Conclusions This study shows a significant gap of more than 10 points between

the academic achievements of students in an introductory electronics course who studied the subject of the BJT through animation and the achievements of their colleagues who studied it using static diagrams

This gap is maintained in advanced electronics courses These results indicate that for the case of electronic devices

animation-based learning has a long-term effect