A classroom‐based simulation‐centric approach to microelectronics education

Abstract

Introductory courses in microelectronic circuits are integral components to electrical and computer engineering undergraduate curriculums. The nature of the material is well‐suited for the incorporation of simulation tools to enhance student understanding of core concepts. SPICE is an electrical circuit simulation tool that has been widely adopted for industrial applications and education. In many instances, engineering instructors have used SPICE‐based simulation tools for homework problems, laboratory exercises, and course projects. Although generally accepted as beneficial to electronics education, the use of SPICE simulation tools is typically restricted to these types of assignments and not heavily used for classroom activity. In this paper, we present a novel method for incorporating SPICE simulation tools into the classroom. Specifically, in a summer 2017 microelectronics course, we used simulation tools for all aspects of the course, incorporating simulation into lecture, in‐class active learning, as well as assignments, and projects. To evaluate this approach, we carried out a rigorous, comprehensive study of this pedagogical approach on student learning, and perspectives using a variety of direct and indirect assessment methods. The results across all measures showed substantial benefits for students to using this methodology and positive responses to the active learning. Beyond microelectronics and other electrical and computer engineering courses, this approach can be applied to other STEM courses where complex systems are studied and simulation tools for these systems are readily accessible to students.

Modeling and simulation practices in engineering education

“…Instructors also reported higher quality of their own teaching. In their assessment of the course Dickerson and Clark reported similar perceived benefits. Among them are students’ ability to (a) do hands‐on learning while engaging in design experience and other real applications; (b) have access to non‐visible phenomena; (c) be exposed to practitioner's tools; (d) check or verify one's work; (e) get insights into how simulation results differ from hand calculations, among others.…”

“…At the undergraduate level, Dickerson and Clark , also followed a classroom‐based simulation‐centric approach throughout the duration of an entire course. The course was about microelectronic circuits where students transitioned from analyzing electrical circuits containing simple linear elements, to analyzing circuits containing complex, non‐linear components.…”

“…While in the case of Rampazzo and Beghi , the focus was on practitioners from a research and development area in a company, Chasiotis and Karnavas focus was on master and doctoral students. Dickerson and Clark , presented an approach with undergraduate students from an introductory course in a traditional classroom setting, and Korkmaz et al , presented a case of a training course for advanced undergraduate students. The design of each course first took into consideration specific learning outcomes instructors wanted to accomplish.…”

“…Dickerson and Clark's study presented specific teaching strategies that were identified as effective approaches for integrating modeling and simulation practices. Such pedagogies included self‐directed learning coupled with group‐based laboratories.…”

“…This special issue also presents two exemplar studies that followed more rigorous methods to provide evidence of the learning. Specifically, Dickerson and Clark , applied multiple assessment methods that measured how active a teaching approach was, and the evidence of student learning by triangulating interviews with surveys and classroom assessments. Furthermore, authors also made a strong case of student learning by comparing the effectiveness of the simulation‐centric approach to teaching versus a lecture‐based approach to teaching.…”