A comparison between two didactical approaches on shielding problems in an electromagnetic compatibility course – Analytical method versus simulation method
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2016
A comparison between two didactical approaches on shielding problems in an electromagnetic compatibility course – Analytical method versus simulation method
The subject of electromagnetic compatibility is a compulsory one, taught to students from electrical engineering and applied electronics study programmes. We present a comparative study between the current teaching method of shielding calculation and a new simulation-based teaching approach. In the academic year 2013–2014, the effectiveness of the new method was evaluated by analyzing the answers provided by the students to the items in a questionnaire along with their final lab test scores.
GokhaleA. Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking. J Ind Teacher Educ1996; 33: 36.
2.
McManus H and Rebentisch E. Experiences in simulation-based education in engineering processes. In: Proc 38th Annual Conf Frontiers in Educ (FIE 2008), Saratoga Springs, NY: IEEE, pp. S1C-21–SIC-26.
3.
Klug M and Hausberger P. Motivation of students for further education in simulation by an applied example in a related other course in engineering education: a case study. In: Proc 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2009), Austin, TX, USA, 2009, pp.248–255.
4.
Hosseinzadeh N, Hesamzadeh MR and Korki M. Role of laboratory in the education of modern power systems. In: Proc power and energy society general meeting. San Diego, CA: IEEE, 2011, p.1.
5.
Cho Sang-Young. A virtual simulation package for embedded system training and education. In: Proc international conference on engineering education (ICEED 2009). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: IEEE, 2009, p.72.
6.
VejaranoGGuerreroFG. A constructivist simulation-based methodology for teaching mobile communications. J IEEE Trans Edu2008; 51: 468.
7.
WentworthSM. Applied electromagnetics: early transmission lines approach, New York, NY: Wiley Press, 2007, pp. 12–20.
8.
PreglaR. Analysis of electromagnetic fields and waves: the method of lines, New York, NY: Wiley Press, 2008, pp. 15–38.
9.
TaoJWenXSongJ. Design and assessment of a virtual platform for impulse voltage tests. Int J Elec Eng Educ2013; 50: 358.
10.
BalakrishnanBWoodsPC. A comparative study on real lab and simulation lab in communication engineering from students’ perspectives. Eur J Eng Educ2013; 38: 159.
SchelkunoffSA. The impedance concept and its application to problems of reflection, shielding and power absorption. Bell Syst Tech J1938; 17: 17–48.
14.
AciuLEOgrutanPNicolaeG. New SEDB measurement methods for conductive materials. J Przeglad Electrotechniczny2010; 3: 5–7.
15.
Aciu LE, Ogrutan PL and Volmer M. Electromagnetic shielding properties determination for advanced composite materials. In: Proc international conference of advanced composite materials engineering (COMAT2012), Brasov, RO, 18–20 October 2012, Massachusetts, USA: Derc Publishing House, pp.94–99.
16.
DurikAMVidaMEcclesJS. Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: a developmental analysis. J Edu Psychol2006; 98: 382.
17.
SimpkinsSDDavis-KeanPEEcclesJS. Math and science motivation: a longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Dev Psychol2006; 42: 70.
18.
GreeneJAHutchisonLACostaLJ. Investigating how college students’ task definitions and plans relate to self-regulated learning processing and understanding of a complex science topic. Contemporary Educ Psychol2012; 37: 307.
19.
LeonardiAGlalamasV. Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: impact on students’ achievement behavior. Psychol School2002; 39: 279.
20.
HorvathMHerlemanHAMcKieRL. Goal orientation, task difficulty and task interest: a multilevel analysis. Motiv Emot2006; 30: 171.
21.
ArtinoAR. Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: predicting satisfaction with online training. J Comput Assist Lear2008; 24: 260–270.