Search

The integration of the Arduino board into educational settings has penetrated across various educational levels. The teaching of this subject can be accomplished by (a) using real components in breadboards, (b) prefabricated modular boards that snap together, and (c) utilizing computer simulations. Yet, it is unknown which interface offers a more effective learning experience. Therefore, this experimental study aims to compare the effectiveness of these interfaces in a series of three laboratory exercises involving 110 university students, who were divided into three groups: (a) the first group used a tangible user interface, implementing circuits on breadboards, (b) the second group also used a tangible interface but with modular boards, and (c) the third group used a graphical user interface to simulate circuits using Tinkercad. For each laboratory exercise, students completed both pretests and posttests. Also, they provided feedback through five Likert-type attitude questions regarding their experiences. In terms of data analysis, t-tests, ANOVA, and ANCOVA, along with bootstrapping, and principal component analysis were employed. The results suggest that among the participants, those who used a graphical user interface stated that their understanding of the interconnection of components in microcontroller circuits was enhanced, while students with previous experience in microcontroller labs found the circuit creation process easier than students without experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Utilizing Arduino development boards for learning microcontroller circuits is a prevalent practice across various educational levels. Nevertheless, the literature offers limited insights into the impact of these boards on student performance and attitudes. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the performance of 58 university students in learning microcontroller circuits with modular boards designed for Arduino through a series of 4 exercises. Specifically, students' performance is assessed through pre-tests and post-tests, in three learning units: (a) microcontroller, (b) coding, and (c) circuit. Additionally, the study captures students' attitudes and measures their perceived usability of modular boards. For this purpose, the students completed a specially designed attitude questionnaire and the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire. Statistical analysis is conducted using t-tests, ANOVA, and ANCOVA, along with bootstrapping. The findings reveal statistically significant differences between pre-tests and post-tests in all cases. Among the three learning units, the use of modular boards appears to have the most significant impact on coding. Based on students' responses, the SUS results indicate that modular boards appear to be a quite usable approach for teaching microcontrollers. Finally, students generally express positive attitudes toward modular boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]