An Arduino-Based Alternative to the Traditional

Electronics Laboratory
R. B. Yoder

Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Goucher College, 1021 Dulaney Valley Rd, Baltimore, MD 21204

Abstract: We have developed a project-based alternative approach to the traditional electronics laboratory course,
incorporating a hands-on sequence of guided but open-ended activities. The Arduino microprocessor is incorporated
from the beginning, which allows greatly enhanced scope and flexibility for projects and increases student motivation and
agency. The course is designed for junior physics majors without significant experience in circuit design and
construction. Students are given an orientation to the Arduino in the second week, and almost immediately begin
constructing usable devices. As the projects grow more complex during the course, students are gradually introduced to
the usual range of electronic components. The Arduino is particularly suited to measurement and control processes that
are common in research environments, and the project themes emphasize signal production, detection, and analysis,
including logging, filtering, and amplifying. By using the Arduino to control special-purpose ICs, students learn to read
and interpret a datasheet. The course has now run once, with good learning outcomes and very positive student
evaluations.
Keywords:.electronics, laboratory, Arduino, project-based learning
PACS: 01.50.Qb, 07.05.Hd

INTRODUCTION motivation to assimilate unfamiliar concepts. Students

could not easily describe connections between the
The physics program at Goucher College, like material of PHY310 and their other courses. Most
most, requires an electronics laboratory course particularly, students reported that they did not see the
(PHY310) for all majors. The reasons for the value of the course material, or its usefulness for
requirement include practical and pedagogical ones experimental work. At the same time, the course
(solidifying basic concepts by embedding them in a content no longer aligned well with current practice in
practical context, adding hands-on lab work and research labs, where specialized computer-based
measurement to the curriculum, developing useful instrumentation has become much more common and
technical skills). Fundamentally, the course aligns with in which many projects require some coding. Our
a departmental philosophy that emphasizes the course goal of equipping students for independent lab
experimental nature of physics and aims to equip work was not being met.
students for independent scientific exploration. A In response, PHY310 was completely redeveloped.
primary goal of the course, then, is to build student We sought a course design that would keep students
competence in device design and technical problem- interested and motivated, that would promote
solving. For those who continue in experimental independent work and problem-solving, and that would
physics, the course serves as an orientation to make an obvious connection with useful devices and
measurement and control systems and thus to modern measurement practices. We settled on the Arduino
laboratory work in general. microprocessor platform2 as an enabling technology
Until last year, PHY310 was a traditional for the course. This paper reports, as a case study, on
electronics laboratory, in which students built and the initial roll-out of the new course and associated
measured examples of (mostly analog) circuits, student outcomes.
working from a standard textbook1 and progressing
through a cookbook-style lab manual. The course The Arduino Platform
material covered the familiar progression from DC and
AC circuits to logic gates. Typical students were The Arduino is a simple open-source hardware
juniors and seniors with little previous experience in platform that combines a microprocessor, memory, and
circuit building. signal input/output capability (both digital and analog).
By 2014, the department had identified a number of It is programmed using C. Used by students and
unsatisfactory outcomes with the course. We saw a hobbyists as well as professional developers, the basic
lack of student engagement with the material, and little Arduino can be customized and extended by a vast

2015 BFY Proceedings, edited by Eblen-Zayas, Behringer, and Kozminski; Peer-reviewed, doi:10.1119/bfy.2015.pr.027
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Further distribution must maintain attribution to the article’s authors, title, proceedings citation, and DOI.

107
assortment of hardware and software libraries. To aimed at developing datasheet comprehension.
create a useful device, of course, one must add Recognizing that many physicists are not skilled
appropriate circuitry; hence the value of Arduino for electronics engineers, but rely on an ability to
our course. implement and modify known circuit solutions, one of
We found that Arduino had many advantages for the course objectives was for students to
classroom use. It is robust, simple, and easy to learn, “knowledgeably implement” circuit designs from
with many teaching resources available,3 and can be reference sources. The “assigned text”4 was intended
operated with minimal background. Our students as one such reference source.
became comfortable quickly with the interface and the Second, we chose to focus on processes, rather than
language, thanks to the simple examples included. As components. That is, we were able to demonstrate the
an open-source device, the Arduino is very inexpensive relevance of the course material by framing it broadly
(starting at about $25)*, making it affordable for our around the standard tools of the research lab—signal
department but also for students, some of whom chose acquisition, manipulation, and control—with circuit
to purchase their own. The availability of open-source components used as a means to these ends. This led
programs and designs for many tasks was valuable for naturally to lab exercises using real-world examples
students’ independent projects. and devices as much and as early as possible. While
As a teaching tool, Arduino gives immediate and we introduced most of the standard electronic
gratifying results: adding even a very simple circuit components in the course of the semester, each was
gives a device that performs a useful function. For presented in the context of a process that it enabled.
example, with only a knowledge of resistor dividers, Finally, a major goal of our course was to foster
students can construct a fairly accurate resistance- creativity and independence in the students,
based light or temperature sensor. We anticipated that particularly in the context of building and modifying
these fast results would increase student engagement useful devices. This implied that the course should be
and motivation. Students who had previously heard of project-based as much as possible. Students worked,
Arduino were likely to be especially interested in usually alone, on self-paced tutorial-style labs, each
learning how to use one. culminating in a more open-ended project. By
The Arduino has certain basic limitations as well; midterm, students had a choice of several week-long
for example, it can only produce digital (high/low) projects to attempt, and the course concluded with a
output and has strictly limited output currents. final project of the student’s choosing. A portion of
However, working within the limitations is also the final project grade reflected the degree to which
instructive: students now have a reason to learn students made use of components or techniques not
techniques for amplification, isolation, and filtering, included explicitly in the course (and students were
and with each technique they are able to perform more given a small budget for components). Classroom time
demanding tasks with Arduino. also emphasized troubleshooting skills.
In order to give maximum attention to creative
COURSE DESIGN design and problem-solving as course goals, we
eliminated formal lab reports, instead requiring only
short answers to tutorial questions, occasional
Key Principles
homework problems, and accurate circuit diagrams for
projects.
Several key principles guided the course design and
influenced the content, process, and level of the course.
First, we realized at the outset that a one-semester Organization of Topics
course cannot make inexperienced students into
experts in electronic circuits. Rather than aiming for Table 1 shows the organization of course topics.
mastery, the course’s goal was to provide a kind of The table shows that the various electronic components
orientation—one that would equip students to develop are still introduced in a fairly traditional sequence,
necessary mastery later in their science careers, if and increasing in complexity, but that each is embedded in
when needed. A key component of this equipping is a device or measurement problem.
the ability to find and understand relevant information,
particularly component datasheets and circuit reference OUTCOMES
books; student exercises included explicit practice in
this skill, and a unit on specialized ICs was mainly The initial offering of the course in Spring 2014
enrolled 9 students. Class standing ranged from
*
However, for greater longevity when mishandled, we highly sophomore to senior. While a few students had some
recommend the ruggedized version available from expertise with programming, none had experience with
www.ruggedcircuits.com.

108
circuit construction beyond the basic circuits they had
seen in their introductory physics course.

TABLE 1. Outline of material and components covered during the initial run of the course, Spring 2014.
Week Technical topic or component Project or device
1 Review of voltage, resistance, power Resistor divider
2 Orientation to Arduino and programming Customizing example programs
3 First project: measuring DC signals with Arduino Light sensor using photocell
AC circuits, frequency response, and filters
4-5 Output plus sensing: capacitance meter using RC decay
(Capacitance, inductance, decay, passbands)
6 Diodes and rectification; transformer basics Simple power supply
7 Intro to IC’s and pinouts Control LCD display with Arduino
7-8 Midterm project Options involve sensing and logging
High-current outputs: bright LEDs, motors and
9-11 Transistors, amplifiers, op amps motor drivers, audio signals, pulse-width
modulation
Digital clock (binary communication with clock
12 Specialized ICs
chip), remote control (infrared receiver)
13 Feedback and control Magnetic levitation
14-15 Final project period Supervised independent work

Anecdotally, the Arduino platform stimulated comparison with typical physics-department courses.
student interest and engagement from the beginning. Numerical ratings are shown in Table 3. We
Several students began extending the projects beyond particularly note the high percentage of students
the requirements by the third week of class. At least finding that the coursework “contributed to their
half of the students conceived of a long-term goal— understanding of the material.”
something to build or invent as a final project—during
the first half of the course. TABLE 3. Student ratings from course evaluations (5 =
As a measure of the degree to which the course strongly agree/excellent, 1 = strongly disagree/poor),
reached its objectives, students’ final projects were compared with the average response for all physics courses
evaluated along five dimensions using a rubric. Table (N = 48) in the Spring 2014 semester.‡ Standard deviations
were not available for the departmental average.
2 presents results for those students who completed the
Physics
course (N = 7). Though this sample is very small, the Statement/Question
Mean rating
Dept mean,
high average score for “competence” (a measure that (SD)
SP14
rates the correct functioning and design of the Lab exercises were
circuitry) seems to be worth noting. While most of the pertinent to course 4.8 (0.4) 4.4
other results are adequate to strong, we found that objectives
students did not demonstrate as much ability to The course was
3.2 (0.9) 2.6
incorporate material beyond that covered in the course difficult
(“extension”) as we had expected. Work contributed to
understanding 4.5 (0.8) 3.85
TABLE 2. Average rating of students’ final projects material
on various attributes (5 = excellent, 1 = inadequate). How would you rate
4.5 (0.8) 3.47
Standard deviations are in parenthesis. this course?
Quality rated Mean rating (SD)
Successful and correct Finally, we report a sampling of student comments,
4.47 (0.59) taken from the (anonymous) course evaluations.
circuitry (“competence”)
Problem-solving sophistication • “Working with electronics and the
3.57 (0.98)
(“insight”) microprocessors was very fun.”
Ability to succeed without • “Every assignment was fascinating.”
4.07 (1.0)
assistance (“independence”) • “The fact that it was hands on and experimental
Going beyond course material made the course interesting and different from other
2.86 (1.3)
(“extension”) courses that I have taken thus far in Physics.”
Novel combinations or
3.29 (1.5)
repurposing (“creativity”) ‡
This includes students in introductory and advanced courses;
disaggregated data could not be obtained. A relatively small number
Student course evaluations were used as a direct of responses (<20%) are from non-majors, however, and past data
measure of student satisfaction and motivation, and for shows no significant difference between the responses of the two
groups.

109
 • “[I had to think for myself] more than I have in naturally to project design and that developing the
any course before. This is probably my favorite course course syllabus and tutorials became straightforward.
so far.” Though we encountered a little skepticism about
• “Most of the projects and labs involved testing students’ ability to assimilate standard circuit concepts
our problem solving abilities to achiev[e] the desired and techniques using only Arduino projects, our initial
objective.” results indicate that such skepticism is unfounded. The
• “I really enjoyed this course.” Arduino was also, by itself, an effective motivator for
Several comments explicitly praised the open- many students, who were attracted by its reputation
ended nature of many projects, which often focused on and “coolness.”
a result (“create a circuit to do this”) and left the The project-based approach seemed to elicit a
method up to the student. The most common reasonable degree of independence, with students
complaint was that the pacing was faster than optimal, demonstrably gaining skill in troubleshooting and
though this was not universally agreed. In future circuit design. However, we find that it is more
iterations of the course, we may make more use of challenging for students to gain the confidence and
optional extensions to tutorials. As a further indication initiative needed to pursue further topics on their own.
of student engagement, a couple of students We are studying ways that this might be included more
commented that they were proud of their projects and specifically in the course design.
would have liked an opportunity to present them to the The course will be offered again in Fall 2015 with a
class. (Final projects included various enhanced much larger group of students, and we intend to further
clocks, a light-seeking robot, an ultrasonic range refine our approach after this second trial.
indicator, a 5-note electronic organ, and a sensor-based
pot-plant irrigation device.) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONCLUSION Thanks to Ben Sugerman and Sasha Dukan for
advice and encouragement., and to the students of
The preliminary course outcomes from our small PHY310 in Spring 2014. The course redesign was
initial sample have been very encouraging. Though we supported by a grant from the Crosby Fund for
lack the data to draw strong statistical conclusions— Excellence in Teaching, Goucher College.
both due to the small sample and the absence of
comparable data from the previous version of the REFERENCES
course—the results appear to demonstrate that the
course redesign was successful in reaching its aims. 1. For example, A. J. Diefenderfer and B. E. Holton,
Anecdotally, student engagement was dramatically Principles of Electronic Instrumentation, 3rd ed.
enhanced, as illustrated by student comments and the (Saunders College, Philadelphia, 1994).
wide range of creative final projects elicited in addition 2. See www.arduino.cc.
to the subjective experience of the instructor. 3. Helpful resources include S. Monk, Programming
We acknowledge, of course, that the course Arduino: Getting Started with Sketches (McGraw-Hill,
transformation from cookbook-style to project-based New York, 2012); S. Monk, Programming Ardino: Next
Steps (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2014); J. Blum,
must itself be given due credit for increasing student
Exploring Arduino (Wiley, Indianapolis, IN, 2013); and
motivation and improved learning outcomes. S. Monk, 30 Arduino Projects for the Evil Genius, 2nd
However, we argue that the Arduino platform was a ed. (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2013).
key ingredient of this success, in that it both enabled 4. P. Scherz and S. Monk, Practical Electronics for
and encouraged a high degree of flexibility, capability, Inventors, 3rd ed. (McGraw Hill, New York, 2013)..
and increased student agency at a very early point in
the course. We found that the platform lent itself

110