International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
An Innovative Approach in Teaching Digital Electronics at
Technical High Schools
Dr. Alexandros Papadimitriou
School Teacher Advisor of the Greek Ministry of Education, Kifisias 16, Athens, Greece
Abstract — This paper describes an innovative scenario in
teaching digital electronics at technical high schools. The
course designed to improve students’ applied logic ability,
practical thinking, creative thinking, and critical thinking.
The students work in teams in order to solve initially simple
technical problems by using simulations and by comparing
various circuits, and then more complex technical problems.
The teacher guides the students through exploratory
questions to discover new logic circuits by synthesizing simple
logic circuits. Then, they are called to simplify them in order
to make simpler circuits with the lowest cost. At the end of
scenario, the students evaluate their own work and that of
others. This paper makes several contributions to the fields of
education of technicians on digital electronics, applied logic,
critical and creative thinking. The teaching approach was
applied in various technical high schools in Greece during the
2011-2012 schooling period with a great success.
This paper aims to provide a scenario framework by
using inquiry-based simulations, explorations, guided
discovery and communication for helping students to better
understand digital electronics. Through a process of
inquiry, the empirical evidence is transformed into revised
and new knowledge structures [17]. Explorations promote a
new state of understanding or equilibrium or self-regulation
when new concepts and principles are derived from the
exploration experience [1]. Elements of a scenario include
the role the students will play at each stage of scenario, the
tools they will use, and the sequence of activities in which
they will be engaged. For the sake of their joint activities,
students need to articulate their opinions, predictions and
interpretations. Conflict sometimes arises in peer
collaboration when students disagree with each other in
their interpretations or approaches to the task. When
solving a problem, students co-construct shared knowledge
and understanding by complementing and building on each
other’s ideas [31].
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In
the Section II the literature review is presented. In the
Section III the principles of team formation in the scenario
are described. In the Section IV the scenario framework is
described, and in the Section V a conclusion for the present
work is presented.
Keywords — digital electronics, social constructivism,
problem solving, critical and creative thinking.
I. INTRODUCTION
The modern trend in teaching electronics is to
complement lectures on theory and laboratory exercises
with the computer simulation of circuits [32]. In teaching
modern digital electronics to physics students it is
becoming increasingly important that both student and
instructor learn to use simulation programs.
Digital electronic technology is a very important course
of electronic technical and it's traditional teaching methods
are no longer adapted to the demand of their professional
training. Traditional teaching methods either start by
explaining a theory and showing some examples or giving
an example to introduce a theory. However, one of the both
methods is chosen and fixed by the teacher independently
of what is best for most of the students. In a traditional
classroom, students are passive listeners most of the time.
They come to the classroom unprepared and just listen to
the instructor and take notes. This classroom environment
lacks interactions between faculty and students, and
between students themselves. These interactions are very
important to the achievement of the students. If students
actively participate in the classroom learning activities,
they will be more cognitively engaged and as a result be
able to achieve a better understanding of new materials
[35].
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Critical thinking is a crucial skill that the technical high
school students need to develop in order to deal with
technical real-life authentic problems. [16] claims that
many critical thinking courses overemphasize the valid
arguments which is a criterion of cogent reasoning. While
[16] views critical thinking as its own topic of study, other
researchers emphasize the need to infuse critical thinking
into every aspect of students’ learning. [30], for example,
claim that infusing critical and creative thinking into the
high-school classroom improves student learning by
eliminating hastiness, narrow-mindedness, obscurity, and
lack of focus. [23] provide another argument for teaching
students critical thinking before they go to college.
1
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)

Studying critical thinking in high school allows students
to incorporate these skills into their learning process at an
earlier age, thereby providing continuity and a strong
foundation from which to expand during college level
instruction, ultimately resulting in greater skill retention
[5]. This approach can be coupled with the scaffolding
approach of [33], which is implemented in a variety of
college courses.
Critical thinking allows students to assess information
by sorting out subjective, biased, or even false information
and has become a key factor in transforming students into
efficient information consumers [27]. Instead, [25] claims,
teachers should instruct students how to use these tools for
the creation and expansion of students’ ability to acquire
knowledge. Critical thinking is conceptualised and
understood in different ways depending on the discipline
according to [15]. When embedding the development of
critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills within the
learning of the discipline, it is crucial for students to
receive effective, deliberate practice in the skills and to be
provided with appropriate feedback [14]. The feedback
given on an assessment or activity that helps to develop
critical thinking needs to include feedback on the students’
critical thinking skills. [36] proposes that there is often a
gap between the feedback that academics think they are
providing and the students’ understanding of that feedback.
Teachers should scaffold students’ learning of critical
thinking by making the critical thinking skills explicit,
asking students to think about their learning from different
perspectives, and presenting them with structured
opportunities for developing the critical thinking skills.
Providing these opportunities will enable students to learn
how to learn, how to think for themselves, and how to
reason with others by the time they graduate [33].
The revised Bloom’s taxonomy of levels of thinking has
six levels, as follows: (i) Knowledge–Remember; (ii)
Understand; (iii) Apply; (iv) Analyse; (v) Evaluate; and
(vi) Create. Students should be required to learn to work at
all of these levels of thinking [4]. Critical thinkers would be
able to work at the higher levels of Bloom’s revised
taxonomy. Creative thinking and critical thinking can be
viewed as complementary, with both skills being studentcentred and encouraging students to think independently
[10].
Some of skills appropriate to develop the students’
critical and creative thinking, are the followings [9,10]:
 Consideration and evaluation of different points of
view;
 Open-mindedness;
Development of a logical argument with appropriate
evidence;
 Analysis of the quality of sources;
 Synthesis from a variety of sources;
 Deduction – reasoning from the general to the
specific;
 Induction – reasoning from the specific to the
general;
 Problem solving, even with previously unknown
problems;
 Development of criteria for evaluation;
 Evaluation of their own decision making;
 Evaluation of their own work and that of others;
 Purposeful, reflective judgement; and
 Self-regulation.
In the formulation of the activity that I present below, I
take into account some of the above suggested skills which
are the deduction, induction, problem solving, the
development of criteria for evaluation, the evaluation of
their own work and that of others, and self-regulation.
[8] suggests that science is best taught through
experiments, labs, demonstrations and visualizations which
help the learners understand physical phenomena
conceptually. According to [7], experiments, observation,
measuring and theoretical speculations are processes that
cannot be separated from the science knowledge
construction, even in the classroom. According to [29],
educators should consider stimulating the basic purposes of
schooling curiosity, exploration, problem solving, and
communication.
In a problem solving environment, the learner
encouraged to solve the problem, which is set in a realworld framework and is interesting, challenging, and
complex for the learner. In order to solve a problem, the
learners have to discover or learn new knowledge either
individually or together in groups, analyze relevant
information obtained from different sources, think
critically, creatively, reflectively, and flexibly, trying out
alternate solutions to both cognitive and social problems,
and discuss the solution with others. Science instructors
generally believe that the problem-solving leads to the
understanding of science and that it is a reliable way to
demonstrate the understanding for purposes of evaluation
[19]. Also, science education researchers have developed a
number of strategies that have been shown to be effective
in improving student problem solving performance, such as
when students work with other students, or with a
computer, where they must externalize and explain their
thinking while they solve a problem [24].
2
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
The problem-solving scenarios follow a socioconstructivist approach and promote the inductive and
deductive way of learning, as students are encouraged to
discover, test structures and apply the knowledge obtained
to new situations. Generally, the scenarios promote and
support problem-based learning, where students can be
creative, learn how to combine knowledge from different
thematic areas, can think critically, analytically, and learn
how to solve real problems. While solving the problems,
they are carefully guided to learn the associated concepts
and procedures. Also, the scenarios would require students
to reflect upon the whole resource by predicting,
hypothesising, and experimenting to produce a solution and
it also provides for coaching at critical times, and
scaffolding of support, where the teacher provides the
skills, strategies and links that the students are unable to
complete the task [6].
Scaffolding is a process in which students are given
support until they can apply new skills and strategies
independently and it has been found to be an excellent
method of developing students’ higher level thinking skills
[26]. [34] theories of scaffolding knowledge through peer
discussion and interaction has been applied systematically
under the rubric of cooperative learning. Cooperative
learning is an instructional technique in which students
work together in structured small teams in order to
accomplish shared goals [13].
In cooperative team problem solving [12]: (a) the
students have a chance to practice the strategy until it
becomes more practical; (b) complex problems can be
solved easier by teams rather than individuals; (c) students
get practice developing and using the language of physics;
(d) in their discussion with each other, students must deal
with and resolve their misconceptions; (e) at the
brainstorming of the problems, students are less intimidated
because they are not answering as an individual, but as a
team. Additionally, the cooperative team problem solving
positively affects on the attitude scores of students and on
physics achievements and achievement motivation of
students [11].
One method of scaffolding is through the use of
questioning or prompting. Questions can be asked to
identify the logic and/or the origin of an idea and to prompt
the student into thinking about supporting or conflicting
evidence or the implications of their ideas [28].
Activities supported by the proper scaffolding can help
students develop expertise across all four domains of
learning, as follows [18]:
(a) Cognitive capacity to think, solve problems, and create;
(b) Affective capacity to value, appreciate, and care;
(c) Psychomotor capacity to move, perceive, and apply
physical skills; and
(d) Conative capacity to act, decide, and commit.
III. TEAM FORMATION IN THE SCENARIO
In order to have effective teams we should take into
account team policies and expectations. Effective teams are
characterized by mutual trust and respect, acceptance,
understanding, courtesy, ability, willingness, effective
collaboration, and the low number of members who must
possess specific knowledge, skills, shared beliefs and
attitudes [2, 21). Research shows that students working in
small teams tend to learn more of what is taught, retain it
longer than when the same content is presented in other
instructional formats, and appear more satisfied with their
classes [3].
Taking into account the [21] suggestion, I adopt that the
teams should be formed with three (recommended) or four
students who have the top, average, lower and/or lowest
scores. For three person teams, the specific roles should be
assigned as follows: Coordinator, Recorder, and Discusser.
For four person teams, the specific roles should be assigned
as follows: Coordinator, Recorder, Discusser, and
Energizer. The responsibilities for each role are defined
below.
Coordinator: directs the sequence of steps (e.g., we need to
move on to the next step), manages time (e.g., let us come
back to this later if we have time), reinforces merits of
everyone’s ideas, ensures that each team member
participates, keeps team focused on task, summarizes (if
there is no Energizer in the team) the team's discussion and
conclusions (e.g., so here is what we have decided) or how
the solution was attained.
Recorder: writes down actual steps, makes sure everyone
understands both the solution and the strategy used to get it,
checks for understanding of all team members (e.g.,
George, explain me this diagram) or for the final solution
for accuracy and turns it in by the due date and time, makes
sure all team members agree on each step of the problem
solution or on plans and actions (e.g., are we in agreement
on this?), submits reports for the team.
Discusser: makes sure all possibilities (e.g., possible
problem-solving strategies or plans and actions) are
explored (e.g., what other possibilities are there?), suggests
alternative approaches or concerns with suggested solutions
(e.g., let us try to look at this another way), provides
reasoning and explanations of steps to team members if
necessary, ensures problem and data interpretation is
correct (e.g., I am not sure we are on the right track).
3
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
Energizer: energizes the team when motivation is low by
suggesting a new idea (e.g., we can do this!), through
humor or by being enthusiastic (e.g., that is a great idea!).
Summarizes (restates) the team's discussion and
conclusions (e.g., so here is what we have decided).
These roles should be better to rotate for every
assignment. The student teams would be better to be
formed by sociometric tests and sociograms.
Also, the following suggestions of [20] for the design of
effective team activities should be taken into consideration
in team formation:
 team activities and assignments can be a highly
effective tool for developing both students’ mastery
of basic conceptual material and their higher-level
thinking and problem solving skills.
 the vast majority of student or workshop participants
dysfunctional behaviours (e.g., social loafing, one or
two members dominating the discussion, etc.) and
complaints (e.g., having to carry the dead wood, the
instructor is not teaching, etc.) are the result of bad
assignments not bad learners.
 the key to designing effective team assignments is to
maximize the extent to which the learning tasks
promote the development of cohesive learning teams,
and
 the single best way to gauge the effectiveness of
team assignments is the observe the level of energy
that is present when the results of the small team
discussions are reported to the class as a whole.
Topic/domain: digital electronics/decoders.
Pre-requisite skills/ knowledge: Learners should be able
to improve their own learning and performance, solve
problems, and work with other learners. They must know
the concepts voltage and current and the function of
switches, electronically controlled switches, and logic
gates.
B. Pedagogic Activities
Learning tasks/activities: Teacher initiates students to
what he/she is going to teach through an introductory
discussion. Also, he/she should connect the prior
knowledge with new knowledge.
Learning objectives/outcomes
The students studying the decoders should be able to:
 collect information from data sheets and choose the
appropriate chips (remember);
 solve, analyze (analysis) and design (creation)
combinational logic circuits;
 anticipate (creation) the function of the decoders by
comparing (analysis) them with known circuits;
 explain the operation of the decoders (comprehension);
 check and dissect for the correct function of logical
circuits (analysis);
 combine, synthesize, simplify (creation), and construct
(application) logic circuits by using (a) logic gates, and
(b) chips;
 suggest solutions and justify them (evaluation);
 develop criteria for evaluation of their own work and
that of others (creation);
 evaluate their own work and that of others(creation);
 collaborate for solving of technical problems.
In general, students should learn how to learn, how to
think for themselves, and how to reason with others by the
time they graduate.
Tools/ Resources: Traditional course book, CircuitMaker
software, Worksheets of activities, Whiteboard.
Assessment Strategy: Oral questioning and discussion
between student teams and teacher.
Time allocated: Up to six didactic hours.
The worksheets of the activities were created based upon
the following National Science Education Standards [22]:
 the material provides a sequence of learning activities
connected in such a way as to help students build
abilities of inquiry, understandings of inquiry, and/or
fundamental science subject matter concepts, and
specific means (e.g., connections among activities,
building from concrete to abstract, and embedded
assessments) to help the teacher keep students focused
on the purpose of the lesson,
IV. THE SENARIO FRAMEWORK
To motivate the students to be actively engaged with the
course material, I decided to design it in the form of
scenario so that the subject content is closely related to
their interests. I found that this makes the course more
effective and interesting to the students. Also, the students
are required to perform real-life authentic tasks, in order to
obtain practical, critical and creative thinking skills in
learning of digital electronics. In the present paper, I
present a scenario for the learning of decoders in digital
electronics.
The curriculum area and pedagogic activities of the
scenario are the followings:
A. Curriculum area
Subject/discipline area: science education;
Context/level of study: Technical High School. The
scenario is implemented in the penultimate grade of the
Technical High School; students are 16-18 years old. A
class of 21 to 24 students may participate in the scenario
implementation (6 to 7 student teams).
4
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
the teacher’s guide present common student difficulties
in learning inquiry abilities and understandings,
 there are suggestions provided to access prior abilities
and understandings of students,
 opportunities for students are given to demonstrate the
same understandings as part of their investigations.
The instructor and tutors monitor the progress of the
teams and provide assistance only when requested.
Students are encouraged to discover new principles,
expertise and abilities through experimentations,
observations and inquires, and in turn, use what they
discovered, to solve challenging problems.
C. Activities
General Directions: You will need the CircuitMaker
software (Student Edition) for these assignments. Use the
guides of the worksheets to answer the questions. Design
by yourself the experimentations (simulations) and
experiment with them so that the simulations meat the
goals of each activity. Use scientific criteria to analyze
alternative explanations. Discuss with your partners of both
roles and limitations of skills such as analyzing,
synthesizing and evaluating, and constructing explanations.
You should work in teams of three (recommended) or four
members.
1) Activity 1: Comparison and connection between the
function of switches connected in series and electronically
controlled switches connected in series.
Lesson Focus: Understanding the function of circuits using
electronically controlled switches by comparing its
function with the function of simple switching circuits.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
design logic circuits with switches and electronically
controlled switches, experiment with them, observe their
function, and verify if their function meats the goals of
their design. Also, they should use inductive reasoning to
generalize the function of switching circuits.
Prerequisites: Concepts of Voltage, Current, and functions
of switches and light emitting diodes, knowing of inductive
reasoning.
Worksheet 1
1. Make the following two simulations in the
CircuitMaker software.

A
B
+
5V
D1
LED1
-
ESW1
ESW2
+
5V
D1
LED1
A
0V
B
0V
2. Compare the behaviour of the LED1 (emission of
light) in both of the circuits above for all the
combinations of both of the switches A and B. Do
the two circuits above implement the same logic
function? What can we conclude from this
comparison?
3. Repeat the steps 1 and 2 for circuits with three
switches connected in series and electronically
controlled switches connected in series, respectively.
4. Use inductive reasoning to generalize the function of
circuits using more than three switches connected in
series and electronically controlled switches
connected in series, respectively.
2) Activity 2: Comparison and connection between the
function of electronically controlled switches connected in
series and the function of the AND gate.
Lesson Focus: Understanding the function of AND gate by
comparing its function with the function of electronically
controlled switches connected in series.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
understand the function of AND gate by comparing its
function with the function of electronically controlled
switches connected in series, experiment, observe their
function, and verify if their functions are the same. Also,
they should use inductive reasoning to generalize the
function of AND gate with more than two inputs.
5
A
B
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
+
Prerequisites:
knowing of the function of electronically
5V
D1
LED1 of
controlled switches
connected in series, knowing
inductive reasoning.
Worksheet 2
1. Make the following two simulations in the
CircuitMaker software.
ESW1
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
design different combinational logic circuits by using one
only AND gate, and at most two NOT gates for the four
combinations of both of the switches A and B connected to
two inputs of AND gate. Thus, this activity helps the
student teams foster analytical and practical abilities.
Prerequisites: Activity 2.
Worksheet 3
1. Using the formulation below, make the appropriate
connections and design four different logical circuits
in such a way that in each of them the diode LED1
will emit light for one only combination of both of
the switches A1 and B1. Experiment with them,
suggest solutions and justify them.
ESW2
+
5V
D1
LED1
0V
A
B
0V
A1
NOT
0V
AND
A
D1
LED1
0V
B1
0V
AND
B
NOT
The student teams are guided by the teacher and they
also accept feedback if it is appropriate. At the end, the
teacher presents to the students the four logic circuits for
reflection.
4) Activity 4: Synthesis (integration) all of the four logic
circuits of the activity 3 in one combinational logic circuit
(decoder 2 to 4).
Lesson Focus: The aim of the course is to make the
students to be able to synthesize (integrate) simple logic
circuits in one combinational logic circuit.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
foster and enhance their synthetic ability.
Prerequisites: Activity 3.
Worksheet 4
1. The following logic circuits are the solutions of the
problem of the Activity 3. Synthesize (integrate) the
logic circuits below in such a way that all of them to
be controlled by two only switches A1 and B1,
simultaneously, and each of the four LEDs to emit
light for one only of combinations of both of the
switches A1 and B1.
D5
LED1
0V
2. Compare the behaviour of the LED1 (emission of
light) in both of the circuits above for all the
combinations of both of the switches A and B. Do
the two circuits above implement the same logic
function? What can we conclude from this
comparison?
3. Repeat the steps 1 and 2 for circuits with three
electronically controlled switches connected in series
and an AND gate with three inputs, respectively.
4. Use inductive reasoning to generalize the function of
the AND gate with more than three inputs.
3) Activity 3: Anticipation-expectation of the four
combinational logic circuits.
Lesson Focus: Design of combinational logic circuits by
the student teams which should have a concrete function
that will meat the goals of design.
6
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
Prerequisites: Activity 5.
Worksheet 6
The students are called to create by themselves the truth
table of the decoder 2 to 4. Then, the instructor presents
one chip of the decoder 2 to 4 (e.g. the 74LS139) and
explains the function of its pins. Also, he/she explains the
negative logic of its function. The students experiment with
the logic circuit below in order to be familiarized with a
decoder 2 to 4 in the form of chip and its negative logic.
A1
0V
NOT
AND
B1
0V
D6
LED1
NOT
A1
0V
NOT
AND
D3
LED1
B1
5V
5V
D4
LED1
A1
D1
LED1
AND
NOT
A
DEC2TO4
74LS139
0V
D1
LED1
B1
0V
A1a
A0a
Ea
B
0V
A1b
A0b
Eb
A1
5V
AND
S1
Q3a
Q2a
Q1a
Q0a
Q3b
Q2b
Q1b
Q0b
D2
LED1
D3
LED1
+
B1
5V
5V
D2
LED1
-
7) Activity 7: Application of the knowledge obtained by the
students to a new situation with more complexity.
Lesson Focus: The aim of the course is to make the
students to be able to apply the knowledge obtained until
now to a new situation with more complexity. In general,
the students through this activity should be able to solve,
analyze and design similar combinational logic circuits.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
foster and enhance their synthetic ability.
Prerequisites: Activity 6.
Worksheet 7
The students are called to create by themselves the truth
table of the decoder 3 to 8, write the min-terms, and make
the logical circuit in a simulator by using the min-terms.
8) Activity 8: Development of criteria for evaluationEvaluation of their own work and that of others.
Lesson Focus: The aim of the course is to make the
students to be able to be creative by developing criteria for
evaluation of their work and that of others, and to apply
them.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
foster and enhance their creative ability.
Prerequisites: Activity 7.
5) Activity 5: Simplification-Modification of the
combinational logic circuit emerged from the activity 4.
Lesson Focus: The aim of the course is to make the
students to be able to simplify logic circuits so that the
resultant logic circuits to implement the same function with
the original one, and have the lowest cost.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
foster and enhance their analytical ability. This includes the
ability to think convergently in that it requires critical
thinking and appraisal as one analyzes and evaluates
thoughts, ideas, and possible solutions. This type of
thinking is key in the realm of creative work.
Prerequisites: Activity 4.
Worksheet 5
1. Simplify-modify the resultant logic circuit in activity
4 so that it to implement the same function with the
original one, and have the lowest cost.
6) Activity 6: Application of the knowledge obtained by the
students to a new situation with a negative logic.
Lesson Focus: The aim of the course is to make the
students to be able to apply the knowledge obtained until
now to a new situation with negative logic, and to be
familiarized with chips.
Lesson Synopsis: This activity encourages student teams to
foster and enhance their practical ability, to increase their
motivation, and to help students learn to transfer
knowledge from one situation to a new situation.
Worksheet 8
1 The student groups are called to develop criteria for
evaluation of their own work. The teacher assists
them in the development of criteria.
7
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
2 The student groups are called to apply the criteria for
evaluation of their own work and that of others.
It is very important to point out that this study certify the
research of [5], that is, the ability of students to improve
their critical thinking stresses the need for students in
general to acquire critical reasoning skills at the high
school level.
Also, the students obtained collaborative abilities
(willingness, effectiveness) which they were unknown to
them so far.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper makes several contributions to the fields of
education of technicians on digital electronics, applied
logic, critical and creative thinking. This education area
(technical high schools) has very little research on the
contemporary didactics. This paper contributes to this
direction. It describes an innovative scenario in teaching
digital electronics at technical high schools. The course is
designed to improve students’ applied logic ability,
practical thinking, creative thinking, and critical thinking.
Moreover, this scenario helps the students construct and coconstruct their own deep understanding and knowledge on
digital electronics through inquiry-based simulations,
explorations, guided discovery, collaboration, and by
comparing a known with an unknown logic circuit as well.
In this way, the students discover principles and new
knowledge of the unknown logic circuits. The role of the
student teams is very important for the improvement of
each student achievement. The students work in teams in
order to solve initially simple technical problems by using
simulations and by comparing various circuits, and then
more complex technical problems. The teacher guides and
support the students, through exploratory questions, to
discover new logic circuits by synthesizing simple logic
circuits. Then, they are called to simplify-modify them in
order to make simpler circuits with the lowest cost. At the
end of scenarios, the students evaluate their own work and
that of others. The scenario was applied by the author as
exemplary teaching (in the framework of school teacher
advisor) in various technical high schools in Greece during
the 2011-2012 schooling period with a great success. The
main conclusions from the application of the scenario in
classrooms are the followings:
 The majority of students’ performances were
significantly improved from the pre-test to the post
test concerning the four first activities of the
scenario.
 A significant amount of students have had
difficulties to simplify-modify logic circuits (activity
5). They need the teacher’s guidance and support.
 A small amount of students have difficulties to apply
knowledge to a new situation with more complexity
(activity 8).
 The students have difficulties in developing criteria
for evaluating their own work and that of others, and
they certainly need the teacher to guide and support
them.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
8
Abdullah, S. and Shariff, A. 2008. The effects of inquiry-based
computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking
and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(4), 387-398.
Baker, D.P., Day, R., and Salas E. 2006. Teamwork as an essential
component of high-reliability organizations. Health Serv Res.
41(42), 1576-1598.
Barkley, E., Cross, P., & Major, C. 2005. Cooperative Learning
Techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Black, S. & Ellis, R. 2010. Evaluating the level of critical thinking in
introductory investments courses. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 14(4), 99-106.
Bouhnik D. and Giat Y. 2009. Teaching High School Students
Applied Logical Reasoning, Journal of Information Technology
Education Innovations in Practice, 8.
Carroll M. J. 1999. Five Reasons for Scenario-based Design, Proc.
of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3.
Concari, S., Giorgi, S., Cámara, C., and Giacosa, N. 2006.
Instructional Strategies Using Simulations for Physics Teaching.
Journal of Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education,
2042-2046.
DiSessa, A. 2001. Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and
Literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Facione, P. A. 2000. The disposition toward critical thinking: Its
character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill.
Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
Forrester, J. 2008. Thinking creatively; thinking critically. Asian
Social Science, 4(5), 100-105.
Gök, T. 2010. A new approach: Computer-assisted problem-solving
systems. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,
11(2).
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. 1992. Teaching problem solving
through cooperative teaming. Part 2: Designing problems and
structuring teams, American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. 1989. Cooperation & Competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: International Book Company.
Johnson, T., Archibald, T., & Tenenbaum, G. 2010. Individual and
team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical
thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behaviour,
26, 1496-1507.
Jones, A. 2007. Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical
thinking and the disciplinary context. Australian Journal of
Education, 51(1), 84-103.
Kahane, H. (1989). The proper subject matter for critical thinking
courses. Argumentation, 3(2), 141-147.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2012)
[17] Lee, V. S. 1999. Creating a Blueprint for the Constructivist
Classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8(4), 1-4.
[18] Lombardi, M.M. 2007. Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An
Overview. ELI's 2007 series on authentic learning. Educauce
learning Initiative.
[19] Maloney, D.P. 1994. Research on problem solving: Physics,
Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning, D.L.
Gabel, ed., pp. 327-354, New York: Macmillan,.
[20] Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D. & Knight, A. 1997. Designing
effective team activities: Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty
development. In D. DeZure (ed.), To improve the academy:
Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development,
Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, 16, 373-397.
[21] Oakley, B, Felder, R.M, Brent, R., & Elhajj, E. 2004. Turning
student teams into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered
Learning, 2(1), 9-34.
[22] Olson, S. and Loucks-Horsley, S. (eds). 2000. Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and
Learning. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights
reserved.
[23] Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. 1991. How college affects
students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[24] Reif, F. & Scott, L.A. 1999. Teaching scientific thinking skills:
Students and computers Coaching each other. American Journal of
Physics, 67, 819–831.
[25] Resnick, M. 2002. Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G.
Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report 20012002: Readiness for the networked world (32-37). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
[26] Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. 1992. The use of scaffolds for teaching
higher level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 26-33.
[27] Salomon, G. 2000. Technology and education in the information
age. Tel Aviv: Haifa University, Zemora-Bitan Publishers.
[28] Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. 2004. Scaffolding critical thinking in an
online course: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 31(2), 181-208.
[29] Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. 2008. Psychology Applied
to Teaching. (12th ed.)
[30] Swartz, R. J., Fischer, S. D., & Parks, S. 1998. Infusing the teaching
of critical and creative thinking into secondary science: A lesson
design handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and
Software.
[31] Tao, P-K., & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). Conceptual Change in Science
through Cooperative Learning at the Computer. International Journal
of Science Education. 21(1), 39-57.
[32] Tavel, P. 2007. Modeling and Simulation Design. AK Peters Ltd.
[33] Thomas, T., Davis, T., & Kazlauskas, K. 2007. Embedding critical
thinking in an IS curriculum. Journal of Information Technology
Education. 6, 327-346.
[34] Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
[35] Wang, G. 2009. Active Learning in Digital Electronics: Preview,
Exercise, Teaching and Learning, 2nd International Proceedings of
2nd Multi-Conference on Engineering and Technological Innovation
(IMETI 2009), Orlando, FL.
[36] Wingate, U. 2010. The impact of formative feedback on the
development of academic writing' Assessment & Evaluation In
Higher Education, 34 (5), 519- 533.
9