Some lecturers may prefer to use CEM software tools instead of analytical calculations, assigning the same antenna designs via CEM software tools as pre-work. Both analytical calculations and CEM software tools are effective in the initial design step. Experiment sheets guide students to use the appropriate antenna cells and materials. Some experiments guide students to build specific antennas, while some assign more challenging tasks, to build an optimized antenna with the highest impedance bandwidth, for example. Students use network analyzers to observe changes in reflection coefficients by adding or removing antenna cells or by totally changing their designs.

The BBA training kit provides a means to teach antenna design to students in time-limited antenna laboratory lectures. Students can design a different antenna type during each lecture session. Designing several antenna types provides a better understanding of elementary antenna principles, providing an opportunity to fail, rebuild the structure and actively learn. It covers all steps of the active learning process:29-31 sketch-design-build-measure-repeat. It also includes the antenna design and fabrication steps in one product. Students can either simulate their designs with CEM software or calculate dimensions analytically, then easily build and iterate their designs directly using a network analyzer. Once designs meet the S-parameter requirements given by their experiment sheets, students can measure the far-field parameters. The experiments are structured for maximum three-hour laboratory classes, which provides ample time to complete and test the final designs.

COMPARING DIFFERENT ANTENNA TEACHING METHODS

Figure 6 compares the steps in the industrial antenna design process to the corresponding steps using the different antenna teaching methods. Each method is effective for teaching certain elements. A project-based antenna design education, including antenna fabrication, covers five of these steps. Classical antenna laboratory lectures cover only one step. The new methods of antenna teaching, such as video and web classes, provide a theoretical education that increases the training efficiency of just one important step in the antenna design.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Comparison of the antenna design process with several antenna education methods.

BBA training education covers six steps. Distinct from the other methods, this concept offers students a realistic product design experience. Students can design, build, measure, fail, redesign, rebuild, remeasure, re-fail and finally succeed through “multi-design proto cycles.”30 The difference in education at universities versus working in the industry is that universities principally teach solving a problem in one step, where engineers use multiple steps to design and develop a product in industry. The advantage of BBA laboratory lectures is that they teach iterative design principles within the time-limited antenna laboratory lectures. This builds iteration in the design cycle, which is different from iteration within CEM tools. Another advantage: while project-based antenna design may cover only one antenna design in a semester, the brick-based hardware method can expose students to six to 10 different antenna designs, providing students the opportunity to actively design several antenna types and thoroughly understand their working principles.

CONCLUSION

Both project-based and BBA training methods cover more steps in the antenna design process than classical antenna laboratory lectures by themselves. They both provide students with hands-on experience. BBA training covers similar steps as project-based antenna teaching with one important difference: it includes iteration in the design process. Students iterate their designs as they would in their future working lives. Iteration teaches the antenna design process and a hardware design process.

BBA training enables the design of several different antenna types. Students can design, build and measure six to 10 antennas in one semester, which provides broader exposure to the field. An antenna engineer must know the working principles of many types of elementary antennas to design complex antennas, because complex antennas generally comprise multiple elementary antennas. The BBA training method motivates students with an enjoyable structure and teaches antenna design and measurement in a better and more comprehensive way than other teaching methods.

References

  1. M. Lumori and E. Kim, “Engaging Students in Applied Electromagnetics at the University of San Diego,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 53 No. 3, August 2010, pp. 419-429.
  2. K. J. Richardson, H. J. Fernandez, K. R. Basinet, A. G. Klein and R. K. Martin, “A Making and Gaming Approach to Learning About RF Path Loss and Antenna Design,” IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference, March 2018, pp. 247-253.
  3. R.L. Campbell and B. Pejcinovic, “Project-Based RF/Microwave Education,” European Microwave Conference, September 2015, pp. 1307-1310.
  4. R. L. Campbell and R. H. Caverley, “RF Design in the Classroom,” IEEE Microwave Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 4, June 2011, pp. 74–83.
  5. D. C. Baker, “An Innovative Project-Driven Senior-Level Antennas Course,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1997, pp. 190-194, Aug. 1997.
  6. T. Debogovic, J. Bartolic and D. Crnogorac, “Education in Antennas - Phased Array Antenna,” 18th International Conference on Applied Electromagnetics and Communications, October 2005.
  7. J. Venkataraman, “Project Based Electromagnetics Education,” Applied Electromagnetics Conference, December 2009.
  8. J. Venkataraman, “Design of Experiments for the Characterization of Microwave Circuits and Antennas,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, July 2006.
  9. J. Venkataraman and E. Arvas, “Project-based Courses in Microwave Circuits and Antennas,” Applied Computational Electromagnetic Society ACES International Conference, March 2008.
  10. L. Sevgi, “Teaching EM Modeling and Simulation as a Graduate-Level Course,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 5, October 2012, pp. 261-269.
  11. G. W. Hanson, H. Xin, W. C. Chew, N. Engheta, C. Fumeaux and S. C. Hagness, “The Role of Commercial Simulators and Multidisciplinary Training in Graduate-Level Electromagnetics Education,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 59, No. 6, December 2017, pp. 127-130.
  12. C. M. Furse and D. H. Ziegenfuss, “A Busy Professor's Guide to Sanely Flipping Your Classroom: Bringing Active Learning to Your Teaching Practice,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 62, No. 2, April 2020, pp. 31-42.
  13. M. B. Cohen and A. Zajic, “The Flipped Classroom Approach to Engineering Electromagnetics: A Case Study,” IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, July 2019.
  14. C. Furse and D. Ziegenfuss, "Co-Flipped Teaching: Experiences Sharing the Flipped Class," IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, July 2015.
  15. S. J. DeLozier and M. G. Rhodes, “Flipped Classrooms: A Review of Key Ideas and Recommendations for Practice,” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2017, pp. 141-151.
  16. C. M. Furse, D. Ziegenfuss and S. Bamberg, “Learning to Teach in the Flipped Classroom,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, July 2014, pp. 910-911.
  17. B. Kerr, “The Flipped Classroom in Engineering Education: A Survey of the Research,” International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, September 2015, pp. 815-818.
  18. S. J. De Lozier and M. G. Rhodes, “Flipped Classrooms: A Review of Key Ideas and Recommendations for Practice,” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2017, pp.141-151.
  19. J. R. Winquist and K. A. Carlson, “Flipped Statistics Class Results: Better Performance Than Lecture Over One Year Later,” Journal of Statistics Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, November 2014, p. 8.
  20. C. Furse, “Lecture-Free Engineering Education,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 53, No. 5, October 2011, pp. 176-179.
  21. C. Furse, “A Busy Professor's Guide to Sanely Flipping Your Classroom,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, July 2013.
  22. M. F. Iskander, “Technology-Based Electromagnetic Education,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 50, No. 3, March 2002, pp. 1015-1020.
  23. C. F. Bunting and R. A. Cheville, “VECTOR: A Hands-On Approach That Makes Electromagnetics Relevant to Students,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 52, No. 3, August 2009, pp. 350-359.
  24. “Game Changing Antenna Technology,” Anten’it. Web. http://www.antenit.com/.
  25. U. Bulus, “Anten'it: A Hardware-Based Antenna Design and Training Kit [Testing Ourselves],” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 62, No. 1, February 2020, pp. 107-112.
  26. U. Bulus, “Anten'it: Antenna Design and Training Hardware,” 27th Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference, April 2019.
  27. U. Bulus, “Anten’it: A hardware for Antenna Design and Education,” IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, July 2019.
  28. U. Bulus, “Hands-On Antenna Training with Anten'it: Normal Mode Helix Antenna,” Fifth International Electromagnetic Compatibility Conference, September 2019.
  29. B. Pejcinovic and R. L. Campbell, “Active Learning, Hardware Projects and Reverse Instruction in Microwave/RF Education,” European Microwave Conference, October 2013, pp. 1571-1574.
  30. S. C. Zemke, “Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2012.
  31. A. J. Magana, C. Vieira and M. Boutin, “Characterizing Engineering Learners’ Preferences for Active and Passive Learning Methods,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 61, No. 1, February 2018, pp. 46-54, Feb. 2018.