Development of Bjt-Fet Circuit Card and Small Signal Analysis of Bjt Circuit Card

A PCB-based BJT-FET Circuit Card and Small Signal Analysis of BJT Circuit Card were designed, developed, and evaluated in this study consisting of three instructional modules: Module 7 (BJT Circuit Card/BC Card), Module 8 (Small Signal Analysis of BJT Circuit Card/SABC Card), and Module 9 (FET Circuits Card/FC card). Pertaining to Objective 2, the module provides a BJT Circuit Card using an integrated PCB design that clearly identifies network paths for biasing signals, hardware test points and utilities, as well as test point access directly with respect to schematic alignment more easily translatable for students. To address Objective 2, validation of the developed PCB modules was achieved by comparing the electrical performance against design specifications and criteria. The results of DC biasing confirmed stable operating points suitable for instructing a transistor at the input (CE bias values: VB = 0.69 V, VC = 5.92 Volt near mid-supply), tracking behavior on common collector level crossing (VE = 5.95 Volt, VB = 6.66 Volt), and common base stability (VC = 6.05 Volt). At this point, I verified expected behavior dependent on configuration through small-signal testing where measured gains were Av = −39.0 Common Emitter with 180° phase inversion (in-phase follower), Av = 0.90 for Common Collector (follower behavior again) and Av = 29.5 for Common Base (follower in-phase). Device configurations of FET module, CS, CD and CG measurements were also stable (VG ≈ 2.48 V; VS ≈ 1.44–2.32 V; VD ≈ 5.85–5.90 mV) thus confirming that reliable amplification and follower properties performance could be demonstrated with the module developed here. As per Objective 3, usability in terms of functionality was assessed through a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)-based survey for 35 students who displayed very high acceptance across the constructs (PU = 4.62, PEOU = 4.55, BI = 4.58, US = 4.60; mean overall = 4.59). The instrument was good-to-excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.88–0.93) and one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences among construct means (F = 1.10, p = 0.35) with a small effect size (η² = 0.024), confirming balanced uniform usability perceptions. Explaining, data in comparison to other considerations, the performance and design negotiation result are considered very permissible for the long laboratory aggregation with sector able skills training of all devised circuit cards.

Development, Analysis, Circuit Card

1. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01025.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Boylestad, R. L., & Nashelsky, L. (2019). Electronic devices and circuit theory (11th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Sedra, A. S., & Smith, K. C. (2021). Microelectronic circuits (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Tonido, A. R. (2014). Development and acceptability of low cost electro-tech instructional trainer. Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Journal (APHERJ). https://www.po.pnuresearchportal.org/ejournal/index.php/apherj/article/view/85 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]