DEVELOPMENT OF AN ELECTRONICS TRAINER WITH COMPUTER-BASED

INPUT/ OUTPUT SYSTEM

Study Leader: LUIS D. DULNUAN JR.

Associate Researchers:
CHARLIE C. BARBERO
KYLE EIVAN T. FLORES
ARJHAY EARL D. AMBOY

INTRODUCTION

Technology impacts how people live, work, play, and most importantly learn.
When integrated into the curriculum, technology revolutionizes the learning process
(www.edutopia.org) and helps students stay engaged; it is a means for teachers to
connect with students of all learning styles (Moreco, 2017; Costley, 2014). The
application of technology (including software, hardware, and processes) facilitates
learning (Lazaro, 2014, Costley, 2014,). Likewise, the use of technology tools is
aligned with the Experiential Learning Theory of Kolb which enables students to have
the concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation and active
experimentation (Cherry, 2019). Moreover, the aims to improve student performance
and increased participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) programs and careers will hardly be achieved without the integral use of
technology (Office of Education Technology, U.S. Department of Education, 2014)

Tools or devices in teaching electronics have a history dating back from the
early years of the 19th century. Later in 1964, Ruben A. Cruz developed the first
solderless breadboard made of wood while a plastic pluggable breadboard was
designed by Ronald J. Portugal in 1971(Johnson, 2013; wikivisually.com;
www.instructables.com) which is still in use nowadays for circuit experiment and
prototyping. With the advancement of technology, modern and complicated electronic
teaching devices, also called trainers are common in engineering, technology
programs, and short technical courses where practical laboratory exercises and
experiments are done to verify theories learned in discussions. Also, software and
computer applications are available for the simulation and analysis of electronic
circuits without the use of electronic components. Simulators mimic the function of a
trainer and are considered more efficient, less costly and sometimes free since no
electronic components and measuring instruments are needed. Simulation is a form

1
of experiential learning that fits well with the principle of student-centered and
constructivist learning and teaching as it allows learning by doing and provides the
opportunity to explore the modeled domain (teaching.unsw.edu.au, 2018;
Glover,(2014). Whatever the instructor wants to use, there are pros and cons to be
considered.

The current study combines the user to use electronic components and
simulation. When experimenting on circuits using electronic components, input
signals and measurement of electrical quantities are computer-based simulated,
hence, eliminates the use of expensive equipment like a signal generator and
oscilloscope, thus, promotes cost-effectiveness and technology-based learning. The
trainer is intended to be used for experiments in basic electronic circuits, analog
electronics, digital electronics and other circuits that need basic elements such as
breadboard, voltage source, input signals, and oscilloscope. Moreover, the trainer is
capable of a printed circuit board (PCB) design because of the installed Proteus
Design Suite.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to develop and evaluate an electronic

trainer with computer-based input/output systems used in electronic circuit
experimentation, modeling, and simulation. Specifically, the study aims to determine
the acceptability of the prototype in terms of the following criteria: (1) Reliability, (2)
Usability, (3) Impact to learning, (4) Design, and (5) Value.

METHODOLOGY

Research Paradigm

The research paradigm as shown in Figure 1 includes the input requirements

such as knowledge, software, and hardware; the process to be done such as design
and development, fabrication, and testing. The output is a fabricated Electronics
Trainer with Computer-Based Input/Output System subject for evaluation using a
validated instrument purposely made for the project.

2
 Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Project Design

The project relates generally to an instructional tool more particularly to an

electronics trainer with a computer-based input/output system with built-in
functionality similar to laboratory equipment such as oscilloscope, function generator,
and variable power supply source. It has a set of breadboard where a circuit can be
electrically tested using a built-in oscilloscope and a built-in function generator as a
source of the electrical input to the electronic circuit under test. Graphical
representation of the electrical waveforms measured by the oscilloscope is displayed
on the computer monitor. The block diagram is shown in Figure 2.

3
 Figure 2. Block Diagram

As presented in Figure 2, the block diagram of the project composed of the

power supply bock (1) that provides electric power to all components of the system
connected to the mini PC (2), computer monitor (4), BCD to 7 segment display block
(5), external variable power supply port (9); mini PC (2) that processes the graphical
signals from the I/O board (3), I/O board (3) that functions as function generator
(input) and oscilloscope (output); computer monitor (4) that displays the graphics
processed by the mini PC (2); BCD to 7 Segment display block (5) used to display
binary coded decimal numbers from a digital circuit under experiment; Breadboard
Set (6) where electronic circuits are assembled and tested; wireless mouse (7) used
to position the cursor on the computer screen and subsequently perform functions on
the mini PC; wireless keyboard (8) used to enter characters and functions into the
computer system by pressing buttons, or keys., external variable power supply port
(9) as source of direct current (DC) with a voltage range of 1.3 volt to 22.4 volt
needed by electronic circuits under test; oscilloscope input port (10) where the
oscilloscope probe is connected as an output connection from the circuit under test to
the I/O board (3), function generator output port (11) where the function generator
probe (15) is connected as an input connected to the circuit under test; digital ports
(12) used as input to the I/O board (3) when measuring the logic state of a digital
circuit terminals.

4
Reference Numerals:

1 Power supply block

2 Mini PC
3 I/O Board
4 Computer monitor
5 BCD to 7 segment display block
6 Breadboard set
7 Wireless mouse
8 Wireless keyboard
9 External variable power supply port
10 Oscilloscope input port
11 Function generator output port
12 Digital ports

Figure 3 illustrates the block diagram of the power supply block. It is

composed of the mini PC power supply providing 12 DC volts supply to the mini PC,
computer monitor power supply providing 19 DC volts to the computer monitor (4)
and the variable and 5 DC volt power supply providing 5 DC volt to the breadboard
set (6) and 1.3 DC volt to 22.5 DC volt to external variable power supply port (9).

Figure 3. Block Diagram of the Power Supply Block

5
 Figure 4 illustrates the schematic diagram of the variable and 5V power
supply composed of electronic components designed to output a variable DC voltage
of 1.3 volts to 22.5 volts at the J2 output terminal and a constant 5 volts DC voltage
at the J3 output terminal.

Figure 4. Schematic Diagram of Variable and 5V Power Supply

Figure 5 illustrates the schematic diagram BCD to 7 segment display block

composed of electronic circuits that converts binary codes to decimal numbers and
display the number in the 7 segment display. The operation of the BDC to 7 segment
display block is shown in the truth table below.

Figure 5. Schematic Diagram of BCD to 7 Segment Display Block

6
 Figure 6 is the graphical presentation of the project design labeled with
reference numerals

Figure 6. Graphical presentation of the project

7
 4 Computer monitor
5 BCD to 7 segment display block
6 Breadboard set
7 Wireless mouse
8 Wireless keyboard
9 External variable power supply port
10 Oscilloscope input port
11 Function generator output port
12 Digital ports
13 Casing
14 Oscilloscope probe
15 Function generator probe
16 Platform

Figure 7 below shows the casing made of an attaché case. Aside from the
aesthetic value that this case provides, it is excellent for easy handling, transport,
and storage. It also provides protection to the different parts of the utility model
particularly from moisture, dust and other particles that may damage the parts.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Dimensions of the casing

8
 Figure 8 illustrates the actual image of the wiring interconnection of the parts
under the platform which shows the I/O board, LED monitor power supply, mini PC
power supply, Variable power supply together with the BCD to 7 segment decoder in
one board, terminal strip, VGA port, main switch, AC port, and fuse.

Figure 8 Actual image of the wiring interconnection of the parts

Figure 9 meanwhile, shows the actual image of the project when the top
cover of the casing is open. It can be seen that the computer monitor is seen fixedly
attached to the inner side of the top cover of the casing. While the set of the
breadboard, wireless keyboard, and other small parts are on top of the platform.

Figure 9. Actual image of the project when casing is open

9
Figure 10 illustrates the actual image of the project when the top cover of the casing
is closed. The casing is an attaché case adapted for the project because of its robust
design – made of hard synthetic material with a numeric safety lock, a padlock, and a
handle.

Figure 10. Actual image of the project when the top cover of the casing is closed

Sample and Sampling Technique

The respondents of the study are instructors, professors in universities,

instrument technicians and engineers from the industry, and senior electronic
technology students. The convenience sampling technique was used to identify the
different respondents who test the prototype and accomplished the survey
questionnaire.

Survey Instrument

The researcher used a validated modified version of the instrument

Evaluating Learning Objects for Schools to assess the acceptability of the project in
terms of reliability, usability, impact to learning, design, and value using a 5-point
Likert-type scale illustrated below.

Numerical Scale Statistical Limit Verbal Interpretation

5 4.51 - 5.00 Strongly Agree (SA)
4 3.51 - 4.50 Agree (A)
3 2.51 - 3.50 Neutral (N)
2 1.51 - 2.50 Disagree (DA)
1 1.00 - 1.50 Strongly Disagree (SD)

10
Statistical Treatment of Data

1. To describe the respondents’ profile, frequency and percentage were used.

2. To analyze the responses on the acceptability of the project in terms of
reliability, usability, impact to learning, design, and value mean and standard
deviation was used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the testing and evaluation results and the analysis and
interpretation of data.

Respondents’ Profile

The respondents of the study were instructors, professors in universities and

colleges, instrument technicians and engineers from the manufacturing industry, and
senior electronic technology students. The profile includes the type of respondent,
job title, specialization, and affiliation.

As shown in Table 1 the respondents are experts (f = 23, 77%) and students
(f = 7, 23%) for a total of 30 respondents. The experts are composed of technicians,
(f = 7, 23.33%) and engineers (f = 2, 6.66%) in manufacturing industries and
instructors (f = 10, 33.33%) and professors (f = 4, 13.33) in universities and colleges.

Type of Respondents and Job Title

Table 1
Respondents of the Study

Type f %
Experts respondents 23 77
 Technicians (7 or 23.33%)
 Engineers (2 or 6.66%)
 Instructors (10 or 33.33%)
 Professors (4 or 13.33)
Students 7 23
Total 30 100

It can be gleaned in Table 2 that the respondents’ specialization are

electronics (f = 18, 60%); computer (f = 9, 30%); electrical (f = 2, 7%) and others (f =
1, 3%).

11
Area of Specialization

Table 2
Area of Specialization of Expert and Student Respondents

Area of Specialization f %
Electronics 18 60
Electrical 2 7
Computer 9 30
Others 1 3
Total 30 100

As shown in Table 3, the company or school affiliation of the expert and

student respondents are TUP Cavite (f = 14, 47%); Analog Devices (f = 5, 17%); TUP
Manila (f = 4, 13%); Far Eastern Polytechnic College or FEPC (f = 4, 13%); and
Maxim Integrated (f = 3, 10%).

Affiliation
Table 3
Affiliation of Respondents

Affiliation f %
TUPC 14 47
TUP Manila 4 13
FEPC 4 13
Analog Devices 5 17
Maxim Integrated 3 10
Total 30 100

Testing Results

The test was done to verify the output of the variable power supply which was
assumed to provide 0-25 DC volts. However, the actual output was 1.30 volts when
the potentiometer was turned extreme to the left (minimum) and 22.4 volts at extreme
right (maximum). It was expected to output approximately half of the maximum
voltage when the potentiometer was at the mid position which produced 10.4 volts.
Actual measurement of the minimum and maximum voltage is shown in Table 4
below.

12
 Table 4
DC Variable Power Supply

Output Voltage
Test Position of Potentiometer Remarks
In Volt
1 Extreme to the left (Min.) 1.30 V Normal
Extreme to the right Normal
2 22.40 V
(Max.)
3 Half-way (Mid-value) 10.4 V Normal

The test was also done to the BCD to 7 segment display circuit to verify its

operation. Four logic inputs were taken from the digital ports via the breadboard. The

7 segment display displayed all the patterns 0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The figure

below shows the actual image of testing with “1” displayed on the 7 segment display

while Table 5 is the truth table.

Table 5
BCD to 7 Segment Display Module Truth Table

13
 Accuracy test was conducted on the internal oscilloscope of the project and
the results were compared with the measurement done with a traditional
oscilloscope. As seen from the computation in Table 6, the internal oscilloscope is
99.4845 accurate and the tradition oscilloscope is 97.15% accurate.

Table 6
Accuracy test on the internal oscilloscope

Measured Value
Parameters Rated Value
Internal Osc. Traditional Osc.
Frequency 600Hz 600.2Hz 598.8Hz
Vpp 2V 1.98V 1.89V
Difference from Frequency Frequency
rated value 600.2 – 600 = 0.2Hz 600 – 598.8 = 1.2Hz
or 0.033% or 0.2%
Vpp Vpp
2 – 1.98 = 0.02V 2 – 1.89 = 0.11V
or 1% or 5.5%
Mean difference Mean difference
(1% + 0.033%)/2 (0.2% + 5.5%)/2
=0.516% = 2.85%
Accuracy 100 – 0.516 = 100 – 2.85 = 97.15%
99.484%

14
Evaluation Results

Table 7

Rating on the Reliability

Verbal
Reliability Mean SD
Interpretation
1. Measurements made by the instructional tool
are accurate and comparable with traditional 4.433 0.496 Agree
laboratory equipment.
2. The instructional tool performed satisfactorily Strongly
4.766 0.423
during testing and evaluation. Agree
Perfectly
Overall mean 4.600 0.490
Acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Level of Acceptability
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Perfectly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Agree Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Neutral Slightly Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree Unacceptable
1.0 – 1.50 Strongly Disagree Strongly Unacceptable

As presented in Table 7, the measurement made by the instructional tool

were accurate and comparable with a traditional laboratory equipment with a mean
rating of 4.433 (SD = 0.496) described as “acceptable” and the instructional tool has
performed satisfactorily during the testing and evaluation with a mean rating of 4.766
(SD = 0.423) described as “perfectly acceptable”. The overall mean rating of 4.600
(SD = 0.490) signifies that the respondents view the instructional tool perfectly
acceptable in terms of reliability. The small value of SD reflects homogeneous
responses by the respondents.

Table 8
Rating on the Usability

Verbal
Usability Mean SD
Interpretation
1. Clear instructions for using the instructional
4.033 0.657 Agree
tool are available.
2. The instructional tool is easy to use (i.e.,
navigation, user control, visibility of system 3.333 0.650 Neutral
status).
3. The instructional tool can be used for Strongly
4.800 0.476
electronic circuit modeling Agree
Overall mean 4.056 0.848 Acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Level of Acceptability
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Perfectly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Agree Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Neutral Slightly Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree Unacceptable
1.0 – 1.50 Strongly Disagree Strongly Unacceptable

15
 For the “usability” aspect, Table 8 shows that the instructional tool can be
used for electronic circuit modeling with a mean rating of 4.800 (SD = 0.476)
described as “acceptable; there are clear instructions for using the instructional tool
available with a mean rating of 4.033 (SD = 0.657) described as “acceptable”; and
the instructional tool is easy to use with a mean rating of 3.333 (SD = 0.650)
described as “slightly acceptable”. The overall mean of 4.056 and standard deviation
of 0.848 reflect that the project is acceptable as rated by the respondents. The
“neutral” rating of the respondents, however, on the ease of use is normal for a
computer-based educational tool and can be attributed to the limited time allotted for
the respondents to familiarize themselves with the equipment. The responses are
somewhat homogeneous as indicated by the small SD value.

Table 9
Rating on the Impact to Learning

Verbal
Learning Mean SD
Interpretation
Strongly
1. The instructional tool promotes learning. 4.633 0.547
Agree
2. The instructional tool aids instructors in
demonstrating concepts and theories to students.
4.433 0.496 Agree
3. As an educational technology tool, the instructional
tool has the potential of improving learning, 4.400 0.554 Agree
instruction, and student performance.
Overall Mean 4.488 0.543 Acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Level of Acceptability
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Perfectly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Agree Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Neutral Slightly Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree Unacceptable
1.0 – 1.50 Strongly Disagree Strongly Unacceptable

Table 9 indicates that for the impact to learning as measured by the indicators
the instructional tool was seen to promote learning with a mean rating of 4.633 (SD =
0.547) described as “perfectly acceptable”; aids instructors in demonstrating
concepts and theories to students with a mean rating of 4.433 (SD = 0.496)
described as “acceptable”; and as an educational technology tool, has a potential of
improving learning with a mean rating of 4.400 (SD = 0.554) described as
“acceptable”. The overall mean of 4.488 and standard deviation of 0.543 given by the
respondents are indications that the project is acceptable in the aspect of learning.
The overall mean ( ̅ = 4.152; SD = 0.529) signifies closeness of responses by the
respondents.

16
 Table 10
Rating on the Design

Verbal
Design Mean SD
Interpretation
1. The design integrates technology tools that
help learners engage effectively with the
4.333 0.471 Agree
concepts, theories, and skills needed to
perform laboratory activities.
2. The instructional tool provides an opportunity
for learners to obtain immediate feedback on 4.367 0.547 Agree
activities performed.
3. The instructional tool stands alone and is used Strongly
4.600 0.490
to perform various electronics lab activities. Agree
4. The instructional tool design reflects a modern
Strongly
educational environment in which learning 4.700 0.458
Agree
activities can be performed using technology.
Overall Mean 4.500 0.516 Acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Level of Acceptability
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Perfectly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Agree Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Neutral Slightly Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree Unacceptable
1.0 – 1.50 Strongly Disagree Strongly Unacceptable

As presented in Table 10, instructional tool has a design that reflects a

modern educational environment in which learning activities can be performed using
technology with a mean rating of 4.700 (SD = 0.458) described as “perfectly
acceptable”; that can stand alone and is used to perform various electronic laboratory
activities with a mean rating of 4.600 (SD = 0.490) described as “perfectly
acceptable”; that provides opportunity for learners to obtain immediate feedback on
activities performed with a mean rating of 4.367 (SD =0.547) described as
“acceptable”; with a the design that integrated technology tools that help learners
engage effectively with the concepts, theories, and skills needed to perform
laboratory activities with a mean rating of 4.333 (SD = 0.471) described as
“acceptable”. The Overall mean and standard deviation of 4.500 and 0.516
respectively is proof that the design elements put on the project are acceptable. It
can be noted there is close similarities to the perception of the respondents as
indicated by the small value of SD.

17
 Table 11
Rating on the Value

Verbal
Value Mean SD
Interpretation
1. Online and offline help and documentation
files are provided for students and instructors 4.367 0.547 Agree
including contextual assistance.
2. The design of visual and auditory information
3.767 0.716 Agree
enhances learning and mental process.
3. The instructional tool is accessible to learners
4.433 0.559 Agree
with diverse needs.
4. The instructional tool can be used effectively
in a mixture of learning and laboratory 3.967 0.605 Agree
activities.
5. The instructional tool supports the student- Strongly
4.667 0.537
centered learning model. Agree
Overall mean 4.240 0.680 Acceptable
Legend: Range of means Verbal Interpretation Level of Acceptability
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Perfectly Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Agree Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Neutral Slightly Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree Unacceptable
1.0 – 1.50 Strongly Disagree Strongly Unacceptable

The acceptability of the project in terms of value is reflected in Table 11. As

presented, the instructional tool supports the student-centered learning model with a
mean rating of 4.667 (SD =0.537) described as “perfectly acceptable”; there are
online and offline help and documentation files for students and instructors including
contextual assistance with a mean rating of 4.367 (SD = 0.547) described as
“acceptable”; the instructional tool is accessible to learners with diverse needs with a
mean rating of 4.433(SD = 0.559) described as “acceptable”; instructional tool can
be used effectively in a mixture of learning and laboratory activities with a mean
rating of 3.967 (SD = 0.605) described as “acceptable”; and the design of visual and
auditory information was perceived to enhance learning and mental process with a
mean rating of 3.767 (SD = 0.716) described as “acceptable”. The overall mean
rating for value of 4.240 and standard deviation of 0.680 is considered high which
means that the project is valuable. Again the respondent experts and students have
close similarities in their responses as indicated by the value of SD= 0.680 which is
small

18
 Table 12
Summary of Ratings

Indicators Overall Mean Multiplier Weighted Mean

Reliability 4.600 1 4.600
Usability 4.056 3 12.167
Learning 4.480 3 13.440
Design 4.500 4 18.000
Values 4.240 5 21.200
Total 16 69.407
4.338 (SD = 0.664),
Grand mean Acceptable

Furthermore, the grand mean shown in Table 12 of 4.338 and standard

deviation of 0.664 is a proof that the project referred to as Electronics Trainer with
Computer-Based Input/ Output System is acceptable as an instructional tool. The
small value of SD=0.664 denotes homogeneity of responses.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

1. The internal oscilloscope is 99.484% accurate and is comparable with the

traditional oscilloscope.
2. The instructional tool was rated “perfectly acceptable” in terms of reliability
program ( ̅ = 4.600; SD = 0.490).
3. The instructional tool was rated “acceptable” in the aspect of usability ( ̅ =
4.056; SD = 0.848). However, the respondents neither agree nor disagree
that the instructional tool was easy to use” ( ̅ = 3.333; SD = 0.680).
4. The instructional tool was rated “acceptable” in terms of impact on learning ( ̅
= 4.488; SD = 0.543).
5. The instructional tool was rated “acceptable” in terms of design ( ̅ = 4.500;
SD = 0.516).
6. The instructional tool was rated “acceptable” in terms of value Overall mean
( ̅ = 4.240; SD = 0.680).
7. Overall, the instructional tool was rated “acceptable” with a grand mean of
4.338 and a standard deviation of 0.516.

19
Conclusions

Based on the statistical findings, this study arrived at the following

conclusions:
1. The instructional tool has an internal oscilloscope with very high accuracy
compared with traditional oscilloscopes.
2. The instructional tool is acceptable in terms of reliability, usability, impact to
learning, design, and value but needs attention on the ease of use issue.

Recommendations

On the basis of the statistical findings and conclusions of the study, these are
the recommendations:
1. Since the project was rated acceptable, it is recommended that the
instructional tool be used in electronic circuit experimentation, modeling, and
simulation.
2. More time must be provided for the user to familiarize with the instructional
tool before its actual use.

Comments and Suggestions

1. Apply for patent with IPOPHIL
2. Reproduction, marketing, and technology transfer of the instructional tool.
3. Use smaller casing to make the project more compact
4. If the casing is to be retained, use a bigger computer monitor for
proportionality with the frame.
5. Include a built-in digital multi-meter or as part of the accessories.

20
Bibliography

Cherry, K. (2019). Experiential Learning Theory of David Kolb. Retrieved January 27,
2019 from https://www.verywellmind.com/experiential-learning-2795154

Moreco, D. (2017). 10 Reasons Today’s Students NEED Technology in the

Classroom. Retrieved January 27, 2019, from https://www.Secured
genetworks.com/blog/10-reasons-today-s-students-need-technology-in-the-
classroom

Lazaro, H. (2014). What is EdTech and why should it Matter to You? Retrieved
January 27, 2019 from https://generalassemb.ly/blog/what-is-edtech/

Johnson, S. (2013). What's It Worth: Electronic Trainers. Retrieved January 27, 2019
from https://www.electronicproducts.com/Test_and_Measurement/Portable
_Handheld/What_39_s_It_Worth_Electronic_Trainers.aspx

Glover, I. (2014) Simulation: An Approach to Teaching and Learning. Retrieved

January 28, 2019 from https://blogs.shu.ac.uk/shutel/2014/07/23/simulation-
an-approach-to-teaching-and-learning/?

Web references

https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/simulations

https://www.useoftechnology.com/how-has-technology-changed-education/

https://elearningindustry.com/benefits-technology-integration-education-sphere

https://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-importance

https://edtechnology.co.uk/Article/five-ways-technology-has-changed-teaching-and-
learning

21
22