------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:09:50 -0500
From: ak13ss 

Evaluation
This PBT went way better than the last one. In my opinion it was even  
close to perfect.
This time, we were only a group of five: Zack, Eric, Juan, Jordan and  
me. Everyone was very well prepared and knew the concept of the  
circuit already before the actual PBT started. So it took only some  
minutes to draw / write a sketch and a short describtion on the paper.  
After that we focused on the minor questions like "what power gain  
does the circuit have?" and so on and finally managed to answer  
everything asked in the task. Doing that, everyone could throw in his  
ideas and they were discussed as a group then, which worked well.
In my last evaluation, I mentioned that someone taking the role of a  
leader would have helped us. Here, however, it was not that necessary  
because everyone was well prepared so most of the time we just  
discussed as equal group members. But if someone deserves credits for  
taking the leader role, then it is Zack as he took the initiative and  
distributed work at the beginning.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:18:48 -0500
From: jh06ql

This final PBT produced a detailed description of the noise-cancelling  
circuit in question. The success of this session was due to the  
lessons learned in the previous two PBTs. The effects of these lessons  
were increased preparation, as everyone had at least one page of notes  
containing their own attempts at describing the circuit, as well as a  
paper by Benoit et al, which showed a particular analysis of the same  
circuit; an effective division of labour: after an initial group  
discussion, two subgroups were made in order to tackle different parts  
of the circuit simultaneously; and a proactive approach from each  
member of the group.

One notable issue was that for certain circuit components, such as the  
low-pass filters preceding the pre-amplifier, intervention from the TA  
was needed in order to calculate the frequencies that were filtered.

Overall, the PBT was a much more enjoyable and fruitful experience  
than the previous ones as each group member has become more  
comfortable with each other and has gotten to know each other's  
strengths and weaknesses.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:40:58 -0500
From: dw11zk

	The group made up of Andrew, Derek, Matt, Jon, Felicia, and myself  
began to solve the problem by first presenting what prior analysis  
each group member had accomplished. Most group members analyzed the  
circuit in the same way, with most of the big insights coming from  
Andrew, Derek, Matt, and Jon. After this, the group was divided into  
two smaller groups. The first group; made up of Andrew, Felicia, and  
myself; made a summary of the various components of the circuit  
(op-amps, resistors etc.), and expanded upon their functions. The  
second group; made up of Derek, Matt, and Jon; worked towards finding  
ways in which the circuit could be improved, and other uses for the  
circuit (the circuit still allowed low frequencies to pass through, so  
that would need to be corrected). Coming back together, the group  
confirmed that the circuit would indeed be functional, and reduce  
exterior noise.
	I felt that this was our group?s best performance in a problem-based  
tutorial. Having worked with each other twice in the past, I felt we  
better knew everyone?s strengths and weaknesses; which allowed us to  
function better as a unit. It appeared to me that everyone had a  
better grasp of the problem at hand in this PBT than in previous ones.  
This was also the first PBT that was completed within the allotted  
time. In the future, our group could look towards achieved more  
?in-depth? solutions. Overall, our group worked extremely well, and we  
were able to solve the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:41:51 -0500
From: ms10mf

For this PBT, I believe that I came well prepared, as I had researched  
the circuit earlier and found information that was helpful in creating  
a description for it. I believe that our entire group came very well  
prepared and were all extremely helpful, and I think we worked very  
well together. We could have worked better by stepping back and  
dividing the circuit into its different functions from the start, in  
stead of getting fixated on the individual components of it. This  
would have helped us to use our time better. However, I still feel  
good about the amount of work we got done, and the understanding that  
we all reached about the circuit at the end of the tutorial. Rob took  
on a leadership role, and this was extremely helpful in our reaching a  
collective understanding of whatever part of the circuit we were  
looking at. Katie had many helpful opinions, and I wish that she had  
felt more comfortable in expressing them more openly to the group. Ian  
and Dennis were both extremely helpful in the process, as they also  
had knowledgeable suggestions and they were able to express them well  
to the group. I feel that our group has gotten a lot better at working  
together towards solving a problem together, and am very happy that I  
got the chance to work with such a great group of people.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:33:22 -0500
From: rs12ve

I cam to PBT#3 very well prepared on paper; with somewhat a clue to  
the solution needed for the NCH circuit. Attempt at leading the group  
into particular solutions was great, however better clarity is needed  
in reasoning technique to filter which ideas fit in particular  
circumstances. Since PBT #1 and #2 , I have noticed my overall  
competence towards circuitry has improved. Simple clarity towards  
simple, clear solutions already laid out in reading programs has been  
a clear problem for all 3. Improvement has been made, however in 2P32  
I plan to improve reasoning technique by preparing a full solution  
with clear and concise understanding of the available text.  
Professional improved since PBT #2 for the entirety of the myself and  
the entire group.
	The entire group came well prepared with research that had been  
sought for the particular NCH circuit. Since the basic knowledge of  
how the circuit work was adequate,  the attempt was made to provide a  
better manual interpretation of the circuit components and their roles  
themselves. Some key details were missed as an entire group that were  
clearly written in the researched text. By splitting the op-amps into  
different box circuits, we first stumbled to complete the pre-amp with  
the circuitry around it. After some struggles were made, a good  
decision was made to finish the other two more simple op-amps (stage 1  
and stage 2). PBT #2 was a good example to move on for pair  
collaboration, however, either due to group size or lack of direction  
individual pairs were barely sought out in this PBT. Everyone should  
be very proud of coming to this PBT prepared. The comfort ability  
towards circuitry has seen a major improvement since PBT #1 and #2.  
One key problem we had was the lack of direction, which enabled us to  
rely on Dr. Sternin to lead us through certain steps.
	Ian came prepared with good ideas to the circuit. His critical  
involvement allowed for more thorough understanding of stage 1 and  
stage 2 of the circuit. Ian has improved on speaking up with his  
ideas. Ian's confidence with circuit has improved and therefore the  
ideas he presents are great. For future endeavours he is recommended  
to provide some leadership authority to directing group activities.
	Dennis came well prepared on paper and came with calculator in hand.  
Most ideas that Dennis presented we fantastic and provided clarity to  
the entire group on the pre-amp, stage1 and stage 2 of the circuit. He  
has done an excellent job on being prepared each PBT this semester.  
Good job Dennis. Dennis is recommended to not be shy and provide a  
more spoken leadership appearance in future group projects.
	Michelle came well prepared with key components labelled and a great  
understanding of the circuit. Her ideas and insight allowed for major  
success in breaking down the circuit into individual roles and placing  
them back together to fit the overall picture of the circuit. Her  
knowledge and confidence has greatly improved since PBT #1 with  
respect to circuitry. She is recommended to fill leadership roles when  
groups have lack of direction.
	Katie always came well prepared for every PBT. She had good  
background knowledge for the basic premise of the NCH circuit. She was  
very insightful and her ideas are always essential to group success.   
Her knowledge is always improving throughout each PBT and since PBT#1  
I several improvements in this category. She is recommended to be for  
confident and provide  more outspoken choice of ideas to problems.  
Overall, her pumpkin butterscotch cookies were essential to the morale  
of the group. Good job Katie.
	Kurt and Alex were not available for the PBT session and there lack  
of appearance was surprising. They worked hard and brought passion to  
the group throughout PBT #1,#2, and their non-appearance was felt.  
Kurt and Alex and recommended to provide more confidence, professional  
leadership role in future endeavours. Good luck.
	Collectively I see a major improvement towards overall analog  
knowledge within this group. Compared to when we were tinkering with  
diodes and resistors at the beginning of the semester, we have built a  
vast “tool box” with which we are now able to build circuits. Good job  
to everyone in this group and good luck in all future endeavours!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:28:53 -0500
From: ar11dy

With this being our third PBT, our group worked very well together  
showing how we have progressed from the start of the tutorials. The  
solution to the noise cancelling headphone circuit was eventually  
arrived at by our group through strong teamwork, collaboration, and  
preparation. In order to prepare for the tutorial, everyone in the  
group did research on noise cancelling theory and did a thorough  
analysis of the circuit. This is an example of how we have improved  
since the first PBT. Since we all came well prepared and had a good  
understanding of the problem we could start analyzing the practical  
implications and nuances of the circuit rather than focusing on the  
basic functions of each component.

Something our group did well was dividing up the work and problems  
that we were faced with in the tutorial. This was something that we  
did not do in the first tutorial but did very well in the second and  
third. For example, while Felicia, Devin, and I were composing our  
answer to the functions and applications of various components, Matt,  
Derek, and Jon were focusing on problems that were not yet solved at  
that point. Something that would improve our results for next time is  
if group members had more confidence in their answers and observations  
rather than checking with the rest of the group to see if it is  
correct, the members of our group are very capable and can easily  
analyze basic circuit elements. One thing that helped the tutorial go  
smoothly was the questions that our TA posed to the group. Questions  
and statements posed by our TA pushed our group in the right  
direction, or at least the right line of thinking, and at the same  
time did not give away too much information.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:07:56 -0500
From: jb13pa

Group: (Alexander, Jordan, Eric, Zack, and myself (Juan)
Before the exercise, I gather as much information as I could. I tried  
to identified the circuit elements and research the possible uses  
within the circuit. We decided to analyze the circuit by parts. Zack  
took the lead and helped us decide how to split into teams to analyze  
the major circuit components. We then summarize our findings and  
shared with the group. Alexander contributed with a clearer schematic  
of the circuit. Eric and Jordan calculated the ratios of the op-amps  
and identified major components. Zack coordinated our efforts to solve  
the problems. I did some calculations to prove the ratios of the final  
summing op-amp. We were successful at identifying the main purpose of  
each major component and were able to work individually and as a team.  
However, we could have improved our theoretical understanding of the  
basic operation of the op-amps. Also, since we had extra time at the  
end, we could have tried to find other purpose for the circuit. Even  
though we did suggest ways to improve the circuit, we could have gone  
deeper into the subject and tried to fine tune the circuit or create a  
different version and experiment with different layouts.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:03:17 -0500
From: dv11yh

In preparation for the PBT I analysed the circuit to ensure that I  
understood as much as I could about the different components. I  
studied the notes on operational amplifiers to get a better idea of  
the purpose of each and their place in the circuit. I shared this  
information along with my ideas with the members of my group. Along  
with their knowledge we ensured that each member understood how the  
circuit would function as noise cancelling headphones.

We had some difficulty in determining the specific source of the phase  
shift in the circuit, but with nudges from the TA we eventually  
understood. While we ironed out the purpose of certain components,  
switches and potentiometers in the circuit, we avoided the issue we  
had in the first PBT; that we all worked on the same task at once. I  
recommended that we break into two groups, one of which (Andrew,  
Dennis, Felicia) would work on finding details of each component. The  
other group (Matthew, Jon and myself) worked on suggestions for  
implementation and use of the circuit. With my team we discovered the  
purpose and limitations of the circuit successfully.

With every team member contributing and understanding equally we were  
glad to have reached the solution of the PBT. We remedied our issue in  
the previous tutorial as we were all decisive and worked very well   
together towards a clear goal and shared the work equally. While we  
did split into separate work groups (which we didn't do in the first  
PBT), I think we could have had smaller pairs that would have worked  
better to share and break apart the work load. In future problem based  
tutorials we should better tune this balance, that we share the  
workload but also have clear goals to work towards.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:11:29 -0500
From: ed11aq

My group included myself(Eric Davies), Jordan, Juan, Zach and  
Alexander. Our group did the best in this PBT. The last PBT did not  
all go well so we were cautious on how we approached this one. We  
clarified our main goal and then split up into smaller teams and  
worked on parts equally and then came together with our ideas and put  
them on the drawing board. Everyone had great ideas and were not  
afraid to say any of them. Everyone was confident in their suggestions  
and would not be afraid to take the leadership role. We also  
criticized and added our input to any idea. Our group dynamics was a  
great asset to reaching a full solution to the problem. If someone was  
confused on an idea put out there or about the next step everyone  
helped that individual understand the idea/task before we moved on to  
the next part. Overall, our group learned from the mistakes in the  
last PBT and performed so well on this one that it is hard to suggest  
improvements for future challenges.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:22:57 -0500
From: ij12kr

For PBT#3, the group consisted of just Katie, Rob, Michelle, Dennis  
and I.  The whole group had done preparatory work to try and identify  
the different parts of the circuit.  In particular Michelle and Rob  
had done lots of reading on a site that had a description of the exact  
circuit we were analyzing.  To start off the lab the group was slow to  
make decisions and start drawing stuff out.  After we established the  
process we going to use to describe the whole circuit things started  
getting done.  The circuit was divided into three sections.  The group  
got stuck on the pre-amp section for a bit, but then moved on and was  
able to finish the rest of the circuit.  There was good input from all  
group members as to the function of different parts of the circuit.   
Group members were only sometimes critical of other members? ideas.   
In general group members needed to be more open with their thoughts on  
what is going on.  To have been better and more efficient as a group,  
there should have been no hesitation to start drawing parts of circuit  
out.  Breaking off into two groups to look and the different parts of  
the circuit we established would have also been a good idea, so that  
we could have more time at the end to discuss the part of the circuit  
that was not fully understood.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:30:55 -0500
From: mp11rq

     To prepare for this PBT(3), I conducted research that aimed to  
allow me to understand the circuit. This allowed me to come prepared  
with ideas and to help my group member understand the circuit; should  
they have required it. I also analyzed the circuit to find similar  
components; the gains of amplifiers, etc.

     The group I was a part of (Jon H, Felicia G, Andrew R, Devin W,  
Derek V and
myself [Mathew P]) initially discussed the circuit, as well as its  
characteristics, so that everyone understood how the circuit worked.  
We complied the outcome of our preliminary research before splitting  
into separate groups to handle documentation and further analysis of  
the circuit components.

     We were able to accomplish many things during the allowed time;  
hence we made good use of time and split the tasks of the group  
effectively. We were also able to establish a good organizational  
technique for describing different components.

    However; as the TA pointed out, we were hesitant to use the  
resources that we had obtained through research. Also, when we came  
upon a problem which was not obvious to us, I feel we spent too much  
time trying to solve the problem. We could have been more productive  
had we decided analyses other problems quicker.

    For future problems; we would benefit from applying the resources  
as well as not getting caught up in a particular problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:36:31 -0500
From: km11ad

In preparation for the PBT I looked at how manufactured  
noise-cancelling headphones worked. Michelle and I also dissected the  
given circuit in order to understand the components in preparation for  
the PBT.
This week, I was challenged to take a leadership role, which did not  
come easily to me. It was difficult to direct the group, as other  
members more readily took the lead. At times I had trouble fully  
expressing my ideas, and my theories about the circuit were easily  
swayed at times by the reasoning of other group members. In the  
future, I will try to lead the group more frequently, in order to  
raise my comfort level in a position of leadership.
Although less group members were present this week, we were still able  
to work effectively as a team. Every group member had read the webpage  
about building the circuit, and the components involved, so our group  
had a solid starting point. We kept a careful eye on the time, and  
although we weren't able to resolve all aspects of the circuit in the  
given time, I felt we managed our time better than we have in previous  
PBTs.
We did have some difficulties throughout the PBT, as our group often  
lost focus on task at hand, instead deciding to focus on individual  
components of the circuit. In the future, the group should focus on  
the task at hand and set time limits for certain parts of the  
tutorial. We should also establish a clear focus before starting the  
PBT in order to keep on track.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:38:20 -0500
From: jf11rt

My PBT group consisted of Alexander, Eric, Juan, Zack, and myself.

During this PBT, it seems as though we made progress in doing group  
work. While doing the last PBT, the group seemed to stick together too  
much, only going down one path and failing, when we should have split  
up into groups to cover more ground. This time the group split up  
right away to come up with a complete answer. We all came quite  
prepared for this tutorial, which was the most significant problem  
from the last PBT, so that was a significant improvement. Again,  
however it is useful to note that the group still did all stick  
together as one big group when we could not solve a specific problem,  
and we could improve by sticking to our smaller subgroups. Overall, it  
seems that all members of the group have improved their group-work  
skills.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:56:03 -0500
From: fg11ac

As the last of the PBTs, our group entered the challenge with the  
experience gained from the previous two and arguably gave our best  
performance. We had researched the problem and had brought in our  
findings, split into groups to cover more ground faster, and had a  
collective understanding of the questions posed by the situation.
This does not mean that we were perfect, as perfection does not exist.  
We had a tendency to, if we got stuck, focus on the offending part to  
the exclusion of all others, even if moving on and then going back  
would have been more productive in the long run.
We also had a bit of a disconnect between what was said and what went  
on the paper. Some of the questions were discussed and possibly  
mentioned briefly on the page, but the question did not receive a  
direct answer. For example, we only mentioned that one of the  
alternate functions of the noise cancelling headphones is to be  
regular headphones briefly when describing the switch used to control  
that function.  The written sheet also doesn't mention the  
hypothetical hearing aid function, even though there was a fairly in  
depth discussion about it.
As a conclusion, we reached our goal even if the physical evidence may  
think otherwise.
  Good job, guys!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:36:09 -0500
From: dn10qx

Prior to the PBT, I met with some of the group members and took note  
of the sources of their research. When preparing for the PBT, I tried  
to avoid the same sources so that I wouldn't end up bringing in the  
same information. This also had a disadvantage, as one of the sources  
that the other members of the group researched offered valuable  
information that may have helped to better my own understanding of the  
problem.
I felt that I didn't try hard enough to assert my ideas and opinions.  
This is something I could improve on. I found that this may have also  
been a problem for Michelle and Katie, who I noticed did not speak out  
very often during the discussion, but seemed to have ideas they could  
have voiced. Ian and Rob seemed to bbe the most vocal with their ideas  
and opinions. However, I found that Rob would often insert his  
thoughts before others could have a chance to finish or expand on  
their own.
A problem that I think our group had was that we kept throwing out new  
ideas and trying to move on, before fully analyzing the other ideas we  
had or completing previous thoughts. As a group, we also needed  
constant "prodding" into the right direction. I think that we could  
have improved as a group by better voicing ideas when we have them,  
and by taking the time to fully think about certain ideas that could  
be viable, instead of casting them aside to rush ahead.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:32:44 -0500
From: zs06yl

For this PBT, I really wanted to follow the three step plan that I had  
suggested in the previous PBT write up.  To ask and understand what  
the goal was, was our primary objective.  Once established I took on a  
leadership role and decided to divide the group into smaller parts.   
The goal then was to create an adumbration of the circuit where each  
subgroup was responsible for analyzing a certain section.  This  
process worked better than expected as our group was able to finish  
the PBT with ample time to spare.  It is difficult to provide  
suggestions on further improvements as the entire process went without  
any major hiccups.

Everyone was well prepared and contributed fairly evenly to solving  
the PBT.  Juan really tried to understand the fine points of the  
circuit which was beneficial for the whole group as it forced us to  
think about each components purpose.  Eric, Jordan, and Alexander all  
performed well.  They understood the circuit and its components and  
were obviously well prepared.  Perhaps one improvement for the future  
is to simply better understand the functionality of operational  
amplifiers and capacitors in a circuit.  Or more generally, how each  
component of a circuit functions on its own and then functions in  
conjunction with one another.

------------------------------------------------------------------