432
4, NOVEMBER 2008
Design and Evaluation of a PBL-Based
Course in Analog Electronics
Archana Mantri, Sunil Dutt, J. P. Gupta, and Madhu Chitkara
Abstract—The undergraduate program of electronics and com-
munication engineering at the Chitkara Institute of Engineering
and Technology (CIET), Punjab, India, has a course named
Analog Electronics in its fourth semester. The usual approach has
been to divide the course into lectures, tutorials, and practicals.
The lecture plan is prepared beforehand by the faculty and the
course duration in 16–18 weeks. The drawbacks to this usual
approach have been many, the primary ones being the lack of
attention given to the missing application and design part. As
an alternative to the traditional method, problem-based learning
(PBL) was introduced and practiced in Analog Electronics. While
the mode of external evaluation remains the same—that of the
university holding end-of-semester theory and practical examina-
tions—a unique strategy has been worked out which integrates
PBL and the traditional approach of Lecture, Tutorial, and Prac-
tical (L/T/P) classes. This paper describes this new approach, the
design of problems to cover the subject matter, the preparation
of students for PBL, the evaluation strategy, and the feedback
that students give in support of PBL. A significant difference was
seen between the attitudes of the treatment group (PBL based)
and control group (L/T/P based). Additionally, presentation and
teamwork skills were also greatly improved in the PBL class.
Index Terms—Amplifiers, analog circuits, collaborative work,
education technology, engineering education, problem solving.
I. INTRODUCTION
INCE the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL)
S to engineering courses the world over, its positive effects
have been widely reported in the literature [3]–[5]. In India,
particularly in North India, where the Chitkara Institute of
Engineering and Technology (CIET), Punjab, is situated, no
instance of the use of PBL is known. CIET, with over 43
other engineering colleges and institutes across Punjab, is
affiliated with the Punjab Technical University [1] (hereafter,
the University), Jalandhar, the degree-awarding institution for
the combined regional annual intake of 16 000 students. The
only method applied to impart technical education in degree
courses for these students is the traditional Lecture, Tutorial,
and Practical (L/T/P) approach. Encouraged by the success of
PBL in engineering courses [6]–[8] elsewhere in the world,
and considering the importance of analog electronics as a basic
Manuscript received March 6, 2007; revised September 19, 2007. Current
version published November 5, 2008.
A. Mantri is with Electronics and Communication Engineering, Chitkara In-
stitute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab Technical University, Patiala,
Punjab 140401, India (e-mail: archana.mantri@chitkara.edu.in).
S. Dutt is with Education and Educational Management, National Institute of
Technical Teachers’ Training and Research, Chandigarh 160019, India.
J. P. Gupta is with the Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201307, India.
M. Chitkara is with the Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Punjab Technical University, Patiala, Punjab 140401, India.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2007.912525
0018-9359/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO.
subject in the curriculum of electronics and communication en-
gineering, PBL was introduced in the CIET Analog Electronics
course using a two threaded approach. The existing class of 132
students was split into two groups: the treatment group (TG)
taught using PBL and the control group (CG) taught by L/T/P.
Initially, 25 students were randomly selected for the TG. How-
ever, after one session, four of these students left and the TG
finally had 21 students. The same tutor taught both the classes.
The students in the TG did not know that they were being taught
using PBL. Problems, not truly open-ended but broad enough
to serve the purpose, were designed and authenticated by senior
teachers, and given to students. The class room was redesigned
to have circular tables, included a library of books, Internet
access, and facilities for experimentation. The students were
initially guided in forming groups, and given help on working
in teams and giving presentations. The evaluation strategy
for internal marks was redesigned to include aspects of PBL,
and the course was given a head start. As the students gained
experience in PBL and team work, progressive improvement
in their knowledge, technical and communication skills, and
attitude was observed and documented in periodic evaluations.
At the end of the course, the performance of the two groups
was compared by giving each group identical tests covering all
aspects of course content, knowledge and skills. The difference
in the performance of the TG and the CG is highlighted in this
paper.
II. SYLLABUS OF ANALOG ELECTRONICS
AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
The course Analog Electronics has two parts—EC202
(theory) and EC210 (practical) [1]. The theory component,
EC202, is designed to cover the following topics:
1) high-frequency transistor;
2) large signal amplifiers;
3) multistage amplifiers;
4) feedback in amplifiers;
5) oscillators;
6) regulated power supplies.
The experiments in EC210 are structured to include the study of
the following:
1) the characteristics of all types of large signal amplifiers;
2) the response of all types of sinusoidal oscillators;
3) the function of a regulated power supply.
III. TIME ALLOTMENT AND TEACHING PEDAGOGY FOR THE CG
The present division of course time between lectures, tuto-
rials, and practicals in this subject is given in Table I. This di-
vision is prescribed by the University, and must be followed by
CIET.
 MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS
TABLE I
L/T/P DIVISION IN THE THEORY COMPONENT OF ANALOG ELECTRONICS
Multisim is a caputuring and simula-
tion tool for Electronics Circuits from
National Instrument. This course work
is at the institute level and is not pre-
scribed by the University.
TABLE II
EVALUATION SCHEME FOR THE THEORY EXAM IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS,
FOR A TOTAL OF 100 MARKS
TABLE III
EVALUATION SCHEME FOR THE PRACTICAL EXAM IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS,
FOR A TOTAL OF 50 MARKS
A course plan is prepared beforehand which schedules these
lectures, tutorials, and practicals. The evaluation scheme is also
largely prescribed by the University, with a 40% component
being evaluated by the affiliated institute (here CIET), and a
60% component being evaluated by the University. This eval-
uation division for the theory examination is given in Table II,
and that for the practical examination is given in Table III.
IV. TIME ALLOTMENT AND TEACHING PEDAGOGY IN THE TG
Since the total hours allotted to a particular course are fixed,
the total duration of eight hours per week was divided into four
PBL classes of two hours each. The demarcation of L/T/P was
removed and the students spent this time in their specially-de-
signed classrooms, described previously.
Quasi-open-ended problems were then framed in accordance
with the topics in the syllabus. Although the teams were supposed
to frame the learning objectives on their own, they were only
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
433
able to decide some of these learning objectives very vaguely,
as they were never aware of all the issues involved in solving a
problem. Therefore, the next step was for the facilitator/teacher
to add supplementary learning objectives. Having a complete set
of learning objectives was crucial in determining the direction of
the work, acting as incentives both to reach the desired solution,
and to acquire a range of knowledge and skills while moving to-
wards this solution. Also, at times, more learning objectives were
added while work was in progress. The teams were then encour-
aged to distribute the work amongst themselves, with team mem-
bers performing tasks such as searching for information from
various resources, compiling the data, doing calculations, per-
forming experiments and finally recording the work done and
preparing a presentation. Ideally these various tasks were rotated
amongst team members. For each problem, the team was encour-
aged to elect a team leader, who would organize the work distri-
bution. The teams were encouraged to discuss issues, decide their
own theoretical, practical and software goals and explore these
learning and mistakes. This encouragement was given by con-
tinuous monitoring, and by instructing them to record each rel-
evant finding, any mistakes committed and the corrective action
taken. Once they had reached the solution, they were also asked
to frame similar kinds of problems and identify application areas.
Throughout, they were guided and corrected by the roving facil-
itator who would guide students as they encountered difficulties
and help them to draw conclusions so as to find the desired so-
lution. They were also told that learning while exploring was as
important as reaching at the correct solution.
V. STUDENT EVALUATION
As indicated previously, the overall division of marks be-
tween internal and external elements was decided by the affil-
iating University, and could not be changed by CIET. The stu-
dents were also required to take the external theory exams, as
this external exam served to qualify them for the next semester.
Therefore, only the internal component of 40 marks (theory) and
30 marks (practical) could be evaluated inhouse. For this pur-
pose, the evaluation strategy was redefined and reformulated.
The total marks of , which were otherwise assigned
to internal theory and internal practical evaluation, were dis-
tributed as shown in Table IV.
The problem submission by the group was required to contain
the following points in the order indicated:
1) the problem statement: the group attached the problem
sheet handed out by the professor;
2) the learning objectives;
3) the methodology adopted;
4) work distribution;
5) solution to the problem under the headings: theoretical,
practical and software used; the theoretical calculations,
practical results and the printouts of MULTISIM were to
be attached;
6) two similar problems (without the solutions).
1) Peer Evaluation: Each team member evaluated the other
fellow team members on their contributions to the five problems.
A student did not have to evaluate himself. Each team member
had to give one of the six evaluation levels, shown in Table V,
to every other member of his or her team.
 434
TABLE IV
DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS FOR THE TG
TABLE V
PEER EVALUATION SCHEME
2) Assignments: During the semester the tutor gave three as-
signments, each containing 15 questions, to the TG students.
Each student was asked to select any five questions from each
assignment and submit their solutions. No two students in a
group were allowed to select more than two of the same ques-
tions from the assignment. This ensured that while a group had
solutions to all the 15 questions given, each one of them had
practiced at least three questions on his or her own.
VI. PROBLEMS GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS IN THE TG
The tutor gave students an example of a small audio system,
as per the block diagram given in Fig. 1.
1) Problem 1: In the front end section (A) of the audio
system, a voltage amplifier is to be designed. You are given
a ready-made small signal amplifier for this purpose, with a
fixed bias. The bias resistors are and
and , and the transistor to be used is
BC107. Before proceeding further with the design you must
• determine the Q-point and draw the load lines;
• determine what happens if you change the values of various
biasing resistors.
The input signal available is 10 mV peak-to-peak (p–p), 0 V dc.
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008
• Draw the output for the given configuration. Also, find out
what happens if you apply the input signal to transistors
biased at cutoff and below cutoff.
• Comment on the current gain, voltage gain and power gain
of such configurations.
2) Poblem 2: The last block (D) in the audio system is re-
quired to deliver 0.6 W of power to a 20-ohm speaker. The signal
strength is 10 mV p–p.
Give as many circuit designs as possible with a transistor as
the active device.
Compare the designs with respect to their respective advan-
tages, power dissipated, useful power being delivered to the load
and their efficiencies.
3) Problem 3: Even after the first stage of voltage amplifica-
tion, the processing circuit in the second stage (B) introduces a
lot of attenuation, and the signal strength reduces to 10–100
p–p. To ensure that the first stage drives the subsequent circuit
properly, a voltage signal of at least 10 V p–p, is required. You
are using the circuit with a 15 V supply.
Design a single stage amplifier to develop the required output.
Design a two/three stage amplifier to have the same gain.
Compare the previously mentioned designs with respect to
the following:
• simplicity of design;
• stability of gain;
• methods of coupling multistage amplifiers;
• saturation levels.
4) Problem 4: In the same audio system, when there is no
signal at the input, self-sustained sinusoidal oscillations of 2 V
p–p amplitude and of following frequencies are to be generated:
a) 200 Hz;
b) 20 kHz;
c) 20 MHz.
Then, depending on the control circuit output, any one of
these oscillations is to be selected and given as input to some
other part of this audio system. Design circuits, which serve this
purpose. What changes should you make in the circuits, so that
the frequency can be varied in the range ?
Give as many circuit variations as you can. Discuss their rel-
ative advantages and disadvantages.
Of the designed circuits, which one has the best stability?
5) Problem 5: The rectifier circuit which you are using for
this audio system derives its input from 220 V ac and converts
it into 15 V dc. However, because of poor regulation, any fluc-
tuation in the input ac volts causes the dc output to vary by as
much as 10–20 V. This variation causes a problem in the circuit
as the voltage variation, the circuit can tolerate is only .
Design a voltage regulator circuit (G) to control this fluctuation.
Explain the working principle of such a regulator and derive the
expressions for line and load regulation.
In all the previously mentioned cases, time limits were as-
, signed that exactly matched those of the groups following the
CG course plan. The solutions submitted by the groups in the
TG were not acceptable unless each group verified them both
on the software (Multisim) and experimentally.
The first topic of the syllabus, because of its theoretical na-
ture, was taught by combining the students of both the CG and
the TG in the traditional way.
 MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS 435

Fig. 1. Block diagram of audio system.

VII. OBSERVATIONS book available to find and understand the information re-
quired. They also used the Internet extensively to improve
The following observations were made.
their solutions.
1) Initially, the students in the TG faced problems working in
7) The TG students spent extra time in the class working to-
groups and they had major reservations about including a
wards solutions. If three or more students of a group came
peer evaluation factor in the overall evaluation. But by the
to work in the class at other than the scheduled time, their
time they had completed the first problem, a majority of
entry and exit times were recorded. This data showed that
them were convinced of the utility of peer evaluation.
on an average the students spent 10 hours extra in the
2) The students had problems identifying their learning objec-
class—approximately 9% more than the scheduled time al-
tives and putting them in words. Later on the tutor made a
lotted to them. However, the students in the CG had 80%
point of helping each group to identify their major learning
attendance on average, which means that they spent less
objectives in the first few hours of working on the solu-
time in the L/T/P combined.
tion. They later supplemented these initially-identified ob-
8) The scores of the students in the CG and TG were com-
jectives with their own, as they progressed.
pared and tabulated in the form of separate bar charts
3) Initially, the students also had problems distributing work
(Fig. 2) for internal and external evaluation components.
between group members, but they seemed to manage this
In order to gauge the design and synthesis skills of the
easily after few sessions.
students, at the end of the term, a small project was given
4) Wide-ranging discussions that took place in the PBL class
to all the students in the class. The students were given
polished the students’ communication skills, and helped
two separate wired circuits on bread boards, with a single
their ability to convey information. The students also
fault introduced in each circuit. The students had to draw
learned to record their findings and to remember to refer
the circuit by tracing the connections, find the faults,
to these in their solutions.
rectify them and make the circuits work. The TG students
5) Even though no formal training was given to the students
were allowed to work in their regular groups and the CG
on using the Multisim software, the students not only be-
students were also allowed to form groups. Four hours
came familiar with the software on their own, but also
were allocated for them to find a workable solution. A
learned to take advantage of it to try out different combi-
team of four senior faculty members was then asked to
nations of circuits before actually wiring the circuits and
evaluate the projects according to a predefined strategy.
verifying the results experimentally, which their counter-
Results showed that four of the five groups in the TG
parts in the CG never did.
scored more than 60% marks, while only one group in the
6) While their counterparts in the CG used only text books
CG scored more than 60% marks, a clear indication of
prescribed in the syllabus, the students in the TG used any

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 436 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008

Fig. 2. Internal and external marks of the TG have (mean, standard deviation) as (86.6, 3.9) and (70.2, 3.9), respectively. Those of the CG have (70.6, 14.4) and
(58.4, 10.8), respectively, indicating better knowledge gain of the TG over the CG. (a) TG students’ marks. (b) CG students’ marks.

TABLE VI
QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO STUDENTS OF THE ANALOG ELECTRONICS CLASS, ANSWERED ON A SCALE OF 1–10, WITH 1 BEING THE MOST NEGATIVE

improved skills acquired by the TG students, both in terms

of team work and practical ability.
9) At the end of the course, a survey in the form of a simple
questionnaire was circulated amongst all the students to
gauge the level of satisfaction they had achieved in their
respective classes. The questions, and the analyses of the
responses received, are shown in Table VI and Figs. 3–9.
10) While the favorable results described previously were ob-
served in the PBL-based TG group, experience indicates
that the role of the facilitator in this type of class is more
complicated and carries a lot more responsibility than that Fig. 3. Response to question “What was your satisfaction level with the tutor of
of a teacher in a traditional class. A lot more psychological AE (assembling the circuits, wiring, troubleshooting, etc.)?” indicated that the
students of both TG (7.7, 1.6) and CG (7.5, 3.1) were satisfied with the tutor,
issues are encountered in the PBL class. The design of the making the study teacher–independent.
problems was the most difficult task, and guiding the stu-
dents towards the solution while covering all aspects of the
syllabus was also challenging. Sometimes the students had dents to try to find shortcuts as they solve problems. While
to be redirected from the learning path they were following, this is a valuable skill as an experienced engineer, during
to facilitate their finding the problem solution while max- the leaning process it reduces the number of learning ob-
imizing the number of learning objectives achieved. This jectives to which they are exposed as the facilitator ob-
guidance was important, because of the tendency of stu- served this happening, she would often redirect the stu-

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MANTRI et al.: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A PBL-BASED COURSE IN ANALOG ELECTRONICS
Fig. 4. Response to question “How confident are you that you would be able to
extrapolate the theoretical concepts and analytical skills learned in AE to other
subjects in higher classes?” indicated that TG students (6.0, 2.8) were more
confident of being able to extrapolate concepts than their counterparts in CG
(3.8, 3.4).
Fig. 5. Response to the question “On an average how much of the class time
did you use effectively?” indicated that the TG students (9.7, 1.4) used class
time more effectively than CG students (5.6, 3.8).
Fig. 6. Response to the question “Are you confident of performing well in the
external exams?” indicated that the TG students (5.3, 2.6) were as confident as
CG students (5.4, 4.4).
Fig. 7. Response to the question “Did you copy the assignments?” indicated
that TG students (2.9, 1.8) copied a slightly lesser number of assignments than
CG students (3.1, 1.3).
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
437
Fig. 8. Response to the question “Did you enjoy attending the classes of AE?”
indicated a significantly higher level of enjoyment in TG students (9.7, 1.2) than
in CG students (6.9, 3.3).
Fig. 9. Response to the question “Rate your practical skills in AE?” indicated
slightly better skills in TG (6.7, 1.8) than in CG (4.9, 2.8).
dents’ approach by posing a thought-provoking question. At
other times, when the students were found to be on a path that
would not lead to a viable solution, the facilitator would pro-
vide them a clue to get them back on the path. Peer pressure
played a key role in maintaining students’ drive throughout.
VIII. CONCLUSION
While many instances are cited of the use of PBL in nursing
and medical education [2], the use of PBL is rare in engineering
curricula in North India. Since the affiliating University decides
the pedagogy and evaluation, very little room is left for the
CIET, or other affiliated institutes, to employ PBL in various
courses. Through this pilot project, a unique way of integrating
PBL with the evaluation strategy of University has been initi-
ated, implemented and evaluated.
The knowledge evaluation conducted on the students, in terms
of end-of-semester exams and internal written theory papers,
show that there was significant difference in the knowledge gain
of the TG and CG students, with the TG students performing
better in knowledge tests. The skill set acquired by the students in
the TG was definitely greater than that acquired by the students
in the CG, as was demonstrated by the results of the skill test
conducted at the end of the semester. That PBL students spent
more time in the class than did the traditional class students
can have more than one interpretation. With respect to better
knowledge gain, this difference may imply that the students in
the TG had to spend more time in the class to gain a better level
of knowledge. On the other hand, the extra time spent in the PBL
class could be attributed to a greater level of the motivation in
 438
these students. The response to question 2 in Table VI clearly
indicates better understanding level of the TG students, but this
can only be substantiated after the TG students take up advanced
courses that follow in higher semesters, and their results in these
are compared. If the responses to questions 3, 6, and 7 in Table VI
class are any indication of the productivity in terms of learning
objectives, the scale definitely tilts in favor of PBL. However,
the copying habits of the students could not be curtailed in either
the PBL or the L/T/P classes. Overall the experiment with PBL
education methodology in India, although with a small sample
size, gave encouraging results and should be used on wider basis.
However, before switching over completely from the traditional
methodology to PBL, issues such as training faculty in handling
PBL classes need to be addressed.
REFERENCES
[1] Punjab Technical Univ., Jalandhar, India, 2007 [Online]. Available:
http://www.ptu.ac.in/syalbe/ece-03.pdf
[2] M. D. Northwood and D. O. Northwood, “Problem-based learning
(PBL): From the health sciences to engineering to value-added in
workplace,” Global J. Eng. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 157–164, 2003.
[3] J. L. Cooper, “New evidence of the power of cooperative learning,” J.
Coop. Learn. College Teach., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–2, 1997.
[4] M. E. B. Sacre, C. J. Atman, and L. J. Shuman, “Characteristics of
freshman engineering students: models for determining student attri-
tion and success in engineering,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 86, no. 2, pp.
139–149, 1997.
[5] M. A. Albanese and S. Mitchell, “Problem-based learning: a review
of the literature on outcomes and implementation issues,” Acad. Med.,
vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 52–81, 1993.
[6] D. L. Maskell and P. J. Grabau, “A multidisciplinary cooperative
problem-based learning approach to embedded systems design,” IEEE
Trans. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 101–103, May 1998.
[7] A. Striegel and D. T. Rover, “Problem-based learning in an introduc-
tory computer engineering course,” in Proc. 32nd Frontiers in Educa-
tion Conf., Boston, MA, Nov. 6–9, 2002, vol. 2, pp. FIG7–FIG12.
[8] N. Linge and D. Parsons, “Problem-based learning as an effective tool
for teaching computer network design,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 49, no.
1, pp. 5–10, Feb. 2006.
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on August 20,2021 at 13:34:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 51, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2008
Archana Mantri received the M.Tech. degree in digital communication from
the National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India, in 1999.
She is working toward the Ph.D. degree in electronics and communication
engineering and education technology. She is currently Director of Academics
at Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab, India. Her areas
of interest include circuit theory and analysis, digital communication, and edu-
cation technology.
Sunil Dutt received the Ph.D. degree in education from Punjab University,
Chandigarh, India, in 1979.
He has authored numerous articles in the psychology of adult learning and
performance evaluation. His areas of specialization include research method-
ology, measurement and evaluation, and educational management.
J. P. Gupta received the M.Tech degree in electronics and communication en-
gineering from the University of Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttar Pradesh, India and
the Ph.D. degree in computer science and engineering from the University of
Westminster, London, U.K.
He is currently the Vice Chancellor at Jaypee Institute of Information Tech-
nology University, Noida, India. He is an academician and a former Professor
at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.
Madhu Chitkara received the Ph.D. degree in education from Punjab Univer-
sity, Chandigarh, India, in 1984.
She is the Director of the Chitkara Educational Trust, Chandigarh, India. Her
areas of interest include education technology, pure mathematics, architecture,
and governance. She is active in bringing revolutionary changes in the educa-
tional scenario in the region of Punjab, India, and was the recipient of the 2002
Rashtriya Nirman Ratna Award by the Economic Growth Society of India, New
Delhi.