AC 2011-2642: USING ARDUINO AS A PLATFORM FOR PROGRAMMING, DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT IN A FRESHMAN ENGINEERING COURSE

Gerald W. Recktenwald, Portland State University

Gerald Recktenwald is an Associate Professor and the Chair of the Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Department at Portland State University. His current research interests are in improving engineering
education, and in the numerical simulation and measurement of heat transfer in electronic equipment,
energy efficient buildings, and other industrial applications.
David E. Hall, Louisiana Tech University
Dr. David Hall is an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Louisiana Tech University.

c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2011

Using Arduino as a Platform for Programming, Design

and Measurement in a Freshman Engineering Course

Abstract
Arduino is a compact, inexpensive, open-source electronics prototyping platform built
around an Atmel AVR microcontroller. The features, cost, and small size makes Arduino a
potent tool teaching as well as practical device use in engineering projects. This paper reports on
adapting the Living with the Lab (LWTL) curriculum to the Arduino platform. LWTL was
developed with the Boe-Bot mobile robotics platform and the Basic Stamp microcontroller. The
Arduino is more modern and has better technical capabilities, but there are fewer educational
resources for the Arduino than there are for the Boe-Bot. The updated curriculum was
successfully implemented at two universities. End-of-term surveys indicate that students had a
positive experience of the course, especially the hands-on exercises. However, students were not
as positive about the current state of instructional support for Arduino programming. The
Arduino remains a viable and preferable platform. Recommendations for improvement of
curricular materials for the Arduino are made.
Introduction
Engineering classes for freshman have traditionally focused on problem solving,
engineering graphics, and computer programming. These subjects require no prerequisites other
than an interest in some type of engineering. The traditional freshman engineering classes are
now recognized as being un-inspiring to incoming students, even though the skills taught in the
class are considered useful. Furthermore, in limiting course content to only the basic skills,
students are not exposed to the more creative and applied aspects of engineering practice. There
is now broad agreement that engagement of freshman engineering students is important for
retention and motivation1.
Many universities have developed freshman year courses with substantial hands-on
experiences designed to expose students to the application of engineering principles2-10. Handson, project-based courses attempt to resolve the tension between providing training in the
fundamentals of programming, graphics and problem solving, with the need for motivating and
engaging students. Active learning in freshman year courses is also believed to improve retention
and appeal to more diverse population of students.
The Living with the Lab curriculum uses design and fabrication projects involving DC
electrical circuits, computer programming, solid modeling, machining, rapid-prototyping,
working with hand tools, testing, data analysis and plotting5, 11-13. Students assemble their own
set of hand tools. They purchase a robotics kit that is used throughout the curriculum. The
Living with in the title of the curriculum refers to student ownership of critical components of
the laboratory hardware. Students complete homework exercises with this hardware at home, and
then demonstrate their skills and working hardware in class.

Robots and or microelectronics kits are popular features in hands-on courses for first year
students 2, 5, 14-19. The equipment is chosen because it is compact, portable and relatively
inexpensive. Students kits contain sensors, a programmable controller, actuators, light emitting
diodes (LEDs), and other components that can be assembled and reassembled into a variety of
systems. Playful experimentation can be incorporated into coursework and students are often
given wide latitude to do something interesting, even in those cases where the class work
involves a competition between student teams.
This paper is a report on freshman engineering courses using the Living with the Lab
(LWTL) curriculum and the Arduino platform to teach programming, sensing, and control.
LWTL was developed with the Boe-Bot mobile robotics platform and the Basic Stamp
microcontroller 20. The Boe-Bot has a large community of practitioners and high quality
educational materials. The Arduino is a robust and easy-to-use platform with a strong community
of developers and users. The Arduino uses a modern microcontroller architecture and has better
support for sensor input than the Basic Stamp. Although there are many examples of using
Arduino in simple projects, the breadth and quality of the educational materials for the Arduino
does not currently match that of the Boe-Bot/Basic Stamp platform. The goal of the paper is to
provide a case study in successful introduction of the Arduino into the LWTL curriculum.
Arduino is a compact, inexpensive, open-source electronics prototyping platform built
around an Atmel AVR microcontroller. Arduino is a single board system that is programmed via
USB connection to a host computer. It has regulated and unregulated DC power, digital inputs
and outputs, and analog inputs. The features, cost, and compact form factor makes Arduino a
potent tool for introducing a large range of engineering concepts. Although it would seem that
microcontrollers are of interest only to computer, electrical and mechanical engineering students,
the LWTL curriculum is used in freshman courses taken by many disciplines, including
biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, industrial
engineering, and nano-systems engineering.
The Arduino is part of a larger trend toward open source hardware fostered by a diverse
mix of private tinkerers and profit-making companies selling electronics kits21-24. The broad
interest and commercial viability of this platform makes it easy for academics to focus on the
development of instructional materials, not on the design, fabrication, and support of the
hardware platform. Consistent with the LWTL philosophy, each student gets his or her own kit
with an Arduino and electronic parts for less than $100. Students are also required to purchase a
kit of basic hand tools, which costs no more than $75 (in 2010). The educational exercises begin
with using the parts in the commercial kit, and then expand to include hardware developed
exclusively for LWTL.
Two different introductions of the Arduino platform into LWTL are described in this paper.
At Louisiana Tech University, an Arduino board was used to replace the Basic Stamp
microcontroller on a mobile robot platform. The curriculum closely follows the original LWTL
curriculum developed for the Boe-Bot mobile robot by faculty at Louisiana Tech. At Portland
State University, the Arduino was used as the power supply and for control of a student-designed
desktop fan instead of a mobile robot. This paper describes a work in progress as the Arduino
implementation is happening for the first time in 2010 2011 academic year. The Arduino

instructional materials and projects developed for the LWTL curriculum could be used
selectively in other courses without needing to implement the full LWTL curriculum.
Method and Research Questions
This paper is a progress report on the introduction of the Arduino microcontroller platform
into an established Freshman Engineering curriculum. The faculty at Louisiana Tech developed
and has used the curriculum for several years. The faculty at Portland State University has just
adopted the curriculum. The transition to the Arduino platform is motivated by the improved
features and cost as described in the preceding section. The introduction of the new technology is
expected to improve the class, but it also introduces complications because the lecture materials
and laboratory exercises need to be modified. Thus, we are using formative assessment to
monitor the effect of changes in curriculum. Another research goal is to determine the degree to
which changes in curriculum are effective at motivating student interest in engineering in
general, and interest in specific skills such as working with basic electronics, computer
programming, solid modeling, fabrication, testing, data analysis and plotting.
The popularity of the Arduino platform amongst hobbyists and professionals working with
microcontrollers does not mean that students will respond positively. Instructors used the buzz
about the Arduino to motivate students, by indicating that the students were using a new and
popular technology. Instructor observations of student reaction showed that students were not
universally inspired by or interested in the technology. This makes sense because the definition
of cool is not uniform for engineering students.
Assessment was performed with an end-of-term survey of student attitudes toward the
course and how it affected their career plans. Students were asked whether the use of the
Arduino platform changed their attitude toward computer programming and electromechanical
systems. The complete survey is included in Appendix B. Results from the survey are discussed
in a later section. First we provide background on the LWTL curriculum and the changes made
to incorporate the Arduino.
Living with the Lab
Living with the Lab (LWTL) is a project-based, hands-on curriculum for first year
engineering students. Over one academic year, LWTL exposes students to programming,
electronics, sensors, basic integrated circuits, controls, robotics, mass and energy balances,
statics and dynamics, engineering design, teamwork, technology and society5, 11-13.
LWTL involves classes of 20 to 40 students who meet twice a week for 110 minutes over a
30-week period. Both Louisiana Tech University and Portland State University use a quarter
calendar with 10-week terms. Consequently, the LWTL curriculum is divided into three distinct
courses. Louisiana Tech University awards six semester hours of credit (two per quarter) for the
three courses, while Portland State University awards six quarter hours (two per quarter) for the
three courses (equivalent to four semester hours). The content breadth and depth is ambitious for
the course credit awarded. Note that on average the students spend a substantial part of each
class period engaged in hands-on activities that might include building and testing circuits on

breadboards, manufacturing parts with milling machines, or measuring performance of

components and systems that they have fabricated and assembled.
The first LWTL course uses the robotics platform as a tool for introducing basic DC
circuits and includes a major project; the major project at Louisiana Tech University is a robot
navigation challenge while the major project at Portland State University is the design,
fabrication and control of a small oscillating fan. Students also fabricate and test a small
centrifugal pump as part of the first course at both universities. In the second LWTL course,
student teams develop a system that provides closed-loop control of the temperature and salinity
of a small volume of water. Students fabricate and calibrate conductivity and temperature sensors
and use transistors and relays to control solenoid valves and a heater. In the third LWTL course,
student teams develop a prototype of their own innovative product using the hardware,
knowledge and skills acquired in the first two courses. The third course focuses on sensors and
design strategies for product development. All three LWTL courses include a strong focus on
fundamental engineering topics.
Homework typically consists of worked-out problems covering engineering fundamentals,
problems requiring the use of the robot and sensors, and activities related to course projects.
Students also deliver oral presentations detailing their projects, locate and specify parts and
supplies from online retailers, complete solid modeling assignments, and use Excel and Mathcad
to solve course-related problems. The broad aim of LWTL is to immerse students in a dynamic,
project-focused environment. Both universities stress individual accountability for learning
course materials while also encouraging teamwork and providing exciting open-ended
challenges. The combination of homework, fabrication, programming, design, problem solving,
and communication provide a strong foundation and context for later engineering courses.
While students provide most of their own tools and equipment, both universities provide
project parts and supplies and fixed equipment to facilitate projects. The preparation and
management of these is consuming less faculty/staff time as the LWTL effort matures. Both
universities have developed dedicated classrooms that allow instructors to seamlessly transition
between lecture, laboratory and shop activities. For example, the large LWTL classroom at
Louisiana Tech University serves 40 students and includes 10 round tables to encourage
collaborative learning, 10 milling machines for fabricating project parts, 10 sets of tools at each
milling station, two sheet metal shear/brake combinations, two lathes, and a rapid prototyping
machine to render 3D parts for projects. Portland State University has a lab classroom that serves
32 students with 8 tables of four, 8 milling machines and tool sets, and a laser cutter.
To keep costs down, the LWTL experience does not require students to purchase an
engineering textbook. Instead, all of the course materials are available online for free download.
The major challenge in moving from the Boe-Bot to the Arduino has been to modify the large
collection of online documents that were specific to the Boe-Bot. The transition effort has
resulted in the development of a significant number of new homework problems and the revision
of the notes with Boe-Bot specific content; about half of the content has been significantly
revised. The transition has also resulted in the rescheduling of course topics in some cases.
Incorporating the analog input capabilities of the Arduino caused the biggest change in course
structure. The Boe-Bot does not have a built-in analog-to-digital converter.

Low Cost Microcontroller Technology

Microcontrollers are single-chip, integrated circuit devices that can be programmed to read
electrical signals (input) and send electrical signals (output). Microcontrollers are designed for
embedded control applications, and are pervasive in consumer and industrial products. Electrical
and computer engineering are professions most commonly associated with the design and use of
microcontrollers. However, as microcontrollers have become inexpensive and ubiquitous, the
systems for programming and deploying them have become easier to use. These trends have
made microcontrollers accessible for many types of engineers, as well as curious hobbyists,
artists, and other non-technical people. The Arduino platform was intended for artists,
designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in creating interactive objects or environments22.
Arduino is an open-source hardware and software platform. The electrical design,
programming software, and a large set of tutorials and examples are freely available. There is an
energetic and idealistic community of open-source hardware participants who contribute to
improvements in the platform, the creation of add-on circuits and components, and in providing
instructional materials. This leads to rapid innovation and diffusion of innovation.
The Arduino has several features that make it useful as a platform for an introduction to
engineering. It is inexpensive: a bare Arduino costs about $30 (US dollars in 2010). For less than
$90 (US) students at Portland State University bought a copy of the Arduino Inventors Kit that
includes an Arduino and a variety of electrical components and sensors sufficient for much of the
curriculum described in this paper 24. Figure 1 shows the 2009 version of the Arduino called the
Duemilanove (2009 in Italian). Features identified in the Figure 1 are described in Table 1.
The Arduino platform has excellent technical performance, especially considering its low
cost. The A/D components can read up to 7 channels of data at speeds sufficient for a broad
range of applications. It has 14 channels for digital input or output, which enables control of
logic (on/off) signals. Five of the digital output channels can be configured for pulse-width
modulation (PWM), which provides emulation of analog (variable level) output. The AVR
microcontroller has sufficient memory for writing complex programs for data acquisition and
control. The Arduino platform includes a program editor and cross compiler. Programs are
written on a host computer typically a students laptop where they are compiled and then
downloaded to the Arduinos microcontroller via a USB cable.

Figure 1 Arduino Duemilleneuva: actual size 7.6 cm long by 5.1 cm wide.

Table 1 Functional components of the Arduino microcontroller in Figure 1. See

also Appendix A for a glossary of terms.
Functional block
AVR microcontroller

Purpose
The ATMEL AVR328 is the computational brain
with on-board analog to digital conversion (ADC)
and pulse-width modulation (PWM) output

DC Power jack

Supply power: required when the USB cable is not

connected or when current supplied by the USB is
insufficient for a control task.

USB port

Download programs from the host PC

Upload data from the microcontroller

Digital I/O pins

Electrical connection points used to send voltage

signals to external components

Analog input pins

Electrical connection points for measuring voltage

signals from external components (e.g. sensors)

Power and ground

Electrical connections to supply DC voltages (5V,

3.3V or Vin) and the ground plane for the
microcontroller

Learning to Program with a Microcontroller

In a traditional freshman engineering course, students are introduced to a computer
programming language. Historically, that language was Fortran. Depending on the discipline, the
first language learned today might be Java, C, C++, python, MATLAB or Visual Basic. Typical
programming exercises involve automation of engineering analysis by evaluating and printing
and/or plotting values from a design formula. This is a valuable skill, but it can be challenging to
convince students of the need for that skill when they can do most of their elementary
computations on a spreadsheet.
A microcontroller platform provides the context and motivation for students to learn
computer programming. Instead of evaluating and printing results from an engineering formula,
students write programs to blink lights, read sensor data, and control servo motors, DC motors,
or other actuators. The outcome of these programs is tangible and evident to anyone, regardless
of their familiarity with programming. Since it is not (yet) possible to write microcontroller code
with a spreadsheet, students working with an Arduino see that learning to program has provides
important capabilities not attainable with business-oriented software.
A substantial part of the first LWTL course involves learning to program by controlling a
small robot. The Boe-Bot platform is a mobile robot with a well-developed supporting
curriculum provided in textbook format by the manufacturer, Parallax, Inc 25. In the original
LWTL curriculum students learn to program by completing a number of exercises in the book,
which includes visual guides to assembling circuits and the hardware for the robotics platform.
Switching to Arduino meant that large amounts of documentation for the courses had to be
re-developed. The technical capabilities, the physical dimensions, and the programming
language for the Arduino is distinctly different from the Boe-Bot. The Arduino is very popular,
and it is easy to find Arduino tutorials and sample projects on the Internet. Unfortunately, little of
the on-line material could be used as-is in the LWTL courses.
Another major hurdle for switching from Boe-Bot to Arduino is that there is no standard
mobile robotics platform for the Arduino. Therefore, we had a choice: either find or develop a
mobile robotics platform for the Arduino, or change the emphasis of the programming
assignments from mobility robots to something else. Faculty at Louisiana Tech University took
the former approach: adapting the Arduino to the Boe-Bot chassis without the Basic Stamp
microcontroller. Faculty at Portland State University took a different approach: developing a new
exercise that required students to learn how to program and fabricate hardware for the
microcontroller to manipulate.
The Mobile Robot at Louisiana Tech University
The mobile robot adopted by Louisiana Tech University is shown in Figure 2. The chassis
was purchased from Parallax and includes the same basic parts as the Boe-Bot. That is, the
chassis kit includes the aluminum chassis, two Parallax servos, a 4-AA battery holder, and
various electrical components. An Arduino Duemilanove was purchased to serve as the

microcontroller. Additional parts that were purchased include two microswitches to serve as
whiskers (touch sensors), a 6-AA batter holder (the Arduino needs a supply of at least 7VDC), a
4 inch x 6 inch aluminum plate 1/16 inch thick, a 400 tie point solderless breadboard with
adhesive backing, and a USB cable.

Figure 2: Arduino microcontroller mounted on a Boe-Bot chassis.

Students assembled the robot and completed homework exercises that required
developing programs to move the robot and have it respond to sensor inputs. The culminating
project for the class was the Navigating the Engineering Disciplines robot challenge shown in
Figure 3. Student teams configured and programmed their robot to achieve the maximum number
of points by completing seven missions. The challenge involved moving rubber ducks around on
the mat, activating an electronic switch, and pushing a hinged bar into a specified location. All
students attached some sort of plow to the front of their robot to push the ducks around. Some
students implemented line following programming using the photoresistor available in the
Parallax kit, some used the whiskers as touch sensors, some implemented infrared sensors, and
some just relied on dead reckoning to direct their robot. Figure 4 shows some photos taken at the
competition. Four students achieved perfect scores.
The robot challenge provided an opportunity for students to practice programming;
earlier versions of the LWTL curriculum did not include this sort of open-ended programming
challenge. The challenge allowed the students who loved to program to take their skills to
another level. The challenge was also designed to allow students who were not as interested in
the electromechanical aspects of the course to have some success with a limited amount of effort.

It is important to point out that the LWTL curriculum covers a wide range of content; not
all of the content centers around robots and programming. Early engineering majors need to be
frequently reminded of how the current projects fit into the scope of the engineering field; that is,
graduating engineers perform daily jobs ranging from sales to detailed design to control to
management.

This challenge involves programming your robot to navigate the engineering disciplines by completing six
individual missions. Your robot will operate autonomously on an 84 in. x 32.5 in. playing field.

The missions and their point values are provided below. All students, regardless of major, should attempt to
successfully complete as many challenges as possible. The difficulty of a given mission is not related to the
difficulty of the corresponding major. J

Biomedical Engineering (40 points) deliver an insulin pump (developed by a biomedical engineer) to a child:
move insulin pump from base to child
Chemical Engineering (30 points) pump chemicals from a reactor (designed by a chemical engineer) into base:
move object on field into base
Civil Engineering (40 points) install an I-Beam on a bridge designed by a civil engineer: push a hinged beam into
place
Electrical Engineering (60 points) use a magnet to activate a switch for a process control system implemented
by an electrical engineer: mount magnet to robot, maneuver robot to bring magnet close to switch, switch turns on
an LED
Industrial Engineering (40 points) optimize your robots plan to achieve the maximum score: points awarded if
four or more missions are successfully completed; strategy is important
Mechanical Engineering (70 points) roll a high-mileage car (designed by a team of engineers, including
mechanical engineers) to vehicle test area: car must touch some part of the circle
Nanosystems Engineering (20 points) deliver photoresist to photolithography station to fabricate a microdevice
developed by a nanosystems engineer: push object already on field into designated area

A perfect score is 300 points.

Figure 3 The Navigating the Engineering Disciplines robot challenge.

Figure 4 Photos taken during the robot challenge.

The Desktop Fan Project at Portland State University
The desktop fan project is a substitute for the mobile robot exercises in the conventional
implementation of LWTL. The desktop fan project requires students to learn elementary use of a
solid-modeling package, basic measurement techniques involving calipers, soldering, building
circuits on a breadboard, and Arduino programming. Students are exposed to transistors, and
pulse-width modulation (PWM) for speed control of a DC motor. Programming required the use
of loops, analog input, and PWM output. The primary goals of the project are to provide a simple
design-and-build experience, to require students to work in teams of two, to show what kinds of
parts can be fabricated from acrylic with a laser cutter and acrylic bender, and to provide
practical motivation for Arduino programming.

Components
Arduino
DC motor
Servo motor
Propeller
NPN Transistor
Resistors, potentiometer
Breadboard and jumper wires
Acrylic for structure

Figure 5: Reference design for the structure, and list of components for the
desktop fan. The Arduino Inventors Kit contained all components
except for the propeller and the acrylic used for structural support.
Figure 5 shows the primary components for the desktop fan and a reference design for the
structural components. Students were shown this picture at the start of the project, but they were
encouraged to develop the physical design of their own structure. A YouTube video was created
to demonstrate the operation of laser cutter and acrylic bender, and to show a sample fan in
operation. Creating a design for the fan structure provided an exercise in spatial visualization.
The three-dimensional modeling capabilities of Solidworks were of little use because the laser
cutter needs a two dimensional drawing.
Pulse-width modulation (PWM) power control was used to adjust the speed of the DC
motor that drives the fan. A potentiometer wired to one of the analog inputs on the Arduino
provided a way for the user to adjust the fan speed. Figure 6 shows the PWM circuit. An NPN
transistor switched the current to the motor, using the PWM output as a control signal.
Most of the parts needed to complete the desktop fan projects are included in the Arduino
Inventors Kit that students are required to buy for the course. Model airplane propellers were
purchased in bulk from a hobby shop for less than 75 cents (US) each. A sheet of 1/8 inch thick
acrylic was purchased and students were allowed to use rectangles of either 12 inch by 1 inch, or
6 inch by 3 inches. The 18 square inch limit was imposed to keep material construction modest,
and to force students to deal with a material constraint in their design.
The assignment was spread over three weeks of class. Performance milestones, such as
submission of two-dimensional drawings for the laser cut parts, and trial motion of the servo

motor, were assigned as homework before the final deadline for the completed fan. Learning
objectives for the desktop fan project are that students will be able to
Use a caliper to measure the physical dimensions of the servo motor in the Arduino
Experimenter's Kit, and from those measurements, design a support structure to hold the
servo in place.
Design structural members to connect the servo the DC motor that drives the propeller
such that servo oscillation causes the air stream from the fan to change direction.
Develop two-dimensional drawings of structural parts (using Solidworks) so that those
parts can be cut from acrylic sheet with a laser cutter.
As necessary, use a strip heater to bend the acrylic parts into their final shape. Assemble
the structure that forms the base of the desktop fan.
Solder extension wire leads to the DC motor from the Arduino Inventors kit.
Use basic Arduino programming structures: variables, loops, analog input, and digital
output.
Build a transistor-controlled circuit to run the DC motor using power from the Arduino.
Complete the circuit and structural assembly. Write the Arduino code to control the
system. Demonstrate the system in class.
At the end of the project, all teams had working fans. Some were more capable and robust than
others. Figure 7 shows the solution created by the instructor.
+5V

motorPin
330

Figure 6: Control circuit for the DC motor that

drives the fan propeller.

Figure 7 Instructors solution to the desktop fan design project.

Assessment
In this section we present results of an end-of-term survey of students at Portland State
University. A comparable instrument was not used at Louisiana Tech University. The survey has
eleven statements (11 items) with a five level, Likert scale response. In addition, there are three
open-ended questions. The survey is included in Appendix A.
The Likert scale items use two different sets of responses listed in Table 2. The first two
items of the survey use the standard response scale to indicate agreement or disagreement with
the stem. The remaining items have a stem and corresponding response scale for indicating a
self-assessed degree of change experienced by the students. In all cases, higher ordinal positions
are associated with a positive outcome for the course. This leaves the survey results open to
potential acquiescence bias26. No attempt to correct for acquiescence bias was made. The
potential problem of acquiescence bias was realized after the survey was administered.
The Cronbach alpha for the 11-item survey was 0.790 with 95 percent confidence intervals
of (0.698, 0.881). Calculations were performed with the rela package for R, written by Michael
Chajewski27. Since the Cronbach alpha exceeds the threshold of 0.7 that is typically used to
indicate reliability of a multiple-choice instrument, we conclude that the survey questions and
responses are internally consistent.
Table 3 lists the text of the statements and the aggregate responses for the survey. The
mean response is computed by assuming the Likert responses are an interval scale. In the last

three columns, the five-level Likert scale responses are grouped into negative, neutral and
positive categories. Referring to row numbers in the first column of Table 2, the negative
responses are ordinal positions 1 and 2, neutral responses are ordinal position 3, and positive
responses are ordinal position 4 and 5.

Table 2 Ordinal position and text of responses to Likert scale survey questions.
The Change response in the last column is used for questions that asked
students to rate how the course caused the students to change their
attitude toward their professional direction, or their interest in the
subject matter, or confidence in their abilities to be successful.
1
2
3
4
5

Standard response
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

Change response
Decrease a lot
Decrease
No[t] change
Increase
Increase a lot

Survey Results
In general, the survey responses indicate a strong positive attitude toward the course. The
least positive scores were on items 7 and 8, which are related to the Arduino.
Items 1 through 4 indicate student interest in engineering and computer science as
academic disciplines. For each of these questions, the majority of responses were positive: the
positive fraction was close to 65 percent for items 2 and 3; the positive fraction was 86 percent
for items 1 and 4. Thus, the survey indicates that the course had a positive influence on student
interest in engineering and computer science.
Responses to item 5 indicate that almost 70 percent of the students taking the survey are
more confident that they will be successful because they took this class. One student wrote this
response to the open-ended question (item 14) on the survey:
This class was very enjoyable. I was impressed with my own abilities as a result
of what I did in this class.
Of course, not all students had confidence-boosting experiences. Over seventy students attended
the first day of class. Enrollment was limited to 64 students because of the layout of the tables in
the lab there were two sections, and enrollment in each section was limited to 32 students who
could fit at eight tables with four chairs per table. Enrollment dropped to sixty-two students by
the second week of class. By then the pace was evident, the first quiz was given, and the first
assignments were collected. 52 students completed the course. Despite the drop-off in
attendance, the survey responses show that the course increased the confidence of a large
fraction of students who remained in the class.

Table 3: Summary of responses to end-of-term survey questions for LWTL

classes at Portland State University. Row data may not add to 100 due
to rounding of individual items in the row. Likert scale responses are
listed in Table 2. Sample size is 44 responses out of 52 students who
completed the course.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Overall, this class has increased my interest in

engineering or computer science.
Because of my experience in this class, I am more
likely to continue taking courses toward a degree in
engineering or computer science.
Because of my experience in this class, my interest in
Mechanical Engineering has
The hands-on experience in this class has caused my
interest in engineering or computer science to
The hands-on experience in this class has caused my
confidence in my ability to succeed in engineering or
computer science to
This class has caused my understanding of
engineering design to
Working with the Arduino microcontroller has caused
my interest in programming to
Working with the Arduino microcontroller has caused
my interest in electromechanical systems to
The manufacturing and fabrication experience in this
class has caused my motivation for school work to
The manufacturing and fabrication experience in this
class has caused my practical knowledge of the
engineering profession to
The in-class exercises, such as programming, working
with breadboard circuits, fabrication has caused my
motivation to study math, physics and chemistry to

Mean
response
4.16

Negative
(%)
6.8

Neutral
(%)
6.8

Positive
(%)
86.4

3.80

9.1

25

65.9

3.73

6.8

29.6

63.6

4.16

13.6

86.4

3.84

9.3

20.9

69.8

4.06

13.6

86.4

3.28

23.1

30.8

46.2

3.51

17.9

20.5

61.5

4.00

2.6

17.9

79.5

4.08

10.3

89.7

3.59

2.6

41.0

56.4

Item 6 reflects students self-assessed knowledge of engineering design. A large majority

(86 percent) felt that the class increased their understanding of design. No student felt that the
class decreased their understanding of design.
Items 7 and 8 measure the change in student attitude that can be attributed to using the
Arduino platform. These two questions had the largest fraction of negative responses, 23 and 18
percent, respectively. Almost a quarter of the respondents reported a decrease in their interest in
programming. In the open-ended comments, many students wrote that the course could be
improved by providing more instruction on programming. We believe this reflects two
predominant shortcomings of working with Arduino.

First, there are no in-depth resources that use Arduino as the platform for a first course in
programming. There are many on-line tutorials, YouTube videos, and some books that aim to
help users get started with Arduino28-30. These resources tend to focus on project case studies that
help users replicate the project. This is very valuable and was helpful to us in preparing course
material. While project tutorials help learners be successful on projects that are the same or very
similar to the tutorial, they do not provide more systematic instruction. Students tend to copy and
paste code from tutorials without really understanding how to write that code from scratch. There
is a lack of resources that teach the fundamentals of programming. For the next offering of the
class, we need to prepare better notes on programming, as well as a variety of exercises that give
student practice in small and large programming tasks.
The second shortcoming of using the Arduino to learn programming is that the
programming language is C, which has a terse, and unforgiving syntax. There is no easy solution
to the difficulty of learning C as a first programming language. However, the survey responses to
item 8 (discussed next) suggest that students may have a more positive programming experience
if the connection to electromechanical systems is strengthened. This is purely speculative, but
deserves consideration during the next revision of the course material.
Scores on item 8 indicate the change in student interest in electromechanical systems
attributed to working with the Arduino. Survey responses to this item were positive for over 61
percent of the respondents, and negative for 18 percent of the respondents. The difference in
responses between item 7 and item 8 suggest that despite the difficultly of programming the
Arduino, students enjoyed the physical effects (flashing lights, spinning motors) that are obtained
from successful completion of an Arduino programming assignment.
Responses to items 9 and 10 show that hands-on manufacturing experiences had an
overwhelmingly positive impact on student motivation and knowledge. The open-ended
comments in response to items 13 and 14 reinforced this observation. Here are un-edited samples
of positive open-ended comments:
Hands-on portions are superb. I was not expecting this level of involvement from
a freshman, first term course (item 13)
The hands-on activities allow one to immediately see results from his efforts.
This also promotes greater understand of the material as one can actually see
how things relate to one another.(item 13)
Manufacturing parts was very fun (item 13)
Projects are manageable yet challenging (item 13)
That we got to experience a bit of all types of mechanical engineering from
programming to manufacturing. Keep the fan and pump project (item 13)
I loved this class! (item 14)
Wish there was a sophomore level class! (item 14)
Excellent course overall and good introduction to engineering (item 14)
Keep the class fun. Background on design and design process should be
emphasized more (item 14)

Item 11 is an attempt to measure whether the course increased student motivation for the
math and science courses that are required for engineering. A large fraction (41 percent) of the
survey respondents felt that the class had no effect on their interest in math and science. A slight
majority (56 percent) felt that the class increased their motivation to study math and science.
During the course we did not stress the explicit connection between engineering and math and
science. It is not surprising, therefore, that the attitude toward those subjects did not change for a
large fraction of the students.
There are aspects of the course that did not improve student motivation or confidence.
Direct feedback from students and responses to the open-ended questions made it clear that many
students thought the class was too much work for the two credits that students earned. The
instructors at Portland State University agree, and we will address this in future offerings of this
class. Another common theme in student criticism is the pace of the class. Here are some
samples of responses to item 12, what one change would improve the course:
To go slower and cover the things in class more thoroughly
Slow down. Too much material crammed into too little time
Slow it down
More time (class is a lot of work)
This view of the pace of class was not universal, however. One student wrote as a response to
item 12:
I felt that even though things were fast paced, any difficulty was my own fault,
but it would be good to meet more often than twice per week
Opinions on the pace of material may also reflect the lack of academic experience of many
students in the class.
Conclusion
The LWTL curriculum has been successfully implemented with the Arduino platform
replacing the Boe-Bot and Basic Stamp. That was the hope during the spring term of 2010 when
the transition to Arduino was first contemplated. Now that the transition for the first course has
been completed, and formative assessment results have been obtained, it is clear that more work
is necessary. Additional lecture notes were developed and used for remedial teaching during the
second course in the sequence. Those notes will be incorporated into the first course in the next
academic year. More examples of code, and self-study aides are under development.
As the final draft of this paper is being written, faculty at Louisiana Tech University and
Portland State University have completed the second course in the LWTL curriculum during
Winter 2011 using the Arduino platform. The third course will also use Arduino in Spring 2011.
Readers interested in the course details can visit the web sites for the two courses discussed in
this paper:
http://www2.latech.edu/~dehall/LWTL/ENGR120honors/main.html
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~gerry/class/EAS199A

Acknowledgements
Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundations Course,
Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program under Award No. 0618288. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Michael Chuning, Jacob Furniss, and Andrew Wollman made vital contributions to the
LWTL course offering at Portland State University.

References
1.

Fortenberry, N.L., et al., Engineering education research aids instruction. Science, 2007. 317: p. 1175-1176.

2.

Calabro, K.M., et al. New directions in freshman engineering design at the University of Maryland. Frontiers
in Education. Saratoga Springs, New York. October 22-25, 2008. American Society for Engineering
Education.

3.

Freuler, R.J., et al. Developing and implementing hands-on laboratory exercises and design projects for first
year engineering students. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Albequerque, New Mexico. American
Society for Engineering Education.

4.

Froyd, J., et al. A project-based approach to first-year engineering curriculum development. Frontiers in
Education. Indianapolis, Indiana. October 19-22, 2005. ASEE/IEEE.

5.

Hall, D., H. Hegab, and J. Nelson. Living WITH the Lab - A Freshman Curriculum to Boost Hands-on
Learning, Student Confidence and Innovation. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Saratoga
Springs, NY. October 22-25, 2008, IEEE.

6.

Knight, D.W., L.E. Carlson, and J.F. Sullivan. Staying in engineering: impact of a hands-on, team-based,
first-year projects course on student retention. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Nashville,
Tennessee. American Society for Engineering Education.

7.

Knight, D.W., L.E. Carlson, and J.F. Sullivan. Improving engineering student retention through hands-on,
team based, first-year design projects. 1st International Conference on Research in Engineering Education.
Honolulu, Hawaii. June 22-24, 2007. American Society for Engineering Education.

8.

Mara, R.M., B. Palmer, and T.A. Litzinger, The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student
intellectual development as measured by the Perry scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 2000: p. 39-45.

9.

Marchese, A.J., et al. Design in the Rowan University Freshman Engineering Clinic. ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. June 15-18, 1997. American Society for Engineering
Education.

10.

Meyer, J., N. Lamm, and J. Smith. Retaining freshman engineering students through participation in a firstyear learning community: what works and what doesn't. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Honolulu, Hawaii. June 24-27, 2007. American Society for Engineering Education.

11.

Crittenden, K., et al. First-year design experience: assemblin the "big picture" through innovative product
design. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Austin, TX. June 14-17, 2009. American Society for
Engineering Education.

12.

Hall, D., et al. Living with the lab: a curriculum to prepare freshman students to meet the attributes of "the
Engineer of 2020". ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 22-25, 2008. American
Society for Engineering Education.

13.

Hegab, H. and D. Hall. Microfabrication of a resistant temperature detector by freshman engineering

students. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Saratoga Springs, NY. October 22-25, 2008, IEEE.

14.

Durfee, W.K., Mechatronics for the masses: a hands-on project for a large, introductory design class.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 2003. 19(4): p. 593-596.

15.

Durfee, W.K., P. Li, and D. Waletzko. At-home system and controls laboratories. ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition. Portland, Oregon. June 12-15, 2005. American Society for Engineering Education.

16.

Maher, R.C., et al. Development and implementation of a robot-based freshman engineering course. ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition. Portland, Oregon. June 12-15, 2005.

17.

Mauer, G.F. Mobile robot design in an introductory engineering course. ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. Seattle, Washington. ASME.

18.

Meah, K., et al. An automated bottle filling and capping project for freshman engineering students. ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition. Louiseville, Kentucky. June 20-23, 2010. American Society for
Engineering Education.

19.

Sarik, J. and I. Kymissis. Lab kits using the arduino prototyping platform. Frontiers in Education.
Washington, DC. October 27-30 2010. ASEE/IEEE.

20.

Parallax Inc. [cited 17 January 2011]; Available from: http://www.parallax.com.

21.

Adafruit Industries. [cited 17 January 2011; Available from: http://www.adafruit.com.

22.

Arduino Project. [cited 17 January 2011]; Available from: http://www.arduino.cc.

23.

Maker SHED. [cited 17 January 2011]; Available from: http://www.makershed.com.

24.

Sparkfun Electronics. [cited 17 January 2011]; Available from: http://www.spakfun.com.

25.

Lindsay, A., Robotics with the Boe-Bot. 2004, Rocklin, California: Parallax, Inc.

26.

Watson, D., Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale. Sociological
Methods & Research, 1992. 21(1): p. 5288.

27.

Chajewski, M. [cited 17 January 2011]; Available from: http://www.chajewski.com/.

28.

Banzi, M., Getting Started with Arduino. 2008, Sebastapol, California: O'Reilly.

29.

Boxall, J. Getting Started with Arduino. 2011 [cited 19 January 2011]; Available from:
http://tronixstuff.wordpress.com/tutorials/.

30.

Fried, L. Arduino Tutorial. 2011 [cited 19 January 2011]; Available from:

http://www.ladyada.net/learn/arduino/.

Appendix A: Glossary
PWM

Pulse-width modulation. PWM is a method of using a digital (0 to 5V, say) pulses

of varying width to control electrical loads having a slow response relative to the
frequency of the pulses. Typically, the pulses are sent a fixed frequency. As the
width of the non-zero pulses increases, the effective voltage level experienced by
the load increases.

ADC

Analog to digital conversion or analog to digital converter, also abbreviated A/D.

A continuous (analog) signal is digitized by storing the discrete values of the
signal at a fixed time interval.

Analog input
A continuous (and therefore analog) electrical signal received by an ADC
converter. The signal from a sensor is a typical analog input.
Digital output An electrical signal sent as a signal from one device to another device such
that the voltage level is interpreted as either a 1 or a zero, i.e. as a binary value.
Microcontroller A single-chip, integrated circuit devices that can be programmed to read
electrical signals (input) and send electrical signals (output).
GND

Electrical ground corresponding to zero volts. Voltages are always relative. The
ground voltage (or ground plane) is a shared reference level for all components in
an interconnected circuit.

USB

Universal serial bus. USB is a widely used means of communication between

digital devices. For example, most computer keyboards and mice are connted to
our computer via USB cables.

Appendix B: End-of-term survey at Portland State University

This survey designed to measure your confidence, career interest, and attitude toward the
material covered in EAS 199A. Your answers to these questions will not affect your grade, and
will not be associated with you personally in any way. This information will be used to help us
improve the class and to share what we have learned from this class with our colleagues at
Portland State University and other universities.
____________________________________________
I understand that my choice to complete this survey will not affect my grade in EAS 199A.
I am voluntarily participating in this survey.
____________________________________________
Please circle the word or phrase that best completes the opening statement, or that expresses your
agreement with the opening statement.
1. Overall, this class has increased my interest in engineering or computer science.
strongly
disagree

disagree

neither
agree nor
disagree

agree

strongly
agree

2. Because of my experience in this class, I am more likely to continue taking courses toward a degree
in engineering or computer science.
strongly
disagree

disagree

neither
agree nor
disagree

agree

strongly
agree

3. Because of my experience in this class, my interest in Mechanical Engineering has

decreased
a lot

decreased

not changed

increased

increased
a lot

4. The hands-on experience in this class has caused my interest in engineering or computer science to
decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

5. The hands-on experience in this class has caused my confidence in my ability to succeed in
engineering or computer science to
decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

6. This class has caused my understanding of engineering design to

decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

7. Working with the Arduino microcontroller has caused my interest in programming to

decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

8. Working with the Arduino microcontroller has caused my interest in electromechanical systems to
decrease
a lot
9

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

The manufacturing and fabrication experience in this class has caused my motivation for school work
to
decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

10. The manufacturing and fabrication experience in this class has caused my practical knowledge of the
engineering profession to
decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

11. The in-class exercises, such as programming, working with breadboard circuits, fabrication has
caused my motivation to study math, physics and chemistry to
decrease
a lot

decrease

not change

increase

increase
a lot

12. If the instructor were going to change one thing to improve the course, what would that be?

13. What is the best aspect of the course the one thing that should not be changed?

14. Other comments