See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236577446

Robots for Education

Chapter · January 2008

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_56

CITATIONS READS

118 6,651

3 authors, including:

David P Miller Roland Siegwart

University of Oklahoma ETH Zurich
164 PUBLICATIONS 3,271 CITATIONS 799 PUBLICATIONS 54,632 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roland Siegwart on 13 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1283

Robots for Ed
David P. Miller, Illah R. Nourbakhsh, Roland Siegwart
55. Robots for Education

55.1 The Role of Robots in Education............. 1284

This chapter provides an overview of the key in-
55.1.1 Interest in Science and Engineering 1284
gredients that make successful education robots
55.1.2 Teamwork ................................... 1284
possible. Two very popular outlets for public in-
55.1.3 Problem Solving ........................... 1284
teraction with robots are the robot tournament
and the informal learning venue (e.g., the science 55.2 Educational Robot Tournaments ............ 1285
museum). Section 55.2 provides a survey of the 55.2.1 Origins ........................................ 1285
very popular world of robot-themed tournaments, 55.2.2 A Taxonomy of Robot Tournaments. 1285
which have already impacted tens of thousands of 55.2.3 The Entertainment Link................. 1286
students across diverse geographic and age group 55.2.4 Tournaments for Education ........... 1287
boundaries [55.1–5]. Section 55.5 provides an 55.3 Education Robot Platforms .................... 1287
overview of robotic installations in informal learn-
55.4 Education Robot Controllers
ing spaces. Robotic technology has now proven to
and Programming Environments ........... 1290
have sufficient robustness and engagement to be
55.4.1 Robot Controllers ......................... 1290
a principal component of interactive exhibitry for 55.4.2 Edutainment Programming
a new generation of hands-on, active-learning Environments .............................. 1292
museums [55.6].
To make interactive, educational robots suc- 55.5 Robots
cessful, a new level of technology robustness and Informal Learning Venues (Museums)1292
and standardization is required, and significant 55.5.1 Tour-Guide Robot Examples .......... 1292
progress has been made on this front in the past
55.5.2 Lessons Learned ........................... 1295
decade. Educational robot devices consist of both 55.6 Educational Evaluation
hardware (preassembled or as kits or compo- of Robot Programs................................ 1296
nents) and software (both as source code and 55.6.1 Design-Time Assessment ............... 1296

Part F 55
programming environments). Section 55.3 dis- 55.6.2Formative
cusses physical robot platforms that have achieved and Summative Evaluation............ 1296
notable success, while Sect. 55.4 describes both 55.7 Conclusions and Further Reading ........... 1298
low-level controllers that interface those plat-
forms to high-level computation, as well as the References .................................................. 1298
top-level programming environments themselves.
Finally, an important class of tool in the study
and execution of educational robotic systems is the marizes the manner in which conventional analyt-
ability to evaluate the efficacy of a robot system ical tools may be used to evaluate unconventional
formally in an educational context. Numerous educational programs that tap robotic tech-
tools from human–computer interaction, cognitive nologies as learning tools across a variety of
psychology, and education have demonstrated ages and in both formal and informal learning
their usefulness in this regard. Section 55.6 sum- venues.

In recent years robots have penetrated the educa- that demonstrate the state of the art in robotic tech-
tion market, both as motivational tools for research nologies. The newest education robots, and even
programmes and as concrete, real-world deployments entertainment robots to some degree, share the no-
1284 Part F Field and Service Robotics

table feature of human–robot interaction with the specialist; they interact with individuals and groups
general public. In contrast to a space exploration robot with the goal of inspiring learning, providing en-
or a nuclear cleanup robot, these newest, interactive gaging recreation, and even providing therapeutic
robots do not function solely with the well-trained value.

55.1 The Role of Robots in Education

Education is itself a broad area of application for knowledge about the technology artifacts on which so-
robotics, with a rich history that started at least with ciety depends so completely. Demonstrated learning
notions of active learning disseminated by Seymour Pa- themes in educational analyses include the following.
pert and others [55.7]. Karel the Robot still serves as
a metaphor for concrete activity in numerous introduc- 55.1.1 Interest in Science and Engineering
tory programming courses. Karel the Robot is merely
an on-screen simulation of a two-dimensional robotic The study of robotics can be sufficiently rewarding,
world. This first of three roles that robots can play in intellectually and emotionally, as to generate general
the educational setting is the robot as a programming enthusiasm for the follow-on study of science and en-
project. The robotic system is a focus of problem set as- gineering. Some educational robotics programs have
signments, a black box to be programmed in order to shown promise in increasing retention rates among fe-
create a concrete physical manifestation of the art of male students [55.22, 23], who are underrepresented in
computer programming. Numerous studies have shown technology-focused fields.
that poor engagement and retention statistics in courses
such as Introduction to Programming (CS1) often stem 55.1.2 Teamwork
from students’ inability to see how the skills they learn
can have a concrete impact on what they care about: their An important result of team-based project-based robotic
physical world, their friends, and family. Physical robot building experiences is that those with low self-esteem
programming projects can cast coding problems into the in their technology capability, teamwork skills, and
real world, making those skills push back on one’s world, communication skills can find measured improvement,
and thereby achieve a level of significance and engage- leading to mitigation of fear towards working in teams
ment that, for instance, computation of the Fibonacci on high-technology ventures [55.19, 21].
sequence on a computer screen cannot inspire [55.8–16].
The second role for educational robotics is that 55.1.3 Problem Solving
Part F 55.1

of the robot as a learning focus. Mechatronics-style

courses can focus on the creation and use of a physi- The study of a systems engineering phenomena – a com-
cal robot as a goal in and of itself. Robots do this by plex robot system – provides lessons in hierarchy, risk
stimulating general interest in science, technology, and mitigation, planning and diagnosis that far outweighs
engineering, and thereby show students that they can the benefits of silo-driven, single-topic explorations of
have an active role in shaping technology in their future. debugging and problem analysis. The resulting problem
Such an application-oriented class has great benefits solving and decomposition skills have lifelong applica-
in cases where students learn best through integrative, bility to any complex system, see e.g., [55.7].
project-oriented learning, and such classes have demon- The third role for educational robots is that of the
strated significant lifelong-learning results in areas such robot as a learning collaborator. In this case students
as teamwork, problem-solving, and self-identification are not designing robots, but rather conducting inquiry
with technology-focused careers [55.7, 17–21]. In the during which a high-functioning robot can serve as
United States, the National Academy of Engineering has an all-season companion, aide, and even intellectual
identified trends reporting dropping technology literacy foil [55.24, 25]. Robots that have social capabilities are
as troubling phenomena throughout the nation. Pro- well suited in this regard, and this is an area where the
grams that reconnect students with complex mechatronic potential for application greatly outweighs what has,
systems, providing the self-empowerment for lifelong, so far, been achieved. There are two reasons why such
active relationships to technology artifacts, serve as one a social role for robots in education holds particular
possible avenue to stem this dangerous trend away from promise. First, because of their novelty, robots can in-
 Robots for Education 55.2 Educational Robot Tournaments 1285

spire dedication in learning, just as is possible in the portionate interest in mechanical systems [55.24, 26].
case of the above two roles. Second, students have few In all cases the interaction can itself be a form of
preconceived expectations for the behavior of robots. In discovery and engagement quite different from tradi-
therapeutic cases, such as students with autism spectrum tional, more staid educational methods, and thus this
disorder (ASD), the robot can play an important role, as can even border on the application area of entertainment
studies have shown that those students place dispro- robotics.

55.2 Educational Robot Tournaments

Competition catches people’s attention and makes them For our purposes here we will us the following quali-
want to get involved. This is true in almost all fields of ties.
endeavor. In education, competitions are commonplace
from spelling bees to science fairs. Over the past 20 years Autonomy
robotic competitions have also come into their own; The level of autonomous action that robots exhibit dur-
garnering the level of attention from students, teach- ing a tournament varies widely. Some tournaments are
ers, and parents previously found almost exclusively in completely radio controlled (e.g., BEST TM [55.28]) with
more traditional sports. no independent actions or decisions being undertaken by
In this section we provide a brief history of robot the ‘robots’ in the tournament. In other contests, the ma-
tournaments, look at some of the popular current tour- chines are teleoperated – still under real-time control by
naments, and overview how they are being used to their operators, but doing some processing on the com-
supplement standard educational curricula. mands, and sometimes mixing in feedback from onboard
sensors (e.g., FIRST  r [55.5]). Autonomous robot con-
55.2.1 Origins tests have little or no interaction by the robot operators,
but even in completely autonomous robot contests there
In 1970 professor H. H. Richardson adopted MIT’s is a spectrum. Some autonomous robots simply replay
Introduction to Design Course (course 2.70), in the Me- a canned set of actions – operating completely open loop.
chanical Engineering (ME) department, and transformed Others control all of their actions based on feedback
it into a design contest. He had the students work in from onboard sensors, and still others learn as they go,
teams to design and create machines that would be op- modifying not only their actions, but their internal pro-
erated by the students to compete against one another. gramming as well. One generalization that can be made
As the course evolved over the years, and under new with regards to robot tournaments and education is that

Part F 55.2
instructors, it became both popular and famous. a contest that is more autonomous usually has more ed-
Several students in the Electrical Engineering and ucational content in the areas of software/programming,
Computer Science department at MIT, envious of while contests with little or no autonomy emphasize the
the ME course decided to create their own, more mechanical design and physical implementation aspects
autonomous version of both the course and the con- of robotics.
test. Since 1987, MIT students have held the 6.270
course during the intercession between the fall and Performance Versus Opposition
spring semesters. While initially simulation, by 1991 Some robotics tournaments are based on ranking the
the contest involved untethered autonomous robots in absolute performance of the robot against the course.
a head-to-head elimination tournament [55.27]. While Other tournaments have contestants ranked based on
only open to MIT students and, with the exception of the their triumph over a series of specific opponents. In the
occasional documentary, poorly publicized, these two latter case, it does not matter how well the victorious
courses have become the models for many teleoperated robot performs in a given round, as long as it performs
machine contests and robot contests around the world. better than its opponent for that round. Trinity Col-
lege’s Firefighting Robot Contest [55.29] (TCFFHRC)
55.2.2 A Taxonomy of Robot Tournaments ranks teams by how quickly they can carry out the task
(locating and extinguishing a candle) and is an exam-
There are many possible ways to distinguish the multi- ple of a performance-based tournament. The scoring in
tude of activities often lumped together as robot contests. RoboCup Junior Dance [55.3] is more subjective, but is
1286 Part F Field and Service Robotics

still based on individual performance against an absolute a new system for the new task, and has the same amount
scale. Sumo contests such as [55.30] are opposition- of time to do so [55.4]. As with all of these dimensions,
based tournaments sometimes known as head-to-head. there is no clear advantage of one methodology over the
Performance-based contests allow robot designers to other. Some educators prefer to have a new activity every
implement more intricate strategies, since the environ- year to help keep themselves and their students engaged.
ment is more predictable than if there were an opposing Others prefer to have the same game every year, with
robot running amok through the course. In oppositional the accompanying wealth of lessons learned and how-to
tournaments, robots must be designed to cope with the guides that process makes available.
actions of their opponents. Both types of tournaments Table 55.1 presents a number of established robot
have their merits and each allows detailed problem tournaments using this taxonomy, although this is not
solving. In theory, most people find head-to-head tourna- a complete listing. Readers interested in finding out more
ments more exciting and entertaining. However, as with information about a particular tournament should con-
traditional human sumo, head-to-head tournaments of- sult the cited website. All of the tournaments below are
ten involve head-to-head collisions followed by lengthy, for students, though the age eligibility and level of adult
and less exciting, periods of robots trying to push or involvement varies widely between the events.
disentangle themselves from their opponents.
55.2.3 The Entertainment Link
Heritage: Fixed Game
Versus New Game Every Year Tournaments are used (rather than a course assignment
Is it more educational for students to examine how oth- or demonstration) in part because of their entertain-
ers have tried to solve a problem and then build on ment value. A tournament is hopefully engaging to
that to create their own incremental solution? Or is it both the participants and the audience. However, the en-
better for students to tackle something new, without tertainment value of a tournament may not be linked
extensive examination of precedent? The educational to the technical sophistication of the robots. Battle-
community does not have a definitive answer, but dif- bots r and its variations have been very successful as
ferent robot tournaments can be used to support the mass market entertainment. These robots are typically
educational methodology of choice. Tournaments such radio controlled, and while sometimes mechanically so-
as Robocup [55.32] are prime example of tournaments phisticated, they are computationally simplistic. The
with a long heritage. In addition to the game and rules Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intel-
being well known (derived from soccer) and essen- ligence (AAAI) mobile robot contest [55.34] usually
tially remaining unchanged from year to year, there are has very computationally sophisticated robots – how-
a number of annual publications (e.g., [55.33]) that de- ever that sophistication usually has an accompanying
Part F 55.2

tail successful robots and techniques used in that year’s decrease in audience entertainment value. AAAI robots
contests. Robocup is a study in steady incremental im- strive to do what everyday humans easily do – go to spe-
provement. Other contests, such as the Botball r robot cific places, manipulate household objects, give talks,
tournament, use a different game every year. One of the and answer questions, but the robots tend to be much
motivations for doing this is so that established teams slower than humans performing these activities. Bat-
obtain the game rules at the same time as new teams tlebots do what humans are not allowed to do — use
– so whether experienced or not, everyone has to build power tools and blunt instruments to demolish their op-

Table 55.1 Examples of different types of robot tournaments

Tournament Web Autonomy Contest type Heritage Notes
BEST [55.28] Radio control (R/C) Head to Head (HtH) New
Botball [55.1] Autonomous HtH + Points New Multiple robots per entry
FIRST [55.5] Teleop HtH New Students teamed with engineers
Micro Maze [55.31] R/C to auton. Time. Fixed Cubic cm robots
Sumo [55.30] R/C to auton. HtH Fixed Divisions based on weight & autonomy
RoboCup [55.32] Autonomous HtH Fixed Teams of robots
RC Jr. Dance [55.3] Autonomous Points N/A Very free form
TCFFHRC [55.29] Autonomous Time Fixed Random placement of fire
 Robots for Education 55.3 Education Robot Platforms 1287

Fig. 55.1 Middle-school students present their paper at the National Conference on Educational Robotics (NCER)/Botball
conference and then have their autonomous machine-vision-guided robots score points in the tournament

ponents. In robot tournaments, as in the movie business, for that purpose. Others use some of the tournaments
violence is often more entertaining then demonstrations mentioned in Table 55.1 as projects for their curric-
of intellectual ability and human activity. ula [55.37].
However, the bulk or robot tournaments are aimed
55.2.4 Tournaments for Education at middle- and high-school students. Here the motiva-
tion is not so much to teach detailed skills as to spark
Professional organizations such as the AAAI, Institute creativity while at the same time emphasizing basic
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and oth- concepts and an appreciation for the fundamentals of sci-
ers often hold tournaments for their student members ence, technology, education, and mathematics [55.38].
at their major conferences. For these organizations, the Some tournaments have added activities such as docu-
purpose of the tournament is to attract students to attend mentation, presentation, reports, and even tests [55.39]
the conference and become active in the organizations. to reinforce and expand upon these fundamentals
The activity of building the robot also sharpens the stu- (Fig. 55.1). To assist educators in guiding the students,
dents’ skills and gets them excited about technologies many tournaments have curriculum materials linked to

Part F 55.3
and businesses linked to that organization and motivates their activities. National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
them to pursue relevant degrees [55.35]. ministration (NASA) has collected links to many of
Many universities and colleges use robot tourna- these materials and made them available on the In-
ments as part of their curricula. Some create class ternet [55.40]. Evaluating the effectiveness of these
tournaments (e.g., MIT 6.270) or use standard games materials and programs in meeting their educational
such as Beyond Botball [55.36] that are distributed goals is the subject of Sect. 55.6.

55.3 Education Robot Platforms

Education robot platforms fall into one of two main Other less sophisticated but still precise and expensive
categories. The first is the research platform. These ex- platforms are used as the basis for the museum robots
pensive, precision robot platforms were built to support discussed in Sect. 55.5.
research in robotics and related disciplines, or as re- A second class of education platforms (and the ones
search projects in their own right. Many of the humanoid to be discussed in this section) are lower-cost robot plat-
robots discussed elsewhere in these volumes are exam- forms, or platform kits. These platforms are inexpensive,
ples of this. These robots, such as Honda’s Asimo, are exist in large numbers, and are widely used in schools
used for advanced research as well as for entertainment. and by hobbyists.
1288 Part F Field and Service Robotics

a) b) c)

Fig. 55.2 (a) Hero-1, (b) Hemisson, and (c) Amigobot

Education robots really got their start in the early exception consumer robots that were supposed to be
1980s with the introduction of the Heathkit Hero-1 neither educational nor entertaining.
(Fig. 55.2a). Hero robots were sold as kits, both to keep K-Team [55.41] is one of the few companies mak-
the price down and to encourage users to learn how ing robot platforms specifically for the education market.
robots were made. However, while detailed assembly The Hemisson (Fig. 55.2b) is a low-cost, less compact
instructions were included, no information on the the- version of K-Team’s Khepera research robot. It has
ory or principles behind the assembly were given; the reduced computational power and few sensors when
kits, by themselves, did not provide a satisfactory ed- compared to most research robots, but is priced and de-
ucational experience. Unfortunately, neither the Hero signed for robotics classes in secondary and university
robots, nor several other similarly sized and priced per- classes. Activemedia is the other research robot com-
sonal robots that came out in the 1980s, reached a level pany that produces lower-cost educational robots. Their
of capability and ease of use to attract an economically Amigobot platform is shown in Fig. 55.2c.
viable customer base. Heathkit and the other companies The LEGO r Mindstorms RCX was the first robotic
have since gone out of business. platform from the LEGO company, and has had broad
In the intervening years several other companies appeal across many demographics. The LEGO com-
have tried to make personal robot systems. Many of these putation systems are discussed in Sect. 55.4. However
companies started with more capable research robots. the LEGO blocks themselves have been a mechanical
With few exceptions, these companies have faded away prototyping system for robots long before LEGO ever in-
Part F 55.3

or gone into other markets. Most of the companies now troduced their own controllers. The LEGO bricks make
mass marketing education robots do so as a side busi- RCX a good tool for early and fast robotic explorations.
ness. The primary business for most of these companies The newly released LEGO robot system, Mindstorms
is consumer electronics, toys, and with one noticeable NXT (Fig. 55.3a) has a new processor and some new sen-

a) b) c)

Fig. 55.3 (a) LEGO NXT, (b) PPRK, and (c) e-puck robots
 Robots for Education 55.3 Education Robot Platforms 1289

a) b) c)

Fig. 55.4 (a) Garcia, (b) ER1, and (c) KHR-1 robots

sors, but relies on the popular LEGO Technics building tool for education in technical schools and universi-
system for all of the mechanics. ties.
The Palm Pilot Robot Kit (PPRK) platform [55.42] The Garcia robot from Acroname [55.44]
(Fig. 55.3b) is a low-cost kit combining a mobile (Fig. 55.4a) is a small-size platform (25 cm × 18 cm ×
base and a personal digital assistant (PDA), origi- 10 cm) that can be extended with a XScale-based board.
nally a PALM Pilot. The PALM provides computational It is sufficiently small to develop experiments in small
power and a graphical user interface for robot con- environments and yet this robot is sufficiently large for
trol, and communicates with lower-level robot driver diverse payloads, including a small manipulator mech-
circuitry via the PALM’s serial port. The result is anism and an array of sensors.
a very compact omnidirectional platform with three dis- The ER1 robot from Evolution Robotics [55.45]
tance sensors (in its basic configuration) that constitutes (Fig. 55.4b) constitutes a simple extruded aluminum
a starter kit for those who want to begin by building their frame kit supporting a laptop and equipped with stepper
own robot from kit parts. motors and wheels. This robot focuses interaction on the
E-puck [55.43] (Fig. 55.3c) is the first desktop robot onboard laptop, enabling onboard computation as well
(70 mm in diameter) based on an open-hardware con- as onboard vision via a universal serial bus (USB)-based
cept. Equipped in its basic version with a diverse sensor camera. This robot system, which is going out of produc-
package (three-dimensional accelerometer, proximity tion, comes with a sophisticated software environment
sensors, three microphones, color camera), several ac- for navigation and visual recognition of artifacts in the

Part F 55.3
tuators (stepper motors, speakers and numerous LEDs), robot’s field of view.
Bluetooth r communication and a good processor ca- The KHR-1 [55.46] (Fig. 55.4a) is an initial hu-
pable of signal processing (dsPIC family), it is relatively manoid robot at an affordable price, based on a set of 17
inexpensive due to its simple mechanics. It is a desirable servomotors. The growing family of humanoid robots

a) b) c)

Fig. 55.5 (a) Robosapien, (b) Roomba, and (c) Create robots
1290 Part F Field and Service Robotics

still depends upon large numbers of servo actuators and as a platform, and starting in 2005, iRobot responded
very few sensors; however, due to the draw of humanoid to requests and included an exposed serial port and
robots, these kits are nonetheless excellent motivational released an application programming interface (API)
tools. for controlling the Roomba and reading its sensors
Robsapien [55.47] is a popular toy humanoid robot from an external computer [55.49]. A community of
(Fig. 55.5b). Because this is an infrared (IR)-controlled Roomba hackers has come into existence using Room-
toy, using the IR link from a computer or PDA is rel- bas for everything from musical instrument digital
atively straightforward. Some hobbyists have hacked interface (MIDI) devices to security robots [55.50].
deeper into the system so that the Robosapien can be Many schools are adopting the Roomba, combined
used as a fully fledged computer controllable robot with one of the controllers described in Sect. 55.4.1,
platform. as a platform for classes and experimentation. A new
The iRobot r Roomba r [55.48] (Fig. 55.5c) is product, the iRobot CreateTM was released in 2007.
a mass-produced, inexpensive household vacuum robot This product is a Roomba without the vacuum or
(33 cm × 33 cm × 7 cm). With millions sold, the Roomba brushes, but with additional interfaces to encourage
is currently the most common robot in the world. experimentation. The iRobot Create can be purchased
The Roomba was not initially meant to be an edu- with a processor of its own or easily interfaced with
cation robot – but rather a service robot doing dirty robot processors such as the XBC [55.51] or small
and dull work. However, much like the Robosapien, low-power general-purpose processors such as the Gum-
the robot hobbyists quickly started using the Roomba stixTM [55.52, 53].

55.4 Education Robot Controllers and Programming Environments

Education and entertainment activities in robotics some- 55.4.1 Robot Controllers
times run at cross purposes. For entertainment we want
robots that are active and very easy to use and to con- The venerable HC11 is a single-chip processor with
trol. Products like the LEGO Mindstorms provide both small amounts of onboard flash and random-access
a robot controller and a programming environment that memory (RAM) memory. It also has a number of in-
meets those criteria. put/outputs (I/O) and timing ports that make it relatively
However, when it comes to robot education, it is easy to interface to sensors and external devices. The 8-
important to remember that in most cases we are us- bit HC11 uses the same instruction set as the Motorola
Part F 55.4

ing robots to inspire and motivate students to learn 6800 series of processors, which have been in existence
many things, of which robotics is just one. Robotics in one form or another for more than three decades.
educators, especially at the K-12 (students aged approx-
imately 5–18 years level, are hoping to teach students
general science, programming, math, and engineering
techniques. The toy programming environments used in
some products such as Mindstorms may be inappropriate
for this mission.
This section overviews some of the popular robot
controllers and programming environments. Usually the
two are linked, but there are some environments that
work with several different controllers and vice versa.
As with the robot tournaments described in
Sect. 55.2, many of the robot controllers and their pro-
gramming environments in use for tournaments and by
hobbyists can trace their origins back to the MIT 6.270
course [55.27]. At an even more fundamental level, the
origin of most robot controller starts with the Motorola
68HC11 processor. Fig. 55.6 The HandyBoard with its expansion board
 Robots for Education 55.4 Education Robot Controllers and Programming Environments 1291

The HC11 was used by Anita Flynn and Joe Jones

in a board for the MIT robot talent show in 1991, which a) b)
spawned the Book Board [55.54], the MIT 6.270 board,
and Fred Martin’s Handyboard. The last of these became
the de facto high-end robot controller for hobbyists and
autonomous robot contests for most of the 1990s.
The Handyboard (Fig. 55.6) can provide pulse-width
modulation (PWM) control for four direct-current (DC)
motors, read eight digital and eight analog sensors, con-
trol a couple of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and has Fig. 55.7 (a) The BASIC Stamp 2 and (b) the LEGO RCX
a 32-character display. With the expansion board, eight
lines of digital.input-output (DIO) and control for six a) b)
R/C servos is also added. The Handyboard can be pro-
grammed using 6811 assembly language and several
other languages including Java and C.
The other low-cost commercial robot controller in
widespread use throughout the 1990s was the BASIC
Stamp [55.55] (Fig. 55.7). This programmable interrupt
controller computer (PIC)-based controller could be pro-
grammed in a special (often assembly language-like)
Fig. 55.8 (a) The OOPic Controller and (b) the Brainstem
version of the BASIC language. While very small in
MotoBoard
memory, and usually requiring supplementary electron-
ics for most sensors and actuators, the Stamp was very
popular because of its low cost and flexibility. a) b)
In the late 1990s, spurred on in large part by the
growing interest in robot tournaments, a renaissance
in robot controller hardware started making available
a number of controllers ranging from advanced PICs
to full-blown personal computers (PCs). A sampling of
some of the controllers now available is presented in
Fig. 55.8
The RCX (Fig. 55.7) and its successor, the soon to Fig. 55.9 (a) The Black Fin Handy board and (b) the Xport

Part F 55.4
be released NXT (Fig. 55.3a), are widely available con- Botball Controller (XBC) with camera
trollers from LEGO. These are very easy to interface
to the special sensors and motors produced by LEGO, much, but not all, of the interface electronics needed to
using variations of LEGO’s brick interface. However, get a robot up and going.
this simplicity of use makes it more difficult to connect Acroname’s Brainstem system [55.57] (Fig. 55.8)
to other sensors and motors. These foolproof interfaces uses a small reduced-instruction-set computer (RISC)
also take up a lot of physical space, limiting the con- processor to create a low-cost modular controller. Mod-
trollers to just a few sensors and actuators. While the ules are linked over an inter-integrated-circuit (IIC) bus.
central processing units (CPUs) are relatively powerful, The Brainstem is programmed in the tiny embedded
most of this horsepower remains unused because of the application (TEA) language, a variant subset of the C
limitations of the interface. However, these controllers language.
are not very expensive, are mass produced, and require For more capability including proportional–
absolutely no knowledge of electronics, mechanics (or integral–derivative (PID) motor control and vision
when using LEGO’s software) programming in order to processing there are controllers such as KIPR and
get them to control simple robots. Charmed Labs, XBC [55.58] (Fig. 55.9), and the Black-
For the more technically inclined hobbyist or stu- fin Handy Board [55.59] (Fig. 55.9). Both of these
dent, but one on a stricter budget, there are the PIC-based boards share the same basic architecture of a RISC pro-
controllers. The OOPic system [55.56] (Fig. 55.8), uses cessor combined with a field-programmable gate array
an object-oriented programming system, and includes (FPGA). The FPGA comes preprogrammed with a va-
1292 Part F Field and Service Robotics

riety of useful functions (e.g., motor control) but can be other language implementations specific to one or more
reconfigured if desired. The processor runs user code of the processors above.
and uses the FPGA to handle hardware-related library One the most popular (because it runs on many of the
calls. Both of these boards contain ports for connect- processors and under all major operating systems and is
ing with complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor free) is Interactive C or IC [55.61]. IC provides a fully
(CMOS) cameras. integrated development environment (IDE) including an
The XBC uses a Nintendo GameBoy Advance as editor, compiler/interpreter and controller simulator. IC
part of its architecture to provide processor, display, and implements a subset of American National Standards
user buttons. This provides the user with a color graphics Institute (ANSI) C, the primary missing functionality
screen on the robot that can be used for displaying text being in pointer arithmetic. Other differences between
and images and for setting parameters. This is especially IC and and standard C are there to protect the novice
useful for tuning vision parameters, as the camera output user (e.g., IC performs array bounds checking during
(processed or raw) can be redirected to the screen. runtime).
IC also has an interpreted interaction window which
55.4.2 Edutainment Programming allows the user to try out C expressions or function calls,
Environments query global variables, etc. either to the actual hardware
or to the hardware simulator. The IC environment also
Many of the lower-priced controllers (e.g., BASIC provides utilities such as uploading global array data
Stamp) have limited options for programming environ- from the robot hardware to the PC, providing mem-
ments, while the higher-end controllers such as the XBC ory maps of the program on the controller, colorization,
can accept cross-compiled programs in most languages. block-level indentation, and interactive documentation
The LEGO processors are shipped with a graphical from the editor. The IC runtime environment provides
programming environment. While sometimes limiting library functionality for multithreading.
in what can be programmed, the environment is highly IC is used regularly in a number of the robotics tour-
intuitive. A more capable (and not quite as intuitive) naments described in Sect. 55.1. It is also being widely
graphical programming environment based on Lab- used in introductory programming courses [55.62]
VIEW has been created for the LEGO processors and robotics courses [55.63] and for more advanced courses
has been used in a number of schools [55.60]. such as in the teaching of neural nets and control [55.64].
For educational environments where the robotics ex- IC uses a virtual machine model that runs on the pro-
perience is serving as an introduction to programming, cessor, allowing it to be ported to new robot controllers
there are a few good choices. There are Java, C, and with relative ease.
Part F 55.5

55.5 Robots and Informal Learning Venues (Museums)

Robots are objects of great attraction and can have their time, more recent tour robots offer a much richer
a large number of modalities for establishing a strong interaction and are able to navigate in the somewhat
interaction with humans. It is therefore not surpris- more complex and dynamic environment of museums
ing that one of the first applications of mobile robots and exhibitions. One of the first examples of these
have been robot guides in research labs and later in next-generation tour-guide robot prototypes is Jijo-2,
museums and exhibitions. SHAKEY (Fig. 55.10a), de- demonstrated in the late 1990s [55.67] (Fig. 55.10c).
veloped at SRI in the early 1980s is often considered the However, it was operated under laboratory conditions
first mobile robot [55.65]. It was able to move wooden and only by people that were more or less familiar with
blocks according to verbal commands given via a key- the robot.
board. Probably the first robot exposed to untrained
visitors was POLLY, developed to give simple lab tours 55.5.1 Tour-Guide Robot Examples
at MIT’s artificial intelligence (AI) laboratory in the
early 1990s [55.66]. The only communication input was The first real tour-guide robot, called Rhino, was de-
vision; visitors waved their feet if they wanted a lab ployed for six days in the Deutsches Museum in Bonn
tour. Whereas these early solutions were landmarks in during the summer of 1997. It was freely navigating
 Robots for Education 55.5 Robots and Informal Learning Venues (Museums) 1293

Fig. 55.10a,b The SHAKEY Robot

a) b) developed in the 60-ties at SRI (a) and
Antenne for
radio link the Jijo-2 Robot giving a tour at
the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology
Television
camera
(AIST) (b)
Range finder

On-board
logic
Camera
control unit

Bump
detector

Custer
wheel

Drive motor Drive wheel

and equipped with speech synthesis (output) and buttons Internet from remote sites. According to a study, peo-
for user input. The robot’s main tasks were to get peo- ple perceived the robot’s intelligence similar to that of
ple involved and to support them in navigating through a dog. This basic experience was further expanded in
the environment. The experience gained in this short- a European project towards two installations of tour-
term installation showed a strong need for enhanced guide robots enabling telepresence in museums and
human–robot interaction [55.68] (Fig. 55.11a). fairs [55.70]. The robot Albert, developed in this project,
A first step towards a more appealing interaction was equipped with a commercially available speech
was realized with Minerva, which was operated for recognition system that enabled on-site visitors to give
two weeks in late summer 1998 in the Smithsoni- spoken commands.
an’s National Museum of History, Washington DC, Hermes is a robot from the Universität der Bun-
USA [55.69] (Fig. 55.11b). One version of Minerva deswehr München that was demonstrated at various fairs
was equipped with a caricature face (eyes, eyebrows, and exhibitions in 2001 and 2002 [55.71] (Fig. 55.12a).
mouth), enabling it to appear to express its feelings Equipped with two arms, Hermes is able to conduct
and entertain the visitors. In addition to on-site in- simple fetch and carry tasks. However, his mobility was

Part F 55.5
teraction, Minerva was accessible for tours via the typically limited to a very small and well-structured area.

a) b)

Fig. 55.11a,b Rhino (a), (University of Bonn) and Minerva (b), (Carnegie Mellon University, University of Bonn)
1294 Part F Field and Service Robotics

hanced audiovisual interface. The robots primary goal

a) b) was to attract visitors to less frequented areas and to
enhance the learning rate during the visit. They were
conceived as educators offering background informa-
tion about the exhibition through their audiovisual touch
screen. A study done along with the installation of
Chips showed that the learning success rate increased
by more than 50% when visitors (children and adults)
were guided by the robot through the exhibition [55.72].
The Inciting, the Instructive, and the Twiddling
robots were developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for
Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) in
Stuttgart (Fig. 55.13) [55.74]. These very appealing
robots use old-fashioned technology elements such as
a mechanical scale, as design elements, and have been
running in the Communication Museum of Berlin since
Fig. 55.12a,b Chips developed at Carnegie Mellon Uni- 2000. They attract and greet visitors (The Inciting), of-
versity (a) and Hermes, a humanoid interaction robot fer introductions to the museum (The Instructive), and
developed at Universität der Bundeswehr München (b) play with a big ball (The Twiddling). They have no
input device to give commands, but are very expres-
Using an off-board microphone, Hermes was able to get sive and playful through their appearance and body
simple spoken commands based on keywords. motions.
The first robots deployed in a museum for a long The largest installation of tour-guide robots, in terms
period were Chips (Fig. 55.12b) and its successors of number of robots and accumulated operation hours,
SWEETLIPS and JOE, developed by Carnegie Mellon was realized with a fleet of 11 RoboX robots at the
University and Mobot Robotics [55.72, 73]. Installed Swiss National Exhibition Expo 02 in 2002 [55.75, 76]
in 1998, they were operated for several years in the (Fig. 55.14). The robots presented the robotics exhibi-
Carnegie Museum of National History, the Hall of North tion and themselves through synthesized speech in four
America Wildlife, and the Heinz History Center, re- languages. A special programming interface enabled
spectively. All robots used specially deployed color easy implementation of different scenarios using speech
landmarks for localization, and a touch screen for en- and sounds, facial expressions (two independent pan-
tilt eyes, eyebrows), display of icons in one eye, body
Part F 55.5

motion, and navigation as output modality, and the but-

tons, face tracking, people tracking and an analysis of
the global visitor distribution in the exhibition as input
modality. Two robots were equipped with speech recog-
nition enabling simple spoken commands like yes/no
in four languages [55.77]. After finishing their job at
Expo 02, the RoboX robots found a second life as re-
search platforms and were installed in other exhibitions
and as TV moderators by BlueBotics.
Rackham is a tour-guide robot deployed in 2004
at the Mission Biospace Exhibition in Toulouse,
France [55.78, 79] (Fig. 55.15a). This robot, developed
by the Laboratoire d’Architecture et d’Analyse des Sys-
tèmes (LAAS) in Toulouse, has an enhanced audiovisual
output system and obtains user commands via a touch
Fig. 55.13 The Inciting, the Instructive, and the Twiddling robot screen. The animated helmet together with the touch
amusing and informing peoples at the Communication Museum, screen are used as a focal point of attraction to this very
Berlin. These very attractive robots have been developed at Fraun- futuristic robot. Once a visitor is detected by the pan-tilt
hofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA) camera in the helmet, the robot explains its utilization
 Robots for Education 55.5 Robots and Informal Learning Venues (Museums) 1295

a) b) c)

Fig. 55.14a–c The family of 11 RoboX tour guide developed by the EPFL gave tours during five months to over 650,000
visitors at the Swiss National exhibition Expo 02

and offers its services. This installation is also used as a) b)

an experimental environment for further research.
More recent tour-guide robot platform developments
are focusing on enhanced human–robot interaction and
more humanoid appearance. One illustration is Brion,
which learns the environmental setting from humans
through an enhanced dialog system [55.80]. Voice and
gesture recognition are the main inputs for driving the
dialogue with the human that is based on a finite state ma-
chine (FSM). The humanoid exhibition robot Repliee Q1
has been developed at Osaka University. It consists
of an artificial human upper body with a very realis-
tic appearance (Fig. 55.15b). Repliee Q1 communicates

Part F 55.5
through speech, enhanced facial expressions and body
language. It has a tactile skin over the entire body, able Fig. 55.15a,b Rackham is a tour-guide robot deployed at the Mis-
to sense being touched and react to it. During the 2005 sion Biospace Exhibition in Toulouse, France (a). The Repliee Q1
World Expo in Japan, Repliee Q1 was offering its ser- humanoid robot (b) was at the information counter at the 2005 World
vices at an information desk. The next generation of Expo in Japan. It was developed by Osaka University
Repliee is intended to have actuated legs for full motion
abilities. behaviors were gained. Various details can be found
More sophisticated robots will be deployed in in- in [55.69, 72] and [55.76]. At informal learning venues
formal learning venues as tour guides and teachers it is nearly impossible to instruct the visitors on how
soon. They have the potential to offer a more appeal- to operate the robots. Thus the robot’s interactivity has
ing and lasting learning experience. However, there is to be plug-and-play. This is only possible if design and
still important research and technological advancement functionality are harmonically integrated and the robot’s
required. Until then, robots can only partially compete intention and internal states are transparent and under-
with a human guide. standable for the visitor. Design creates expectations,
e.g., a humanoid appearance makes visitors believe that
55.5.2 Lessons Learned the robot has similar competence as a human. A robot
that speaks is also expected to understand spoken dialog.
Through the various installations presented above, new In general, the public has the tendency to overestimate
insights on the design of tour-guide robots and the user’s the robot’s competence because most people only know
1296 Part F Field and Service Robotics

robots from science-fiction movies or futuristic research obstacle avoidance or even security buttons because the
documentaries. feedback is immediate and easy to understand. It is there-
Visitors are curious, but also impatient and rude. fore of crucial importance that the actions of the robot
Therefore tour-guide robots have to allow visitors to are immediately responsive to users’ needs and wishes.
discover new elements in a fast rhythm, have to be A delay of only one second to a pushed button is often
very dynamic and fast responding, and should be ro- too much and will often incite inappropriate reactions
bust against harsh treatment. If possible, visitors will sit from the visitors, such as hammering on the button.
and hang on the robot or hit the bumpers. On the other A successful installation of robots in informal learn-
hand, visitors are respectful with elements that look frag- ing venues must be carefully designed according to the
ile, e.g., they will not touch the eyes of the robot. The functionalities and services they are intended to offer.
most appealing interactions are often elements such as Form has to follow function.

55.6 Educational Evaluation of Robot Programs

An important aspect of assessment, beyond techni- as users. Contextual inquiry guides the collection of
cal evaluation, is educational evaluation: how does background data concerning interactions taking place
human–robot interaction change models of learning and before inclusion of the new, to-be-designed robotic
identities with respect to technology; and how is this technology, and is often achieved through the collec-
done in educationally appropriate ways? We find several tion and analysis of direct interviews and observations.
techniques to be applicable during each of the following The process includes identifying and polling various
phases of an educational project: stakeholders in the educational environment, from the
classroom as a whole to individual educators and men-
• design-time assessment: the creation phase of an
tors.
educational robot system
A second HCI activity, modeling, guides the creation
• formative evaluation: during execution of an educa-
of pictorial flow diagrams that identify the most impor-
tional robot program
tant features of the environment in which the robotic
• summative evaluation: following completion of an
educational technology is to be used. Workflow de-
educational program
scribes the communication necessary for the classroom
This section will identify relevant tools for design, for- activities. Sequence identifies actual sequences of action
mative, and summative evaluation that we borrow from required for various activities in the classroom (or mu-
Part F 55.6

the human–computer interaction community and the seum). Artifact captures the relationship of existing tools
cognitive-educational analysis community. These tools required for activities to be performed successfully. Fi-
are well suited to helping researchers understand and nally the physical model identifies how space is used,
quantify how educational robots can impact learning which can be notable in the case of the design and po-
in the classroom and, beyond the classroom, in infor- tential inclusion of mobile robots in spaces that were
mal learning venues such as museums and after-school generally not designed for them in the first place, such
workshops. as conventional laboratories and, even worse, regular
lecture halls.
55.6.1 Design-Time Assessment Why do all the above? Because it is a principled way
of understanding existing environments. This in turn fa-
The field of human–computer interaction (HCI) offers cilitates design-time judgments in regards to the best
formal and heuristic techniques for addressing interfaces manner in which to add a new technology, such as in-
between humans and technology [55.81, 82]. Current teractive robots, while maximizing the chances that the
HCI practice often focuses on user-centered design, technology is a real success. However, it is the con-
which suggests that understanding the user and the en- tinual cycle of evaluations during the implementation
tire task can help us be better designers. One specific phase that is critical to a positive outcome. So in sum-
HCI technique, contextual inquiry and design, is es- mary design-time data collection and assessment helps
pecially useful for both informal and formal learning set the stage and control expectations. Formative evalu-
venues where robots will interact directly with students ations and feedback into the continuing design process,
 Robots for Education 55.6 Educational Evaluation of Robot Programs 1297

as described below, help keep the engineering on a path sistants [55.89–91]. Ethnography is intended to detail
to success. the learning and problem-solving process that occurs in
class on a minute-by-minute basis.
55.6.2 Formative Taken as a whole, the above collected data can then
and Summative Evaluation be analyzed by thematic content, for themes such as
those listed in Sect. 55.1. Statistical significance and cor-
Traditional school-based assessments of learning, for relation tests can be applied to the quantitatively derived
instance course surveys or exam grades, are useful results of coding all such information to yield informa-
as coarse-resolution data collection devices. However, tion on how the frequency of learning themes appearing
these do not provide sufficient detail to build models of in conversation increases or decreases, and how specific
how learning is proceeding with or despite of technol- themes become more refined or specific in students’
ogy changes, nor how further technology changes may speech over the duration of the course.
improve learning. Furthermore, especially in informal However, assessment of the educational value of
settings such as museums, school-based assessments robotics programs such as those described in Table 55.1
are even more inappropriate. In such settings significant is often more difficult than evaluating programs in more
learning results from communication. As groups of vis- traditional disciplines. There are widely accepted text-
itors or teams of students use and talk about a museum books and curricula for many disciplines, but not yet for
exhibit or project challenge, they construct a shared un- robotics. Additionally, the different educational robotics
derstanding of the content and context of the challenge. programs described earlier take a variety of approaches
There is an outstanding body of work in the education towards education.
community that focuses on this form of conversation and Many programs (e.g., FIRST LEGO League and
learning. The following references are excellent start- RoboCup Jr) are large but are implemented at the
ing points [55.83–87]. Applying this education learning local level, so the experience for students can vary
strategy to educational robotics yields wonderfully rich tremendously from one locale to another. The more
analyses in terms of how the robots change conversations standardized programs (e.g., Botball and FIRST) have
in the classroom [55.88]. different educational models. FIRST uses an inspira-
In education learning, tools include broad evaluation tional model where students work with professional
tools for qualitatively and quantitatively constructing engineers. Botball follows a more traditional high-
a model of learning across the classroom and deep, school model of education where the teachers are trained
focused tools for studying the specific communication- in the techniques and principles, so that they may guide
oriented mechanisms of learning that may inform the students at a high level, but all of the work (both
patterns of change and exploration at the student and design and implementation) is done by the students.

Part F 55.6
team level. In terms of broad tools, written student sur- Because robotics can serve as an unfamiliar tool for
veys are one useful data collection tool. A combination many students in such courses and programs, evaluation
of linear, quantitative queries (called Likert scales) cou- of how this unfamiliar, potentially rich interactive tool
pled with open-ended essay questions such as What is impacts student learning and perceived interest levels
the most important concept you learned this week? in- in science and technology is a common focus of edu-
vite both statistical analysis of raw results and thematic cational robotics assessment. This trend is exacerbated
analysis of self-reported challenges and successes by the because these programs, which involve tens or even
students themselves. Recorded interviews with students, hundreds of thousands of students, are implemented
individually or in teams, provides even richer informa- by nonprofit companies and volunteers that lack spe-
tion due to the ability to ask complex What have you cific funds and training for formal assessment. For these
learned? questions appropriate for open-ended analy- reasons, formal assessment of the programs tends to
sis, again in terms of thematic content. A deep, focused be based on student and/or teacher surveys rather than
tool that is expensive in terms of analyst resources rigorous testing, and the assessment usually focuses
but generates very useful information is the ethnogra- on specific issues (e.g., gender issues in technology
phy, whereby a trained observer spends, for instance, education) where assessment-specific funding may be
one week tracking all the activities of two teams in available.
the classroom, including conversations within the team, As educational robotics becomes more mainstream,
among team members and other pupils, and between we can expect that evaluation will shift from general
the team and the course instructors and teaching as- enthusiasm about science, technology, engineering, and
1298 Part F Field and Service Robotics

mathematics (STEM) learning to specific learning ad- for follow-on coursework in diverse disciplines such as
vantages derived from such robot-inclusive coursework biology, physics, and computer science.

55.7 Conclusions and Further Reading

This chapter has given an overview of many, but chapter include: Robots for Kids, Exploring new tech-
by no means all, of the educational robot hardware nologies for learning, edited by Druin and Hendler;
and programs currently available. Websites such as Robotic Explorations: A Hands-On Introduction to En-
robots.net and robotevents.com attempt to maintain lists gineering [55.92], by Martin; Where the Action Is,
of the rapidly evolving field of educational robot tour- Foundations of embodied interaction, by Dourish; Pi-
naments. Keeping track of the latest hardware and aget’s theory of cognitive development [55.93], by
software tools are more problematic. Some additional Wadsworth; and Computer as Theater [55.94], by
sources for these topics, and others covered in this Laurel.

References

55.1 KIPR: Botball robotics education. http://www. SIGCSE Tech. Symp. Comp. Sci. Edu. (ACM, New York
botball.org (KISS, Norman 2005) 1998) pp. 341–344
55.2 R. Manseur: Hardware competitions in engineering 55.14 J. Schumacher, D. Welch, D. Raymod: Teaching
education, Front. Educ. Conf. 2, F3C/5–F3C/8 (2000) introductory programming, problem solving and
55.3 Robo Cup Junior: RoboCupJunior official site. information technology with robots at west point,
http://www.robocupjunior.org/, (Acroname Robot- Proc. 31st Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 2
ics, Boulder 2006) (Reno 2001)
55.4 C. Stein: Botball: Autonomous students engineer- 55.15 E. Wang: Teaching freshmen design, creativity and
ing autonomous robots, Comput. Educ. J. 13(2), programming with legos and labview, Front. Educ.
72–80 (2003) Conf., F3G–11–15 (2001)
55.5 FIRST: http://www.usfirst.org/ (FIRST, Manchester 55.16 U. Wolz: Teaching design and project management
2006) with lego rcx robots, SIGCSE ’01: Proc. 32nd SIGCSE
55.6 A. Druin, J. Hendler (Eds.): Robots for Kids: Ex- Tech. Symp. Comp. Sci. Edu. (ACM, New York 2001)
ploring New Technologies for Learning (Morgan pp. 95–99
Kaufmann, San Francisco 2000) 55.17 J.K. Archibald, R.W. Beard: Goal! robot soccer for
Part F 55

55.7 R. Siegwart: Grasping the interdisciplinarity of undergraduate students, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.
mechatronics, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 8(2), 27–34 11(1), 70–75 (2004)
(2001) 55.18 A. Gage, R.R. Murphy: Principles and experi-
55.8 R.D. Beer, H.J. Chiel, R.F. Drushel: Using Au- ences in using legos to teach behavioural robotics,
tonomous Robotics to teach science and engineer- Proc. 33rd Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 2
ing, Commun. ACM 42(6), 85–92 (1999) (Sarasota 2003)
55.9 A. Billard: Robota, clever toy and educational tool, 55.19 E. Kolberg, N. Orlev: Robotics learning as a tool for
Robot. Autonom. Syst. 42, 259–269 (2003) integrating science technology curriculum in k-12
55.10 P. Coppin: Eventscope: a telescience interface for schools, Front. Educ. Conf. 1, T2E–12–13 (2001)
internet-based education, IEEE Proc. Robot. Au- 55.20 B.A. Maxwell, L. Meeden: Integrating robotics re-
tonom. (2002) search with undergraduate education, IEEE Intell.
55.11 B. Fagin: Ada/mindstorms 3.0: A computational Syst. 15(6), 22–27 (2000)
environment for introductory robotics and pro- 55.21 A. Nagchaudhuri, G. Singh, M. Kaur, S. George: Lego
gramming, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 10(2), 19–24 robotics products boost student creativity in pre-
(2003) college programs at umes, Front. Educ. Conf. 3,
55.12 R.S. Hobson: The changing face of classroom in- S4D–1–S4D–6 (2002)
structional methods: service learning and design 55.22 C. Stein, K. Nickerson: Botball robotics and gen-
in a robotics course, Frontiers in Education Confer- der differences in middle school teams, Proc. ASEE
ence, Vol. 2 (Kansas City 2000) pp. F3C/20–F3C/25 Annual Conference (Salt Lake City 2004)
55.13 D. Kumar, L. Meeden: A robot laboratory for teach- 55.23 J.B. Weinberg, J.C. Pettibone, S.L. Thomas,
ing artificial intelligence, SIGCSE ’98: Proc. 29th M.L. Stephen, C. Stein: The impact of robot projects
 Robots for Education References 1299

on girls’ attitudes toward science and engineering, 55.41 K-Team: http://www.k-team.com K-Team Corp,
Proc. RSS Robotics in Education Workshop (Atlanta Yverdon les bains, K-Team Corp Switzerland (2007)
2007) 55.42 PPRK: Palm Pilot Robot Kit, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/
55.24 T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, K. Dautenhahn: A survey of pprk/ Carnegie Mellon University, Pitsburgh (2007)
socially interactive robots (2002) 55.43 E-puck: http://www.e-puck.org (EPFL, Lausanne
55.25 F. Martin, B. Mikhak, M. Resnick, B. Silverman, 2007)
R. Berg: To Mindstorms and Beyond: Evolution of 55.44 Garcia Robot: http://www.acroname.com (Acron-
a Construction Kit for Magical Machines (Morgan ame Robotics, Boulder 2007)
Kaufmann, San Francisco 2000) pp. 10–32 55.45 ER1: http://www.evolution.com (Evolution Robotics,
55.26 M. Cooper, D. Keating, W. Harwin, K. Dautenhahn: Pasadena 2007)
Robots in the Classroom - Tools for Accessible Ed- 55.46 KHR-1: http://www.kondo-robot.com (Kondo Ka-
ucation (IOS, Amsterdam 1999) gaku, 2007)
55.27 6.270 Organizers: The history of 6.270 - 55.47 Robsapien: http://www.robosapien.com (WowWee,
MIT’s autonomous robot design competition. Quebec 2007)
http://web.mit.edu/6.270/www/about/history.html 55.48 Roomba: http://www.irobot.com (iRobot Corp.,
(MIT, Cambridge 2005) Burlington 2007)
55.28 BEST Robotics: Middle and high school robotics 55.49 iRobot Corp: iRobot Roomba Serial Command In-
competition. http://www.bestinc.org/MVC/ (BEST terface (SCI) Specification (iRobot, Burlington 2005)
Robotics Inc., Auburn 2006) 55.50 T.E. Kurt: Hacking Roomba (Wiley, New York
55.29 D. Ahlgren: Trinity college fire fighting home robot 2006)
contest. http://www.trincoll.edu/events/robot/ 55.51 D.P. Miller: Quick and easy way to add vi-
(Trinity College, Hartford 2006) sion to your irobot create or roomba. http://i-
55.30 Fuji Soft ABC: FSI-all japan robot-sumo tourna- borg.engr.ou.edu/ dmiller/create/ , Oklahoma Uni-
ment, http://www.fsi.co.jp/sumo-e/ (Fuji Soft Inc., versity (2007)
Tokyo 2006) 55.52 Gumstix: http://www.gumstix.com (Gumstix Inc.,
55.31 IMRMC Organizers: International micro robot maze Portola Valley 2007)
contest. http://imd.eng.kagawa-u.ac.jp/maze/ 55.53 M.J. Matarić, N. Koenig, D. Feil-Seifer: Materials for
(Nagoya Univ., Nagoya 2006) Enabling Hands-on Robotics and STEM Education,
55.32 Robocup official site: http://www.robocup.org/ Tech. Rep. SS-07–09 (AAAI, Menlo Park 2007)
(The RoboCup Federation, Osaka 2007) 55.54 J.L. Jones, A.M. Flynn: Mobile Robots: Inspiration
55.33 D. Nardi, M. Riedmiller, C. Sammut, J. Santos-Victor to Implementation (Peters, Wellesley 1993)
(Eds.): RoboCup 2004: Robot Soccer World Cup VIII. 55.55 BASIC stamps: http://www.parallax.com/
In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3276 htmlpages=products=basicstamps=basicstamps.asp
(Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2005) (Parallax Inc., Rooklin 2007)
55.34 T.R. Balch, H.A. Yanco: Ten years of the aaai mo- 55.56 Savage Innovations: OOPic home page. http://www.
bile robot competition and exhibition, Artif. Intell. oopic.com/ (Savage Innovations, Huntsville 2007)
Mag. 23(1), 13–22 (2002) 55.57 S. Richards: Brain stem gp 1.0 module. http://www.

Part F 55
55.35 C. Pomalaza-Raez, B.H. Groff: Retention 101: Where acroname.com/robotics/parts/S1-GP-BRD.html
robots go...students follow, J. Eng. Educ. 92(1) 55.58 R. LeGrand, K. Machulis, D.P. Miller, R. Sargent,
(2003) A. Wright: The XBC: A modern low-cost mobile
55.36 D.P. Miller, C. Winton, J.B. Weinberg: Beyond Bot- robot controller, IEEE Proc. IROS 2005 (Edmonton
ball: A Software Oriented Robotics Challenge for 2005)
Undergraduate Education. Techn. Rep. SS-07–09 55.59 F. Martin: The black fin handyboard. http://www.
(AAAI, Menlo Park 2007) cs.uml.edu/blackfin/ (Analog Devices, Norwood
55.37 R.R. Murphy: Using robot competitions to promote 2007)
intellectual development, Artif. Intell. Mag. 21(1), 55.60 C. Rogers, M. Portsmore: Bringing engineering to
77–90 (2000) elementary school, J. STEM Educ. 5(3, 4), 17–28
55.38 D.P. Miller, C. Stein: So that’s what Pi is for! (2004)
And other Educational Epiphanies from Hands-on 55.61 Interactive C: http://www.kipr.org/ic (KISS Inst. for
Robotics (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco 2000) Practical Robots, Norman 2007)
pp. 219–243 55.62 C.E. van Lent: Using robot platforms to enhance
55.39 I. Vernor, D. Ahlgren, D.P. Miller: Robotics concept learning in introductory cs courses, AAAI
olympiads: A new means to integrate theory and Spring Symp. Robotics in Education (Stanford 2004)
practice in robotics, Proc. ASEE 2006 (Chicago 55.63 D.P. Miller, C. Winton: Botball kit for teaching engi-
2006) neering computing, Proc. ASEE National Conference
55.40 NASA Robotics Alliance Project: Education matrix. (ASEE, Salt Lake City 2004)
http://robotics.nasa.gov/edu/matrix.php (NASA, 55.64 S.P. Imberman: Teaching neural networks using
Washington 2006) lego handy board robots in an artificial intelligence
1300 Part F Field and Service Robotics

course, SIGCSE ’03: Proc. 34th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. 55.79 A. Clodic, S. Fleury, R. Alami, M. Herrb, R. Chatila:
Comp. Sci. Edu. (ACM, New York 2003) pp. 312–316 Supervision and interaction: Analysis for an au-
55.65 N. Nilson: Shakey the Robot, Techn. Rep. 232 (SRI tonomous tour-guide robot deployment, Proc.
Int., Menlo Park 1984) of IEEE International Conference on Advanced
55.66 I. Horswill: Visual support for navigation in Robotics, ICAR (Seatle 2004)
the polly system, Proc. AAAI Fall Symposium on 55.80 A. Haasch, A. Hohenner, S. Huwel, M. Kleineha-
Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Real- genbrock, S. Lange, I. Toptsis, G. Fink, J. Fritsch,
World Autonomous Mobile Robots (Cambridge 1992) B. Wrede, G. Sagerer: Biron - the bielefeld
pp. 62–67 robot companion, Proc. of International Workshop
55.67 T. Matsui, H. Asoh, J. Fry, Y. Motomura, F. Asano, on Advances in Service Robotics (Stuttgart 2004)
T. Kurita, I. Hara, N. Otsu: Integrated natural spo- pp. 27–32
ken dialogue system for jijo-2 mobile robot for 55.81 S. All, I. Nourbakhsh: Insect telepresence: Using
office services, AAAI/IAAI (1999) pp. 621–627 robotic tele-embodiment to bring insects face-
55.68 W. Burgard, A.B. Cremers, D. Fox, D. Hähnel, to-face with humans, Auton. Robot. 10, 149–161
G. Lakemeyer, D. Schulz, W. Steiner, S. Thrun: Ex- (2001)
periences with an interactive museum tour-guide 55.82 B. Laurel (Ed.): The Art of Human Computer Inter-
robot, Artif. Intell. 114(1–2), 3–55 (1999) face Design (Addison-Wesley, Reading 1994)
55.69 S. Thrun, M. Bennewitz, W. Burgard, A. Cremers, 55.83 S. Allen: Looking for learning in visitor talk: A
F. Dellaert, D. Fox, D. Hähnel, C. Rosenberg, N. Roy, methodological exploration. In: Learning Con-
J. Schulte, D. Schulz: Minerva: a second-generation versations in Museums, ed. by G. Leinhardt,
museum tour-guide robot, Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. K. Crowley, K. Knutson (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mah-
Autom. (ICRA) 3, 1999–2005 (1999) wah 2002) pp. 259–303
55.70 W. Burgard, P. Thrahanis, D. Hahnel, M. Moors, 55.84 K. Crowley, M. Callanan: Describing and support-
D. Schulz, H. Baltzakis, A.A. Tourbot: webfair: ing collaborative scientific thinking in parent-child
Web-operated mobile robots for tele-presence in interactions, J. Museum Educ. 23(1), 12–17 (1998)
populated exhibitions, Workshop: Robotic in Exhi- 55.85 K. Crowley, M.A. Callanan, J.L. Jipson, J. Galco,
bition, IROS 2002 (Lausanne 2002) K. Topping, J. Shrager: Shared scientific thinking
55.71 R. Bischoff: Natural communication and interac- in everyday parent-child activity, Sci. Educ. 85(6),
tion with humanoid robots, Proc. the 2nd Int. 712–732 (2001)
Symposium on Humanoid Robots (Tokyo 1999) 55.86 G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley: Objects of learning, ob-
pp. 121–128 jects of talk: Changing minds in museums. In:
55.72 I.R. Nourbakhsh: Nourbakhsh: The mobot mue- Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Muse-
seum robot installations: A five year experiment, ums, ed. by S.G. Paris (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
Workshop: Robotic in Exhibition IROS 2002 (Lau- 2002)
sanne 2002) 55.87 G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, K. Knutson (Eds.): Learn-
55.73 T. Willeke, C. Kunz, I. Nourbakhsh: The history of ing Conversations in Museums (Lawrence Erlbaum,
the Mobot museum robot series: An evolutionary Mahwah 2002)
Part F 55

study, Proc. of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Re- 55.88 I. Nourbakhsh, E. Hamner, D. Bernstein, K. Crow-
search Society (FLAIRS) (Key West 2001) pp. 514–518 ley, E. Ayoob, M. Lotter, S. Shelly, T. Hsiu, E. Porter,
55.74 B. Graf, O. Barth: Entertainment robotics: Exam- B. Dunlavey, D. Clancy: The personal exploration
ples, key technologies and perspectives, Workshop: rover: Educational assessment of a robotic exhibit
Robotic in Exhibition, IROS 2002 (Lausanne 2002) for informal learning venues, Int. J. Eng. Educ.
55.75 R. Siegwart, K. Arras, S. Bouabdallah, D. Burnier, (2006) Special Issue on Robotics Education
G. Froidevaux, X. Greppin, B. Jensen, A. Lorotte, 55.89 K. Crowley, M.A. Callanan, H.R. Tenenbaum,
L. Mayor, M. Meisser, R. Piguet, G. Ramel, G. Tér- E. Allen: Parents explain more often to boys than
rien, N. Tomatis: Robox at expo.02: A large scale to girls during shared scientific thinking, Psychol.
installation of personal robots, Robot. Auton. Syst. Sci. 12(3), 258–261 (2001)
42(3–4), 203–222 (2003) 55.90 H.H. Lund, P. Marti: Physical and conceptual con-
55.76 B. Jensen, N. Tomatis, L. Mayor, A. Drygajlo, R. Sieg- structions in advanced learning environments,
wart: Robots meet humans - interaction in public Interact. Stud. 5(2), 271–301 (2004)
spaces, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 52(6), 1530–1546 55.91 I.R. Nourbakhsh, K. Crowley, A. Bhave, E. Hamner,
(2006) T. Hsiu, A. Perez-Bergquist, S. Richards, K. Wilkin-
55.77 A. Drygajlo, P. Prodanov, G. Ramel, M. Meisser, son: The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course:
R. Siegwart: On developing voice enabled inter- iRobot design, curriculum design and educational
face for interactive tour-guide robots, Adv. Robot. assessment, Auton. Rob. 18(1), 103–127 (2005)
17(7), 599–616 (2003) 55.92 F.G. Martin: Robotic explorations: A hands-on in-
55.78 R. Alami: Towards a personal robot. In Workshop: troduction to engineering (Prentice Hall, Upper
Robotic in Exhibition, IROS 2002, Lausanne (2002) Saddle River 2001)
 Robots for Education References 1301

55.93 B.J. Wadsworth: Piaget’s theory of cognitive devel- 55.94 B. Laurel: Computers as theatre (Addison-Wesley,
opment: An introduction for students of psychology Reading 1993)
and education (McKay, New York 1971)

Part F 55

View publication stats