Designing learning experiences with a low-cost robotic arm

Eric J. Markvicka,1 Jason Finnegan,1 Kasey Moomau,1 Amie S. Sommers,2

Markeya S. Peteranetz,2 and Tareq A. Daher,2
1 Department of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Smart Materials and Robotics Laboratory,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
2 College of Engineering, Engineering and Computing Education Core, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

Lincoln, NE 68588, USA

∗ To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected]

1 Introduction

The increasing popularity of robotics in STEM education can be attributed to its involvement in
interactive and practical learning experiences, and its capacity to combine expertise and
competencies from various disciplines, including computer science, electrical engineering,
mechanical engineering, and mathematics. Robotics covers a wide range of fields and promotes
the development of critical thinking skills such as problem solving, systematic reasoning,
abstraction and generalization, as well as collaboration and communication [1, 2]. This growing
interest in robotics has been accompanied by the development of accessible open-source
platforms, such as Arduino and Raspberry Pi, which enable both novice and expert users to create
electronic projects, from simple LED displays to complex robotic systems. This has resulted in
the creation of several commercially available educational robotic platforms, including Lego
Mindstorms and VEX Robotics, that can be integrated into existing curricula [3, 4], as well as
custom open-source designs for robotic structures and controllers for robotic platforms
[5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
When selecting a robotics platform for STEM education, cost is one of the primary factors that is
taken into consideration [3, 4]. In this paper, we will focus on robot arms that are constructed by
connecting rigid bodies (known as links) together with rotational or prismatic joints. While there
are several low-cost wheeled robotics kits available, such as the Balboa by Pololu (priced at $90),
most low-cost robotic arms that cost less than $1,000 involve design and manufacturing tasks
[5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. These tasks are often outside the learning objectives of courses that
cover the mechanics, planning, and control of robotic arms. Therefore, to provide a
comprehensive and engaging learning experience that can be incorporated into various formative
and summative assessments, the robotic arm needs to meet three key requirements: (1)
Affordability: The robot arm should be affordable enough to enable each group of 2-3 students to
have one. (2) Portability: The robot arm should be easy to transport the robotic arm to and from
class or study groups. (3) Untethered operation: The robot arm should be able to operate without
the need for wall outlets, allowing it to be used in a classroom, cafe, or park. By meeting these
three requirements, the robotic arm will provide an ideal learning tool for students in STEM
education, allowing them to gain hands-on experience regarding the mechanics, planning, and
control of robotic arms.
Here, a robotic arm kit was introduced that is composed entirely of off-the-shelf components that
can be assembled using a screwdriver and wrench. The assembled kit is low-cost (< $200), easily
transportable in a small plastic toolbox, and can be powered utilizing a built-in battery or standard
5V USB cable (< 500 mA) connected to a laptop computer. This low-cost, transportable, and
untethered robotics platform was used to evaluate the design of experiential learning experiences
that complement existing robotics curriculum focusing on the mechanics, planning, and control of
serial robotic arms. Student success rates for assessments with and without the robotic arm were
analyzed in addition to perspectives of engineering students on the difference in assessment
design and delivery over the course of one semester. We found that the learning activities on the
robotic arm were more helpful than those without, and that students found high value in the
hands-on experiences and real-world scenarios offered by the activities using the robotic arm.

Figure 1: Photograph of the robotic arm kit with control electronics and power pack for untethered
use in a classroom or general study environment.

2 Related research on affordable robotic arms for STEM education

One of the primary factors taken into consideration when selecting a robotics platform for STEM
education is cost [3, 4]. Unfortunately, industrial robots priced at over $30,000 are often too
expensive for many academic institutions to purchase. In addition to their high cost, industrial
robots require dedicated space, pose safety risks, are expensive to maintain, and may cause
scheduling constraints due to having fewer robotic arms than students. These limitations can
reduce student engagement in hands-on activities, which are critical for effective learning.
Fortunately, there are several commercially available educational robotic platforms, such as Lego
Mindstorms and VEX Robotics, which have been integrated into existing K-12 curricula. These
platforms have a proven track record and are popular among educators and students alike
[13, 14, 15]. However, these systems have limited complexity and are difficult to scale. In
addition, these educational kits cost more than $1,000.
Alternatively, there are several low-cost open-source robotic arm designs that cost less than
$1,000 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. These designs provide students with the opportunity to design
and build their own robots from scratch. However, these platforms involve design and
manufacturing tasks that are often outside the learning objectives of courses that cover the
mechanics, planning, and control of robotic arms.

3 Low-Cost robotic arm platform

In this section, we provide an overview of the hardware and software architectures of the low-cost
robotic arm platform. The hardware is based on off-the-shelf components that can be easily found
online and assembled using standard tools. The software was custom developed and open sourced
[16]. The website also includes videos of course projects from previous offerings of the course.

3.1 Hardware architecture

The low-cost robotic arm kit, which is priced under $200, is comprised of a
five-degree-of-freedom (DOF) serial robotic arm with a metal frame and a claw end effector
(Figure 1). For our purposes, we only used the first three joints of the serial robotic arm. Each
joint of the arm was driven using a high-torque, metal gear digital servo (MG996R). The kit
includes the metal frame, servo motors, and metal servo horns, which can be assembled using
standard tools like a screwdriver and wrench.
The robotic arm was controlled using an ATmega328 microcontroller (2488, Adafruit) and a
16-channel servo shield (1411, Adafruit) with a digital servo controller (NXP, PCA9685). The
microcontroller can be connected to a computer, allowing commands to be sent over USB using
programming languages like MATLAB. Additionally, a six-channel digital servo controller
(Hiwonder) was included with potentiometers that enabled manual control the individual joints of
the robotic arm. This manual servo controller was helpful for testing individual servos and
identifying potential issues quickly.
The robot was powered using a laptop computer or portable USB power pack. This allowed for
untethered use of the robot in a classroom or study environment, without the need for access to an
electrical outlet or extension cord.
The robotic arm, electronics hardware, and portable battery was secured to an acrylic sheet (5 ×
12 inch) using machine screws. Alternatively, double sided tape (VHB, 3M) could be used. For
transportation, the entire kit was designed to fit inside a 14-inch toolbox (Akro-Mils, 09514CFT).
This allowed students to securely transport the robot, cables, and any additional items to and from
the classroom. A full list of the items included in the robotic arm kit can be found in Table 1.
The low-cost kit allowed us to purchase a kit for each student group (each group had three
students) in the class, a total of 17 kits. By having an easily transportable kit, the student groups
Table 1: List of items included in the robotic arm kit.

Item Manufacturer/Supplier Part Number Price

Robotic arm with servos Diymore/Amazon B095K61ZMQ $80
Microcontroller (METRO 328) Adafruit 2488 $18
16-Channel servo shield Adafruit 1411 $18
Servo controller Hiwonder/Amazon B073XZH264 $17
USB power pack (5,000 mAh) Insignia/Best Buy NS-MB5MK21 $8
USB Cable, Male A to Bare Wire CoolerGuys 840556071235 $1
Toolbox Arko-Mils/Amazon 09514CFT $20
Acrylic sheet McMaster 4615T27 $10
Total: $172

were able to bring the robotic arm to lecture or study groups, allowing for more hands-on learning
experiences and flexibility in how we used the kit throughout the course.

3.2 Software architecture

The software architecture is illustrated in Figure 2. It is comprised of the following main
components: (1) the serial robotic arm, (2) servo controller, (3) microcontroller with servo shield,
(4) laptop computer with the Arduino integrated development environment (IDE) and MATLAB,
and (5) optional sensor feedback interface. The robotic arm kit were powered using a laptop
computer or USB power pack. A brief description of the different control methods is provided
below:
A) Manual, individual joint control: The servos used in the robotic arm are connected to the
six-channel servo controller from Hiwonder. The servo controller includes six potentiometers that
control the corresponding six servos simultaneously. This control method highlighted the
difficulty of joint control methods. It was also helpful for allowing the student groups to test
individual servos and identify potential issues quickly.
B) Digital servo control: The servos used in the robotic arm are connected to the microcontroller
via a servo shield that includes an I2C servo controller (NXP, PCA9685). A standalone program
can be created and directly uploaded to the microcontroller. Commands are generated directly
from the microcontroller. Using this control method, students can program the robotic arm to
execute various tasks, such as pick-and-place operations or drawing shapes, allowing them to gain
a deeper understanding of the mechanics, planning, and control of robotic arms. The program can
be edited and re-uploaded as students refine their understanding of these concepts. This control
method could be used to address all learning objectives of the course.
C) Digital servo control with computer interface: The servos used in the robotic arm are
connected to the microcontroller via a servo shield that includes an I2C servo controller (NXP,
PCA9685). Alternatively, the microcontroller and robot can be physically connected to a laptop
computer by USB cable. This allows for a wider range of programming languages, including
MATLAB, Python, C++, Java, and others, to be used to control the robotic arm. In this setup,
commands are generated from the computer and transmitted to the microcontroller to control the
robotic arm. The ability to use a laptop computer to control the robotic arm will allow for more
sophisticated tasks to be executed, as the computational power of the computer can be leveraged
to perform complex calculations and data processing.
For control methods A and B, skeleton code was provided to the student groups, enabling them to
focus on specific learning objectives without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. For
example when studying the inverse kinematics problem, students were tasked with creating a
function that would compute the joint positions necessary to achieve a desired end-effector
configuration. The provided skeleton code included the necessary supporting code to move the
robot to the computed joint position. The code-base containing the skeleton code and supporting
materials can be found at [16]. This approach allowed students to focus on key concepts and
develop their programming skills.

Figure 2: Schematic illustration of the robotic arm kit. The serial robotic arm can be manually
controlled using a servo controller or digitally controlled using a microcontroller via a servo shield.
Commands can be generated directly from the microcontroller, or a computer equipped with MAT-
LAB or other software. The kit was powered using a laptop computer or USB battery pack to allow
for untethered use in a classroom or general study environment.

4 Designing learning experiences with the robotic arm platform

4.1 Course overview

MECH 453/853, Robotics: Kinematics and Design, provides an introduction to robotics with a
focus on the mechanics, planning, and control of serial robotic arm. The course covers methods
for representing the position, orientation, and motion of rigid bodies, including parts, tools, and
the mechanism itself. These concepts are applied to real-world applications such as
manufacturing, surgery, and repair and maintenance in challenging environments like space. The
course has been offered at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for over 15 years, and its primary
learning goals include:
 LG1 Rigid body motion: Represent the orientation and position of a rigid body in space
with respect to a fixed coordinate system.
LG2 Forward kinematics: Compute the orientation and position of a robotic arm given the
joint angles.
LG3 Inverse kinematics: Compute the set of joint angles that will achieve a desired
orientation and position of the end effector or tool.
LG4 Velocity kinematics: Relate the joint linear and angular velocities to the end-effector
linear and angular velocities.
LG5 Trajectory generation: Compute a trajectory that describes the desired motion of a
robotic arm in multidimensional space.
To assess students’ learning, a combination formative and summative assessments were utilized.
The formative assessments primarily focused on formal written activities with coding exercises to
create subroutines to validate and automate the written activities. The summative assessments
were exam based.
The robotics course is cross-listed and offers credit at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
Historically, the class size is comprised of 40 senior undergraduate students and five graduate
students. A majority of the students are from the Mechanical and Materials Engineering program
with 1-3 students per year from another program in the College of Engineering such as Electrical
and Computer Engineering or the School of Computing.

4.2 Integration of the robotic arm into the course learning goals and assessments
During the Fall 2021 semester, a robotic arm kit was designed and introduced to provide students
with a hands-on learning experience and allow them to directly apply what they have learned in
the classroom to real-world scenarios. The kit also exposed the students to embedded
programming, which isn’t traditionally covered in Mechanical Engineering programs. Two new
assessments were introduced that complemented the existing formative assessments and evaluated
the physical robotic arm, instead of CAD renderings existing or simulated robotic arms. The new
assessments included formal written activities (e.g., “Derive the inverse kinematics map for the
three DOF robotic arm shown in Figure 1.”), coding exercises to create subroutines for simulation
and validation (e.g., “Confirm your inverse kinematics solution using MATLAB or SolidWorks.”),
and coding exercises to guide students through a series of algorithms for controlling a serial
robotic arm (e.g., “Implement the inverse kinematics you previously derived using the provided
skeleton code. Upload a video demonstrating the Cartesian control. Does the robotic manipulator
work as expected? If not, describe potential challenges.”). With the physical robotic arm, students
were able to witness the challenges of joint space control, understand the physical limitations
affecting the robotic workspace, and overcome the impact of joint backlash. These concepts are
typically discussed at an abstract level, but with the use of a physical robotic arm, students could
gain a deeper understanding of these topics and support the development of higher order thinking
skills.
The course also included a semester long course project where student teams defined a problem
statement, created a detailed mock-up of their design, built/purchased any necessary components,
wrote algorithms to control the behavior of the robot, and finally tested their robot to ensure it
functioned as expected. The student teams were asked to create a short video presentation to
showcase their robot and its capabilities as well as any challenges they had encountered and how
they overcame them. A growing collection of videos from previous course projects have been
posted online [16].

5 Methods

5.1 Survey data collection

To assess student perceptions and experiences of the course and using the robotic arm, we asked
students enrolled in MECH 453/853: Robotics: Kinematics and Design at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln during the Fall 2021 semester to complete a series of survey questions. The
survey contained six open-ended questions regarding students’ perceptions and experiences of the
course overall (e.g., “Which learning activity in MECH 453/853 was most helpful to your
learning?”), five open-ended questions regarding the activities that involved using the robotic arm
(e.g., “Were the learning activities that involved the robotic arm more helpful, less helpful, or
comparable to your learning compared to activities that did not include it? Please elaborate.”),
and three Likert Scale style questions asking students to rate their perceptions of how useful,
interesting, and impactful the robotic arm was in their learning and career plans (e.g.,“How
interesting do you think it was to use the robotic arm for learning activities?”) [17]. We structured
the survey in this way to provide students an opportunity to discuss the robotic arm unprompted
first, before we specifically addressed those activities. We conducted this survey at the end of the
semester, prior to final exams to assess students’ complete experiences of the course. As part of
the consent process, participants had the opportunity to grant access to assignment grades to be
used in the research. Thirty-six participants consented to having their assignment grades included
in the research. All data collection and assessment methods described herein are approved under
IRB #20211121456EX.

5.2 Course assignments

Grades were analyzed for four different assignments done throughout the course. Two of the
assignments (Assignments 2 and 4) required students to use the robotic arm and two were more
traditional assignments (Assignments 1 and 3) that did not incorporate the robotic arm. The
assignments were worth different numbers of points based on the number of steps and questions
involved, so the analysis was done on students’ percentage scores for each assignment.

5.3 Analysis
Quantitative analysis was conducted in SPSS v. 25. All qualitative coding analysis was conducted
in MAXQDA Plus 2022 (Release 22.2.0). We analyzed survey responses from students (n = 35,
78% response rate) using a descriptive and thematic coding cycle method [18, 19]. First, we
briefly read through each survey response and descriptively coded them based on the topic of the
response, rather than the content. Next, we used thematic coding methods to code each response
based on content. Finally, we categorized these codes into emergent themes for interpretation
[18, 19].

6 Evaluation

6.1 Qualitative analysis and results

Here we organize our findings by students’ perceptions and experiences to the course in general,
the specific activities that used the robotic arm, and the potential impacts of the course and robotic
arm on their future career aspirations. All student responses we include here are examples that
represent the general themes we found in our analysis, and have been de-identified such that
students remain anonymous. A summary of our findings can be found in Table 2.
Table 2: A summary of the findings from our qualitative analysis, including the general course
takeaways, robotic arm activity takeaways, and impacts on career outlook and decisions, as identi-
fied by students’ survey responses.

Survey Questions Summary of Findings

General Course • The robotic arm activities were the most helpful aspect of the course.
Takeaways • Students also found in-class example problems, homework, and group
projects to be helpful.
• Some students thought there should be more real-world examples in
lecture and found there to be an overload of course content.

Robotic Arm • The most common reason for why the robotic arm activities were
Activity “more helpful” than other course activities was because of the real-
Takeaways world applications and hands-on experience they provided.
• Students said the robotic arm activities helped them better understand
course content.
• A small number of students indicated the robotic arm activities were
“less helpful” than other activities, primarily citing a lack of prior
knowledge and understanding regarding the coding and programming
of the robotic arm, and a lack of time to complete the project.

Impacts on • Most students’ career plans did not change after taking this course,
Career Outlook including 1) those who were already interested in a career in robotics
and Decisions and continued to pursue that career plan after completing the course,
and 2) those who were not considering a career in robotics and their
plans remained unchanged after taking this course.
• A small number of students’ career plans did change after taking
this course, including 1) those who were not considering a career in
robotics prior to taking this course and indicated they would now like
to pursue a career in robotics, and 2) those who were interested in a ca-
reer in robotics before and have changed their career plans away from
robotics after taking this course.
• Two students indicated that they used knowledge and materials from
this course directly in the application process for a robotics-related job.

6.2 General course takeaways

Overall, students indicated that the robotic arm activities were the most helpful aspect of the
course to their learning, followed by in-class example problems that utilized both the physical
robotic arm in the kit and other existing or simulated robotic arms (e.g., solving for the position
and orientation of parts, tools, or robotic end-effector), homework, and group projects.
Specifically, students said that these activities contributed most to their general understanding of
course content, but that they also found the hands-on learning aspects of the activities and the
real-world applications to be most beneficial, such as pick-and-place robots in modern
manufacturing environments, the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) on the
International Space Station (ISS) used for repair and maintenance in challenging environments,
and robotic-assisted surgery used for increased precision in confined spaces. Interestingly, the
latter two outcomes were most closely aligned with the robotic arm activities. For example,
“Setting up our joint limits, defining our inverse kinematics and finding out
workspace was extremely helpful in my learning of the material. The ability to work
hands on has been very helpful.”
Other aspects of the course that students found helpful were the muddiest point activities [20] in
lecture, followed by the PowerPoint notes and the guest lectures.
Students identified several features of the course that were not helpful to their learning, most
notably an overload of content material in lecture, the lecture formats, and not enough real-world
examples in the lecture component of the course. For example,
“There was rarely a comfortable moment in this class. I never felt like I could step
back and evaluate any major projects such as our final as I was either attempting to
comprehend the new material or finishing the homework assignments.”

6.3 Robotic arm activity takeaways

Students overwhelmingly observed the robotic arm activities to be a ‘helpful’ component of the
course. Indeed, when asked to rate the most helpful learning activity of the course overall (without
prompting regarding the robotic arm), students cited the use of the robotic arm more frequently
than any other activity. The most common rationale that students provided for saying the robotic
arms were helpful to their learning was that they helped students better understand content from
the lectures and other activities, and the real-world applications of the robotic arm. For example,
“Yes, they helped me visualize how the theory in class could realistically be applied,
as well as what unexpected problems might occur using a real interface”, and
“Yes, because it’s one thing to understand the theory and a completely different thing
to implement and troubleshoot in reality.”
When asked to compare the robotic arm activities to other course activities, most students rated
the robotic arm activities as ‘more helpful’, again, most frequently citing the real-world
applications of these activities and the hands-on experience. For example,
“Activities involving the arm were more helpful, as it gives a hands-on experience
and introduces issues that are faced in real world scenarios.”
Some students indicated the robotic arm activities were less helpful than other course activities,
most commonly citing a lack of prior knowledge, and a lack of time to complete a project. In this
vein, when asked to describe their experiences using the robotic arm, the negative experiences
were mostly focused on a lack of understanding regarding the coding and programming of the
robotic arm, and the rushed nature of the group project. For example,
“It was difficult to code for, especially to someone unfamiliar with the course”, and
 “I think the arm was poorly integrated into the schedule of this class. If we had
started using it within the first few weeks, spent more time learning about the code
and other things we could do with the arm, it would have been very helpful. We
however have no time to do anything impactful with the arm as we only have a few
weeks during exam season of our busiest year to work on our project.”

6.4 Impacts on career outlook and decisions

Student responses regarding their career aspirations were closely aligned between the career
questions that were asked in context of the course overall and in context of the robotic arm
activities (some students referenced their answers to the course-focused career questions earlier in
the survey when answering the robotic arm career questions), so these findings are presented
together here.
Most students who completed the survey indicated that they were already interested in a career in
robotics, and this course did not change their thinking. For example,
“This course has not changed my plans, but it has informed them. I feel that I have
more knowledge of what an engineer actually does when designing robotic systems,
which makes me more confident in my goal.”
The next most common survey responses were from students who were not interested in a career
in robotics prior to taking this course, and remain unchanged in that career decision. For example,
“It has me more interested in robotics more than previously, but not enough to go into
it.”
Following students whose career plans remained unchanged are those who decided to pursue a
career in robotics after completing this course. For example,
“Yes, I have found a new passion for robotics, specifically in implementation of
kinematics in robotic design. I plan to work in a robotics centered field after the
completion of a graduate degree in Robotics.”
Finally, there were a few students who indicated this course contributed to changing their career
plans away from robotics. For example,
“They showed me that programming a robotic arm is not the area of robotics I want
to go into. While they are cool to use, the specifics that go into programming them
and designing a good workspace are not topics I am interested in.”
Notably, two students indicated that they used materials and knowledge gained from this course
directly in applying for jobs. One student indicated that they had already intended to pursue a
career in robotics, but another indicated that this course changed their career plans to a
robotics-focused career. These students stated,
“Talking about this class in an interview helped me land a job involved in robotics.”,
and
 “Yes! I have loved the material and applications, I applied for a job in the robotics
field, and I’m waiting for a response.”

6.5 Quantitative results

All 36 participants who consented to having their assignment grades used for the research
submitted work for all four assignments. Participants scored highly on all four assignments: the
average percentage for each was at the ‘A’ level based on the university’s typical grading scale.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in assignment
performance based on assignment type (traditional vs. robotic arm) and timing in the semester
(early vs. late). The main effect of assignment type was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.897, p >
0.05. The main effect of timing in the semester was significant, Wilks’ Λ = 0.580, p < 0.01, with
students scoring lower on assignments later in the semester. The interaction between timing and
assignment type was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = 1.00, p > 0.05. These results indicate that
students performed at similarly high levels on class assignments regardless of whether those
assignments followed more traditional questions and problem solving or if they were based on the
robotic arm.

7 Conclusion

The robotic arm kit provided a low-cost, mobile testbed that could be easily transported to and
from the classroom, providing a novel experiential learning experience that guided senior
undergraduate and graduate students through a series of algorithms for controlling a serial robotic
arm. The kit also supported the development of higher order thinking skills, including problem
solving, systematic reasoning, abstraction and generalization, and collaboration and
communication. Overall, the students found the robotic arm to be a ‘helpful’ component of the
course and was the most helpful aspects that supported their learning. However, the lack of prior
programming knowledge can be challenging.
Future work includes the creation of online asynchronous active learning experiences that cover
programming of the robotic arm in greater detail to address identified knowledge gaps. In
addition, we are currently working on adding sensors for feedback control such as a camera that
can be paired with the robotic arm for machine vision applications. The camera would allow
students to easily detect and track objects of interest in real-time.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support through the Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Biomedical Research

Development Fund and NASA Nebraska Space Grant (#80NSSC20M0112).

References

[1] F. B. V. Benitti, “Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic

review,” Computers & Education, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 978–988, 2012.
[2] M. S. Khine, M. S. Khine, and Ohmer, Robotics in STEM Education. Springer, 2017.
 [3] R. Parameshwaran, S. P. Kumar, and K. Saravanakumar, “An integrated fuzzy mcdm based
approach for robot selection considering objective and subjective criteria,” Applied Soft
Computing, vol. 26, pp. 31–41, 2015.
[4] S. Evripidou, L. Doitsidis, G. Tsinarakis, Z. Zinonos, and S. A. Chatzichristofis, “Selecting
a robotic platform for education,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Consumer
Electronics (ICCE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6.
[5] S. C. White, J. D. Farmer, and A. M. Eslami, “Engaging students’ creativity through
designing a low-cost educational robotic arm,” in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, 2018.
[6] A. Elfasakhany, E. Yanez, K. Baylon, R. Salgado et al., “Design and development of a
competitive low-cost robot arm with four degrees of freedom,” Modern mechanical
engineering, vol. 1, no. 02, p. 47, 2011.
[7] A. Yousuf, C. C. Lehman, M. A. Mustafa, and M. M. Hayder, “Low-cost robot arms for the
robotic operating system (ros) and moveit,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
2016.
[8] I. I. Basith and B. Marroquin, “Byoe: Design and development of a simple robotic arm,” in
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2020.
[9] C. C. Mouli, P. Jyothi, K. N. Raju, and C. Nagaraja, “Design and implementation of robot
arm control using labview and arm controller,” IOSR Journal of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 80–84, 2013.
[10] K. Jahnavi and P. Sivraj, “Teaching and learning robotic arm model,” in 2017 International
Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT).
IEEE, 2017, pp. 1570–1575.
[11] R. L. Avanzato, “Development of a matlab/ros interface to a low-cost robot arm,” in 2020
ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2020.
[12] D. Rivas, M. Alvarez, P. Velasco, J. Mamarandi, J. L. Carrillo-Medina, V. Bautista,
O. Galarza, P. Reyes, M. Erazo, M. Pérez et al., “Bracon: Control system for a robotic arm
with 6 degrees of freedom for education systems,” in 2015 6th International Conference on
Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 358–363.
[13] A. Sirinterlikci, J. McKenna, and L. Harter, “Vex v5 workcell: Industrial robotic arm model
for stem education (other),” in 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2022.
[14] V. Román-Ibáñez, F. A. Pujol-López, H. Mora-Mora, M. L. Pertegal-Felices, and
A. Jimeno-Morenilla, “A low-cost immersive virtual reality system for teaching robotic
manipulators programming,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 1102, 2018.
[15] I. M. Souza, W. L. Andrade, L. M. Sampaio, and A. L. S. O. Araujo, “A systematic review
on the use of lego® robotics in education,” in 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9.
[16] “MECH 453/853: Robotics: Kinematics and design,” https://smr.unl.edu/MECH453-853.
[17] R. Likert, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes.” Archives of psychology, 1932.
[18] J. Saldaña, “The coding manual for qualitative researchers,” The coding manual for
qualitative researchers, pp. 1–440, 2021.
[19] B. Miles Matthew, H. A. Michael, and S. Johnny, “Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook,” 2014.
[20] A. Carberry, S. Krause, C. Ankeny, and C. Waters, ““unmuddying” course content using
muddiest point reflections,” in 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE,
2013, pp. 937–942.