=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2329/paper-02
|storemode=property
|title=The potential of a robotics summer course on Engineering Education
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2329/paper-02.pdf
|volume=Vol-2329
|authors=Nuno M Fonseca Ferreira,Micael S. Couceiro,André Araújo,David Portugal
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/erf/FerreiraCAP18
}}
==The potential of a robotics summer course on Engineering Education ==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2329/paper-02.pdf
The potential of a robotics summer course
On Engineering Education
N. M. Fonseca Ferreira1,2,3,4,*, André Araujo5
M.S. Couceiro5 and David Portugal5
1
Engineering Institute of Coimbra (ISEC)
2
RoboCorp, I2A, Polytechnic of Coimbra (IPC), Portugal
3
Knowledge Research Group on Intelligent Engineering and Computing for
Advanced Innovation and Development (GECAD) of the Institute of Engineering,
Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Portugal
4
INESC TEC – Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores,
Tecnologia e Ciência (formerly INESC Porto), Portugal
5
Ingeniarius, Coimbra, Portugal
*
nunomig@isec.pt
Abstract
RobotCraft is an international internship with a summer course in robotics de-
signed especially for BSc to PhD students. The students attending this 2-months
program have the opportunity to work in robotics, focusing on several state-of-the-
art approaches, technologies and learned how to design, build and program their
robots throughout multiple activities, carefully prepared to provide a wide range of
skills and knowledge in the topic. This paper describes the methodology used to
introduce participants to a hands-on technical craft on robotics and to acquire expe-
rience in the low-level details of embedded systems.
Keywords: Engineering education, Project-based learning, educational robotics.
1. Introduction
Robotics is a very attractive subject in the field of engineering. More frequently,
educators find robotics a suitable project-based learning tool. Using robots as a
teaching tool, can lead to the acquisition of knowledge and skills in several engi-
neering areas, such as electrical, mechanical and computer engineering areas. As
can also provide the students with problem solving, teamwork and self-taught skills.
With the educational benefits in mind, world-widely, some educators have been
creating for students extra-curricular activities involving robotics, such as Robotics
Summer Camps and Robot Competitions [1-5]. Robot contests present several suc-
cessful designs for projects surveyed by students in universities, colleges and
schools. These contests can offer engineering assignments of different levels, from
a high-school competition [6-7] to advanced research programs such as the robotic
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 12
12
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
2
soccer initiative, or pose a challenging problem, designing a robot that can navigate
autonomously through a maze, find a lit candle, and extinguish it in minimum time.
As a multi-disciplinary subject, robotics involves physics, mathematics, control,
programming, computer-aided design and hands-on technical skills. The primarily
focus of the robotics programs are different, while a Computer Science robotics
program may focus on the high-level algorithms used for image recognition and
navigation, a mechanical engineering program may focus on the manipulation of
servos and motors to complete specific tasks. For college students looking to be-
come involved in robotics, however, it can be difficult to find an introductory course
that empowers them with the knowledge to construct and operate their own auton-
omous robots. The RobotCraft is an international internship with a summer course
in robotics designed especially for BSc to PhD students. The students attending this
2-months program have the opportunity to work in robotics, focusing on several
state-of-the-art approaches and technologies. The summer course, now in its second
edition and entitled as the 2nd Robotics Craftsmanship International Academy.
RobotCraft 2017 received around 100 applications, but just 84 attended the sum-
mer course. The attendants came from a wide range of countries, namely Egypt,
Spain, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, Germany, Algeria,
Estonia, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Morocco, Malaysia,
Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Kazakhstan Syria and Kosovo.
2. International Summer School Program
This summer school program designed to bring engineering students from all
over the world as a way to experience life and learning hands-on technical skills.
The program provided a solid learning opportunity for international students and
presented two challenges. The first challenge was the wide range of educational
backgrounds from the students. As a result, this course had to be accessible to stu-
dents who had never worked with embedded systems before, while at the same time,
it needed to engage and challenge those students who already had some robotics
project experience. This was the second major challenge faced; all of the presented
material had to be interesting and engaging enough to keep participants interested
on the course subjects, meeting the different needs of the international students.
In order to support the wide range of background and skills level of the students,
the course was layout into six different topics, each with the duration of approxi-
mately one week. The topics are summarized in Table 1. For each of these topics,
the participants attended a seminar, lectures and several practical sessions (Table
2.) The seminars presented were on enthusiastic topics and this learning activity
allowed the participants to have contact with researchers referred to each expertise
field. Also as part of their learning activities, as shown on Table 3, the existence of
practical assignments, in order to see results early on in the learning process, while
introducing concepts, allow the more advanced participants to customize their sys-
tems [8-9]. The methodology used on this course allowed participants to accelerate
their learning processes, and also the development of systems thinking and the skills
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 13
13
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
3
of intensive purposeful teamwork; reducing the gap between background, theoreti-
cal and practical activities.
Table 1. Course Schedule and Outline
Schedule Topic Brief Description
History of robotics and its evolution
First and Introduction to Ro- Mobile robot morphologies (namely sensors and actua-
second week botics tors)
Brief literature review (basic theoretical concepts)
3D modelling tools
Computer-Aided De- 3D printing
Third week sign Model a 3D structure for the mobile robotic platform
3D print the personalized 3D structure
(CAD)
Assemble the mobile robotic platform
C language applied to Arduino programming
Features of Arduino solutions (e.g., hardware architec-
Fourth Arduino Program- ture, cycles, communications)
week ming Identify different wireless communication technologies
Low-level algorithms, flowcharts and pseudocode
Develop a typical differential kinematic application
Robot Operating ROS features (e.g., packages publish-subscribe, topics)
Fifth and ROS-compatible simulators (Stage)
System High-level algorithms, flowcharts and pseudocode
sixth week
(ROS) Develop a typical remote sensing application
Different paradigms and some real applications
Seventh Integrating biologically-inspired models
Artificial Intelligence Formalizing a biologically-inspired approach
and eighth Develop a streaming architecture to exchange all nec-
(AI)
week essary data (e.g., sensor readings, encoder’s readings,
actuators control, etc.)
Mobile robot platform maze competition
Last day Competition Mobile robot Patrol competition: algorithm testing
Prize delivery
The practice is fundamental in the learning process and can offer educational
advantages: the participants acquired skills are required in many professional fields
and various science methods studied, can be apply on robot navigation and other
functions. The assignments provided to the students were creative and involved in-
structive activities. The course schedule planning accounted the following factors:
Each topic should be preceded by its prerequisite topics; Each topic should be learned in
parallel with the linked topics; Combination of subjects and balance of theoretical,
seminaries and lab studies are desired; Seminaries presented by researchers in the
specific field of each workshop is extra motivation to the participants, this stimulate
the creative and guided by innovation, which suggests a professional who is capable
of maintaining the skills and knowledge updated to recent scientific–technological
advances. The team assignments given in each week, allowed the participants to
cooperate as a team and to work more independently. Table 3 shows the learning
activities used to achieve the objectives described.
The final competition, in the end of RobotCraft, had two different goals: maze
solving and patrolling attributes. In the maze scenario, the robot needs to find its
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 14
14
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
4
way through the maze; where the evaluation contemplates several conditions: the
distance to the maze’s exit elapsed, the time and the number of wall collisions.
Table 2. Seminar, lectures and practical sessions
Description Methods used Objectives Assessments
Feedback from the
Engage students to this
Audio and visual mate- audience.
particular area of
Invited Talk rials. Pertinent questions
knowledge.
and students inter-
Seminar (45 min + 30 Discussion between action .
Provide students with
min) Oral Speaker and par- Interest shown dur-
the state-of-the-art de-
ticipants. ing the presenta-
velopments.
tion.
Talk given by Content well organized
Provide students with
and structure.
Lecture one of the resi- the basic theoretical Oral Questioning.
Audio and visual mate-
contents.
(theoretical dent teachers rials.
Discussion between
lesson) (1hour + 20 Promote parallel learn- Tutorial exercises.
teacher and partici-
ing with linked topics.
min) pants.
4 to 8 hours per Active involvement, Emphasize concept ap- Oral Questioning.
Pratical day of Lab prac- through hands-on pro- plication. Team and individual
jects. Foment team-learning capabilities on solv-
sessions tice, supervised activities. ing problems and
(lab practice) by 2 to 4 teach- Challenging team as- Foster and develop crit- developing critical
signments. ical thinking. thinking.
ers
Table 3. Learning Activities.
Objectives Learning Activities
Work with instructional modules.
Implementation of basic system functions
Lectures provided in the context of each module and the tutorials
provide structured information for the participants.
Design and construction of the system Teamwork on practical project assignment.
Work on research and Lab practice.
Implementation, control and communica- Participants need to develop the proposed assignments and to con-
clude the final project.
tions System of extra point’s reward, to increase motivation and develop-
ment of all the proposed tasks.
Adaptation of the system to the real envi- Lab practice and assignments.
ronment and prepare to the competition
And in the patrol mission, the robot needs to patrol, cooperatively, a given re-
gion, minimizing the idleness of all points of interests; therefore, the evaluation of
this patrol mission is on the average idleness. Table 4 shows for each subject ap-
proached during the course, the intended learning objectives and the observed out-
comes, as well as an example of a proposed assignment given to the participants.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 15
15
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
5
Table 4. Subjects - Learning Objectives, Assignments and Outcomes.
Intended Learning
Subject Proposed Assignment Observed Learning Outcomes
Objectives
Identify mobile robot mor- Simple tasks where both circuit All the participants achieved the
phologies and program needed to be intended learning objectives.
Robotics Implement, develop for changed, e.g. modifying the All groups completed the assign-
functional architecture to a communication protocol start ment with good remarks by the
mobile robot. code. teachers.
Identify 3D modelling tools Participants must design a crea-
and printers tive robot housing. The robot All the participants achieved the
Computer-
Execute a 3D modelling tool housing should hold the 2-ultra- intended learning objectives.
Aided De-
(FreeCAD) sound sensors (left and right All teams showed creativity in the
sign (CAD)
Create and print a 3D struc- sensors), 1 infrared sensor (front design of the 3D structure.
ture sensor) and 4 LEDs.
Assemble the printed 3D Participants must follow a given All groups assemble their mobile
3D mobile structure hardware architecture in order platforms.
Robot Assemble all mechanical to construct their mobile robot All participants understood the
components platform hardware architecture.
Create a function that reads the
ultrasound sensors and converts
Apply C language in Arduino The participants shown good re-
its measurements in millimeters.
Arduino programming sponse to the Arduino module.
Create a function that reads the
Program- Create the interface to link All groups were able to plan, or-
difference between the num-
ming the Arduino board with the ganize and execute the tasks.
bers of pulses counted by the
sensors and actuators
encoders on each wheel since
last request.
Relate kinematics with Adapt and merge the codes to
Kinematics The evaluation of all participants
the robot control system the real hardware, comprising
and was positive, highlighting the in-
Create and implement a linear and angular velocities on
Control terpersonal help between each
kinematic model of a dif- the control of speed and the di-
team.
ferential drive robot rection of both wheels.
All participants shown some diffi-
culties upon the introduction of
Interpret and operate in a Create a ROS package, that con-
ROS.
ROS environment tains a node capable of subscrib-
ROS Archi- The assistance and help of the
Explore ROS features ing 3 topics provided by the
tecture teachers were fundamental and
Relate Arduino task with ROS code developed in the previous
on this module, they overcome
architecture task in Arduino.
most of their drawbacks by team
interaction.
Sketch a robotic simula- In a ROS package, create the
tion setup and imple- needed files to simulate a virtual Almost all groups achieved the in-
Simulating ment the mobile robot world with a robot in Stage. tended learning objectives.
with Stage platform in ROS. The extra goal is to have the ro- Robot design creativity used in
and ROS Execute Stage software bot mapping the environment Stage, rewarded with extra
in ROS and evaluate the with laser scans, in parallel with points.
mobile robot perfor- other tasks.
mance.
Almost all groups developed an
Illustrate and label differ- Implement a simple algo- ant algorithm.
Artificial In-
ent AI approaches rithm inspired on biological 2-3 groups developed and imple-
telligence
Implement and compare systems, e.g. an ant algo- mented a more advanced AI algo-
(AI)
AI algorithms rithm. rithm.
All groups were able to develop a
Operate the mobile ro- Conclude the algorithm de- full operating mobile robot plat-
bot platform in a real 3D velopment of the mobile ro- form.
Competi- scenario maze). 10 of 15 groups enter the maze fi-
bot platform. Evaluate and
tion Assess the performance nal competition and just 3 teams
carry out final improve-
of the surveillance algo- ments. concluded a successful surveil-
rithm (patrol). lance algorithm.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 16
16
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
6
3. Robot Craftsmanship
The course developed to be a practical hands-on experience for students of vari-
ous backgrounds; and to engage students on robotics, met some specific criteria: the
use of hardware and software supported by large communities, allowing students
the benefit of finding help and examples online, both during and after the course.
All the devices used were relatively affordable, so that students could easily pur-
chase their own components to tinker with, after the course. Although simplistic,
the mobile robotic platform assembled, needed to comprise all relevant components
inherent to mobile robotics (Figure 1).
Fig. 1. Main hardware parts of the robotic system.
After the assembly of the platforms, students were introduced to C language and
to some common algorithms in mobile autonomous robotic topics, such as mobile
robotic kinematics, motion control, localization, path planning, among others. They
started merging the developed algorithmic into systems capable of basic autono-
mous functionality and evaluate it considering the robot performance and then, im-
proving the developed code.
Fig. 2 The mobile robot platform.
As they develop skills working with ROS (Robot Operating System), writing
robot software in a flexible framework, they acknowledge that several kinds of ro-
bot bases have common points: wheels, motors, odometry, among others. The inter-
process communication is an important feature to the overall process. The robot
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 17
17
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
7
needs to see obstacles and decide where to go next (reactive walk). For this, it con-
tinuously needs to read laser scans to make decisions, where through a simple algo-
rithm; it sends commands to the base. This is a kind of service used on any mobile
robot. Simple service, like navigation consists on the determination of a valid tra-
jectory between two points, provided by a map. Knowing the robot position, the
localization of the robot in space is possible. Synchronous communication is an
important issue when defining goals for the robot to move, for determining the pos-
sible paths and for knowing when the robot got there.
In order to avoid harming the robot or oneself, they simulated their approach
before attempting it in the real robot platforms. They used Stage (OpenSource soft-
ware), a standalone robot simulation program, on the ROS platform and were able
to simulate multi-robot tasks in a ROS packages (e.g., coverage, patrolling, for-
mation control, exploration, mapping, and it can include robots, sensors, actuators,
moveable and immovable objects). The attendants learn to configure properly a
workspace, to set up and run the simulation program, and to create a ROS package
for the simulations. They were able to test and validate their project.
In the final week of the course, participants worked together on the development
and improvement of their mobile robot platforms. They gained experience in how
to accomplish tasks, in problem solving and in design decisions. Instructional time
was primarily spent guiding attendants through the implementation of algorithms,
and working through the difficulties and pitfalls of real hands-on development.
Their skills in scheduling timelines, teamwork and compromise were improved.
One noteworthy event was by the end of the last week, some teams realized that
they would not be able to complete the project in time to enter the competition. In
order to meet this goal, opposing teams worked together and even shared algorithms
and code. At the end of the week, all teams had developed robots that could auton-
omously compete.
In the final day, the competition took place, and comprised two different objec-
tives: first, the maze solving and second, the patrolling attributes (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Competition day: maze solving (left) and patrolling scenario (right).
Figure 3 shows the maze scenario, where the robot needs to find its way through
the maze and the patrol mission, where robots needed to patrol cooperatively a given
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 18
18
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
8
region, minimizing the idleness of all points of interests. The maze scenario assess-
ment was through the distance elapsed, time and number of collisions and for the
patrol scenario was through the average idleness.
4. Surveys
To obtain a formalized feedback of the course, participants took two surveys.
The first was answered by 96% of enrolled attendants. The main purpose of this
survey was to identify the overall knowledge, of each participant, in different related
topics. The second, taken in the last seminar by 77% of enrolled participants, aimed
to get feedback from the attendants, about their expectations and to provide a useful
overall evaluation of the course.
4.1. Participants
During the first seminar, 81 participants answered the initial survey, correspond-
ing to 96% of enrolled attendants and came from twenty different countries. Being
an intensive summer course in English language and disseminated in several infor-
mation channels, Portugal (the host country) is second with just 7% of student par-
ticipation behind Turkey, representing 51% of enrolled students.
The attendants became aware of the existence of this summer course through
several channels of information. The more important ones were through friends and
colleagues, social media and Erasmus channels, representing 70% of the enquiries.
From the 81 attendants that answered the initial survey, 92.5% were university
students in their home countries, 79% had ages between 20 to 24 years old and 75%
of them were male. BSc, MSc and PhD students, corresponded to 80%, 10% and
2.5% of participants, respectively. Figure 4 shows the distribution of participants
according to the area of specialization. The others 7.5% already concluded their
studies and were not involved in a university course.
Fig 4. Number of participants according to their area of specialization.
As is it shown on figure 4, 80% of the participants have a background on, or are
attending, a university course on engineering. Electrical and electronics engineering
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 19
19
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
9
is the area with most participants, 31%, against 26% of participants with a mechan-
ical or mechatronics engineering background (14% and 12% respectively); 10% are
attending a Computer science course, 5% and 4% of them, are students on Aero-
space and Biomedical engineering, respectively.
When asked, what were the main reasons (up to 3) for enrolling in this course;
participants gave different and diverse reasons. Some wanted to have an educative
summer, others to learn more on ROS, C# and/or Artificial Intelligence; others the
main purpose was to make an internship, or visit Portugal (9%), or to improve their
English. Most of them, around 42% shown to have personal interest in acquire ex-
perience in robotics. Around 47% of the attendants said they had already built a
robot before.
4.1.1 Women participation
From the last decades the number of women in engineering courses has been
increasing [10]. This edition, has been no exception, there was an increase of the
percentage of women involved. There were 84 attendants, 25% of the enquiries
were female, corresponding to an increase of 20% of female participation from last
year edition. These female attendants came mainly from Turkey, followed by Hun-
gary and Morocco with 40%, 20% and 15% of participation, respectively. 80% of
them are BSc students, with ages between 20 and 24 years old. Their areas of spe-
cialization are mostly on engineering, with 25% on Electrical and Electronics En-
gineering, 20% on Business Informatics and 15% on Computer Science.
4.2. Participants knowledge
The initial survey had a series of questions, aimed to access the overall
knowledge of the participants in some areas, such as Computer-Aided Design, 3D
Printing, Mechatronics, Arduino Programming, Kinematics, Control, ROS and Ar-
tificial Intelligence. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the responses to six of the survey
questions, based on a five point Likert Scale [11]. Likert Scales have the advantage
that they do not expect a simple answer (yes or no, good or bad) from the respond-
ent, but rather allow degrees of opinion, and even no opinion at all. For example,
there are Agreement, Frequency, Importance and is assumed that the experience is
linear. The left and right extremes, correspond to numbers 1 and 5, respectively.
And it is assumed that there is a continuum of possible answers from the left to the
right of the scales, that is, from Never to Very Frequently, or from Unimportant to
Very Important, and a choice of five pre-coded responses can be given, with the
neutral point being occasionally or moderately Important [12]. Figure 5 shows the
current understanding on the topics and reveals that most students do not understand
a large part of these topics. In fact, only 4 participants worked with ROS before
starting the course.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 20
20
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
10
1 Computer-Aided Design
3D Printing
Mechatronics
5 2 Arduino Programming
Kinematics
Control
ROS
4 3 Artificial Intelligence
Fig. 5. Initial current understanding on RobotCraft topics.
Also the background in some subjects like electronic, computer, assembly lan-
guage, show that the participants have an overall poor knowledge and lack of hands-
on experience.
4.3. Participants reactions
Figure 6 illustrates a comparison made with the initial and final surveys taken by
the participants, the topics, which they had, a non-relevant initial understating are
ROS with 67%, Artificial Intelligence with 49%, followed by Kinematics, Mecha-
tronics, Control and 3D printing with a percentage of around 40%. The topics where
the seminars were more important in the context of the course were the lectures
within Arduino, Kinematics, ROS, Control and Artificial Intelligence, with 55%,
57%, 66%, 62% and 68%. These were also the topics where the evaluation of the
seminar lectures were more relevant, with 43%, 38%, 40%, 45% and 49%, consid-
ers that the evaluation was positive. When comparing the initial and current under-
standing on each topic, when comparing the initial and current understanding are
ROS topic with a 29% drop, from 67% to 38%, Mechatronics with a 17% drop from
42% to 25%, followed by Kinematics and 3D printing with a 15% and 14% drop.
In fact, ROS, Kinematics and Arduino topics had a very subtle increase of 10%, 2%
and 2% of participants with a relevant current knowledge on the topic. When asked
about the difficulty of these topics, the ones that had more percentage of non-rele-
vant knowledge and higher relevancy of the seminars lectures to their understand-
ing, ROS, Control and Artificial Intelligence appear with 51%, 46% and 48% of
percentage of participants alleging they were difficult topics to learn. In fact, about
ROS the participants felt this was a very important topic of the robotics course, but
it is very difficult to learn in just two weeks. Based on formal and informal feedback,
the course was successful in providing the participants with a meaningful introduc-
tory, yet comprehensive robotics experience. In addition, their feedback is im-
portant to improve the overall quality of this course.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 21
21
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
11
Fig 6. Participants opinion on the topics address
5. Conclusions
A two months robotics course, aimed for international students from varying en-
gineering backgrounds, with the advantage of coupling various skill levels, was suc-
cessful. The methodology used, had the ability to give to participants an appropriate
introduction to a complete robotics design experience. The participants saw their
academic knowledge on some engineering subjects improved. The methodology
used, developed not just their technical skills but social also, through teamwork.
Even a moderate knowledge increase on some approach subjects is a finding that
robotics, if well approached, can be a multi-disciplinary learning platform.
Acknowledgments
This work is financed by the ERDF – European Regional Development Fund
through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation -
COMPETE 2020 Programme within project «POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006961»,
and by National Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
(Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) as part of pro-
ject UID/EEA/50014/2013.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 22
22
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)
12
References
[1] E. Kolberg and N. Orlev, “Robotics learning as a tool for integrating science
technology curriculum in K-12 schools,” presented at the Frontiers in Educa-
tion Conference, 2001.
[2] 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.
[3] A. Melchior, F. Cohen, T. Cutter, T. Leavitt and N. Manchester, "More than
robots: An evaluation of the first robotics competition participant and institu-
tional impacts," Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis
University, 2005.
[4] S. Grover, "Robotics and Engineering for Middle and High School Students to
Develop Computational Thinking," in Annual Meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, 2011.
[5] W. W. Lau, G. Ngai, S. C. Chan and J. C. Cheung, "Learning programming
through fashion and design: a pilot summer course in wearable computing for
middle school students," SIGCSE Bull., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 504-508, March
2009.
[6] A. Welch and D. Huffman, “The Effect of Robotics Competitions on High School
Students' Attitudes Toward Science,” School Science Mathematics, vol. 111,
no. 8, pp. 416–424, Dec. 2011.
[7] G. Nugent, B. Barker, N. Grandgenett, and G. Welch, “Robotics camps, clubs,
and competitions: Results from a US robotics project,” Robotics and Autono-
mous Systems, vol. 75, no. Part B, pp. 686–691, Jan. 2016.
[8] Igor M. Verner, Shlomo Waks and Eli Kolberg, “Educational Robotics: An In-
sight into Systems Engineering”, European Journal of Engineering Education,
24:2, 201-212, DOI: 10.1080/03043799908923555, 1999
[9] Moshe Barak, “From ‘doing’ to ‘doing with learning’: reflection on an effort to
promote self-regulated learning in technological projects in high school”, Eu-
ropean Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 37, Issue 1, DOI:
10.1080/03043797.2012.658759, 2012.
[10] Duyen Q. Nguyen, “The Status of Women in Engineering Education”, Int. J.
Eng. Ed. Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 286-291, 2000.
[11] Likert, R., “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes”. Archives of Psy-
chology, 140, 1–55, 1932.
[12] Paulhus, D. L., “Two-component models of socially desirable responding,
Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(3), 598, 1984.
TRROS 2018 – European Robotics Forum 2018 Workshop “Teaching Robotics with ROS”
TRROS by
(Edited 2018
S. – European
Schiffer, A. Robotics Forum
Ferrein, M. 2018 Workshop
Bharatheesha, “Teaching
and C. Robotics
Hernández with ROS”
Corbato) 23
23
(Edited by S. Schiffer, A. Ferrein, M. Bharatheesha, and C. Hernández Corbato)