1 / 31

Remote Educational Programming Of Robots ( REPOR )

Tord Fauskanger Aurelie Aurilla Bechina Arntzen Dag Samuelsen Buskerud University College. Remote Educational Programming Of Robots ( REPOR ). Content. Motivation & Background Labs & Remote labs Robots Prototype Evaluation Conclusion. Motivation.

fay-glass
Download Presentation

Remote Educational Programming Of Robots ( REPOR )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tord Fauskanger Aurelie Aurilla Bechina Arntzen Dag Samuelsen Buskerud University College Remote Educational Programming Of Robots(REPOR)

  2. Content • Motivation & Background • Labs & Remote labs • Robots • Prototype • Evaluation • Conclusion

  3. Motivation • Newton room project  Teach Natural science • Many students have problems with programming • Industry needs more IT labour • Danger of off-shoring • Freshmen engineering students • Impressionable • REPOR

  4. Background • Java based introduction course • All engineering students must take it • Can choose field of study after 1st semester • Exercises on PCs • Some students have a hard time connecting theory with use.

  5. Labs • REPOR is structured like a Lab • Practical work • Theory Use • Issues • Traditional labs are hard to share • Traditional lab configurations are expensive • Preparation & tear-down time

  6. Remote labs(1) • Created to mitigate issues with traditional labs • Save costs – time & staff • Set-up • tear-down • Availability • Remote • 24/7

  7. Remote labs(2) • Easier to share • Students • Institutions • Static experiments • Enforced limits avoid bad use from students

  8. Why robots? • Multidisciplinary • Programming • Learning through play--FUN • Make the robot “work” • Experiment with robot • Motivating

  9. Remote lab selection • State-of-the-art • CYBERLAB - Virtual Laboratory in Mechatronics: • Access to Remote and Virtual e-Learning (MARVEL) • LABNET [13], NetLab, ect…… • Selection process • Re-usability • Openness • Availability • State-of-the-art

  10. iLab--MIT • Service oriented architecture • Created for re-use • Open • Actively maintained • Used in many other installations • Conforms well with state-of-the-art • Supports interactive experiments

  11. The challenges • Remote availability • Remote programming • Robot substitution • Adaptations • Multiple robot types • iLab - interactive applets

  12. Prototype Client Video Server Applet Compile Video handler Status handling Deploy Remote build service Source handling Remote build handler Run User commands Experiment web service Save WS wrapper

  13. Prototype • Distributed design • Advantages • Re-uses iLab with modification • Enables efficient sharing of robots • Enables remote programming and monitoring • Inconvenience • Lacks collaborative interface • Code editor is very primitive • NXT software gives little feedback

  14. Testing • Designed for test • Mock pattern • Factory pattern • Distributed Version Control • Distribution of software • Remote testing – bug fixing

  15. Demonstration

  16. Evaluation • Comparison with other systems • Focus on robotics as a whole • Questionnaire • Observation

  17. Questionnaire context • What do they currently think of intro to programming • How would they feel about integrating robot programming • Do some students choose not do Computer engineering, due to programming. • Would students use a system like REPOR

  18. Questionnaire

  19. Questionnaire(2)

  20. Questionnaire(3)

  21. Questionnaire(4)

  22. Questionnaire(5)

  23. Questionnaire(7)

  24. Questionnaire(8)

  25. Questionnaire(9)

  26. Limitations of Questionnaire • Surveyor present with students • Might influence the results • Number of students could be higher • Students just shown the system • Range of questions • Other questions might get other answers

  27. Observation • To mitigate some of the limitations of the Questionnaire • Two students selected • Minor browser issues • Code editor could be better

  28. Conclusion • State-of-the-art remote programming lab • Some students have chosen not to do computer engineering • iLab suitable for re-use • Modified for interactive applets • Students want to use the system • REPOR enables remote programming of robots

  29. Further work • Integration of collaborative tools • Chat • video • Improve code editor • Extend robot support

  30. Questions KRAPONG/ KHA THANKSQuestions ?

  31. References • [1]NXT Robot.jpg; http://www.handsontech.co.za/Images/Curricular/NXT%20Robot.jpg • [2]Jiaxin, H. and G. Rongfang. Motivation and Training Program on Robotics Education. In Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering, 2009. CiSE 2009. International Conference on. 2009. • [3]BOOK:http://www.uiwp.uiuc.edu/porfolio_2008/erin_ludwick/BOOK.jpg

More Related