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

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 1 st semester Exercises on PCs Some students have a hard time connecting theory with use.

5 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 Labs

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

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 THANKS Questions ?

31 References [1]NXT Robot.jpg; r/NXT%20Robot.jpg [2]Jiaxin, H. and G. Rongfang. Motivation and Training Program on Robotics Education. In Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering, CiSE International Conference on [3]BOOK: 8/erin_ludwick/BOOK.jpg