This paper describes how students in Israel develop robots
and participate in the Trinity College Fire-Fighting Home
Robot Contests in the curricular framework of the school
graduation project. We consider robotics projects developed
in the Mevohot E’ron High School in 1999-2002 and
specify the interdisciplinary activities of the teams designing
fire-fighting robots. Our research focuses on the assessment
of learning while working in the teams. The proposed
approach is based on the triangulation of ethnographic
observations of teamwork, examination of learning
achievements, and analysis of robot contest surveys. Results
of the study gave a picture of students’ behaviours at
different stages of the design process, as needed for the
individual assessment. As found, each of the students had
made progress in a number of subjects and took a
significant part in making the robot

Eyal Hershko (7152068)

Igor M. Verner (7152065)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

   This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.      For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/  Learning through designing robots in the frameworkof school graduation projects in IsraelIgor M. Verner and Eyal Hershko, Department of Education in Technology and Science,Technion – Israel Institute of Technology183AbstractThis paper describes how students in Israel develop robotsand participate in the Trinity College Fire-Fighting HomeRobot Contests in the curricular framework of the schoolgraduation project. We consider robotics projects developedin the Mevohot E’ron High School in 1999-2002 andspecify the interdisciplinary activities of the teams designingfire-fighting robots. Our research focuses on the assessmentof learning while working in the teams. The proposedapproach is based on the triangulation of ethnographicobservations of teamwork, examination of learningachievements, and analysis of robot contest surveys. Resultsof the study gave a picture of students’ behaviours atdifferent stages of the design process, as needed for theindividual assessment. As found, each of the students hadmade progress in a number of subjects and took asignificant part in making the robot.Keywordsrobot, design, technology, project, education, IsraelIntroductionGraduation projects are offered to students in thefinal year of secondary education (grade 12). In Israel,Graduation Project (GP) is an optional matriculationsubject in science, technology, or humanities. It canbe studied at the basic, intermediate or advancedlevel. GP in technology combines practical designingand building a product with research in technologyand application of science methods. Many GPsprepared in the last five years relate to designing,constructing and operating robots. They have beencarried out in connection with the Machine Controldiscipline. (Verner and Betzer, 2001: 263–272)A number of schools are implementing roboticsprojects inspired by the fire-fighting robot contestprogram. Since the 1998-99 school year, high-schoolstudents in Israel have participated in theinternational Trinity College Fire-Fighting HomeRobot Contest (TCFFHRC), Hartford, CT, and in thelocal robot contest organised by the Israeli Ministry ofEducation. The Israel delegation at the TCFFHRCincluded 24 students and five robots from five schoolsin 1999, 73 students and 8 robots from seven schoolsin 2000, and 81 students and 10 robots from sevenschools in 2001.The goal of our research is to examine learningthrough designing robots in the framework of schoolgraduation projects. This paper presents results of acase study of the fire-fighting robot projectsdeveloped in one of the schools in 1999-2002 withattention to the content knowledge, learning bymaking processes, and assessment.Fire-fighting robot assignmentThe TCFFHRC attracts a wide range of designers,including faculty and engineers, master and bachelordegree students, as well as high and junior highschool pupils. The participants compete in one ofseveral divisions (experts, senior, high school, junior).The contest assignment (Ahlgren and Mendelssohn,1998) is to develop a mobile robot (maximumdimensions 31 x 31 x 31cm3) that can navigateautonomously through a model house (a 2.5m x 2.5mmaze), find a lit candle placed at random in one of therooms, and extinguish it. The maze includes fourrooms and connecting hallways with black floors andwhite walls. White 2.5 cm wide lines mark the rooms’thresholds. The robot score in the contest is the sumof the fastest two run times of the allowed three runs. Fire fighting project in Mevohot E’ron High SchoolA fire-fighting robot project at the Mevohot E’ronhigh school has been developed since 1998 by one ofthe technology teachers (a co-author of this paper) inconnection with his graduate studies at the Technion.In 1999-2000 the Mevohot E’ron robot team consistedof 13 students divided into five groups dealing withstructure, sensors, fire extinction, software andmanagement. The structure group designed and builtthe robot structure. The sensors group wasresponsible for the calibration of sensors and realmotors and the kinematics of straight and circularrobot motion. The fire extinction group examinedseveral possible solutions for extinguishing candles,chose a suitable propeller device, mounted it on therobot and tested it. The software group dealt withmaze navigation logic and programming robotmovements. The management group coordinated theproject schedule, logistics, reports, and presentations.The team participated in the TCFFHRC 2000 andshared places 12 to 16 (among 48).As a result of the project evaluation study, severalimprovements were made in the curriculum of2000–2001. The team consisted of 8 students dividedinto 2 groups of equivalent amount of project workand responsibilities: structure and fire extinction(S&FE), and sensors and software (S&S). The S&FEgroup examined a number of variants of robotstructure and fire extinction means through physicaland mathematical modelling and CAD. The S&Sgroup dealt with robot XY kinematics, application ofshaft encoders for position control, and algorithmsand software for maze navigation. The teamdeveloped another fire-fighting robot, which tookseventh place (among 36) in the 2001 Trinity contest.In Figure 1a the robot is shown after it found a litcandle in the maze and was about to extinguish thecandle and complete the task.Figure 1a: The 2001 robot in the maze. Figure 1b:The 2002 tinyfire-fighter. The 2001-2002 project involved 25 students dividedinto three teams, who worked on three new anddifferent fire-fighting robots. The first team built a20 x 20 x 30cm3 robot with a caterpillar drive systemfor participation in the expert division contest. Thesecond team developed a tricycle robot of the samesize. The third team designed a tiny fire-fighter, 10 x 10 x 15cm3 (see Figure 1b). The teams designedrobots following the general outline developed in the2001 project.2001 project outlineThe project was conducted through a sequence ofregular work meetings of the subject groups and thewhole team. The meetings were in two stages:preparation and project work. At the preparatorymeetings, conducted by an instructor, the studentsput to practice subjects studied theoretically in thetechnology course, for further application in theproject. They used the Interactive C language tointerface with controllers and operate DC motors.They also made drawings using CAD tools, calibratedsensors and analysed data on Excel spreadsheet. As aresult of these activities, the students realised thevalue of the project and acquired the confidence toface its challenge. The project work meetings weremanaged by students themselves and were directedpurposefully towards the project goal. The studentsrecognised the range of tasks included in the fire-fighting robot design process and performed them.The main tasks are presented in Table 1.Educational study frameworkThe fire-fighting robot program of the Mevohot E’ronHigh School is followed by a case study, whichexamines learning in the fire-fighting robot projectswith focus on the following aspects: • knowledge and skills in robot design and how theycould be addressed in the high school graduationproject• learning by reflective practice directed to facingchallenges of the robot contest184185• individual assessment of learning achievements inthe team project. In teaching principles of the design process andguiding the fire-fighting robot design project weapply the methodology of ‘total design’ proposed byPugh. (1991) Learning objectives and activities in theproject are closely connected to stages of design, asshown in Table 2. Educational evaluation and assessment in our studyis based on ethnographic observations of theteamwork, examination of learning achievements,and analysis of the TCFFHRC Survey. (Verner et al,2000) The study is conducted in the form of actionresearch. One of the authors (a faculty member)directs and shapes the study, and conducts thecontest survey. The second author (a teacher)manages and conducts it in a school as well as guidesthe project team. The field research data throughoutthe project are gathered in two main sources: a teamportfolio and a teacher’s logbook. Educational surveys were carried out at the 1999, 2000and 2001 fire-fighting contests at Trinity, to assesslearning outcomes of contest-oriented curricula andattitudes of the participants to the program. Thecontestants were asked to fill out the survey forms.Answers given by the Mevohot E’ron team membersto the survey questions reflected their personalinvolvement and views of the project.Table 1: Tasks and products in the 2001 project.Task Products1. Mechanical modelling of robot structure, drive mechanism and extinguishing device1.1 Design 2–3 possible robot structure solutions. CAD technical drawings and cardboard models 1.2 Design a special drive mechanism for each of robot structure solutions1.3 Place sensors on each of possible robot structures Sensor substitutes and an extinguishing device1.4 Design a special extinguishing device for each of attached to the cardboard models possible robot structure solutions   2. System software2.1 Develop an algorithm for robot motion along maze An Interactive C program tested on the hallway with a given distance from its walls standard mobile robot2.2 Develop an algorithm for identifying position and orientation of threshold whitelines on the maze floor2.3 Develop a robot motion algorithm for navigation from each room to any other room in the maze2.4 Develop an algorithm for identifying each room of the maze2.5 Develop an obstacle avoiding algorithm An Interactive C program3. Project robot implementation3.1 Build the robot platform including motors, sensors and A physical robot platformthe extinguishing device3.2 Adapt the system software modules to the project robot Interactive C programs tested by the project robot3.3 Integrate the algorithms of specific robot behaviours into Robot system software an entire procedure for the contest assignment4. Robot contest4.1 Provide robust performance of the contest assignment in A reliable robot systemdiverse situations4.2 Fashion an aesthetic outward appearance of the robot An aesthetically fashioned robot Findings of the educational study Research in classThe analysis of teacher’s logbook and students’portfolios focused on notes related to different stagesof the project. At the first stage of shaping the projectidea the central didactic objective was to providestudents with the incentive to meet the challenge ofthe project and put in the effort to bring it tocompletion. The study showed that the projectachieved this objective, as indicated by the followingstudent behaviour:• contributing time to self-directed extracurricularteamwork• curiosity and motivation in inquiring aboutproject-related subjects• concentrating on solving project relatedproblems• taking personal initiative in project promotion• feelings of empathy towards the robot.At the second stage of the project, the didactic focuswas on development of technological systemsthinking skills, as defined in ITEA. (2000) We foundthat learning achievements in this aspect depended onthe selected model of the design process. In 2000,stages in the design process were performed asseparate tasks step-by-step, with focus on activities inmechanics and control. In 2001, we turned to amultifaceted iterative design approach. (Pugh, 1991)This change provided students with involvement in awider range of aspects of fire-fighting robot design. At the concept design stage, the emphasis was onstudents’ understanding and shaping of possiblesolutions and on collaborative decision-making aboutan optimal solution for each design problem. This wasachieved through gathering technical data andmaking real world experiments. Unlike professionaldesigners, in examining solutions the students neededto build physical prototypes in order to focus theirthoughts. The students mentioned that throughbuilding the prototypes they discovered newproblems, of which they were unaware at the previousdesign stage.  Detail Design and Creation (DDC) was the stage inwhich the students implemented the optimal solutionfound in the earlier design stages. This was performedthrough coordinated work of the software andstructure crews. The structure crew was concernedwith building the robot. The students planned therobot assembling process, ordered relevant standardparts, and manufactured special parts for the projectby carving, milling, drilling and soldering. Thesoftware crew received the physical robot from thestructure crew and wrote a computer programadjusted to it. The central didactic issues at the DDCstage were: involving the students in a variety ofactivities, promoting their technological creativity,and planning collaborative work.At the operation and tuning stage, when building arobot and programming its functions were completed,the team performed systematic tests to integrate the186Stages Learning objectives1. Project idea: Recognition of the need Definition of need and demands and formulating the project proposal.2. Specification: Concept layout, spatial Finding, examining and making decisions about ways to implement allocation. the project through recogniSing sub-problems and approaches.3. Concept design: Subsystem design and Finding feasible solutions and their analysis through theoreticalanalysis considerations and experiments. Formulating the best solution concept in terms of components and processes.4. Detail design and creation: Component Systematic consideration and implementation of the best solutiondesign and analysis, creation and testing through iterations of creation, integration and functional testing of prototypes product sub-systems. Product testing in laboratory conditions.5. Operation and tuning:  Product Testing the product in a real environment in diverse (including exploitation and maintenance practice extreme) situations. Improving the product towards more effective, reliable and aesthetic performance.6. Evaluation: Presentation learning results, Public presentation and demonstration of the product. Preparing a assessment project report and external examination.Table 2: Stages and contents of the design process.187functions and execute the contest assignment invarious real conditions. While in many othergraduation projects the students do not test andimprove their products systematically, in the fire-fighting robot project the incentive to get to acomplete product and succeed in the contestmotivates the students to maximum effort at thisstage.Contest surveyThe survey findings relate to the summativeevaluation and assessment of the project. In thissection we will focus on two survey questions. Thefirst question asked each team-member to estimate hisor her progress in the following 17 fields: electronics,computer communication, microprocessors, assemblylanguage, high-level language, motors and gears,mechanical design, robot kinematics, sensors andmeasurement, data analysis, physical field concepts,mathematical modelling, control systems, CAD tools,systems design, robot programming and teamwork.For each field the respondents evaluated theirprogress in theoretical and practical knowledge. Theanswers revealed that each of the students had madeprogress in the absolute majority of subjects in boththeoretical and practical domains. High progress wasmainly in programming, robot kinematics, sensors,data analysis, control and teamwork. In the second question the team-members were askedto describe their own practical activities with mainrobot components (drive mechanism, mechanicalstructure, micro-controller, control circuits, sensorsystem, steering planning, system software andextinguishing device). For each component, they wereasked to specify their involvement in various types ofactivities: designing, constructing, testing,implementation and installation). Students’ answersshowed differences in activities of the two crews. Allthe students from the structure crew were involved inall types of activities with the drive mechanism robotstructure, steering planning and extinguishing device.They also installed and tested the microcontroller.The software crew students were involved in all typesof software development. The robot sensor system wasthe common contribution of the entire team.ConclusionsAn educational program that has been developed inIsrael successfully introduced learning throughdesigning robots in the framework of schoolgraduation projects. In many schools these projectshave been inspired by the Trinity College Fire-Fighting Home Robot Contest.In 1999-2002 we developed fire-fighting robot projectsin one of the schools with a follow-up of learning inthe project teams. The study characterised tasks andstudents’ behaviours, which are central at differentstages of the design process, and proposed anapproach to individual assessment of learningachievements. The contest was found to be animportant motivator for self-directed learning inquiryin a variety of engineering subjects. ReferencesAhlgren, D. and Mendelssohn, J. (1998) ‘The TrinityCollege Fire Fighting Home Robot Contest,’ Proceedings,ASEE Annual Conference, SeattleITEA (2000) ‘Standards for Technological Literacy. Contentfor the Study of Technology.’, Reston, Virginia:International Technology Education AssociationPugh, S. (1991) Total Design Integrated Methods forSuccessful Product Engineering, Addison-WesleyVerner, I., Ahlgren, D. and Mendelssohn, J. (2000) ‘FireFighting Robot Competitions and Learning Outcomes: AQuantitative Assessment’, Proceedings, 2000 ASEEAnnual Conference, St. LouisVerner, I. and Betzer, N. (2001) ‘Machine Control – ADesign and Technology Discipline in Israel’s Senior HighSchools,’ International Journal of Technology and DesignEducation, 11 (3): 263–272188

Learning through designing robots in the framework of school graduation projects in Israel

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Learning_through_designing_robots_in_the_framework_of_school_graduation_projects_in_Israel/9345098/files/16954130.pdf

Learning through designing robots in the framework of school graduation projects in Israel

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository