developing a balanced robotics / mechatronics...

1

PROPOSAL

Developing a BalancedRobotics / Mechatronics Curricula

15 April 2004

Project Director: Dr. Gregory L. Plett, [email protected], (719) 262–3468Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,University of Colorado at Colorado Springs1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, P.O. Box 7150,Colorado Springs, CO80933–7150

Co-Project Director: Dr. Michael D. Ciletti, [email protected], (719) 262–3112Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,University of Colorado at Colorado Springs1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, P.O. Box 7150,Colorado Springs, CO80933–7150

2

Project SummaryThis proposal requests funding for a project to develop a balanced, hands-on curriculum in ro-botics/mechatronics in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Universityof Colorado at Colorado Springs to broaden career opportunities for students by preparing themfor Colorado's technology workforce of the future. Project funds will purchase advanced robotkits and develop two new courses (senior and graduate level) to leverage existing resources andbuild on the success of the department's new first-year course in robotics.

The project will exploit recent results in modern learning theory (i.e., the so-called Kolb-4MAT learning cycle) to balance the curriculum in robotics so that it addresses the spectrum oflearning modalities, and incorporates hands-on experiential learning in its pedagogy. Using uni-versity funds, the project team has already developed and successfully implemented a first-yearcourse in robotics. The proposed courses will build on that success to provide an opportunity forstudents to take senior- and graduate level courses in conjunction with the existing degree pro-grams in electrical, computer, and mechanical engineering, and to participate in internships withindustry.

Results of the proposed robotics thrust at UCCS will be shared with other engineering pro-grams in the state to foster cooperation, collaboration of new projects for students, and joint re-search efforts.

3

1. Project DescriptionThe goal of this project is to establish a curriculum in robotics that will benefit the students andindustry of Colorado. Our premises are:

1 Since technology is vital to Colorado's economy and since it impacts our daily life, it isimportant for students of all disciplines—and especially those in engineering pro-grams—to have a solid fundamental understanding of the complex choices underlying thedesign, construction, and operation of technology-based systems.

1 A curriculum in robotics can be a very effective and versatile pedagogical tool for teach-ing technology and for preparing students for careers where they develop new technol-ogy. Robots comprise sensors, actuators, electronics, wireless communications, proces-sor selection / custom design, and programming—all the elements potentially present in atechnological system, whether “intelligent” or not. Furthermore, study in robotics allowsstudents to use technology to learn about and understand technology. A robot's dy-namic nature provides immediate feedback as to whether it is accomplishing its task; ro-bots are understandable to students in all disciplines, of all backgrounds; their designspans the disciplines of mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering, and they relateto every-day experience.

1 A curriculum in robotics is aligned with clear trends indicating the importance of thistechnology. Robots are widely used in manufacturing processes, in hazardous environ-ments, by the military, and in emerging consumer markets: “Most robotics applicationshave been in industry, with about 770,000 robots currently working worldwide. Sales ofservice robots for personal and private use are expected to almost quadruple over the nextfew years, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Thegroup predicts that 2.1 million service robots will be sold by 2007 and that they will in-creasingly become everyday tools for humankind [Valigra04].”

Mechatronics is a term that has been coined in recent years to name the field of study com-prising design of systems with mechanical, electronic and software elements such that the devicehas the ability to perceive its surroundings and react to those perceptions. Robots are examplesof mechatronic systems that are useful in applications that are: dangerous, dirty, dull, or difficult;or that require automation, augmentation, assistance, or autonomy. These application areas in-clude: Homeland security (surveillance, fire fighting, search and rescue, military tactical robot-ics, distributed robotics (DARPA), minefield clearing), industrial robotics for manufacture (as-sembly, welding, painting, wafer handling, automation), industrial robotics for biotechnology(micro/nano manipulation, sample handling, automated analysis), entertainment and “toys”(film-making, Honda Asimo, Sony Aibo), assistive technology for persons with disabilities (in-telligent wheelchairs, dexterous manipulators), space exploration (Mars rover, Canada arm), andservice applications (floor cleaning, sewer inspection, lawn mowing, vacuum cleaning, tennisball collecting). Compared to humans, robots boast repeatable precision, superior accuracies,increased efficiency (no fatigue, vacation), increased safety (dangerous environment), and de-creased cost (less scrap, lower labor cost, lower in-process inventory) in manufacturing.

The faculty team advocating the importance of mechatronics resides in the Electrical andComputer Engineering (ECE) Department at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs(UCCS). The team recently inaugurated a very successful freshman-level course, ECE1001 In-troduction to Robotics. This proposal would expand that success by introducing two new ad-vanced courses to the curriculum: Embedded Robotics (senior-level), and Robotic Manipula-tors (graduate level).

4

1.1 Preliminary Work: Introduction to RoboticsA historic limitation to introducing technological design at an early stage in the student's educa-tion has been that significant mathematical and scientific maturity is required before many pro-jects can be contemplated. Recently, however, a number of universities have reported great suc-cess using LEGO robotics to teach the basics of engineering to freshman students. The LEGOkits provide a technological medium for hands-on learning of engineering design and problemsolving without requiring university-level knowledge of mathematics or the sciences.

Supported by a grant from the UCCS Teaching and Learning Center in the fall semester2003, the faculty team co-designed, implemented, and co-taught a new hands-on freshmancourse ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics. It has an on-line course reader, an on-line integratedset of laboratory exercises (with pre-lab assignments), and a comprehensive final design projectwhere students must generalize from their lecture and lab experiences to independently use tech-nology to solve a design problem.

A significant advantage of using the LEGO robotics, in particular, is that we are able to teachfundamental technological concepts in a hands-on way, without requiring a high level of mathe-matical and scientific maturity, and thereby enlarging the market for the course. The “LEGOMINDSTORMS Robotic Invention System” kit approach that we used in Introduction to Robot-ics includes a programmable LEGO “brick” whose microprocessor can operate motors, lights,and other devices, and can sense its surroundings with touch sensors, light sensors, and rotationsensors. The kit includes gears (spur, bevel, crown, worm, differential, rack), pulleys, a clutch,axles, wheels, beams and other parts so that one may quickly construct very elaborate robots.

Anyone who is interested may take this course and learn something about the fundamentalsof technology-based systems and their design. We encourage participation from students in allcolleges on campus by making this course open to everyone—there are no prerequisites. Eachstudent can then benefit from all of the advantages of inter-disciplinary team participation.

1.2 Preliminary Work: A Balanced PedagogyThe pedagogy behind ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics recognizes that students perceive andassimilate academic content in different ways. One well-known instrument used to assesslearning styles is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [Myers80]. With it, students complete a sur-vey that categorizes them as either: introverts or extroverts; sensors or intuitors; thinkers or feel-ers; and judgers or perceivers. The exact definitions of these terms are not critical here besidesnoting the following: extroverts like working in settings that provide activity and group work;introverts prefer internal processing; sensors like concrete learning experiences; intuitors preferinstruction that emphasizes conceptual understanding; thinkers like logically organized presenta-tions; feelers prefer personal rapport with their instructors; judgers like well-structured teaching;and perceivers like choice and flexibility in their assignments [Felder02]. The engineering pro-fession requires that its practitioners function in diverse circumstances, so the goal of the edu-cational process should then be to provide a balance between all of these modalities to reach,reinforce, and challenge all students.

An instrument used to formulate balanced engineering curricula is an understanding of theKolb elements of learning combined with the 4MAT system [Harb93]. A condensed summary ispresented in graphical form in Figure 1. In Kolb’s framework, students’ learning styles are pro-jected onto two dimensions: perception (how a student takes things in), and processing (how astudent makes things part of him/herself). Perception may be either concrete or abstract, andprocessing may be either reflective or active. Based on these two continuums, Kolb enumeratedfour different types of learner, as identified by the four quadrants in Figure 1. Each quadrant is

5

characterized by a question: quadrant 1 asks the question “Why?”; quadrant 2 asks the question“What?”; quadrant 3 asks “How?”; and quadrant 4 asks “What if?”. These four questions formthe basis of a learning cycle, the 4MAT system, which an instructional cycle passes through asindicated by the arrows in Figure 1. The purposes of teaching in this way are to: (1) reach stu-dents of all learning types, and (2) teach students how to traverse the learning cycle for them-selves, preparing them for life-long learning. Representative teaching/learning activities thatstimulate students of each learning style are listed in the appropriate quadrant. In the first threequadrants, the instructor plays the roles of motivator, expert, and coach, respectively. In thefourth quadrant, the instructor plays a diminutive role, as the student is fully in charge of learningin this mode. Learning elements from these four quadrants are present in ECE1001 and will bedesigned into the curriculum to be developed under this project.

Open-ended problems/ laboratoriesCapstone/ design undergraduate researchGroup problem solving/ project reportsThink tanks/ student lecturesProblems prepared by students

Role playing/ journal writingField trips/ simulations

Motivational examples/ storiesInteractive discussion/ lecture

Class/group discussion

Homework problems/ guided laboratoriesComputer simulation/ demonstrationsObjective examinationsIndividual reportComputer-aided instruction

Formal lecture, visual aids, notesTextbook reading assignment

Instructor problem solving/ demonstrationProfessional meeting/ seminar

Independent research/ library search

Quadrant 1: Why?

Quadrant 2: What?Quadrant 3: How?

Quadrant 4: What if?

Concrete Experience (Sensing/ Feeling)

Act

ive

Ex p

erim

ent a

t ion

(D

oin g

)

Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking)

Re fl e c t i v e O

b s e r va ti o n ( Wat c h ing )

Figure 1: Kolb elements of learning and learning styles with overlaid learning activities and 4MATlearning cycle (arrows); adapted from [Harb93].

1.3 Preliminary Results: Development of a Baseline ExperienceIntroduction to Robotics is a team-taught, hands-on course that serves as a baseline for devel-oping other courses in our curriculum. It has an on-line course reader, an on-line integrated setof laboratory exercises (with pre-laboratory assignments), weekly quizzes, and a comprehensive,open-ended, final design project where students must generalize from their lecture and laboratoryexperiences to use technology to solve a design problem. The subject of robotics was chosen asa pedagogical tool and unifying thread for our work because it lets students use technology tolearn about technology, preparing them to design new technology. A robot's dynamic natureprovides immediate feedback as to whether it is accomplishing its task; robots are understand-able to students in all disciplines and of all backgrounds; their design spans the mechanical,electronic, and software fields; and they relate to everyday experience. Using the LEGO MIND-STORMS system, our course teaches fundamental technological concepts in a hands-on way,without requiring a high level of mathematical and scientific maturity.

Our instructional goals for this course have been met beyond our expectations. Studentswith no background beyond high-school mathematics and the ability to read English are: (1)writing programs using structured, procedural programming methods; (2) building roboticstructures that are robust to typical abuse; (3) designing low-level control systems and learning

6

about electronics; (4) gaining a basic understanding of how microprocessors and microcontrol-lers operate; (5) cooperating in interdisciplinary teams; (6) working with technology to under-stand technology; and (7) learning how to write a proper laboratory report. Three-member teamsaccomplish the laboratory experiments, where the three prime responsibilities of building the ro-bot, programming the robot, and documenting the laboratory with a formal laboratory report aredistributed by rotating them among the members from week to week. All laboratory teams suc-cessfully built, programmed, and demonstrated working robots, and all groups completed labo-ratory-report write-ups during the pilot offering of the course in Fall 2003. Quiz grades demon-strated a high level of comprehension, student surveys indicate a high level of satisfaction, andall teams were able to develop a robot satisfying the design constraints of the final project. Stu-dent surveys, with results summarized here in Appendix III, indicate that the students stronglyfelt that the course improved their understanding of technology. Minimal intervention wasneeded to foster team spirit and to address interpersonal issues.

Our success in developing, implementing, and team-teaching Introduction to Roboticshas been recognized in three significant ways: (1) the developers were named this year's re-cipients of the campus annual prize for “Innovation in Teaching with Technology” award; (2) theteam was awarded a grant to enable the course to attract and accommodate a campus-wide en-rollment; and (3) the project is being nominated to represent our campus in a CU-system-wide(four campuses) award competition.

Our approach to Introduction to Robotics addresses all four quadrants of the 4MATmethod illustrated by Figure 1. Motivational examples, stories, and interactive discussions(Quadrant 1) serve to stimulate interest in robotics; our formal lectures, reading assignments, anddemonstrations (Quadrant 2) provide a base of knowledge to support the laboratory work inQuadrant 3, where a guided series of progressively more difficult robot projects unfolds overseven weeks. Quizzes are administered to encourage study and evaluate progress. The firstthree quadrants of the 4MAT cycle set the stage for the last, a seven-week self-guided experiencein which our students engage in an open-ended design project requiring them to develop a con-ceptual approach and design a robot to compete against other robots while adhering to con-straints that limit the resources that can be used.

2. Vision and GoalsWe envision selectively enhancing the ECE program at UCCS with curricula in robotics. Thegoal of the proposed project is to build on the success of our Introduction to Robotics course intwo ways: (1) by integrating robotic exercises into existing courses, and (2) introducing two ad-vanced courses in robotics.

2.1 Integrating Robotic Experiences into Existing CoursesWe believe that the medium of robotics is well suited for instruction that links engineering andtechnology. First, their design potentially includes elements from several fields: embedded sys-tems, control systems, intelligent systems, power systems, sensory systems, vision systems, sig-nal processing, communication, and electronic design—a truly wide scope of engineering topics.

Secondly, robots are well suited for hands-on instruction. The immediate feedback from ro-bot implementation to robot operation back to the student is valuable for learning. Third, robotsare fun. This final element is not trivial—we have observed very high levels of motivation, en-rollment, and retention in Introduction to Robotics, and we expect similar things from additionalcurriculum in robotics.

7

The first goal of this project is to introduce the theme of robotics as a unifying threadwoven through the existing ECE curricula. Students presently begin their engineering educa-tion with Introduction to Robotics with the very basic LEGO MINDSTORMS kit, but there is nofollow-on course, and we lack advanced robot kits to support and advanced course. For thisproject we specifically intend to introduce robotics in an existing course, ECE 4242 AdvancedDigital Design Methodology. This course, and its accompanying laboratory, teaches digital de-sign methods using Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), which is a type of programma-ble/reconfigurable logic. It is the technology used in software radio, for example. For thiscourse, we will design an interface circuit board to enable connection between FPGA boards andadvanced robotic hardware. Robots will then be used in assignments, lab exercises and projectsin the course. The introduction of robotics in ECE 4242 will enable us to balance the curriculumof this course, in the sense discussed in section 1.2.

The advanced robot kits purchased by this grant will also be used in other courses. One ex-ample where they will be used is in ECE 4899 Design Project. This course is the capstone de-sign experience for our Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering students. Nearlyevery semester, at least one design team builds a robot for some application. These teams aremarginally successful, but rarely accomplish as much as desired in the time constraints of thecourse due to the complex nature of robotics, a lack of advanced course background, the im-mense amount of work to design one “from scratch”, and economic reasons (it is expensive forstudents to purchase all the components to build a robot). Much more complex designs will beundertaken with the new robotics platforms, since the basic embedded robotics aspects will bealready present. Further, the platforms, discussed in Appendix IV, include such advanced capa-bilities as vision, wireless networking, 32-bit processing, and so forth, which will enable muchmore sophisticated design projects.

2.2 Advanced Courses in RoboticsThe second overall goal of this project is to introduce two new courses in robotics into the cur-riculum. This project will create two new courses with proposed syllabi in Appendix II.

The first course is a senior-level elective in Embedded Robotics. It will provide advancedtreatment of the computational, electrical and mechanical technologies underlying robots. Usingpowerful 32-bit microcontrollers programmed in “C” and assembly language, and FPGA-basedcustom reconfigurable processors executing Verilog HDL based student-developed programs,students will engage in engineering design and problem solving via interactive, hands-on pro-jects with mobile robots while working on structured exercises and independent designs.

The second course is a graduate-level course in Robotic Manipulators. This course willcover the mathematical framework required for fast, precise, nonlinear control of robotic systemssuch as robotic arms. These manipulators are used primarily as industrial robots for welding,painting, pick-and-place, and so forth, but are beginning to find use in other areas such as assis-tive technologies. Note: The present ECE/MAE Control Systems Laboratory has a single six-degree-of-freedom robotic arm that may be used with this course, but a concurrent parallel pro-posal to the CIT Equipment RFP by Drs. Plett (ECE) and Saunders (Mechanical and AerospaceEngineering), A Multidisciplinary Robotics/Mechatronics Laboratory, is requesting ten roboticarms (and additional equipment) to set up ten lab stations that may be used for this course.

The advanced robotic student kits to be acquired under this grant can be combined withequipment being concurrently proposed in the equipment proposal to create possibilities of inter-disciplinary research in mechatronics, computer and electrical engineering, computer science,

8

cognitive psychology, perception and neuroscience. Open problems in manipulation, locomo-tion, control, navigation, human-robot interaction, learning and adaptation will be addressed.

3. Project Plan and TimelineThe project goals will be accomplished through the eight project tasks identified in this section.At the end, a timeline for task completion is given. The project directors will jointly complete alltasks, unless otherwise indicated.

Task 1: Design and manufacture of FPGA I/O boardRobotics will be implemented in the ECE4242 Advanced Digital Design Methodology course,which teaches design using FPGA technology. In order to use FPGAs with robots, analog-to-digital converters, digital-to-analog converters, H-bridge motor driver circuits, stepper motordriver circuits, servo motor driver circuits, and sensor conditioning circuits must be developed.We are calling this combination of capabilities the “FPGA Input/Output (I/O) board”.

A student team will design this board, breadboard and prototype it to ensure full functional-ity, and have it professionally fabricated. The design will be replicated to make I/O boards foran entire class.

Task 2: Purchase components for student robot kitsThe undergraduate courses that teach robotics or teach using robotics will use kits purchased un-der this grant. This is a major component to the project’s budget. These kits will comprise: a32-bit embedded processor with rich I/O capability, a variety of sensors including vision andGPS, and mechanical robot platforms that include rolling and walking systems. For more detailwith respect to the kits, confer Appendix IV. The second project task is to purchase these kits.

Task 3: Develop lectures for advanced courses in roboticsThe third project task is to develop lecture (in-class) materials for ECE4242 Advanced DigitalDesign Methodology, Embedded Robotics, and Robotic Manipulators. Sample syllabi for theselatter two courses are contained in Appendix II. These lecture materials will be carefully inte-grated with the hands-on experiences developed in task 4, and the project ideas generated intask 5 to provide a balanced curriculum of the type discussed in section 1.2.

Task 4: Develop hands-on robot laboratory experiencesThe fourth task is to develop hands-on experiences to complement the theory being taught. Thiswill be a major part of the new curriculum (e.g., hands-on experiences account for half of thecontact time in Introduction to Robotics). These projects will be team based, and will requireformal write-ups, oral briefings, and poster presentations, to promote “soft skills”.

Task 5: Develop project ideas for advanced courses in roboticsTo become a successful engineer, each student must learn how to perform research. Every engi-neer must be able to: (1) locate information relevant to a specific problem; (2) read that litera-ture; (3) understand what s/he reads; (4) implement the new knowledge in some useful way; and(5) generalize the knowledge to a unique yet related situation. The same basic steps apply tosolving any problem, from designing a circuit using datasheets to writing a Ph.D. dissertation.

This task addresses how to integrate research into the curriculum. Open-ended design projectideas will be developed that require generalization of the theory learned. Based on experiencesin other courses in our curriculum, we anticipate that many of these final projects will result inpublication in conference proceedings.

9

Task 6: Teach courses for first time—EvaluateThe sixth task is to teach the courses for the first time, perform formative and summativeevaluation (as outlined in the evaluation plan in task 7), and iterate on tasks 2–5 as necessary toimprove the learning experience for the students.

Task 7: Evaluate the ResultsProject evaluation is a necessary step in this proposal in order to inform the CIT, the project di-rectors and a wider audience (via dissemination) whether the proposed ideas and methodologieswere effective. The normal evaluation process has three stages [NSF93, NSF97]: planningevaluation, formative evaluation and summative evaluation. Planning evaluation assesses under-standing of the project's goals and objectives, strategies and timelines. Formative evaluation as-sesses ongoing project activities and summative evaluation evaluates project success.

This proposal itself is part of our planning evaluation. The current need is diagnosed. Thestakeholders—students, faculty at UCCS, administrators at UCCS, and members of local indus-try—have been consulted. We are in strong agreement that curriculum in robotics would furtherenhance the already-strong EE and CpE programs. We agree as to the methodology to pursue inorder to rectify the current need, as has been outlined in other sections.

Formative evaluation will start once the project begins. We will assess whether or not theproject is going ahead as scheduled, whether materials for student kits have been ordered andwhether curriculum and hands-on assignments are being developed at a sufficient rate to be inplace when the Fall 2005 semester starts. Once students are using their kits and new curriculum,we will monitor their activities and note whether changes need to be made to the new curriculumand assignments to make them clearer and pedagogically sounder.

Summative evaluation will occur at the end of the project, using data gathered over the pro-ject's lifetime. The objective of this project is to improve student learning of robotics systems vialecture and hands-on experimentation. Therefore, we need to assess whether knowledge isgained (relative to the old curriculum) and not just that student satisfaction is improved (althoughthat is important too). Both “insiders” (students and faculty) and “outsiders” (alumni and mem-bers of local industry) will conduct the evaluation.

We will, of course, cooperate fully with CIT-managed evaluation.

Task 8: Dissemination of ResultsWe anticipate that several publications in journals and conferences (e.g., ASEE Annual Confer-ence and Exposition, IEEE Frontiers in Education, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, ASEEJournal of Education, or IEEE Transactions on Education) will result as an outcome of thelearning-experience gained in establishing and testing this curriculum. Further tangible resultsinclude lecture materials, hands-on laboratory exercises, and project descriptions for an under-graduate embedded robotics course, and for a graduate robotic manipulators course. These mate-rials will be made available to students in the UCCS classes, and also to faculty from other Colo-rado institutions, on request. This way, other state schools can leverage the experiences gainedand faculty development at these schools will also be promoted. Acknowledgement of CIT-CCHE support will be made in all publications, and talks at conferences and meetings.

Timeline for Project TasksTable 1 on the next page gives an approximate timeline for this project. Teaching, evaluation,dissemination and refinement of the original course materials will be ongoing projects.

10

4. Expected Outcomes / ImpactsThe following sections outline the outcomes and broader impacts that we expect from this grant.

4.1 Improved student learningThis proposal would improve student learning by (1) building on a very successful entry-levelcourse in robotics, (2) developing a senior-level follow-on elective course in robotics, (3) devel-oping a graduate-level course in robotics to support a research thrust in new robotics technology,(4) using the Kolb learning cycle paradigm to balance the curriculum of each of these courses,and (5) implementing a strong hands-on component of learning in each course. The courses inrobotics/mechatronics would enable students to integrate their understanding of key elements ofelectrical/computer engineering, mechanical engineering, feedback control systems, sensors, sig-nal processing, processor architectures, and so forth.

4.2 Increased student interest in the subject matter and career fieldsThis project will increase student interest in robotics/mechatronics and related subjects (e.g.,processor design) by providing an opportunity for undergraduates to take a follow-on course andby providing a graduate level course that will establish a platform for their research in robotics.

4.3 Increased career opportunities for program graduatesThe courses developed under this project will give students a clearer understanding of the careeropportunities in robotics/mechatronics, and better enable our graduates to contribute to thegrowth of this industry in Colorado.

4.4 Participation by minorities and womenThe College of Engineering and Applied Science at UCCS has a suite of resources available torecruit and retain students with diverse backgrounds. One project goal is to ensure that the ro-botics curriculum is connected to these resources. These include: clubs (e.g., American IndianScience and Engineering Society, the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of His-panic Professional Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers), the Office of Student Sup-port (tutoring assistance, internships, scholarships, support for student clubs and activities), andthe Colorado Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (CO-AMP). CO-AMP is a state-wide consortium, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, for the purpose of attractingand preparing students for careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

We will invite these clubs and offices to support the robotics curriculum with tutors andmentors via their volunteer student members who have participated in these courses before,forming a bridge between students and available resources. Our present freshman roboticscourse has approximately 20% women enrolled, and significant minority participation—we ex-pect these numbers to improve as word gets out about their success in the program.

Table 1: Project timelineTask \ Timeline Spring 2005 Summer 2005 Fall 20051. Develop FPGA I/O board2. Purchase robot kits3. Develop lectures4. Develop hands-on exercises5. Develop project ideas6. Teach first course offerings7. Evaluate results, refine8. Disseminate results

11

4.5 Collaboration with other higher education institutions, where possibleAt the present time we have no formal plans for collaboration with other institutions. However,we are planning to base our robotic kits on the University of Western Australia “EyeBot” board,and to use the textbook written by Thomas Bräunl of the same university. When developing thesyllabus for the senior-level elective, we will contact him, to see if collaborations are appropri-ate. We are open to involvement with any other Colorado university that wishes to work with uson this project.

4.6 Improved opportunities for student projects and researchThis project provides new and improved opportunities for student projects and research. First,students will design, build and debug the FPGA input/output board for this project (a studentproject in and of itself). This FPGA I/O board will be available for student projects and researchwithin the context of Hardware Description Language courses, the robotics courses to be devel-oped by this grant, Senior Design courses, and graduate-student research.

Secondly, the robotic kits to be purchased and assembled for the robotics course comprise allthe pieces required for very general robots. We will encourage senior design projects and gradu-ate research using these components, which are also capable of supporting cutting-edge researchin artificial intelligence, vision and image processing, robotic planning and control. We antici-pate that the knowledge gained in the courses, the expertise gained by the hands-on experiencesand open-ended design projects in the courses, and the robotic kits will result in students electingto pursue graduate studies and perform research of their own in these areas.

4.7 Increased enrollment in affected courses/programsIt is our experience that students are fascinated by robotics and quickly become engrossed in anystudy relating to them. One reason that we are submitting this proposal is that a cadre of studentsfrom the first offering of the freshman robotics course (last semester) have requested (begged)that we expand the curriculum to provide more advanced offerings in robotics. These are notjust engineering students, either; they are from a wide variety of disciplines from across cam-pus—fewer than half of the students enrolled are declared as EE or CpE majors. After the firstday of class (when students tend to still be “shopping” for courses to take), we have had an ex-traordinarily high retention rate for a freshman course. In our first class of 58 students, we hadone student drop the course; in our present class of 37 students (an off semester in the curricu-lum, so a much higher than expected enrollment) we have had no students drop the course.

We anticipate that enhancing our curriculum in robotic will serve to attract more students tothe EE/CpE programs. Presently, students in the freshman robotics course who have come froma non-technical background are realizing that they can “do” engineering. The prospect of moreadvanced and more interesting courses in robotics will motivate them to stick with the program,increasing retention, and increasing overall enrollment.

5. Review Criteria

5.1 Project leverages existing quality education and/or research programsThis project leverages quality education and research programs, both at our own University, andat others. For example, we intend to make use of the University of Western Australia’s EyeBotand the accompanying textbook by Thomas Bräunl in the Embedded Robotics course. We willalso leverage the experiences gained and the student interest generated by our Introduction toRobotics course. The courses enhance excellent programs already present at UCCS: In recentyears, U.S. News and World Report named CU-Colorado Springs a top Western public university

12

and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities named the university one of twonational leaders in community engagement efforts.

5.2 Education programs serve a diverse audience of studentsThe proposed courses build on the pipeline created by our successful introductory course in ro-botics, which attracts students from a variety of disciplines, not only electrical/computer engi-neering. Our entry-level population includes women and other underrepresented minorities.

5.3 Project leverages college, university, state and/or federal fundsOur proposal leverages (1) a UCCS grant of $4,000 that enable the development of our intro-ductory course in robotics, (2) a UCCS grant of $4,000 that developed the online course man-agement software used by ECE1001, (3) another grant of $4,500 from the ECE department topurchase LEGO MINDSTORMS kits for the introductory course, (4) a technology fee grant of$9,000 that purchased additional LEGO MINDSTORMS kits to support offering the course tothe general campus audience, (5) an NSF grant of $70,570 to establish the control-systems labo-ratory (a supporting discipline for robotics), (6) matching grants from the University and Educa-tional Control Products Inc. totaling $70,738, and (7) a UCCS grant of $1,000 to develop a con-troller for a robotic manipulator. (All of these grants awarded in 2000–2004).

5.4 Proposal is responsive to stated research and educational goalsThis proposal supports state goals of educating a competent workforce in a field of growing im-portance to our economy and national (homeland) security.

5.5 Project provides the potential for replication and/or transportability either in total orby cross-linkages with other institutions as demonstrated by collaboration at the outsetThe curriculum developed under this proposal can be transported to other engineering programsin the state. Additionally, cross-coupling between collaborating programs could (1) strengthenthe effectiveness of our using the Kolb learning cycle to balance the curriculum, (2) lead to effi-ciencies in developing topics for student projects, (3) promote collaboration in research, and leadto student internships with industry.

5.6 Project has clearly documented business and industry interestThe attached letters of support from Intel Corporation, Sturman Industries, NAVSYS, RockyMountain Tech Alliance, and the Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation under-score the importance and relevance of our proposal.

5.7 There is the ability to sustain the project after CIT fundingThe funds requested for this project represent one-time costs of developing curricula and pur-chasing components for student robot kits. We anticipate no ongoing costs beyond replacing lostor damaged components from the robot kits, which will be funded by student instructional fees.

5.8 Results will be disseminated to a wide audienceThe results from this project will be published at conferences and in journals, as discussed ingreater detail in section 3, task 8. Acknowledgement of CIT-CCHE support will be made.

5.9 There is an evaluation plan, and an indication of willingness to participate in theoverall CIT managed evaluationOur evaluation plan is discussed in detail in section 3, task 7. We will cooperate fully with theCIT-managed evaluation.

13

Vita for Michael D. Ciletti, Ph.D.Professor, Phone: (719) 262-3112Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, FAX: (719) 262-3589University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, email: [email protected] 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150.

Educational Background• Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, 1968, University of Notre Dame• M.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1965, University of Notre Dame• B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1964, University of Notre Dame

Employment History• Jan. 1999–, Professor, ECE Department, Univ. of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS)• Sept. 1993–Jan. 1999, Professor and Chairman, ECE Department, UCCS• Sept. 1986–Sept. 1993, Professor, ECE Department, UCCS• Sept. 1982–Sept. 1986 Associate Professor, ECE Department, UCCS• Sept. 1977–Sept. 1982 Associate Professor, ECE Department, and Resident Dean, College of

Engineering and Applied Science, UCCS• Sept. 1976–Sept. 1977, Assistant Professor, ECE Department and Acting Assistant Dean,

College of Engineering and Applied Science, UCCS• Sept. 1974–Sept. 1976 Assistant Professor, ECE Department, UCCS

Teaching ExperienceCircuit Analysis VLSI Circuit DesignLinear System Theory Advanced Digital Design MethodologyProbability Theory Verilog Hardware Description LanguageFeedback Control Systems VHISC Hardware Description Language (VHDL)Differential Game Theory Rapid Prototyping with FPGAsSynthesis with the Verilog HDL

Significant Publications Related to this Project• M.D. Ciletti, A Starter's Guide to Verilog 2001, Prentice-Hall, 2004. 250pp.• M.D. Ciletti, Advanced Digital Design with the Verilog HDL, Prentice-Hall, 2003, 983 pp.• M.D. Ciletti and M. Szczutkowski, “Circuit WorksTM,” with Basic Engineering Circuit

Analysis, J. David Irwin, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.• M.D. Ciletti, Modeling, Synthesis, and Rapid Prototyping with the Verilog HDL, Prentice-

Hall, April 1999, 724 pp.• M.D. Ciletti, “Software for New Directions in Undergraduate Circuits Instruc-

tion,”Proceedings 1998 ASEE Annual Conference, Seattle.• M.D. Ciletti, “Technical Overview and Tutorial on the Verilog HDL,” Tutorial Notes: Inter-

national HDL Conference and Exhibition, Santa Clara, March 1998.• S. van Tonningen and M.D. Ciletti, “ADM, A New Technique for the Simulation of CMOS

Circuit Transients,” International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Seattle, April 1995.• W. Mao and M.D. Ciletti, “Reducing Correlation to Improve Coverage of Delay Faults in

Scan-Path Design,” IEEE Transactions on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems, pp.638–646, May 1994.

14

Vita for Gregory L. Plett, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, Phone: (719) 262-3468Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, FAX: (719) 262-3589University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, email: [email protected] 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150. http://mocha-java.uccs.edu/glp/

Educational Background• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, June 1998, Stanford University, Stanford CA.• M.S. Electrical Engineering, October 1992, Stanford University, Stanford CA.• B.Eng. (High Distinction) Comp. Systems Eng., 1990, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.Research Experience• 1998–, Assistant Prof. of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Colorado Springs.• Summer 1997, Invited Researcher, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,• 1992–1998, Research Assistant, Stanford University, Stanford CA.• 1986–1991, Scientific Staff, Bell Northern Research (Nortel), Bells Corners, ON, Canada.Teaching Experience• Freshman-level Introduction to Robotics;• Junior-level Linear Systems Theory and Engineering Probability and Statistics;• Senior-level Feedback Control Systems, Digital Control Systems, Feedback Control Labo-

ratory, Digital Control Laboratory and Electrical Engineering Design Project;• Masters-level Multivar. Ctrl. Systems I & II, Digital Signal Processing, Adapt. Inverse Ctrl.Selected Publications Related to this Project• Plett, G., “Extended Kalman Filtering for LIPB Battery Management Systems, Parts 1–3”,

Journal of Power Sources, in press.• Plett, G.L., and Wickert, M. “Web-assisted learning via on-line course supplements”, in CD-

ROM Proc. 2003 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Nashville, TN: June 2003).• Plett, G.L., “Adaptive inverse control of linear and nonlinear systems using dynamic neural

networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 14, No. 2, March 2003, pp. 360–76.• Plett, G.L., and Schmidt, D.K. “A multidisciplinary digital control-systems laboratory”, in

CD-ROM Proc. 2002 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Montreal, PQ: June 2002).• Plett, G.L., “Adaptive inverse control of unknown stable SISO and MIMO linear systems,”

Intl. Journal Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 243–72, May 2002.• Plett, G.L., “Efficient linear MIMO adaptive inverse control” in Proc. 2001 IFAC Workshop

Adapt. and Learning in Ctrl. and Sig. Pro., Cernobbio-Como, Italy (Aug. 2001), pp. 89–94.• Plett, G.L., and Schmidt, D.K. “Multidisciplinary lab-based controls curriculum”, in CD-

ROM Proc. of 2001 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Albuquerque, NM: June 2001).• Plett, G.L., Doi, T., and Torrieri, D., “Mine detection using scattering parameters and an arti-

ficial neural network,” IEEE Trans. Neural Nets., Vol. 8, No. 6, Nov. 1997, pp. 1456–1467.U.S. Patents• “Call set-up in a radio communication system with dynamic channel allocation,” (5,345,597)• “Inter-cell call hand-over in radio communication systems with dynamic channel allocation,”

(5,239,682)• “Intra-cell call hand-over in radio communication systems with dynamic channel allocation,”

(5,239,676)• “Radio link architecture for wireless communication systems, (5,229,995)

15

Budget and Budget ExplanationThe budget for this project is tabulated below:

Materials for 30 student robot kits30 “EyeBot”s $27,00030 “EyeCam”s $4,20030 Four-wheel-drive robot chassis $6,36030 Hexabot robot chassis $11,25030 GPS sensor units $6,00030 Misc sensor supplies, batteries, electronics $18,00030 Xilinx boards $6,000Cost of FPGA I/O board prototype $1,50030 FPGA I/O boards $6,000Shipping and handling $500Total materials budget $86,810

PersonnelTwo course offloads for Dr. Plett $25,872Two course offloads for Dr. Ciletti $38,624Two months summer salary, Dr. Plett $19,164Two months summer salary, Dr. Ciletti $28,611Undergraduate student labor $6,000Total personnel costs $118,271

Travel and publication costs $5,000

Indirect costs1 $16,326

Total project budget $226,407

The senior personnel comprise Project Director Dr. Plett and co-Project Director Dr. Ciletti.They have budgeted two course offloads each (at the college standard rate) and two monthssummer salary each in order to devote this time to curriculum development. They will developlecture materials, hands-on exercises, and project ideas for the courses, test the hands-on exer-cises, and write course readers and lab manuals. The junior personnel comprise three under-graduate students, $12.50/hour, 10 hours per week, 16 weeks. These students will design andtest the prototype FPGA I/O board.

Materials for this project comprise a large part of the budget. We will assemble thirty stu-dent robot kits at a cost of about $2,867 per kit. This has been broken down somewhat more inthe above table, and in Appendix IV. These kits will be used for the courses to be developed, andin existing courses, as described in the main narrative.

The travel and publication budget will allow travel for both investigators to one national con-ference, with sufficient funds remaining for one investigator to attend a second conference,and/or for publication of results in a journal with page charges. 1 Indirect costs are calculated as 8% of all costs less student labor.

16

Indirect costs have been calculated, per CIT instructions, as 8% of the total budget, less stu-dent labor.

Note that this budget leverages a number of other projects that have already occurred:• Software tools and programming environment are already in place, and PCs are already

in place for this project (PCs provided by an Intel grant);• Experiences gained from the ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics course (funded by a

UCCS Teaching and Learning Center grant) will be applied to the new curriculum, withfollow-on funding from the UCCS Instructional Fee;

• On-line course management system EduFile (funded by a UCCS Teaching and LearningCenter grant) will be used to supplement the educational experience;

• The graduate Robotic Manipulator course, in particular, will leverage existing equipmentin the Control-systems laboratory—a shared resource between ECE and MAE depart-ment, funded by an NSF CCLI grant, with cost sharing from the University, College, andthe Educational Control Products Corporation, with follow-on funding from a WilliamSenscenbaugh Grigsby grant to design a control box for the existing robotic arm;

• Potential funding from the CIT for the parallel proposal for equipment, “A Multidiscipli-nary Robotics / Mechatronics Laboratory”, to be submitted by Drs. Plett and Saunders tothe CIT Equipment RFP, to establish a versatile senior-graduate level laboratory that maybe used for the instruction of control systems, robotics and mechatronics.

17

Certification Sheet

The grantee agrees to maintain its status as a non-profit entity or is part of an institution of highereducation, maintaining its tax-exempt status.

All expenditures of funds will be within the categories approved in the final budget submission.No transfers of funds between categories in excess of $1,000 will take place without prior CITapproval. A no cost extension may be granted for up to 6 months only upon written request.

The grantee agrees to keep all financial records up to date, including records of all receipts andexpenditures relating to this grant. These records must be kept for three years from the date ofsignature.

The grantee agrees to provide all evaluation data as requested, including the names of studentsserved by the project.

Checks are issues after issuance of an award letter to the grantee institution and upon completionand approval of the final budget sheets.

This grant is non transferable.

Certification for Project Directors: the statements herein are true and complete – Project Director(s) (typed) Signature Date

Dr. Gregory L. Plett

Dr. Michael D. Ciletti

Signature of Institutional Representative for grant awards: __________________

18

Appendix I: References cited

[Felder02] R. M. Felder, G. N. Felder, and E. J. Dietz, “The Effects of Personality Type onEngineering Student Performance and Attitudes,” Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 3–17, Jan. 2002.

[Harb93] J. N. Harb, S. O. Durrant, and R. E. Terry, “Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle andthe 4MAT System in Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education,Vol. 82, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 70–77.

[Harmon04] M. Harmon, “Proving their mettle” Chico Statements—A magazine from Califor-nia State University, Chico, Spring 2004, pp. 8–11.

[Myers80] I. B. Myers and P. B. Myers, Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, PaloAlto, CA, 1980.

[NSF93] National Science Foundation, User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation:Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. NSF 93–152, Arlington, VA:NSF, 1993.

[NSF97] National Science Foundation, User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed MethodEvaluations. NSF 97–153, Arlington, VA: NSF, 1997.

[Valigra04] L. Valigra, “Looking technology in the eye,” Christian Science Monitor, February5, 2004.

19

Appendix II: Sample syllabus for each of two courses

Sample syllabus for Embedded Robotics

Course Description: This course introduces a combination of mobile robots and embedded sys-tems (off-the-shelf microcontrollers and Verilog-programmed FPGAs), from introductory to in-termediate level. It is structured in three parts, dealing with embedded systems (hardware andsoftware design, actuators, sensors, PID control, multitasking), mobile robot design (driving,balancing, walking, and flying robots), and mobile robot applications (mapping, robot soccer,genetic algorithms, neural networks, behavior-based systems, and simulation). These topics willbe exemplified with Matlab/Simulink simulation studies and supplemented with laboratory exer-cises using mobile wheeled and walking robots.

Class Format: Initially, the course has a lecture format. Later during the course, labs will beadded by splitting the course participants into small groups. There will be a final open-endeddesign project.

Topical Prerequisites: Each student should: (1) have a basic understanding of electronics; (2) beable to program in “C”; (3) have a basic understanding of computer architecture.

Learning Objectives: For each student to be able to: (1) select appropriate sensors, actuators,and interfaces for solving a particular technical problem; (2) design embedded system hardwarewith specific sensors and actuators; (3) program an embedded robotic system with a combinationof C and assembly language (off-the-shelf micrcontroller) or Verilog (FPGA); (4) develop anduse algorithms for robotic sensing, motion and path finding.

Sample syllabus for Robotic Manipulators

Course Description: This course introduces fundamental concepts in robotic manipulation.Topics include: coordinate transformation, kinematics, dynamics, Laplace transforms, equationsof motion, feedback and feedforward control, and trajectory planning. These topics will be ex-emplified with Matlab/Simulink simulation studies and supplemented with laboratory exercisesusing a 6 degree-of-freedom robot arm.

Class Format: Initially, the course has a lecture format. Later during the course, labs will beadded by splitting the course participants into small groups. There will be a final open-endeddesign project.

Topical Prerequisites: Each student should: (1) know the basics of linear algebra; (2) trigono-metric identities; (3) be able to program in Matlab (or the willingness to learn quickly); and (4)some understanding of 3D space (coordinate systems).

Learning Objectives: For each student to: (1) understand the concept of fixed and moving coor-dinate systems; (2) be able to find the homogenous transformation matrix relating two coordinatesystems in terms of position and rotation; (3) be able to find the homogenous transformationmatrix after rotation about and translation along the principle axes and about an arbitrary axis;(4) understand and set up link frames; (5) find the Denevit Hartenberg parameters; (6) obtain thedirect kinematic solution of a manipulator; (7) obtain the closed-form solution of the joint vari-ables given the position of the end effector (inverse kinematics); (8) obtain the velocities of theend effector given the joint velocities; (9) be able to plan trajectories in the joint space; and (10)implement linear and nonlinear robotic controllers.

20

Appendix III: Survey results from ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics, Fall 2003After ten lectures, we surveyed the students enrolled in ECE1001 to ascertain their perception re.how the class improved their technological understanding and team-participation skills. A ma-jority of the class responded, and the results are summarized here in the boxed regions. The datashows significant improvement in technical knowledge (e.g., programming, robotic structures,control systems and sensors) and moderate improvement in non-technical components of thiscourse (e.g., cooperation in inter-disciplinary teams). These results exceed our expectations.

We include these results to demonstrate that the subject of robotics may be used to effec-tively teach a wide range of technological topics.

Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringMid-Semester Evaluation of ECE 1001, Introduction to Robotics

1. Indicate your level of experience before and after taking this course in writing computerprograms for real-time execution requiring interaction with the host machine's environ-ment.

Before After _____ None _____ None_____ Low _____ Low_____ Moderate _____ Moderate_____ High _____ High

2. Indicate your level of experience building robotic structures before and after takingthis course.

Before After_____ None _____ None_____ Low _____ Low_____ Moderate _____ Moderate_____ High _____ High

3. Indicate your level of experience in designing low-level feedback control systemsbefore and after taking this course.


Average AverageBefore After0.8 = Low − 2.1 = Moderate +

Improvement = 163%

Average AverageBefore After1.1 = Low + 1.9 = Moderate −

Improvement = +73%

Average AverageBefore After0.5 = None + 1.5 = Low +

Improvement = 200%

Answer Scale: None = 0, 1 = Low, 2 = Moderate, 3 = High

21

4. Indicate your level of knowledge about electronics before and after taking this course.


5. Indicate your level of knowledge about sensors and your experience using them be-fore and after taking this course.


6. Indicate your level of experience in cooperating in inter-disciplinary teams before andafter taking this course.


7. Indicate your level of experience in working hands-on with technology to learn abouttechnology before and after taking this course.


8. Indicate your level of experience in writing proper laboratory reports before and aftertaking this course.


Average AverageBefore After1.3 = Low + 1.8 = Moderate−

Improvement = 38%

Average AverageBefore After0.9 = Low − 1.8 = Moderate−

Improvement = 100%

Average AverageBefore After1.8 = Moderate − 2.2 = Moderate+

Improvement = 22%


Improvement = 35%


Improvement = 41%

22

Appendix IV: Materials to be ordered for student kitsThe new curriculum requires purchasing robot components to form kits for students to use inhands-on instruction. These kits will comprise: Xilinx FPGA boards, EyeBot microcontrollers,and mechanical chassis.

The EyeBot2 is depicted in Figure IV-1. Its main fea-tures include: a 25MHz 32bit controller (Motorola 68332),1MB RAM, 512KB ROM (for system and user programs), 2dc motor drivers, background debugging module, 1 parallelport, 2 serial ports, 8 digital inputs, 8 digital outputs, 8 ana-log inputs, 16 timing processor I/Os (programmable as inputor output, generally used to control servo motors), interfacefor color and grayscale camera that allows real time on-board image processing (depending on image size and com-plexity of operation), large graphics LCD (128x64 pixels), 4input buttons, reset button, power switch, speaker for audiooutput, and a microphone for audio input. We will also pur-chase sensors, including: EyeCams (camera), GPS, and others.

The mechanical chassis for the kits are shown in Figure IV-2. In the left frame we show theLynxmotion3 “4WD 2” four-wheel-drive articulating robot chassis, and in the right frame weshow the Lynxmotion “Extreme H2 Hexbot” chassis. Student kits will contain both chassis sothat they receive experience in rolling mobile robots and in walking mobile robots.

Figure IV-2. Robot chassis to be ordered for student kits.

2 http://robotics.ee.uwa.edu.au/eyebot/3 http://www.lynxmotion.com/

Figure IV-1. EyeBot.

23

Appendix V: Letters of Industry SupportThis appendix contains letters of support for this project from local industry. They are written byprominent members of local industry. In particular, they are written by

• Intel Corporation,• Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation,• Rocky Mountain Tech Alliance,• Dr. Bruce Johnson, Sturman Industries,• Dr. Alison Brown, Founder, President, and CEO, NAVSYS.

The letters are scanned into this document, so the quality is less than perfect. Photocopies of theoriginal are available on request.

developing a balanced robotics / mechatronics...

Documents