Robotics education: A case study in soft-bodied locomotion

Locomotion has been one of the frequently used case studies in hands-on curricula in robotics education. Students are usually instructed to construct their own wheeled or legged robots from modular robot kits. In the development process of a robot students tend to emphasize on the programming part and consequently, neglect the design of the robot's body. However, the morphology of a robot (i.e. its body shape and material properties) plays an important role especially in dynamic tasks such as locomotion. In this paper we introduce a case study of a tutorial on soft-robotics where students were encouraged to focus solely on the morphology of a robot to achieve stable and fast locomotion. The students should experience the influence material properties exert on the performance of a robot and consequently, extract design principles. This tutorial was held in the context of the 2012 Summer School on Soft Robotics at ETH Zurich, which was one of the world's first courses specialized in the emerging field. We describe the tutorial set-up, the used hardware and software, the students assessment criteria as well as the results. Based on the high creativity and diversity of the robots built by the students, we conclude that the concept of this tutorial has great potentials for both education and research.

[1]  J. Bruner.  The act of discovery. , 1961 .

[2]  J. A. Piepmeier,et al.  Moving Without Wheels: Educational Experiments in Robot Design and Locomotion , 2008 .

[3]  Ian D. Walker,et al.  Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research , 2008 .

[4]  Markus Reichardt,et al.  Extending Mechanical Construction Kits to Incorporate Passive and Compliant Elements for Educational Robotics , 2012 .

[5]  Kiyoshi Nagai.  Learning while doing: practical robotics education , 2001, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[6]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  EmbedIT - An Open Robotic Kit for Education , 2011, Eurobot Conference.

[7]  R. Mayer.  Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[8]  Anthony Mandow,et al.  Using LEGO NXT Mobile Robots With LabVIEW for Undergraduate Courses on Mechatronics , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[9]  Filip Ilievski,et al.  Multigait soft robot , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  L. Munari.  How the body shapes the way we think — a new view of intelligence , 2009 .

[11]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Morphological Computation - Connecting Brain, Body, and Environment , 2006, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Robotics as Part of an Informatics Degree Program for Teachers , 2011 .

[13]  B Mazzolai,et al.  An octopus-bioinspired solution to movement and manipulation for soft robots , 2011, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.

[14]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[15]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Robotic body extension based on Hot Melt Adhesives , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  Self-Organization, Embodiment, and Biologically Inspired Robotics , 2007, Science.

[17]  Kuldeep Rawat,et al.  A hands-on laboratory based approach to undergraduate robotics education , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[18]  Robin R. Murphy.  "Competing" for a robotics education , 2001, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..