Document Open Access Logo

Implementing a Digital Twin for a Robotic Platform to Support Large-Scale Coding Classes

Authors Michael Heeney , Kelly Androutsopoulos , Franco Raimondi

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.ICPEC.2024.15.pdf
  • Filesize: 4.16 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Michael Heeney
  • Department of Computer Science, Middlesex University, London, UK
Kelly Androutsopoulos
  • Department of Computer Science, Middlesex University, London, UK
Franco Raimondi
  • Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy

Cite AsGet BibTex

Michael Heeney, Kelly Androutsopoulos, and Franco Raimondi. Implementing a Digital Twin for a Robotic Platform to Support Large-Scale Coding Classes. In 5th International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2024). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 122, pp. 15:1-15:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICPEC.2024.15

Abstract

Constructionist learning involves learners that are actively engaged in the construction of an entity that reflects the learning achievements. When learning to code, such a physical entity can take the shape of a robot, or of a robotic arm, or any other hardware device that is used to manifest the effect of the code that students are writing. Hardware devices have been used in primary and secondary schools, and also in Higher Education. Unfortunately, the use of hardware devices is limited as it does not scale to large cohorts and requires a physical space for face-to-face teaching. In this paper we introduce a digital twin for a robotic platform to replicate a classroom setting used for teaching first year undergraduate Computer Science students. We describe the architecture of the system and its implementation.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Applied computing → Interactive learning environments
Keywords
  • digital twin
  • introductory programming
  • constructionism
  • robotics
  • computer science education

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Edith Ackermann. Piaget’s constructivism, papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? In Constructivism: Uses and perspectives in education., pages 85-94, 2001. Google Scholar
  2. Kelly Androutsopoulos, Leonidas Aristodemou, Jaap Boender, Michele Bottone, Edward Currie, Inas El-Aroussi, Bob Fields, Lorenzo Gheri, Nikos Gorogiannis, Michael Heeney, et al. Mirto: an open-source robotic platform for education. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of Software Engineering Education, pages 55-62, 2018. Google Scholar
  3. Mikko Apiola, Matti Lattu, and Tomi A Pasanen. Creativity and intrinsic motivation in computer science education: experimenting with robots. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 199-203, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822147.
  4. Gianluca Barbon, Michael Margolis, Filippo Palumbo, Franco Raimondi, and Nick Weldin. Taking arduino to the internet of things: The asip programming model. Computer Communications, 89:128-140, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2016.03.016.
  5. Florian Biesinger and Michael Weyrich. The facets of digital twins in production and the automotive industry. In 2019 23rd international conference on mechatronics technology (ICMT), pages 1-6. IEEE, 2019. Google Scholar
  6. Jaap Boender, Ed Currie, Martin Loomes, Franco Raimondi, and Giuseppe Primiero. Teaching functional patterns through robotic applications. In Trends in Functional Programming in Education 2015, June 2015. Google Scholar
  7. Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, volume 1, page 25, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. Rolando Antonio Chacón Flores, Martí Sánchez Juny, Esther Real Saladrigas, Xavier Gironella Cobos, Jaume Puigagut Juárez, and Alberto Ledesma Villalba. Digital twins in civil and environmental engineering classrooms. In EUCEET 2018: 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering Education: Challenges for the Third Millennium, pages 1-10. International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), 2018. Google Scholar
  9. Christina Chalmers. Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, July 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005.
  10. CTE STEM Coach, David Archer, Lois Delcambre, Scott Britell, and Ananth Mohan-Contributors. K-12 stem robotics: Stealth computer science for the masses. The Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, page 152, 2011. Google Scholar
  11. Nikolaus Correll, Rowan Wing, and David Coleman. A one-year introductory robotics curriculum for computer science upperclassmen. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1):54-60, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2220774.
  12. Joe David, Andrei Lobov, and Minna Lanz. Learning experiences involving digital twins. In IECON 2018-44th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pages 3681-3686. IEEE, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2018.8591460.
  13. Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan. The maker movement in education. Harvard educational review, 84(4):495-504, 2014. Google Scholar
  14. Cindy K Harnett, Thomas R Tretter, and Stephanie B Philipp. Hackerspaces and engineering education. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, pages 1-8. IEEE, 2014. Google Scholar
  15. Michael Jonas. Do it again: Learning complex coding through repetition. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, pages 121-125, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3125659.3125690.
  16. Yasmin B Kafai. Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Routledge, 2012. Google Scholar
  17. Christopher Kitts and Neil Quinn. An interdisciplinary field robotics program for undergraduate computer science and engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 4(2):3-es, 2004. Google Scholar
  18. Stan Kurkovsky. Making computing attractive for non-majors: a course design. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(3):90-97, 2007. Google Scholar
  19. Michael Lodi, Dario Malchiodi, Mattia Monga, Anna Morpurgo, and Bernadette Spieler. Constructionist Attempts at Supporting the Learning of Computer Programming: A Survey. Olympiads in Informatics: An International Journal, 13:99-121, July 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.15388/ioi.2019.07.
  20. Ju Long. Just for fun: using programming games in software programming training and education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6(1):279-290, 2007. Google Scholar
  21. Luis Carlos Martins, Lázaro Vinicius Lima, and Pedro Rangel Henriques. Lcsmar, an ar based tool to inspect imperative programs. In 4th International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2023). Schloss-Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2023. Google Scholar
  22. Monica M McGill. Learning to program with personal robots: Influences on student motivation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1):1-32, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2133797.2133801.
  23. Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Michail N. Giannakos, and Letizia Jaccheri. Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18(C):57-78, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002.
  24. Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. Situating constructionism. In Seymour Papert and Idit Harel, editors, Constructionism, chapter 1. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1991. URL: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
  25. Sandipan Ray and Sanjeeva Srivastava. Virtualization of science education: a lesson from the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of proteins and proteomics, 11:77-80, 2020. Google Scholar
  26. Mitchel Resnick. Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers and play. In "Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers and Play", chapter 1. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2017. Google Scholar
  27. T. Richter, S. Rudlof, B. Adjibadji, H. Bernlöhr, C. Grüninger, C.-D. Munz, A. Stock, C. Rohde, and R. Helmig. Viplab: a virtual programming laboratory for mathematics and engineering. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 9:246-262, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2011.95.
  28. Carlos Rodriguez, Jose L Guzman, Manuel Berenguel, and Sebastian Dormido. Teaching real-time programming using mobile robots. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(6):10-15, 2016. Google Scholar
  29. Daniela Rus. Teaching robotics everywhere. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 13(1):15-94, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2006.1598048.
  30. Ashraf Saad, Travis Shuff, Gabriel Loewen, and Kyle Burton. Supporting undergraduate computer science education using educational robots. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, pages 343-344, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2184512.2184596.
  31. Payman Shakouri, Olga Duran, Andrzej Ordys, and Gordana Collier. Teaching fuzzy logic control based on a robotic implementation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(17):192-197, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.3182/20130828-3-UK-2039.00047.
  32. Jaroslav Sobota, Roman PiŜl, Pavel Balda, and MiloŜ Schlegel. Raspberry pi and arduino boards in control education. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(17):7-12, 2013. Google Scholar
  33. Eben B Witherspoon, Ross M Higashi, Christian D Schunn, Emily C Baehr, and Robin Shoop. Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1):1-20, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982.
  34. Narasimha Saii Yamanoor and Srihari Yamanoor. High quality, low cost education with the raspberry pi. In 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), pages 1-5. IEEE, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2017.8239274.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact