Puzzling Exercises for Spatial Training with Robot Manipulators Igor M. Verner
Dalia Leibowitz
Sergei Gamer
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, 32000, Israel +972-48292168
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, 02139, MA +617-2532201
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, 32000, Israel +972-48292040
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
real environments in science education. The study involved 23 high school students who participated in the Technion International School summer program, and took place in the Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) and Robotics Laboratory at the Technion in the framework of an MIT undergraduate student internship.
ABSTRACT Robot operation requires spatial reasoning and can be used for spatial training. This paper proposes exercises for training spatial skills through operating robot manipulators in virtual and real environments. The exercises were implemented in a robotics workshop, and the follow-up indicated a significant advance of the participants in performing mental rotation tasks.
This study continues a sequence of empirical studies (quasiexperiments) conducted through the Technion that have given partial evidence towards using robot manipulators to develop spatial skills [4] [5]. Here for the first time we have combined exercises in virtual and real environments, employed robot manipulators with different configurations, and focused on training mental rotation using test cubes (cubes with different symbols on their sides). A gain in mental rotation skills was evaluated by means of the cube comparisons test [6].
Categories and Subject Descriptors I.2.9 [Artificial Intelligence]: Robotics – manipulators, operator interfaces, workcell organization and planning.
General Terms Performance, Experimentation, Human Factors.
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 2.1 Virtual Environment—RoboCell
Keywords Robotics laboratory, learning through interaction with robots, training spatial skills.
RoboCell is a software environment in which one can set up a virtual robotic work-cell and create various subroutines for performing robot handling processes [7]. For this robotic experiment, the created work-cell included a virtual robot simulating the real robot manipulator SCORBOT-ER V plus. The virtual workspace was equipped with a feeder holding 6 test cubes, a buffer, and a destination field (Figure 1A). The buffer supported pick-and-place operations, while the destination field was intended for assembling the puzzle shown in Figure 1B. We developed multiple subroutines to bring the test cubes from the feeder, rotate them on the buffer, and place them onto the destination platform.
1. INTRODUCTION Spatial abilities are critical for engineers [1] and strongly influence achievement in STEM education [2]. Studies have shown that spatial skills can be enhanced through training, and that the impact of training can be long-lived [3]. There is value to finding different methods of training spatial skills, since certain people may be more receptive to certain types of training. IntelitekTM and other companies have created instructional robot manipulators that are commonly used for studying manufacturing, control, and systems integration [4]. Issues arise with the use of real robots—they are expensive, require careful monitoring, and are quite large. Additional learning opportunities are provided by virtual robotic environments such as RoboCell.
A.
B.
Our study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate exercises in spatial training, using robot manipulators in both real and virtual environments. We hypothesize that such practice can engage students and facilitate better performance of spatial tests. This supposition relies on the studies of spatial learning in virtual and Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
Figure 1. Experimental setup in RoboCell.
HRI’13, March 3–6, 2014, Bielefeld, Germany. ACM 978-1-4503-2658-2/14/03. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559792
312
2.2 Real Environment
3. RESULTS 3.1 Spatial Tests
We employed nine robot manipulators of four different types: the SCORBOT-ER V plus, the SCORA-ER 14, the SCORBOT ER IX, and the PERFORMER MK3. Each robot had an individual workspace set up, suitable for the robot’s specific location in the lab and its kinematic scheme. The SCORA-ER 14 robots (Figure 2A) do not have gripper pitch and therefore cannot rotate cubes around horizontal axes. To solve this problem, we developed a LEGO rotator to be used in conjunction with the robot (Figure 2B). The exercise here was to put together a puzzle from 4 puzzle cubes, using a teach pendant. The students used the teach pendant to move the mechanical arm, either joint-by-joint or along the XYZ axes. They operated the robot to pick the test cubes one by one from the storage area, rotate them on a buffer or through the use of the LEGO rotator, and then place them on the destination field. A.
We cross-referenced the individual students’ pre-test and post-test scores. Among the 23 participants, 18 students completed the exercises and the pre- and post-tests. We found that 15 of them increased their scores from the pre-test to the post-test, some dramatically. The average grade (calculated as described in Section 2.3) changed from 7.83/21 to 11.5/21. A two-tailed t-test shows that the students’ advances are significant, with p=.003.
3.2 Questionnaire The questionnaire led to some interesting observations. Most of the students preferred to work in the virtual RoboCell environment as a group rather than alone. However, in the real environment the students were split about their preference. 16 out of 19 students expressed a strong belief that practice with robot manipulators can enhance their spatial skills. The evaluation of the helpfulness of the virtual and real environments both scored high, while the combination of the environments scored even higher.
B.
4. CONCLUSIONS Based on the promising results of this study, we plan on further experiments based on the developed exercises, with randomly selected experimental and control groups of participants.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The study was supported by the Technion Gordon Center for Systems Engineering and by the MIT MISTI Israel internship program, through partnership with Dr. Julie Shah.
6. REFERENCES
Figure 2. A. SCORA-ER 14 setup; B. LEGO rotator.
[1] Sorby, S. A. 2007. Developing 3D spatial skills for engineering students, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 1-11.
2.3 Implementation We conducted a 4 hour workshop consisting of two sessions. In the first session we gave a short introduction, explaining to the students the importance of spatial ability in robotics and telling them the objective was to train spatial skills. The students were told that they would be completing a workshop with exercises in real and virtual environments, and that they would be taking spatial tests before and after the exercises to gauge the potential difference in scores. The students were then given the cube comparisons test of mental rotation skills. The students were given 2.5 minutes to take the test consisting of 21 questions, where the assessment score was the number of correct answers minus the number of incorrect answers [6]. The students were then shown around the CIM and Robotics Laboratory and had the chance to view different robots in action. We introduced the concepts related to the mechanical arm kinematics and explained possible ways to rotate objects. In the second session, we quickly reviewed these concepts and involved the students in the robot operation activities. In the first hour, the students performed the virtual exercise, and in the second hour they operated real robots. The mental rotation cube comparisons test was administered at the end of the session. We also collected written reflections of the students through a short questionnaire. The students answered whether they would prefer to perform the robotics exercises alone or in a group (for both the virtual and real environments), and whether practice with industrial robots such as the robots used in this workshop could enhance their spatial abilities. They also evaluated the helpfulness of the practice in the virtual environment, in the real environment, and in the combination of the two environments.
[2] Wai, J., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. 2009. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817-835. [3] Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., and Newcombe, N. S. 2012. The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies, Psychological Bulletin, 138, 352–402. [4] Verner, I., Gamer, S. and Shtub, A. 2012. Fostering students' spatial skills through practice in operating and programming robotic cells, In Robot Intelligence Technology & Applications, J.-H. Kim et al. Eds., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 745-752. [5] Verner, I. 2004. Robot manipulations: A synergy of visualization, computation and action for spatial instruction, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 213-34. [6] Eliot, J., and Smith, I.M. 1983. An international directory of spatial tests, Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-Nelson. [7] RoboCell for controller USB, http://www.intelitek.com/advanced-manufacturing/robotics/.
313
