Paper ID #7540

Robotics as an Undergraduate Major: A Retrospective

Prof. Michael A. Gennert, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Prof. Michael A. Gennert is Director of the Robotics Engineering Program at Worcester PolytechnicInstitute, where he is Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineer-ing. He has worked at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA, the Universityof California/Riverside, General Electric Ordnance Systems, Pittsfield, MA and PAR Technology Cor-poration, New Hartford, NY. He received the S.B. in Computer Science, S.B. in Electrical Engineering,and S.M. in Electrical Engineering in 1980 and the Sc.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1987 from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Gennert is interested in Computer Vision, Image Processing,Scientific Databases, and Programming Languages, with ongoing projects in biomedical image process-ing, robotics, and stereo and motion vision. He is author or co-author of over 100 papers. He is a memberof Sigma Xi, NDIA Robotics Division, and the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council RoboticsCluster, and a senior member of IEEE and ACM.

Dr. Taskin Padir, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2013

Page 23.1049.1

Robotics Engineering as an Undergraduate Major: A 5 year Retrospective

Abstract:

In 2007 Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) launched a degree program in Robotics

Engineering to educate young men and women in robotics. At that time, there were only a

handful of universities in Asia, Europe, and Oceania offering undergraduate Robotics programs,

although many universities in the United States and elsewhere included robotics within a

discipline such as Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Mechanical Engineering. WPI

took a decidedly different approach. We introduced Robotics as a new multi-disciplinary

engineering discipline to meet the needs of 21st century engineering. The curriculum, designed

top-down, incorporates a number of best practices, including spiral curriculum, a unified set of

core courses, multiple pathways, inclusion of social issues and entrepreneurship, an emphasis on

projects-based learning, and capstone design projects. This paper provides a brief synopsis,

comparison with other approaches, and multi-year retrospective on the program. The curriculum

has evolved rapidly from the original to its current state, including changes in requirements,

courses, hardware, software, labs, and projects. The guiding philosophy remains unchanged,

however, providing continuity of purpose to the program. The program has been highly

successful in meeting its desired outcomes, including: quantity and quality of enrolled students,

ABET EAC accreditation, graduate placement in jobs and graduate school, and course and

project evaluations. The paper concludes with a summary of lessons learned and projections for

the future.

1. INTRODUCTION

Robotics—the combination of sensing, computation and actuation in the real world—is

experiencing rapid growth. In academia, any issue of IEEE Spectrum, ACM TechNews, or

Page 23.1049.2

ASEE First Bell is likely to contain many robotics headlines. In industry, new companies and

products appear at an accelerating rate. Bill Gates has famously predicted that there will soon be

a robot in every home [5]. Growth in robotics is driven by both supply and demand. The supply

side is driven by decreasing cost and increasing availability of sensors, computing devices, and

actuators. The demand side is driven by national needs for defense and security, medicine, elder

care, automation of household tasks, customized manufacturing, and interactive entertainment.

1.1. MOTIVATION

The introduction of the Robotics Engineering program at WPI was motivated by several

considerations. First, it is apparent that the growth of the robotics industry will lead to a demand

for engineering talent uniquely qualified to develop robotic systems. Second, student interests

demonstrate that there is much enthusiasm, even passion, around robotics. Third, the absence of

similar programs meant that the university could grab a leadership position and “capture the

market”. Fourth, there is the belief that the economic benefit of robotics will be reaped by those

who can convert technological know-how into viable products. Fifth, robotics is an excellent

academic fit for WPI. Finally, the program appeared financially viable.

1.2. EDUCATION IN ROBOTICS

Although robotics did not exist as an undergraduate degree program in the US1 until 2007,

universities have offered courses in robotics for three decades or more and a number of

introductory level text books have been written. Many universities offer courses on various

aspects of robotics, including Robot Programming, Mechatronics, Mobile Robots, Automatic

1 Non-US universities include: Plymouth University (U.K.), Waseda University (Japan), Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia, and Flinders University (Australia).

Page 23.1049.3

Control, Industrial Automation, and Cyber-Physical Systems. Several universities offer a cluster

of robotics courses, such as concentrations, minors, threads, or focus areas.

While robotics at the undergraduate level has generally been embedded in traditional engineering

programs or computer science, and thus treated as an application area, rather than a separate

discipline, a few US universities have introduced graduate degrees in robotics, including CMU,

Georgia Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, South Dakota School of Mines,

University of Michigan, and University of Pennsylvania. On the heels of the success of the

undergraduate program, WPI added graduate degrees in Robotics Engineering [6].

2. THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING MAJOR

The growing robotics industry demands a new kind of engineer. At present, engineers working

in the robotics industry are mostly trained in one of Computer Engineering, Computer Science,

Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Software Engineering. However, as an

inherently interdisciplinary activity, no single discipline provides the breadth demanded by

robotics in the future. Truly smart robots rely on information processing, decision systems and

artificial intelligence (computer science), sensors, computing platforms, and communications

(electrical engineering) and actuators, linkages, and mechatronics (mechanical engineering).

Thus, a broad technical education is needed. In effect, robotics engineers must use systems

thinking, even early in their careers. Given the above motivations for a robotics degree, a group

of WPI faculty members from the departments of Computer Science, Electrical & Computer

Engineering, Humanities & Arts, and Mechanical Engineering began meeting in spring 2006,

with the support of the university administration, to design the degree program. A top-down

approach was taken using vision and goal statements to drive objectives, outcomes, and

Page 23.1049.4

curriculum in turn. Following a number of iterations and revisions, and approval by faculty

governance and the Board of Trustees, the program launched in spring 2007 in time to attract

students for fall 2007 [2].

2.1. VISION AND GOALS

The Robotics Engineering faculty adopted as a vision the creation of an Exemplary, nationally

recognized, Multidisciplinary center for Education, research, and innovation in Robotics. The

primary goal of the program is to educate engineers for the 21st century, the “enterprising

engineers” envisioned by Tryggvason and Apelian [15], who “knows everything, can do

anything, collaborates, and innovates.” These words succinctly capture the notion that future

engineers must be able to find and use information quickly, understand and use the tools to

accomplish any task with proficiency, possess the skills to work effectively with anybody

anywhere, and have the imagination and entrepreneurial spirit to creatively solve worthy

problems. As applied to robotics, that leads to a two-pronged approach: 1) Supply talent to a

growing industry, and 2) Start enterprises (ranging from companies, projects, programs) to grow

the industry, that is, both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs.

2.2. OBJECTIVES

The educational program objectives define the context and the content of the program:

Have a basic understanding of the fundamentals of Computer Science, Electrical &

Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Systems Engineering.

Apply these abstract concepts and practical skills to design and construct robots and

robotic systems for diverse applications. Page 23.1049.5

Have the imagination to see how robotics can be used to improve society and the

entrepreneurial background and spirit to make their ideas become reality.

Demonstrate the ethical behavior and standards expected of responsible professionals

functioning in a diverse society.

2.3. OUTCOMES

Although Robotics Engineering is not recognized as a distinct engineering field by ABET, the

program was designed to be accreditable under the “General Engineering” criteria, thus, the

group adopted the standard ABET program outcomes (a-k) [1]. As applied to Robotics

Engineering, graduating students will have:

an ability to apply broad knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering,

an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data,

an ability to design a robotic system, component, or process to meet desired needs within

realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and

safety, manufacturability, and sustainability,

an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams,

an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems,

an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility,

an ability to communicate effectively,

the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and societal context,

a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning,

a knowledge of contemporary issues, and

Page 23.1049.6

an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice.

2.4. CURRICULUM

The program has a structure that integrates

foundational concepts from Computer

Science, Electrical & Computer

Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering

to introduce students to the

multidisciplinary theory and practice of

robotics engineering. For this purpose, a

series of undergraduate courses were

created comprising the major educational

innovation [13]. The core curriculum

consists of Introduction to Robotics at the

1000 level (1st year) and a four-course

Unified Robotics sequence at the 2000 and

3000 levels (sophomore and junior years, respectively). Figure 1 provides a visualization of the

RBE curriculum. All courses are offered in 7-week terms with 4 hours of lecture and 2 hours of

laboratory session per week. Further, in keeping with the long history of the WPI Plan, these

courses emphasize project-based learning, hands-on assignments, and students’ commitment to

learning outside the classroom. It is considered essential that all Robotics Engineering majors

complete all five core courses before beginning a Capstone Design project in their senior year.

FIGURE 1. The WPI Robotics Engineering program is

structured around a core consisting of Introduction to Robotics,

Unified Robotics I-IV, and the Capstone Project [11].

Page 23.1049.7

The Unified Robotics sequence is supported by a number of traditional courses from Computer

Science, Electrical & Computer Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. These courses are

carefully selected to provide a meaningful robotics engineering education to undergraduate

students within four years. These courses include program design and object oriented

programming from Computer Science, digital systems and embedded systems from Electrical &

Computer Engineering, and statics and control systems from Mechanical Engineering. In

addition, the program requires software engineering, one course in social implications of

technology, and one course in entrepreneurship. These last two courses directly support

objectives for ethics and entrepreneurial background. Within this structure, the program also

allows for 3 advanced electives in robotics and 6 free electives in any department. The program

has sufficient flexibility that free electives may be taken in any year, including the first year.

However, all courses qualifying as advanced robotics electives assume other courses as

background, hence are generally taken in the junior and senior years.

RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics provides a broad overview of robotics at a level

appropriate for first-year students. It serves as a stepping stone for students who haven’t been

involved with high-school level robotics courses and/or competitions. The goal is to capture

students’ enthusiasm about robotics early in their engineering careers and keep the students

engaged. The course also serves as an introduction to Computer Science, Electrical & Computer

Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering as it is team-taught by faculty from each discipline.

The course topics include static force analysis, electric and pneumatic actuators, power

transmission, sensors, sensor circuits, C programming and implementation of proportional

control in software.

Page 23.1049.8

The Unified Robotics I-IV course sequence forms the core of the Robotics Engineering

program at WPI. The sophomore level courses, RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation and

RBE 2002 Unified Robotics II: Sensing, introduce students to the foundational concepts of

robotics engineering such as kinematics, circuits, signal processing and embedded system

programming [4]. The junior level courses, RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III: Manipulation and

RBE 3002 Unified Robotics IV: Navigation, build on this foundation to ensure that students

understand the analysis of selected components and learn system-level design and development

of a robotic system including embedded design [11].

Advanced Courses are available once students complete the Unified Robotics sequence and all

the supporting courses in mathematics and engineering, they reach a level (both in depth and

breadth) to take more advanced courses from the three departments supporting the RBE program.

The Capstone Design experience (Major Qualifying Project or MQP) serves as the binding

agent for the theory and practice learned in our core RBE courses and should demonstrate

application of the skills, methods, and knowledge gained in the program to the solution of a

problem that typically involves the design and manufacture of a robotic system. It should be

noted that the capstone project, as implemented at WPI, is equivalent to three courses (1/4 year)

and, in general, is completed in three 7-week terms. Student teams work on the projects with

supervision of a faculty member, meeting regularly with their advisors. A final project report

detailing the process and the final product plus a formal presentation to students, faculty, and

professionals from industry are required. Our experience with robotics capstone projects

Page 23.1049.9

indicates that student learning is drastically improved as the students are extraordinarily

enthusiastic about their projects, working within multidisciplinary teams (it is very common for

capstone design project teams to include students from other disciplines) and communicating

their “cool” robot projects to peers, faculty and representatives from sponsoring industries.

Within the RBE program, robotic systems are viewed as solutions to problems using robotic

technology – not as systems that contain an “ECE part,” an “ME part,” and a “CS part.” Even if

teams consist of students from traditional disciplines, there is a focus on how disciplines interact

with each other and how system-level decisions must be made in a manner that considers the

cross-disciplinary ramifications of the decisions.

2.5. BEST PRACTICES

A number of Best Practices were adopted during program development. These include:

Top-down development from vision and goals to objective to outcomes to curriculum to

courses to resources required.

Bottom-up faculty buy-in. The primary impetus for the program came from faculty who

were interested in developing it.

Spiral curriculum. RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics touches on a number of topics,

including statics, circuit analysis, behavior-based programming, and PID control, that

later courses explored in greater depth.

Multi-disciplinary approach. Each course integrates elements of CS, ECE, and ME. For

example, RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation uses mechanical actuator models,

while also exploring their electrical characteristics, and how one writes software to

Page 23.1049.10

control them. All courses were initially taught by teams of faculty as the expertise

needed to teach each course was developed.

Active learning is used in many of the core robotics courses [14].

Progressive increase in level of

autonomy in each course. The robots

developed in each course progress

from tele-operation to line-following

to total autonomy.

Tight integration of laboratory

assignments with lecture material

[12].

Community-building. Many activities serve to build a sense of community amongst

Robotics Engineering majors. These include Meet-and-Greet events early in the school

year, the establishment of the Rho Beta Epsilon Robotics Engineering honor society and

Women in Robotics Engineering student groups, and the shared Robotics Lab open 24/7.

2.6. COMPARISON TO OTHER APPROACHES

The most significant difference between this and other approaches is the tight integration of CS,

ECE, and ME concepts across the curriculum to produce a unified experience. Students (and

faculty) do not see themselves as traditional engineering majors who specialize in robotics, they

truly see themselves as Robotics Engineers. On the other hand, the content of the Plymouth

University BSc (Hons) Robotics [19] program is primarily in Electrical Engineering with some

Computer Science, and a rich set of upper-level robotics courses covering mobility, cognition,

FIGURE 2. Robotics Engineering laboratory late at night

before a term project is due.

Page 23.1049.11

and controls. Similarly, the Waseda University robotics program is based in the Modern

Mechanical Engineering Department.

Another difference is the early and continued exposure to robotics, whereby engineering

principles are taught in a robotics context. By contrast, the Flinders University Bachelor of

Engineering (Robotics) [18] program provides a solid foundation in a range of engineering topics

before applying them to robotics in the third year.

3. PROGRAM EVOLUTION

With no pre-existing curriculum to serve as a template, the faculty took a collective best guess at

curriculum and courses, understanding that updates would be needed as experience accumulated.

The basic structure of the curriculum remains unchanged; however some content, courses, and

projects have changed.

Unified Robotics I-IV have been tweaked, with a few minor topic additions, deletions or

shifting of material; none serious enough to merit a change in course description.

Robotics hardware and languages have been changed to reflect changes in robotics platforms

used for homework, labs, and projects. Four of the five core courses originally used the VEX

platform with RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III using a custom-designed processor board based on

the Atmel AVR644P microcontroller. Neuron Robotics DyIO controllers and associated Unix-

based Bowler Deployment Modules (BDM) [10] were tried in 2011 for RBE 1001-2002.

Although this HW/SW combination provided unique capabilities, it lacked the large installed

user base of the Arduino platform. Thus, these courses have now migrated to the Arduino

Page 23.1049.12

controller running the Sketch (actually C/C++) language. RBE 3002 uses a UNIX laptop to

handle the heavy computational load associated with mapping and navigation as part of the

TurtleBot [17]. The following table summarizes the hardware and languages.

TABLE 1. Summary of hardware and languages used.

Initial Also used Current

Course HW Language Hardware Language Hardware Language

RBE 1001 Vex EasyC, C DyIO Java Arduino C

RBE 2001 Vex C DyIO Java Arduino C

RBE 2002 Vex C DyIO, BDM Java Arduino C

RBE 3001 Custom C - - Custom C

RBE 3002 Vex C Laptop C TurtleBot C

The Computer Science requirement originally comprised Algorithms and Software

Engineering. However, the Algorithms course is oriented more towards analysis than

implementation. While fine for CS majors, this emphasis is not appropriate for Robotics

Engineering majors. Furthermore, it did not prepare students adequately for Software

Engineering, which uses object-oriented design and programming extensively. Replacing the

Algorithms requirement with Object-Oriented Programming better prepares students for

Software Engineering. Although object-oriented languages such as Java, C++, and C# are not as

common in robotics applications as procedural languages such as C, they are expected to become

more popular as the increasing computational power of embedded processors allows a larger

language footprint. It is certainly important that students be employable upon graduation; thus,

they gain experience in C programming as part of the RBE curriculum. However, it is at least as

Page 23.1049.13

important that students be prepared for lifetime learning and adaption to, and adoption of, new

technologies; thus, they gain experience in object-oriented programming as well.

The Mathematics requirement originally listed Calculus, Differential Equations, Discrete

Mathematics, and Probability or Statistics. However, in order to prepare students for RBE 3002

Unified Robotics IV: Navigation, which is based on probabilistic reasoning in multivariable

systems, the Statistics option was eliminated in favor of Probability and a Linear Algebra

requirement was added. Discrete Mathematics, formerly needed as background for Algorithms,

was also dropped as a requirement to make room for the addition of Linear Algebra.

Robotics Electives have been a moving target as courses have been added, dropped and revised

in other departments. The most significant change came as MS and PhD programs were added

in Robotics Engineering, opening up the possibility of undergraduates taking robotics graduate

courses. Now, any graduate course in Robotics Engineering, and most graduate courses in CS,

ECE, ME, and Systems Engineering can be considered as robotics electives.

Another change under consideration is to broaden the set of engineering science and design

courses allowed as robotics electives to encompass all engineering majors, with the added

requirement that at least two of these electives be at the senior or graduate level. While we

expect that most RBE majors will continue to take RBE electives, this will allow students whose

interest is in the application robotics to a more traditional field to count advanced courses in that

field.

Page 23.1049.14

Robotics Engineering Capstone Design projects (MQPs) must now explicitly go through the

breadth of the design experience, including conceptualization, requirements, design,

implementation, evaluation, and documentation. Project reports must address societal issues as

appropriate, including professional responsibility, ethical and environmental considerations,

sustainability, aesthetics, and safety, in addition to the engineering and technical issues expected

of a capstone design project. Although many projects addressed these issues, enough failed to do

so that it became necessary to mandate them.

4. ASSESSMENT

Assessment is a continuous process motivated by a desire to improve upon the program’s success

in meeting its educational objectives. A number of instruments are used; some focus on courses

(Student course valuations), some on students (enrollment, transcripts, NSSE, EBI, and WPI

Career Development Center reports), and some on projects (formal MQP reviews, MQP

presentation evaluations, advisor evaluations). Select evaluations follow:

4.1. ENROLLMENT

The initial Robotics Engineering business plan was based on a projected 20-30 majors in the first

year, rising to 30-50 students per cohort, for a steady-state total enrollment of 120-200 majors at

any time. However, 80 students declared Robotics as their major in the first year, reflecting

pent-up demand for the major, as a number of sophomores and even a few juniors changed

majors into the new program. Each cohort thereafter is 50-80 students, so that there are now over

240 majors in the program, as shown in Figure 3. Notably, Robotics Engineering draws students

from a wider geographic range than is usual at WPI. WPI’s entering class averages 25% from

outside New England. For Robotics Engineering majors, it is 50%.

Page 23.1049.15

FIGURE 3. Robotics Engineering undergraduate enrollment.

4.2. ACCREDITATION

Following graduation of the first students, the Robotics Engineering program applied for ABET

accreditation under General Engineering criteria. Accreditation status was granted in summer

2011, retroactive to October 2010.

4.3. GRADUATE PLACEMENT

There are 98 graduates of the program to date. Of the 54 graduates through December 2011, 51

(94%) were known to be working or in graduate school; 27 of the 30 (90%) graduates reporting

from May 2012 were known to be working or in graduate school. (The difference between 84

graduates reporting and 98 graduates reflects students who have not reported in.) Approximately

1/4 of these graduates attend graduate school, with the remainder split between work in the

robotics industry and work in engineering not specifically in robotics. Graduate schools include:

CMU, Cornell, MIT, University of Genoa, and WPI. Many of the students continuing at WPI for

graduate work are enrolled in the 5-year B.S./M.S. program. Robotics companies employing

0

100

200

300

AY 06-07 AY 07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY10-11 AY 11-12

RBE Enrollment

Page 23.1049.16

graduates include: Bluefin Robotics, Boston Engineering, Energid, iRobot, Rethink Robotics,

Honeybee Robotics, Kiva Systems, QinetiQ NA, Segway, Symbotic, and Vecna. Other

companies include: BAE Systems, Bose, General Dynamics, Lincoln Laboratory, MITRE

Corporation, and Siemens. In the absence of hard data on alumni success, anecdotal evidence

from employers suggests that these graduates hit the ground running and alumni report being

placed in positions of responsibility quickly.

4.4. STUDENT COURSE EVALUATIONS

Students evaluate the courses and instructors for every course in which they are registered at the

end of every term. This allows teaching quality to be monitored as it varies across instructors

and courses. Student course evaluations include over 30 questions. Here we focus on three of the

more important questions: My overall rating of the quality of this course is …, The instructor's

organization of the course was …, and The amount I learned from the course was … . Responses

range from 1 (lowest, very poor, much less) to 5 (highest, excellent, much more). Figure 4-

Figure 8 (expanded from [16]) show student course evaluations for all courses in the Robotics

Engineering core. Inter-instructor variability is the most significant contributor to the variation

in responses. Note the close correlation among Quality, Organization, and Learning. The charts

indicate that it is possible to achieve excellent course evaluations in any of the core courses, but

that consistent high evaluations are by no means assured.

Page 23.1049.17

FIGURE 4. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics.

FIGURE 5. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation.

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2006-7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics

Quality

Organization

Amount Learned

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation

Quality

Organization

Amount Learned

Page 23.1049.18

FIGURE 6. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 2002 Unified Robotics II: Sensing.

FIGURE 7. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III: Manipulation.

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

RBE 2002 Unified Robotics II: Sensing

Quality

Organization

Amount Learned

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III: Manipulation

Quality

Organization

Amount Learned

Page 23.1049.19

FIGURE 8. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 3002 Unified Robotics IV: Navigation.

4.5. PROJECT EVALUATIONS

Data on senior capstone projects (MQPs) are collected from a variety of sources: Semi-annual

MQP Report Reviews, MQP Presentation Evaluations, and Advisor Evaluations. A review

conducted in summer 2010 [7] found that

The general educational goals of the MQP are being met.

Project design content is high and is consistent with capstone-design expectations.

The content levels of projects in RBE, CS, ECE, ME/ES, and mathematics appear to be

aligned with the level of courses required by the program.

Some elements of the ABET design definition such as safety, reliability, aesthetics,

ethics, and social impact, are not adequately emphasized.

Documentation quality must be improved. Some reports lacked a through literature

survey, a well-explained design process, trade-off studies, testing procedures and critical

discussion of project results.

Although MQP oral presentations received good evaluations, the presentations, as well as

the reports, ranked low for analysis of results and design experimentation.

A more recent review from summer 2012 [20] reported essentially the same findings, with the

following differences

Literature reviews had improved, although other aspects of documentation remained

below expectation.

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

RBE 3003 Unified Robotics IV: Navigation

Quality

Organization

Amount Learned

Page 23.1049.20

There is evidence of grade inflation in projects.

The student-faculty ratio had improved from 1.7:1 (2010) to a more sustainable 4.2:1

(2012).

4.6. ADVISORY BOARD

The Robotics Engineering program has an Advisory Board [21] composed of industry leaders

and successful alumni (none yet from the major, however). The Board does not have a formal

role in program evaluation; however, members’ informal feedback comes from having hired

graduates and from their overall perception of the program.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1. LESSONS LEARNED

Several important lessons emerge from 5 years’ experience with Robotics Engineering. First,

Robotics is a viable major, attracting students from a wide geographic area. Not only does it

bring students in, but they graduate to successful positions. A robotics program can be

accredited by ABET, providing some additional assurance of its academic merit.

A key factor in the success of the program is the collaboration of faculty and staff from different

departments, reporting to different deans, and the support of the administration. Throughout the

program’s development, there was a free and natural exchange of ideas, and no one of the

supporting departments dominated the others. To the contrary, every effort was made to

accommodate departmental differences, incorporating the best aspects of each.

The curriculum, as conceived, is fundamentally sound. The courses generally proceed quite

well, although they are challenging to teach, and care must be taken that each courses runs as

Page 23.1049.21

smoothly as possible. However, there is a steady amount of tinkering that must be done in the

curriculum, in the syllabi, with hardware, and in software, as experience is gained.

5.2. FUTURE OF ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

In hindsight, the vision of 2006 has been more than realized, with 700,000-1,000,000 robotics

jobs forecast to be created by 2016 [9]. The Robotics Engineering program is well-positioned to

educate students for these opportunities. Since the program started, three other U.S. universities

have begun Robotics Engineering majors: Lawrence Technological University, University of

California Santa Clara, and Carnegie Mellon University. One can expect more in the future [8].

Bibliography

[1] ABET. http://www.abet.org/

[2] M.J. Ciaraldi, E.C. Cobb, D. Cyganski, M.A. Gennert, M.A. Demetriou, F.J. Looft, W.R. Michalson, B.A.

Miller, Y. Rong, L.E. Schachterle, K. Stafford, G. Tryggvason, J.D. Van de Ven, “The New Robotics

Engineering BS Program at WPI”, ASEE Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, Jun. 2008.

[3] M.J. Ciaraldi, E.C. Cobb, D. Cyganski, M.A. Demetriou, G. Fischer, M.A. Gennert, F.J. Looft, W.R.

Michalson, B.A. Miller, Y. Rong, K. Stafford, G. Tryggvason, J.D. Van de Ven, “Robotics Engineering: A

New Discipline for a New Century”, ASEE Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, Jun. 2009.

[4] M.J. Ciaraldi, E.C. Cobb, F.J. Looft, R.L. Norton, T. Padir, “Designing an Undergraduate Robotics

Engineering Curriculum: Unified Robotics I and II”, ASEE Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, June 2009.

[5] W.H. Gates, “A Robot in Every Home”, Scientific American, pp. 58-65, Jan. 2007.

[6] M.A. Gennert, W.R. Michalson, M.A. Demetriou, “A Robotics Engineering M.S. Degree”, ASEE Annual

Meeting, Louisville, KY, Jun. 2010.

[7] M.A. Gennert, T. Padir, “Assessing Multidisciplinary Design in a Robotics Engineering Curriculum, ASEE

Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, June 2012.

Page 23.1049.22

[8] M.A. Gennert, G. Tryggvason, “Robotics Engineering: A Discipline Whose Time Has Come”, IEEE Robotics

& Automation Magazine, pp. 18–20, June 2009.

[9] P. Gorle, A. Clive, “Positive Impact of Industrial Robots on Employment”, Metra Martech / International

Foundation of Robotics Report, 2011.

http://www.ifr.org/index.php?id=59&df=Metra_Martech_Study_on_robots.pdf

[10] Neuron Robotics. http://neuronrobotics.com/store/.

[11] T. Padir, G. Fischer, S. Chernova, M.A. Gennert, “A Unified and Integrated Approach to Teaching a Two-

Course Sequence in Robotics Engineering” J. Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol. 23 No. 5, 2011.

[12] T. Padir, G. Fischer, W.R. Michalson, G. Pollice, "Development of a Laboratory Kit for Robotics Engineering

Education", Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium on Educational

Robotics and Beyond: Design and Evaluation, 2010.

[13] T. Padir, M.A. Gennert, G. Fischer, W.R. Michalson, E.C. Cobb, “Implementation of an Undergraduate

Robotics Engineering Curriculum”, Computers in Education J. special issue on Robotics Education, Vol. 1,

No. 3, pp. 92-101, July-Sep. 2010.

[14] M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research”, J. Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223-231,

2004.

[15] G. Tryggvason and D. Apelian. “Re-Engineering Engineering Education for the Challenges of the 21st

Century.” Commentary in JOM: The Member Journal of TMS, Oct. 2006.

[16] G. Tryggvason, M.A. Gennert, F.J. Looft, T. Padir, L.E. Schachterle, “Robotics Engineering: Assessing an

Interdisciplinary Program”, ASEE Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY, Jun. 2010.

[17] Willow Garage, “TurtleBot”, http://turtlebot.com/.

[18] Flinders University, Bachelor of Engineering (Robotics)

http://www.flinders.edu.au/courses/undergrad/bengr/bengr_home.cfm.

[19] Plymouth University, BSc (Hons) Robotics,

http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/2755/Pages/CourseOverview.aspx.

[20] C. Putnam, “Robotics Engineering Program Biennial MQP Review,” WPI Internal Report, Jan. 2013.

[21] RBE Advisory Board, http://www.wpi.edu/academics/robotics/adviso71.html. Page 23.1049.23