An Attraction Toward Engineering Careers The Story of a Brooklyn Outreach Program for KuFFFD12 Students
An Attraction Toward
Engineering Careers
The Story of a Brooklyn Outreach
Program for K–12 Students
By Nicole Abaid, Vladislav Kopman,
and Maurizio Porfiri
T
his article narrates the development, organization,
and execution of a robotics-based outreach program
designed to ignite K–12 students’ interests in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
and attract them toward engineering careers.
Engineering disciplines (such as biomedical, chemical, civil,
electrical, and mechanical) are instrumental to society’s well
being and technological competitiveness; however, the interest
of K–12 American students in these and other engineering
fields is fading [1], [2]. To broaden the base of engineers for the
future, it is critical to excite young minds about STEM (see [3]
and [4]). Research that is easily visible to K–12 students, including underserved and minority populations with limited access
to technology, is crucial in igniting their interests in STEM
fields. More specifically, research topics that involve interactive
elements such as robots may be instrumental for K–12 education in and outside the classroom [5]–[8].
Interactive robots have been successfully used in STEM education and outreach activities [6], [9]–[20]. In K–12 education,
robots can be employed to teach formal subjects, such as physics
DRAWINGS OF FISH AND ROBOTIC FISH BY STUDENTS.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MRA.2012.2184672
Date of publication: 10 September 2012
1070-9932/13/$31.00©2013IEEE
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
31
framework for the analysis and control of animal groups [25].
The robots designed and assembled in the DSL mimic live
fish swimming and are easily operated using a remote control,
making them a natural teaching tool for use with
K–12 students.
In this article, we explain the fun-science activity conducted by members of the DSL at the NYAQ in June 2010
within the NSF CAREER project. The format of the activity,
which brings together K–12 students and robots, is unique
in the authentic engineering experience it offers. The activity takes place at the NYAQ and has the advantage of the
stunning collection of fish there to acquaint students with
different modes of swimming. As per a real biologically
inspired robot design, the students are introduced to robotic
fish from the DSL and are encouraged to design and make
caudal fins for the robots. The students test these fins on the
robots to ascertain the affect that the caudal fin size and
shape has on swimming.
The planning and implementation of the fun-science
activity is enhanced by augmenting the DSL team with two
high school students with prior experience in the NYAQ’s
teen docent program. The high school students are able to act
as liaisons between the elementary/middle school student
participants and the DSL members, while bringing intimate
knowledge of the NYAQ to the planning of the activity.
The results of the outreach program are assessed by two
surveys, which indicate the success of the activity in influencing the students’ perceptions of engineering. By comparing
self-reported survey responses before and after the event, an
increased interest in STEM fields is observed in the students,
who also recognize engineering to be a more accessible and
exciting discipline after participating in the activity. Moreover,
locating this activity in Brooklyn, New York, and targeting
local public schools for participation allows us to have an
impact on underserved populations whose access to engineering and science experiences may be limited by socioeconomic and cultural barriers.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
and science [6], [10], [11], [15], and to inspire an explicit engineering curricula [19], which is largely uncommon in the
American preuniversity system. Beyond integrating robotics
into school curricula, outreach activities centered on
The activity at the NYAQ
exciting children and teenagers about STEM can
included informative and
greatly benefit from the
tangibility that robots offer
interactive elements to
[13], [14], [16], [21], [22].
That is, robotics-based
ignite K–12 students’
activities administered to
students outside of school
interest in technology and
environments, in the form
of workshops and summer
science and to attract them camps, are shown to positively influence the particitoward career opportunities pants’ understanding of
engineering topics and furin engineering.
ther foster their interest in
STEM fields. As an example, robots featured as keynote speakers during outreach and public events can increase
interest and information retention of the audience [20]. The
impact of robots in education is not limited to K–12 students,
as robotics is extensively used in higher education to teach
engineering principles and develop design and compete-type
curricula [9], [12], [17], [18].
Part of the research activities of the Dynamical Systems
Laboratory (DSL) at the Polytechnic Institute of New York
University involves the design and implementation of underwater vehicles for marine studies. Potential applications of the
research include developing effective strategies for the coordination of low-cost multivehicle teams and studying animal–
robot interaction. Under the support of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development
(CAREER) award grant, major efforts have been devoted to
the guidance and control of gregarious fish using biomimetic
robots (see, e.g., [23]–[25]). The overarching goal of these
studies is to develop a comprehensive dynamic systems
Figure 1. Two servomotor-propelled biomimetic robotic fish
used as a K–12 educational platform.
32
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Interactive Robotic Fish for Outreach
The DSL has been actively engaged in the design, realization, and implementation of underwater robots since
2007. Past endeavors have brought forth remotely controlled biomimetic robotic fish propelled by ionic polymer metal composites (IPMCs) and powered by onboard
batteries [24]. IPMCs are a novel class of compliant smart
materials that deform in response to a voltage signal
applied across their electrodes [26]. An IPMC strip in
connection with a passive silicone fin at its tip comprises
an artificial flapping tail for the robotic fish. This allows
the robot to replicate the locomotion of carangiform
swimmers such as goldfish or minnows.
The high cost of IPMC actuators limits the use of these
vehicles in the classroom. In addition, IPMCs, in the early
stages of development, are delicate materials that require careful use and storage and are not easily handled by children.
Therefore, the DSL sought to develop a low-cost and more
Robotic Fish Interactive Features
The robotic fish are controlled using a remote control user
interface (see Figure 3). The remote control is enclosed in a
transparent plastic case with all of its electronics visible to further enhance the learning experience. The remote control contains a variety of inputs and outputs, giving the user the ability
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Robotic Fish Anatomy
The robotic fish is composed of an acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene plastic body shell, tail section, and body cap. The
electronics and battery for control and power are encased
in the body shell (see Figure 2). The electronics include a
microcontroller unit, a wireless transceiver, power regulators, and a rechargeable battery. A servomotor, used to
actuate the tail section of the robot, is fit into a compartment at the back of the body shell. The tail section is connected to the servomotor using a standard servo horn and
provides a means to attach a customizable caudal fin. The
servomotor is waterproof and may operate underwater,
provided that the inside of the body shell is watertight for
protection of the electronics compartment and conservation of buoyancy. A counterweight, composed of a thin
strip of coated lead, sits at the bottom of the body shell to
achieve neutral buoyancy and enhance pitch and roll stability. The body cap provides access to the electronics
compartment for initial assembly of the robotic fish and is
permanently attached to the body shell in the final robot
implementation. A switch hidden behind the servomotor
horn allows the robot to be turned on and off, and a
power port is located at the back of the body shell for
charging. This configuration permits the robot to remain
in its assembled form and does not require the body cap
to be removed during normal operation or charging.
The body shell, tail section, and body cap are designed
in SolidWorks and printed on a Dimension Soluble Support Technology rapid prototyping machine. The dimensions of the robot are 117 mm in length, 48 mm in height,
and 26 mm in width, without the customizable caudal
fin attached.
to control the robotic fish locomotion. In particular, the tail
beating frequency and amplitude may be modulated in addition to basic steering, forward, and stop commands. A videogame-like joystick provides
steering control with left/
right motions and controls
The robots designed and
the tail beating frequency
with up/down motions.
assembled in the DSL
Additionally, a knob allows
for the selection of tail
mimic live fish swimming
beating amplitude. LED
lights indicate when the
and are easily operated
remote is ready (green
LED) and when the robotusing a remote control,
ic fish batteries are low
(red LED). A toggle switch
making them a natural
is used to vary the control
from the manual control
teaching tool for use with
(joystick) to a potential
autonomous solution
K–12 students.
(computer interface).
In their assembled
form, the robotic fish do not include a caudal fin. This allows
the users, in this case the students participating in the
Figure 2. Completed robotic fish with its body cap open. The
picture shows the power and control electronics along with the
battery and servomotor.
Manual/Computer
Control Switch
Battery Low
Indicator
Ready
Indicator
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
resilient version of the biomimetic robotic fish. The result,
designed and realized by graduate student Vladislav Kopman,
is a servomotor-driven, attractive, and child-friendly platform
based on off-the-shelf electronics (see Figure 1).
The servomotor-propelled robotic fish are designed to
swim at speeds comparable to that of the live fish they are
intended to lead, approximately one body length per second,
and have an approximate turning radius of one body length.
The robots are designed to be easily controlled by young participants using a remote control interface similar to a video
game controller. Each robotic fish is given a unique color for
easy identification by the operator. Multiple robots may be
operated simultaneously during racetype events, as each one
has its own designated remote control. The entire system
costs under US$100 on a limited production basis, making
the robots affordable for classroom implementation.
Electronics/
Computer Interface
Amplitude Knob
Joystick:
Frequency/Steering
Figure 3. The remote control interface used to operate robotic
fish.
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
33
activity, to experience biologically inspired design by cutting
out their own caudal fin from a premade template (see
Figure 4). The template is
constructed by sandwichThe high school students
ing a piece of paper and a
22-gauge wire between
created caudal fin
two pieces of clear packing tape. The wire is used
templates fromwhich the
to secure the caudal fin
template to the tail section
participantswere able to
of the robot by snugly fitting into a keyhole slot.
consisted of interactive fun-science activities at the NYAQ
for elementary and middle school students based on underwater robotics and marine science, and it targeted the
engaging intersection of these disciplines in the emerging
field of biologically inspired robotics. The activity was organized as a 75-min event, including a tour of the NYAQ, an
underwater robotics session, and an interactive engineering
phase. Support material for the activity, comprising pamphlets and a poster, was developed by two high school students who also served as leading docents in the program.
construct their own
Educational Material
for Outreach
The activity at the NYAQ
caudal fins.
included informative and
interactive elements to
develop the students’
interests in technology and science and to attract them
toward career opportunities in engineering. The program
Attachment Point
Caudal Fins
(Cut by Students)
Caudal Fins Template
(Uncut)
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
biologically inspired
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Figure 4. Robotic fish with caudal fins cut by the students. The
picture also shows an uncut caudal fin template that is given to
the students.
Figure 5. High school students Daniil Karpov and Andrew Chen
present a poster highlighting DSL research to student
participants.
34
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Activity Informative Material
Two high school students, Andrew Chen and Daniil Karpov, were selected for their prior affiliation with the NYAQ
through the teen docent program and worked on this activity with the graduate student mentor Nicole Abaid at the
DSL for 5 h/week. During this time, they first learned about
ongoing research projects in the DSL through the demonstration of experiments by laboratory members and a consultation of posters and papers resulting from this research.
In addition, they studied fundamental concepts in smart
materials and fish physiology to understand the elements of
these fields that are salient for biomimetic robot design and
application. Simultaneously, these high school students
were cognizant of their role as a bridge between the knowledge of elementary and middle school students and the scientific community at the laboratory.
Using this information, they created several documents.
The first is an informative pamphlet designed for interested
teachers. The pamphlet explains basic robotics research
questions addressed by the DSL research team, including
creating a biomimetic vehicle for implementation with live
animals. Also, the pamphlet expresses the motivation
behind the DSL research with marine science background
information and outlines the proposed funscience activity.
The diction of the pamphlet was designed specifically for
nontechnical audiences, which is evidenced in the following quotation outlining fish locomotion:
Fish swim in a variety of ways. Stingrays, for example,
flap their fins like wings to glide on the bottom of the
ocean floor. Eels, on the other hand, wriggle like
snakes to get where they’re going. The fish that we are
going to focus on use a form of locomotion called
carangiform. These fish are what we normally picture
in our heads when we think of fish. To move in their
environment, these fish wave their bodies like a flag.
The ability to swim in this manner allows for some
members of this class of fish to school (or swim in a
group for protection).
The other educational document prepared by the high
school students was a large 3 ft # 2 ft poster offering an
overview of the research in the DSL (see Figure 5), which
also drew from their study on fish physiology. This colorful
poster was informally presented by the high school students
during the activity and was written using age-appropriate
language and concepts. Adhering to this restriction, the
Activity Format
The format of the activity at the aquarium has both live
and robotic fish experiences. Upon entering the aquarium, each class is directed to the Glover’s Reef exhibit that
mimics a real Belizean environment. The students can
observe fish characterized by different types of swimming
modalities, including eels, rays, wrasses, and chromises,
for approximately 15 min. An aquarium educator guides
their observations toward the different types of locomotion that animals underwater may use to move in their
environment. The class is then asked to think about what
characteristics of body or motion are required to make a
fish swim quickly.
When the tour adjourns, the students are led to an education building at the aquarium, where several stations are prepared along with a robotic fish test platform. The classes are
given a few minutes of instruction outlining the stations,
which comprise the fin-making station, the testing pool
station, the research station, the engineering station, and the
survey station.
A typical route for a student through the activity is as
follows:
1) The student goes to the fin-making station, where he or she
cuts a caudal fin out of a fin template based on what he or
she has observed during the tour (see Figure 7).
2) The student walks to the testing pool station and is assisted
in mounting this fin on the robot and controlling the swimming of the robot using a remote control (see Figure 6).
3) After the experimental trial, the student walks to the
research station where he or she is guided through the
poster by one of the high school students, who explains the
© POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Activity Interactive Material
In accompaniment with the robotic fish, the high school
students created caudal fin templates from which the participants were able to construct their own biologically
inspired caudal fins (see Figure 4). These fins can easily be
inserted into the keyhole slot on each robot’s tail to allow
for quick trials of each student’s fin. An ample amount of
caudal fin templates was prepared so that each student
could have several tries.
The high school students also created a testing pool for
the robots, shown in use in Figure 6, comprising a large
plastic storage container. The container was equipped to
be divided into three lanes by colorful buoys and twine,
giving it the effect of a miniature swimming pool. In addition, the high school students created a finish line from a
flag hoisted between two wooden dowels at one end of the
pool. This allowed the participants an arena in which to
test their caudal fins on the robotic fish and compete their
fins against one another via the simultaneous operation of
two robots in the pool.
significance of robotic fish in the DSL’s research. At this station, the student also observes videos of the IPMC-actuated robotic fish developed in the DSL.
4) From this point, the student walks to the engineering station
to see and handle disassembled robot parts,
including circuit boards,
The robots included
servomotors, IPMCs,
and plastic hulls. Here,
modular features that
the student has an
explicit opportunity to
allowed participants to
ask one of the members
of the DSL questions he
design and test their own
or she might have (see
Figure 8).
biologically inspired
5) The student goes to the
survey station and
caudal fins.
answers the survey prepared for this study.
At the end of the visit, the students are thanked for their
time, attention, and enthusiasm and informed that their
survey answers will be used to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the activity. In addition, any remaining questions from the students are answered.
Figure 6. Two robotic fish racing with student-made caudal fins.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
high school students accurately described such highlevel
ideas as the basic principles behind the IPMCs used in DSL
research projects.
Figure 7. Students make caudal fins for robotic fish inspired by
live fish in the aquarium.
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
35
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Figure 8. Prof. Porfiri, high school student Andrew Chen, and
student participants discuss the design of robotic fish.
Results of the Program
Students were given two surveys, one several days before participating in the activity (preassessment) and one immediately
after (postassessment). An image of the preassessment given
before the activity is shown in Figure 9. The preassessment is
partitioned into two sections (fill-in-the-blank questions and
statements S1–S7) with which students must rate their agreement. The postassessment includes fill-in-the-blank questions
and statements S1–S7 as well as statements S8–S10, reported
in the caption of Figure 10, and a drawing component. The
surveys are intended to analyze the students’ notion/understanding of engineering professions, their interest in STEM
careers, and the feasibility of these careers to them.
The fill-in-the-blank questions ask for basic demographic information (the student’s school and grade) as
Dear Student,
We would like to hear from you before we meet you at the New York Aquarium. We will use
your input in evaluating our program in comparison to similar activities outside Brooklyn and all
over the United States. Thanks for helping us!
Professor Porfiri and the Dynamical Systems Laboratory
1.
What school do you go to?
2.
What grade are you in?
3.
What is your favorite subject in school?
4.
What’s your favorite marine animal?
5.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
6.
What is one thing engineers do?
Check one box for each statement to show how much you agree or disagree.
Statements
Engineering is fun.
Engineers are cool.
I know many engineers.
Many kids in my class could become
engineers.
Engineering is important for the future of
our world.
Engineers don’t need to know much about
nature.
I want to be an engineer when I grow up.
Agree a lot
Agree
Disagree
Disagree a lot
Figure 9. An assessment completed by students before participating in the activity, with statements S1–S7 appearing in a table
format.
36
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Preassessment
responses are generally discovery oriented, such as invent
things, design new things, discover things and modeling,
and build models of things they are going to do. These
responses, in particular, may be the result of students internalizing the basic scientific method by simultaneous exposure to many aspects of the design process during the event
at the NYAQ.
Figure 10 shows
Robotics-based activities
stacked bar graphs representing the distribution
administered to students
of students’ agreement or
disagreement with stateoutside of school
ments S1–S7 on the preassessment and S1–S10
environments, in the form
on the postassessment.
As stated above, stateof workshops and summer
ments without response
or with multiple responscamps, are shown to
es to the same statement
are excluded from this
positively influence the
analysis. S1 and S2 are
designed to test the perparticipants’ understanding
ception of the engineering discipline. S3 asks for
of engineering topics.
demographic information about the students’
personal ties to engineering professionals. S4 is written to test the accessibility of
engineering as a career to the students. S5 and S6 seek to
garner information about the importance of engineering.
S7 explicitly inquires as to the students’ desire to pursue
careers in engineering.
Postassessment
well as a comfort question (what is the student’s favorite
marine animal), which is designed to put the student at
ease while completing the survey. The relevant questions
for assessing change in the student’s perception of STEM
ask for the student’s favorite subject in school, what the
student wants to be when he or she grows up, and one
thing that engineers do.
A total of 62 students from a fourth-grade class and a
sixth-grade class were surveyed before visiting the aquarium, and 50 students participated in the fun-science activity.
The ages and socioeconomic backgrounds of students in
both classes, separately participating in the activity over
two days, are parallel as both classes come from local, public schools within a 1-mi distance from each other. In light
of this similarity, their surveys are combined to afford a
larger sample of preassessment and postassessment
responses analyzed in this section.
The responses for their favorite school subject are partitioned into STEM and non-STEM disciplines, with multiple responses considered as STEM if they include at least
one STEM discipline. Blank responses are discarded. The
preassessment shows 71% of surveyed students preferring
STEM fields and 29% preferring non-STEM fields. The
postassessment suggests an increase in STEM preference,
with 80% of students preferring STEM to 20% preferring
non-STEM.
The responses regarding career aspirations, what the
students would like to be when they grow up, are also
partitioned into STEM and non-STEM fields. Multiple
responses are counted as STEM if they include at least one
STEM career. If “doctor” is considered a STEM profession, then a decline from 45% of students considering
STEM careers before the activity to 38% after the activity
is observed. However, excluding doctor responses, the
STEM careers to which the students aspire rise from 21 to
26% of the remaining responses, which hints at an
increased interest in the less visible STEM professions.
Additionally, of the non-STEM careers favored by the participants, approximately 25% chose police officer or
undercover cop consistently in the preassessment and
postassessment, which speaks about the more visible
careers in their socioeconomic environment.
Students’ answers to the question “What is one thing
engineers do?” sheds light on the changing perceptions
after the fun-science activity. Perhaps due to confusion over
the difference between a mechanic and a mechanical engineer, 23% of students in the preassessment gave automotive-related responses to this question, such as fix or make
cars. However, the postassessment shows only 13% of students had automotive-related answers. Additionally, the
students’ responses are partitioned into three thematic subsets: fabrication (make things), maintenance (fix things),
and other. The preassessment shows 39% fabrication, 49%
maintenance, and 12% other responses. The postassessment shows a shifting distribution, with 46% fabrication,
30% maintenance, and 24% other responses. The other
1
0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
(a)
1
0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
(b)
DA
D
A
AA
Figure 10. Stacked bar graphs of student agreement percentages
(a) before and (b) after the activity. AA denotes agree a lot; A
denotes agree; D denotes disagree; and DA denotes disagree a
lot. Additional statements appearing only in the postassessment
are S8: “I learned a lot today,” S9: “I would like to have more
engineering presentations like this one in the future,” and S10:
“Today’s visit made engineering look fun.”
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
37
taken to be statistically significant, 0.05 # p 1 0.10 to be
weakly statistically significant, and p $ 0.10 to be not statistically significant (see, for example, [27]). The p values
computed for statements S1, S2, and S4–S7 are, respectively,
0.077, 0.036, 0.077, 0.107, 0.036, and 0.077. This shows that
the positive and negative shifts of responses to statements
S2 and S6, respectively, are statistically significant and the
positive shifts of responses to S1, S4, and S7, respectively,
are weakly statistically significant. Only the positive shift in
S5 shows no statistical significance, although its p value is
close to the threshold value of 0.10. These results provide
statistical support to the observed enthusiasm and excitement of students during the activity.
In addition, the postassessment includes three statements S8–S10 to ascertain the students’ perception of the
fun-science activity itself (see Figure 10). From the overwhelmingly positive responses to these three questions, it
is seen that the students had an interest in STEM fields,
found engineering to be an accessible discipline, and had
fun participating in the activity.
To allow less verbal students an opportunity to express
what they learned from the activity, the postassessment
includes a drawing component in which the students are asked
to draw their own robotic fish using colored pencils. Samples
of their drawings are shown in Figure 11. The various caudal
fin shapes in Figure 11 show evidence that the exercise of
modifying the fin shape to test the influence on swimming
impacted the students’ designs in their fish sketches.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Broadly examining the distributions in Figure 10, S1 and S4
show trends toward more agreeable perceptions after the activity. S5 and S6 stay relatively constant before and after the activity, and S7 shows a remarkable shift toward agreement in the
postassessment. These trends are consistent with the preactivity hypotheses that S1, S2, S4, S5, and S7 show positive shifts
and S6 shows a negative
shift as a result of the activA total of 62 students from ity. The trend seen in S3
is not part of the set
a fourth-grade class and a hypotheses but rather an
observation of students’
engineering climate.
sixth-grade class were
For a statistical persurveyed before visiting the spective on this data, a
nonparametric Mannaquarium, and 50 students Whitney U test is performed to ascertain the
statistical significance of
participated in the
the differences observed
between the preassessfun-science activity.
ment and the postassessment responses [27]. This
test is selected among others since it can be used to extract
quantitative information from surveys whose answers are
ordinal and nonnumerical. The p values with p 1 0.05 are
Figure 11. Sample drawings of fish and robotic fish by students.
38
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Conclusions
In this article, the format, experience, and results of an interactive robotics-based outreach activity that was designed to
ignite the interests of K–12 students in STEM fields and
attract them toward careers in engineering have been presented. The activity engaged local elementary school and
middle school classes at the NYAQ in Brooklyn, with DSL
members and high school student docents. The participating
students were given a guided tour of fish exhibits at the
aquarium, with a short lecture on live fish swimming mechanisms, and were then asked to use their creativity and knowledge of fish to engineer and test caudal fins on robotic fish.
The materials created for the activity, namely, a promotional brochure, a poster developed by two high school
students, and biomimetic fishlike robots used during the
interactive engineering phase, were described. The robots
included modular features that allowed participants to design
and test their own biologically inspired caudal fins. Using a
remote control, these robots provided a perfect platform for
increasing the students’ interests in engineering activities. The
impact of the activity on the student participants was assessed
using self-report surveys administered to the students before
and after participating in the activity.
Survey results showed a clear impact of the activity in fostering positive perceptions of engineering professions,
increased interest in STEM careers, and the openness of these
careers to the students. This success can be attributed to the
simultaneous orchestration of the following elements: 1) the
use of visually attractive and interactive robots, 2) active
involvement in authentic biologically inspired engineering
designs, 3) the integration of robotics and marine science, 4) an
informal setting for STEM learning at the NYAQ, 5) the participation of an age and gender diverse cadre of university and
high school students, and 6) the distribution and onsite presentation of educational material prepared by high school students
bridging college with middle/elementary school learning.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the NSF under CAREER
grant CMMI-0745753, GK–12 fellows grant DGE-0741714,
and through a Graduate Research Fellowship to Vladislav
Kopman under grant DGE-1104522. The authors are
thankful to Dr. Chanda Bennett, Melissa Carp, and Robert
Cummings at the NYAQ for their invaluable partnership in
this project; Andrew Chen and Daniil Karpov for their
active participation in the preparation of this activity; Ken
Koga- Moriuchi for his advice on fish and great students;
Karl Abdelnour, Matteo Aureli, Irina Igel, Jenny Lin, and
Chris Xu for bringing their enthusiasm to the events; Maria
Grillo for a beautiful documentation of the event; Dr. Sandra Huret and Dr. Oded Nov for helping to create an assessment and analyzing the data; and all the student and
teacher participants formaking this activity a reality.
References
[1] D. W. Callahan and L. B. Callahan, “Looking for engineering students? Go
home,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 500–501, 2004.
[2] M. F. Kazmierczak, Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challengefor
Science and Technology in the United States. Washington, DC: AeA, Advancing
the Business of Technology, 2005.
[3] K. Cannon, M. A. Lapoint, N. Bird, K. Panciera, H. Veeraraghavan, N.
Papanikolopoulos, and M. Gini, “Using robots to raise interest in technology
among underrepresented groups,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 73–81, 2007.
[4] E. Matson, S. DeLoach, and R. Pauly, “Building interest in math and science for rural and underserved elementary school children using robots,” J.
STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 35–46, 2004.
[5] J. Johnson, “Children, robotics, and education,” Artif. Life Robot., vol. 7, no.
1–2, pp. 16–21, 2003.
[6] R. Mitnik, M. Recabarren, M. Nussbaum, and A. Soto, “Collaborative
robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience,” Comput. Educ., vol. 53, no.
2, pp. 330–342, 2009.
[7] C. Pomalaza-R aez and B. H. Groff, “Retention 101: Where robots go . . .
students follow,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2003.
[8] F. Taban, E. Acar, I. Fidan, and A. Zora, “Teaching basic engineering concepts in a K–12 environment using LEGO bricks and robotics,” in ASEE Annu.
Conf. Proc., Portland, OR, 2005.
[9] A.-J. Baerveldt, T. Salomonsson, and B. Astrand, “Vision-guided mobile
robots for design competitions,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
38–44, 2003.
[10] B. S. Barker and J. Ansorge, “Robotics as means to increase achievement
scores in an informal learning environment,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 39, no.
3, pp. 229–243, 2007.
[11] S. Bruder and K. Wedeward, “Robotics in the classroom,” IEEE Robot.
Automat. Mag., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 25–29, 2003.
[12] L. Greenwald and J. Kopena, “Mobile robot labs,” IEEE Robot. Automat.
Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 25–32, 2003.
[13] E. M. Jimenez Jojoa, E. C. Bravo, and E. B. Bacca Cortes, “Tool for experimenting with concepts of mobile robotics as applied to children’s education,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 88–95, 2010.
[14] T. Karp, R. Gale, L. A. Lowe, V. Medina, and E. Beutlich, “Generation
NXT: Building young engineers with LEGOs,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no.
1, pp. 80–87, 2010.
[15] O. Miglino, H. H. Lund, and M. Cardaci, “Robotics as an educational
tool,” J. Interact. Learn. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 25–47, 1999.
[16] R. Mitchell, K. Warwick, W. N. Browne, M. N. Gasson, and J. Wyatt,
“Engaging robots: Innovative outreach for attracting cybernetics students,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 105–113, 2010.
[17] J. M. Mirats Tur and C. F. Pfeiffer, “Mobile robot design in education,”
IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 2006.
[18] R. R. Murphy, ““Competing” for a robotics education,” IEEE Robot.
Automat. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 44–55, 2001.
[19] C. Rogers and M. Portsmore, “Bringing engineering to elementary
school,” J. STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 3–4, pp. 17–28, 2004.
[20] J. Ruiz-del-Solar, “Robotics-centered outreach activities: An integrated
approach,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 38–45, 2010.
[21] M. Chyba and R. N. Smith. (2012, June 11). Robo-nemo: Educating youth
about ocean research!, University of Hawaii at Manoa. [Online]. Available:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/stomp/STOMP/robonemo/
[22] P. van Lith and J. Caska. (2007, Jan.). RoboDidactics Manual. [Online].
Av a i lable: ht t p://w w w.mondo d ig it a le .org /f i le s/publ ic at ion s/f i l /
robo‘MANUALE2’1.pdflf.
[23] N. Abaid and M. Porfiri, “Fish in a ring: Spatio-temporal pattern formation in one-dimensional animal groups,” J. Royal Soc. Interface, vol. 7, no. 51,
pp. 1444–1453, 2010.
[24] M. Aureli, V. Kopman, and M. Porfiri, “Free-locomotion of underwater
vehicles actuated by ionic polymer metal composites,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 603–614, 2010.
[25] M. Aureli, F. Fiorilli, and M. Porfiri, “Interactions between fish and
robots: An experimental study,” in Proc. ASME DSCC—Dynamic Systems and
Control Conf., Cambridge, MA, Sept. 2010, paper WeBT3.3.
[26] M. Shahinpoor and K. J. Kim, “Ionic polymer-metal composites: I. Fundamentals,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 819–833, 2001.
[27] G. Keller, Statistics for Management and Economics, 8th ed. Mason, OH:
South-Western College Publ., 2008
Nicole Abaid, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail: [email protected].
Vladislav Kopman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail: [email protected].
Maurizio Porfiri, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail:[email protected].
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
39
Engineering Careers
The Story of a Brooklyn Outreach
Program for K–12 Students
By Nicole Abaid, Vladislav Kopman,
and Maurizio Porfiri
T
his article narrates the development, organization,
and execution of a robotics-based outreach program
designed to ignite K–12 students’ interests in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
and attract them toward engineering careers.
Engineering disciplines (such as biomedical, chemical, civil,
electrical, and mechanical) are instrumental to society’s well
being and technological competitiveness; however, the interest
of K–12 American students in these and other engineering
fields is fading [1], [2]. To broaden the base of engineers for the
future, it is critical to excite young minds about STEM (see [3]
and [4]). Research that is easily visible to K–12 students, including underserved and minority populations with limited access
to technology, is crucial in igniting their interests in STEM
fields. More specifically, research topics that involve interactive
elements such as robots may be instrumental for K–12 education in and outside the classroom [5]–[8].
Interactive robots have been successfully used in STEM education and outreach activities [6], [9]–[20]. In K–12 education,
robots can be employed to teach formal subjects, such as physics
DRAWINGS OF FISH AND ROBOTIC FISH BY STUDENTS.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MRA.2012.2184672
Date of publication: 10 September 2012
1070-9932/13/$31.00©2013IEEE
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
31
framework for the analysis and control of animal groups [25].
The robots designed and assembled in the DSL mimic live
fish swimming and are easily operated using a remote control,
making them a natural teaching tool for use with
K–12 students.
In this article, we explain the fun-science activity conducted by members of the DSL at the NYAQ in June 2010
within the NSF CAREER project. The format of the activity,
which brings together K–12 students and robots, is unique
in the authentic engineering experience it offers. The activity takes place at the NYAQ and has the advantage of the
stunning collection of fish there to acquaint students with
different modes of swimming. As per a real biologically
inspired robot design, the students are introduced to robotic
fish from the DSL and are encouraged to design and make
caudal fins for the robots. The students test these fins on the
robots to ascertain the affect that the caudal fin size and
shape has on swimming.
The planning and implementation of the fun-science
activity is enhanced by augmenting the DSL team with two
high school students with prior experience in the NYAQ’s
teen docent program. The high school students are able to act
as liaisons between the elementary/middle school student
participants and the DSL members, while bringing intimate
knowledge of the NYAQ to the planning of the activity.
The results of the outreach program are assessed by two
surveys, which indicate the success of the activity in influencing the students’ perceptions of engineering. By comparing
self-reported survey responses before and after the event, an
increased interest in STEM fields is observed in the students,
who also recognize engineering to be a more accessible and
exciting discipline after participating in the activity. Moreover,
locating this activity in Brooklyn, New York, and targeting
local public schools for participation allows us to have an
impact on underserved populations whose access to engineering and science experiences may be limited by socioeconomic and cultural barriers.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
and science [6], [10], [11], [15], and to inspire an explicit engineering curricula [19], which is largely uncommon in the
American preuniversity system. Beyond integrating robotics
into school curricula, outreach activities centered on
The activity at the NYAQ
exciting children and teenagers about STEM can
included informative and
greatly benefit from the
tangibility that robots offer
interactive elements to
[13], [14], [16], [21], [22].
That is, robotics-based
ignite K–12 students’
activities administered to
students outside of school
interest in technology and
environments, in the form
of workshops and summer
science and to attract them camps, are shown to positively influence the particitoward career opportunities pants’ understanding of
engineering topics and furin engineering.
ther foster their interest in
STEM fields. As an example, robots featured as keynote speakers during outreach and public events can increase
interest and information retention of the audience [20]. The
impact of robots in education is not limited to K–12 students,
as robotics is extensively used in higher education to teach
engineering principles and develop design and compete-type
curricula [9], [12], [17], [18].
Part of the research activities of the Dynamical Systems
Laboratory (DSL) at the Polytechnic Institute of New York
University involves the design and implementation of underwater vehicles for marine studies. Potential applications of the
research include developing effective strategies for the coordination of low-cost multivehicle teams and studying animal–
robot interaction. Under the support of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development
(CAREER) award grant, major efforts have been devoted to
the guidance and control of gregarious fish using biomimetic
robots (see, e.g., [23]–[25]). The overarching goal of these
studies is to develop a comprehensive dynamic systems
Figure 1. Two servomotor-propelled biomimetic robotic fish
used as a K–12 educational platform.
32
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Interactive Robotic Fish for Outreach
The DSL has been actively engaged in the design, realization, and implementation of underwater robots since
2007. Past endeavors have brought forth remotely controlled biomimetic robotic fish propelled by ionic polymer metal composites (IPMCs) and powered by onboard
batteries [24]. IPMCs are a novel class of compliant smart
materials that deform in response to a voltage signal
applied across their electrodes [26]. An IPMC strip in
connection with a passive silicone fin at its tip comprises
an artificial flapping tail for the robotic fish. This allows
the robot to replicate the locomotion of carangiform
swimmers such as goldfish or minnows.
The high cost of IPMC actuators limits the use of these
vehicles in the classroom. In addition, IPMCs, in the early
stages of development, are delicate materials that require careful use and storage and are not easily handled by children.
Therefore, the DSL sought to develop a low-cost and more
Robotic Fish Interactive Features
The robotic fish are controlled using a remote control user
interface (see Figure 3). The remote control is enclosed in a
transparent plastic case with all of its electronics visible to further enhance the learning experience. The remote control contains a variety of inputs and outputs, giving the user the ability
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Robotic Fish Anatomy
The robotic fish is composed of an acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene plastic body shell, tail section, and body cap. The
electronics and battery for control and power are encased
in the body shell (see Figure 2). The electronics include a
microcontroller unit, a wireless transceiver, power regulators, and a rechargeable battery. A servomotor, used to
actuate the tail section of the robot, is fit into a compartment at the back of the body shell. The tail section is connected to the servomotor using a standard servo horn and
provides a means to attach a customizable caudal fin. The
servomotor is waterproof and may operate underwater,
provided that the inside of the body shell is watertight for
protection of the electronics compartment and conservation of buoyancy. A counterweight, composed of a thin
strip of coated lead, sits at the bottom of the body shell to
achieve neutral buoyancy and enhance pitch and roll stability. The body cap provides access to the electronics
compartment for initial assembly of the robotic fish and is
permanently attached to the body shell in the final robot
implementation. A switch hidden behind the servomotor
horn allows the robot to be turned on and off, and a
power port is located at the back of the body shell for
charging. This configuration permits the robot to remain
in its assembled form and does not require the body cap
to be removed during normal operation or charging.
The body shell, tail section, and body cap are designed
in SolidWorks and printed on a Dimension Soluble Support Technology rapid prototyping machine. The dimensions of the robot are 117 mm in length, 48 mm in height,
and 26 mm in width, without the customizable caudal
fin attached.
to control the robotic fish locomotion. In particular, the tail
beating frequency and amplitude may be modulated in addition to basic steering, forward, and stop commands. A videogame-like joystick provides
steering control with left/
right motions and controls
The robots designed and
the tail beating frequency
with up/down motions.
assembled in the DSL
Additionally, a knob allows
for the selection of tail
mimic live fish swimming
beating amplitude. LED
lights indicate when the
and are easily operated
remote is ready (green
LED) and when the robotusing a remote control,
ic fish batteries are low
(red LED). A toggle switch
making them a natural
is used to vary the control
from the manual control
teaching tool for use with
(joystick) to a potential
autonomous solution
K–12 students.
(computer interface).
In their assembled
form, the robotic fish do not include a caudal fin. This allows
the users, in this case the students participating in the
Figure 2. Completed robotic fish with its body cap open. The
picture shows the power and control electronics along with the
battery and servomotor.
Manual/Computer
Control Switch
Battery Low
Indicator
Ready
Indicator
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
resilient version of the biomimetic robotic fish. The result,
designed and realized by graduate student Vladislav Kopman,
is a servomotor-driven, attractive, and child-friendly platform
based on off-the-shelf electronics (see Figure 1).
The servomotor-propelled robotic fish are designed to
swim at speeds comparable to that of the live fish they are
intended to lead, approximately one body length per second,
and have an approximate turning radius of one body length.
The robots are designed to be easily controlled by young participants using a remote control interface similar to a video
game controller. Each robotic fish is given a unique color for
easy identification by the operator. Multiple robots may be
operated simultaneously during racetype events, as each one
has its own designated remote control. The entire system
costs under US$100 on a limited production basis, making
the robots affordable for classroom implementation.
Electronics/
Computer Interface
Amplitude Knob
Joystick:
Frequency/Steering
Figure 3. The remote control interface used to operate robotic
fish.
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
33
activity, to experience biologically inspired design by cutting
out their own caudal fin from a premade template (see
Figure 4). The template is
constructed by sandwichThe high school students
ing a piece of paper and a
22-gauge wire between
created caudal fin
two pieces of clear packing tape. The wire is used
templates fromwhich the
to secure the caudal fin
template to the tail section
participantswere able to
of the robot by snugly fitting into a keyhole slot.
consisted of interactive fun-science activities at the NYAQ
for elementary and middle school students based on underwater robotics and marine science, and it targeted the
engaging intersection of these disciplines in the emerging
field of biologically inspired robotics. The activity was organized as a 75-min event, including a tour of the NYAQ, an
underwater robotics session, and an interactive engineering
phase. Support material for the activity, comprising pamphlets and a poster, was developed by two high school students who also served as leading docents in the program.
construct their own
Educational Material
for Outreach
The activity at the NYAQ
caudal fins.
included informative and
interactive elements to
develop the students’
interests in technology and science and to attract them
toward career opportunities in engineering. The program
Attachment Point
Caudal Fins
(Cut by Students)
Caudal Fins Template
(Uncut)
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
biologically inspired
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Figure 4. Robotic fish with caudal fins cut by the students. The
picture also shows an uncut caudal fin template that is given to
the students.
Figure 5. High school students Daniil Karpov and Andrew Chen
present a poster highlighting DSL research to student
participants.
34
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Activity Informative Material
Two high school students, Andrew Chen and Daniil Karpov, were selected for their prior affiliation with the NYAQ
through the teen docent program and worked on this activity with the graduate student mentor Nicole Abaid at the
DSL for 5 h/week. During this time, they first learned about
ongoing research projects in the DSL through the demonstration of experiments by laboratory members and a consultation of posters and papers resulting from this research.
In addition, they studied fundamental concepts in smart
materials and fish physiology to understand the elements of
these fields that are salient for biomimetic robot design and
application. Simultaneously, these high school students
were cognizant of their role as a bridge between the knowledge of elementary and middle school students and the scientific community at the laboratory.
Using this information, they created several documents.
The first is an informative pamphlet designed for interested
teachers. The pamphlet explains basic robotics research
questions addressed by the DSL research team, including
creating a biomimetic vehicle for implementation with live
animals. Also, the pamphlet expresses the motivation
behind the DSL research with marine science background
information and outlines the proposed funscience activity.
The diction of the pamphlet was designed specifically for
nontechnical audiences, which is evidenced in the following quotation outlining fish locomotion:
Fish swim in a variety of ways. Stingrays, for example,
flap their fins like wings to glide on the bottom of the
ocean floor. Eels, on the other hand, wriggle like
snakes to get where they’re going. The fish that we are
going to focus on use a form of locomotion called
carangiform. These fish are what we normally picture
in our heads when we think of fish. To move in their
environment, these fish wave their bodies like a flag.
The ability to swim in this manner allows for some
members of this class of fish to school (or swim in a
group for protection).
The other educational document prepared by the high
school students was a large 3 ft # 2 ft poster offering an
overview of the research in the DSL (see Figure 5), which
also drew from their study on fish physiology. This colorful
poster was informally presented by the high school students
during the activity and was written using age-appropriate
language and concepts. Adhering to this restriction, the
Activity Format
The format of the activity at the aquarium has both live
and robotic fish experiences. Upon entering the aquarium, each class is directed to the Glover’s Reef exhibit that
mimics a real Belizean environment. The students can
observe fish characterized by different types of swimming
modalities, including eels, rays, wrasses, and chromises,
for approximately 15 min. An aquarium educator guides
their observations toward the different types of locomotion that animals underwater may use to move in their
environment. The class is then asked to think about what
characteristics of body or motion are required to make a
fish swim quickly.
When the tour adjourns, the students are led to an education building at the aquarium, where several stations are prepared along with a robotic fish test platform. The classes are
given a few minutes of instruction outlining the stations,
which comprise the fin-making station, the testing pool
station, the research station, the engineering station, and the
survey station.
A typical route for a student through the activity is as
follows:
1) The student goes to the fin-making station, where he or she
cuts a caudal fin out of a fin template based on what he or
she has observed during the tour (see Figure 7).
2) The student walks to the testing pool station and is assisted
in mounting this fin on the robot and controlling the swimming of the robot using a remote control (see Figure 6).
3) After the experimental trial, the student walks to the
research station where he or she is guided through the
poster by one of the high school students, who explains the
© POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Activity Interactive Material
In accompaniment with the robotic fish, the high school
students created caudal fin templates from which the participants were able to construct their own biologically
inspired caudal fins (see Figure 4). These fins can easily be
inserted into the keyhole slot on each robot’s tail to allow
for quick trials of each student’s fin. An ample amount of
caudal fin templates was prepared so that each student
could have several tries.
The high school students also created a testing pool for
the robots, shown in use in Figure 6, comprising a large
plastic storage container. The container was equipped to
be divided into three lanes by colorful buoys and twine,
giving it the effect of a miniature swimming pool. In addition, the high school students created a finish line from a
flag hoisted between two wooden dowels at one end of the
pool. This allowed the participants an arena in which to
test their caudal fins on the robotic fish and compete their
fins against one another via the simultaneous operation of
two robots in the pool.
significance of robotic fish in the DSL’s research. At this station, the student also observes videos of the IPMC-actuated robotic fish developed in the DSL.
4) From this point, the student walks to the engineering station
to see and handle disassembled robot parts,
including circuit boards,
The robots included
servomotors, IPMCs,
and plastic hulls. Here,
modular features that
the student has an
explicit opportunity to
allowed participants to
ask one of the members
of the DSL questions he
design and test their own
or she might have (see
Figure 8).
biologically inspired
5) The student goes to the
survey station and
caudal fins.
answers the survey prepared for this study.
At the end of the visit, the students are thanked for their
time, attention, and enthusiasm and informed that their
survey answers will be used to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the activity. In addition, any remaining questions from the students are answered.
Figure 6. Two robotic fish racing with student-made caudal fins.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
high school students accurately described such highlevel
ideas as the basic principles behind the IPMCs used in DSL
research projects.
Figure 7. Students make caudal fins for robotic fish inspired by
live fish in the aquarium.
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
35
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Figure 8. Prof. Porfiri, high school student Andrew Chen, and
student participants discuss the design of robotic fish.
Results of the Program
Students were given two surveys, one several days before participating in the activity (preassessment) and one immediately
after (postassessment). An image of the preassessment given
before the activity is shown in Figure 9. The preassessment is
partitioned into two sections (fill-in-the-blank questions and
statements S1–S7) with which students must rate their agreement. The postassessment includes fill-in-the-blank questions
and statements S1–S7 as well as statements S8–S10, reported
in the caption of Figure 10, and a drawing component. The
surveys are intended to analyze the students’ notion/understanding of engineering professions, their interest in STEM
careers, and the feasibility of these careers to them.
The fill-in-the-blank questions ask for basic demographic information (the student’s school and grade) as
Dear Student,
We would like to hear from you before we meet you at the New York Aquarium. We will use
your input in evaluating our program in comparison to similar activities outside Brooklyn and all
over the United States. Thanks for helping us!
Professor Porfiri and the Dynamical Systems Laboratory
1.
What school do you go to?
2.
What grade are you in?
3.
What is your favorite subject in school?
4.
What’s your favorite marine animal?
5.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
6.
What is one thing engineers do?
Check one box for each statement to show how much you agree or disagree.
Statements
Engineering is fun.
Engineers are cool.
I know many engineers.
Many kids in my class could become
engineers.
Engineering is important for the future of
our world.
Engineers don’t need to know much about
nature.
I want to be an engineer when I grow up.
Agree a lot
Agree
Disagree
Disagree a lot
Figure 9. An assessment completed by students before participating in the activity, with statements S1–S7 appearing in a table
format.
36
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Preassessment
responses are generally discovery oriented, such as invent
things, design new things, discover things and modeling,
and build models of things they are going to do. These
responses, in particular, may be the result of students internalizing the basic scientific method by simultaneous exposure to many aspects of the design process during the event
at the NYAQ.
Figure 10 shows
Robotics-based activities
stacked bar graphs representing the distribution
administered to students
of students’ agreement or
disagreement with stateoutside of school
ments S1–S7 on the preassessment and S1–S10
environments, in the form
on the postassessment.
As stated above, stateof workshops and summer
ments without response
or with multiple responscamps, are shown to
es to the same statement
are excluded from this
positively influence the
analysis. S1 and S2 are
designed to test the perparticipants’ understanding
ception of the engineering discipline. S3 asks for
of engineering topics.
demographic information about the students’
personal ties to engineering professionals. S4 is written to test the accessibility of
engineering as a career to the students. S5 and S6 seek to
garner information about the importance of engineering.
S7 explicitly inquires as to the students’ desire to pursue
careers in engineering.
Postassessment
well as a comfort question (what is the student’s favorite
marine animal), which is designed to put the student at
ease while completing the survey. The relevant questions
for assessing change in the student’s perception of STEM
ask for the student’s favorite subject in school, what the
student wants to be when he or she grows up, and one
thing that engineers do.
A total of 62 students from a fourth-grade class and a
sixth-grade class were surveyed before visiting the aquarium, and 50 students participated in the fun-science activity.
The ages and socioeconomic backgrounds of students in
both classes, separately participating in the activity over
two days, are parallel as both classes come from local, public schools within a 1-mi distance from each other. In light
of this similarity, their surveys are combined to afford a
larger sample of preassessment and postassessment
responses analyzed in this section.
The responses for their favorite school subject are partitioned into STEM and non-STEM disciplines, with multiple responses considered as STEM if they include at least
one STEM discipline. Blank responses are discarded. The
preassessment shows 71% of surveyed students preferring
STEM fields and 29% preferring non-STEM fields. The
postassessment suggests an increase in STEM preference,
with 80% of students preferring STEM to 20% preferring
non-STEM.
The responses regarding career aspirations, what the
students would like to be when they grow up, are also
partitioned into STEM and non-STEM fields. Multiple
responses are counted as STEM if they include at least one
STEM career. If “doctor” is considered a STEM profession, then a decline from 45% of students considering
STEM careers before the activity to 38% after the activity
is observed. However, excluding doctor responses, the
STEM careers to which the students aspire rise from 21 to
26% of the remaining responses, which hints at an
increased interest in the less visible STEM professions.
Additionally, of the non-STEM careers favored by the participants, approximately 25% chose police officer or
undercover cop consistently in the preassessment and
postassessment, which speaks about the more visible
careers in their socioeconomic environment.
Students’ answers to the question “What is one thing
engineers do?” sheds light on the changing perceptions
after the fun-science activity. Perhaps due to confusion over
the difference between a mechanic and a mechanical engineer, 23% of students in the preassessment gave automotive-related responses to this question, such as fix or make
cars. However, the postassessment shows only 13% of students had automotive-related answers. Additionally, the
students’ responses are partitioned into three thematic subsets: fabrication (make things), maintenance (fix things),
and other. The preassessment shows 39% fabrication, 49%
maintenance, and 12% other responses. The postassessment shows a shifting distribution, with 46% fabrication,
30% maintenance, and 24% other responses. The other
1
0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
(a)
1
0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
(b)
DA
D
A
AA
Figure 10. Stacked bar graphs of student agreement percentages
(a) before and (b) after the activity. AA denotes agree a lot; A
denotes agree; D denotes disagree; and DA denotes disagree a
lot. Additional statements appearing only in the postassessment
are S8: “I learned a lot today,” S9: “I would like to have more
engineering presentations like this one in the future,” and S10:
“Today’s visit made engineering look fun.”
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
37
taken to be statistically significant, 0.05 # p 1 0.10 to be
weakly statistically significant, and p $ 0.10 to be not statistically significant (see, for example, [27]). The p values
computed for statements S1, S2, and S4–S7 are, respectively,
0.077, 0.036, 0.077, 0.107, 0.036, and 0.077. This shows that
the positive and negative shifts of responses to statements
S2 and S6, respectively, are statistically significant and the
positive shifts of responses to S1, S4, and S7, respectively,
are weakly statistically significant. Only the positive shift in
S5 shows no statistical significance, although its p value is
close to the threshold value of 0.10. These results provide
statistical support to the observed enthusiasm and excitement of students during the activity.
In addition, the postassessment includes three statements S8–S10 to ascertain the students’ perception of the
fun-science activity itself (see Figure 10). From the overwhelmingly positive responses to these three questions, it
is seen that the students had an interest in STEM fields,
found engineering to be an accessible discipline, and had
fun participating in the activity.
To allow less verbal students an opportunity to express
what they learned from the activity, the postassessment
includes a drawing component in which the students are asked
to draw their own robotic fish using colored pencils. Samples
of their drawings are shown in Figure 11. The various caudal
fin shapes in Figure 11 show evidence that the exercise of
modifying the fin shape to test the influence on swimming
impacted the students’ designs in their fish sketches.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Broadly examining the distributions in Figure 10, S1 and S4
show trends toward more agreeable perceptions after the activity. S5 and S6 stay relatively constant before and after the activity, and S7 shows a remarkable shift toward agreement in the
postassessment. These trends are consistent with the preactivity hypotheses that S1, S2, S4, S5, and S7 show positive shifts
and S6 shows a negative
shift as a result of the activA total of 62 students from ity. The trend seen in S3
is not part of the set
a fourth-grade class and a hypotheses but rather an
observation of students’
engineering climate.
sixth-grade class were
For a statistical persurveyed before visiting the spective on this data, a
nonparametric Mannaquarium, and 50 students Whitney U test is performed to ascertain the
statistical significance of
participated in the
the differences observed
between the preassessfun-science activity.
ment and the postassessment responses [27]. This
test is selected among others since it can be used to extract
quantitative information from surveys whose answers are
ordinal and nonnumerical. The p values with p 1 0.05 are
Figure 11. Sample drawings of fish and robotic fish by students.
38
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
JUNE 2013
Conclusions
In this article, the format, experience, and results of an interactive robotics-based outreach activity that was designed to
ignite the interests of K–12 students in STEM fields and
attract them toward careers in engineering have been presented. The activity engaged local elementary school and
middle school classes at the NYAQ in Brooklyn, with DSL
members and high school student docents. The participating
students were given a guided tour of fish exhibits at the
aquarium, with a short lecture on live fish swimming mechanisms, and were then asked to use their creativity and knowledge of fish to engineer and test caudal fins on robotic fish.
The materials created for the activity, namely, a promotional brochure, a poster developed by two high school
students, and biomimetic fishlike robots used during the
interactive engineering phase, were described. The robots
included modular features that allowed participants to design
and test their own biologically inspired caudal fins. Using a
remote control, these robots provided a perfect platform for
increasing the students’ interests in engineering activities. The
impact of the activity on the student participants was assessed
using self-report surveys administered to the students before
and after participating in the activity.
Survey results showed a clear impact of the activity in fostering positive perceptions of engineering professions,
increased interest in STEM careers, and the openness of these
careers to the students. This success can be attributed to the
simultaneous orchestration of the following elements: 1) the
use of visually attractive and interactive robots, 2) active
involvement in authentic biologically inspired engineering
designs, 3) the integration of robotics and marine science, 4) an
informal setting for STEM learning at the NYAQ, 5) the participation of an age and gender diverse cadre of university and
high school students, and 6) the distribution and onsite presentation of educational material prepared by high school students
bridging college with middle/elementary school learning.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the NSF under CAREER
grant CMMI-0745753, GK–12 fellows grant DGE-0741714,
and through a Graduate Research Fellowship to Vladislav
Kopman under grant DGE-1104522. The authors are
thankful to Dr. Chanda Bennett, Melissa Carp, and Robert
Cummings at the NYAQ for their invaluable partnership in
this project; Andrew Chen and Daniil Karpov for their
active participation in the preparation of this activity; Ken
Koga- Moriuchi for his advice on fish and great students;
Karl Abdelnour, Matteo Aureli, Irina Igel, Jenny Lin, and
Chris Xu for bringing their enthusiasm to the events; Maria
Grillo for a beautiful documentation of the event; Dr. Sandra Huret and Dr. Oded Nov for helping to create an assessment and analyzing the data; and all the student and
teacher participants formaking this activity a reality.
References
[1] D. W. Callahan and L. B. Callahan, “Looking for engineering students? Go
home,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 500–501, 2004.
[2] M. F. Kazmierczak, Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challengefor
Science and Technology in the United States. Washington, DC: AeA, Advancing
the Business of Technology, 2005.
[3] K. Cannon, M. A. Lapoint, N. Bird, K. Panciera, H. Veeraraghavan, N.
Papanikolopoulos, and M. Gini, “Using robots to raise interest in technology
among underrepresented groups,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 73–81, 2007.
[4] E. Matson, S. DeLoach, and R. Pauly, “Building interest in math and science for rural and underserved elementary school children using robots,” J.
STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 35–46, 2004.
[5] J. Johnson, “Children, robotics, and education,” Artif. Life Robot., vol. 7, no.
1–2, pp. 16–21, 2003.
[6] R. Mitnik, M. Recabarren, M. Nussbaum, and A. Soto, “Collaborative
robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience,” Comput. Educ., vol. 53, no.
2, pp. 330–342, 2009.
[7] C. Pomalaza-R aez and B. H. Groff, “Retention 101: Where robots go . . .
students follow,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2003.
[8] F. Taban, E. Acar, I. Fidan, and A. Zora, “Teaching basic engineering concepts in a K–12 environment using LEGO bricks and robotics,” in ASEE Annu.
Conf. Proc., Portland, OR, 2005.
[9] A.-J. Baerveldt, T. Salomonsson, and B. Astrand, “Vision-guided mobile
robots for design competitions,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
38–44, 2003.
[10] B. S. Barker and J. Ansorge, “Robotics as means to increase achievement
scores in an informal learning environment,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 39, no.
3, pp. 229–243, 2007.
[11] S. Bruder and K. Wedeward, “Robotics in the classroom,” IEEE Robot.
Automat. Mag., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 25–29, 2003.
[12] L. Greenwald and J. Kopena, “Mobile robot labs,” IEEE Robot. Automat.
Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 25–32, 2003.
[13] E. M. Jimenez Jojoa, E. C. Bravo, and E. B. Bacca Cortes, “Tool for experimenting with concepts of mobile robotics as applied to children’s education,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 88–95, 2010.
[14] T. Karp, R. Gale, L. A. Lowe, V. Medina, and E. Beutlich, “Generation
NXT: Building young engineers with LEGOs,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no.
1, pp. 80–87, 2010.
[15] O. Miglino, H. H. Lund, and M. Cardaci, “Robotics as an educational
tool,” J. Interact. Learn. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 25–47, 1999.
[16] R. Mitchell, K. Warwick, W. N. Browne, M. N. Gasson, and J. Wyatt,
“Engaging robots: Innovative outreach for attracting cybernetics students,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 105–113, 2010.
[17] J. M. Mirats Tur and C. F. Pfeiffer, “Mobile robot design in education,”
IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 2006.
[18] R. R. Murphy, ““Competing” for a robotics education,” IEEE Robot.
Automat. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 44–55, 2001.
[19] C. Rogers and M. Portsmore, “Bringing engineering to elementary
school,” J. STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 3–4, pp. 17–28, 2004.
[20] J. Ruiz-del-Solar, “Robotics-centered outreach activities: An integrated
approach,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 38–45, 2010.
[21] M. Chyba and R. N. Smith. (2012, June 11). Robo-nemo: Educating youth
about ocean research!, University of Hawaii at Manoa. [Online]. Available:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/stomp/STOMP/robonemo/
[22] P. van Lith and J. Caska. (2007, Jan.). RoboDidactics Manual. [Online].
Av a i lable: ht t p://w w w.mondo d ig it a le .org /f i le s/publ ic at ion s/f i l /
robo‘MANUALE2’1.pdflf.
[23] N. Abaid and M. Porfiri, “Fish in a ring: Spatio-temporal pattern formation in one-dimensional animal groups,” J. Royal Soc. Interface, vol. 7, no. 51,
pp. 1444–1453, 2010.
[24] M. Aureli, V. Kopman, and M. Porfiri, “Free-locomotion of underwater
vehicles actuated by ionic polymer metal composites,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 603–614, 2010.
[25] M. Aureli, F. Fiorilli, and M. Porfiri, “Interactions between fish and
robots: An experimental study,” in Proc. ASME DSCC—Dynamic Systems and
Control Conf., Cambridge, MA, Sept. 2010, paper WeBT3.3.
[26] M. Shahinpoor and K. J. Kim, “Ionic polymer-metal composites: I. Fundamentals,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 819–833, 2001.
[27] G. Keller, Statistics for Management and Economics, 8th ed. Mason, OH:
South-Western College Publ., 2008
Nicole Abaid, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail: [email protected].
Vladislav Kopman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail: [email protected].
Maurizio Porfiri, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail:[email protected].
JUNE 2013
•
IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE
•
39