Design and evaluation of a DIY construction system for educational robot kits

  • Cesar VandeveldeEmail author
  • Francis Wyffels
  • Maria-Cristina Ciocci
  • Bram Vanderborght
  • Jelle Saldien


Building a robot from scratch in an educational context can be a challenging prospect. While a multitude of projects exist that simplify the electronics and software aspects of a robot, the same cannot be said for construction systems for robotics. In this paper, we present our efforts to create a low-cost do-it-yourself construction system for small robots. We have created three different construction systems (laser-cut screw connectors, printed friction-fit connectors, and printed hybrid connectors) using small aluminium T-slot extrusions, based on prior work done by Industrial Design college students. Eighty-six secondary school students and 35 teachers tested these three systems during a five-day robotics contest where they had to build firefighting robots. Follow-up questionnaires and an expert evaluation were used to measure the usability, affective appraisal and functionality of the three systems in order to determine which system should serve as a basis for further design iterations. Overall, a clear preference was shown for the hybrid system, which relies on its interlocking shape as well as on a screw connection to create robot frames that are both quick to construct and very rigid once assembled. We believe our work represents a solid first step toward an inexpensive, “hackable” construction system for educational robotics.


Educational robotics STEM DIY User experience Construction system 3D printing 



The authors would like to thank everyone involved in the Dwengo CErrobotics project. In particular, we would like to thank Juan Pablo Carbajal from Ghent University and Dwengo, who co-organised the project and translated the questionnaires. The CErrobotics project would not have been possible without the support from the Google RISE 2013 program, the “Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología” of the “Gobierno de la province de Salta” and the U.F.I.De.T.


  1. Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, A. M., & Colton, M. B. (2008). Toys in the classroom: LEGO MindStorms as an educational haptics platform. In 2008 symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems (pp. 389–395). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HAPTICS.2008.4479982.
  5. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buxton, B. (2010). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design: Getting the design right and the right design. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60, 23–28.Google Scholar
  8. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning. Rotterdam: SensePublishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6209-143-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church, W., Ford, T., Perova, N., & Rogers, C. (2010). Physics with robotics-using LEGO MINDSTORMS in high school education. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium.Google Scholar
  10. Desmet, P. M. A., Vastenburg, M. H., Van Bel, D., & Romero, N. (2012). Pick-A-Mood: Development and application of a pictorial mood reporting instrument. In Proceedings of the 8th international design and emotion conference.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, R. (1922). On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 85(1), 87–94. doi: 10.2307/2340521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez-Gomez, J., Valero-Gomez, A., Prieto-Moreno, A., & Abderrahim, M. (2012). A new open source 3D-printable mobile robotic platform for education. In U. Rückert, S. Joaquin, & W. Felix (Eds.), Advances in autonomous mini robots (pp. 49–62). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-27482-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In G. Szwillus & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Mensch and computer (Vol. 57, pp. 187–196). Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1–2), 16–21. doi: 10.1007/BF02480880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kolodner, J., & Camp, P. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mataric, M. J., Koenig, N. P., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM education. In AAAI spring symposium: Semantic scientific knowledge integration (pp. 99–102).Google Scholar
  20. McPherson, S. (2014). Strategies and resources for preparing teachers for STEM teaching and learning. In Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 1927–1939).Google Scholar
  21. Milto, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2002). Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. In 32nd annual frontiers in education (Vol. 2, pp. F4C-7–F4C-14). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2002.1158224.
  22. Mondada, F., Bonani, M., Raemy, X., Pugh, J., Cianci, C., Klaptocz, A., et al. (2009). The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions, 1(1), 59–65.Google Scholar
  23. Osborne, R., Thomas, A., & Forbes, J. (2010). Teaching with robots: A service-learning approach to mentor training. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 172–176).Google Scholar
  24. Pack, D., & Avanzato, R. (2004). Fire-fighting mobile robotics and interdisciplinary design-comparative perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47(3), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Ranganathan, P., Schultz, R., & Mardani, M. (2008). Use of LEGO NXT Mindstorms brick in engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE North Midwest Sectional Conference (pp. 17–19).Google Scholar
  28. Riojas, M., Lysecky, S., & Rozenblit, J. (2012). Educational technologies for precollege engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(1), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rockland, R., Bloom, D., & Carpinelli, J. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  30. Russel, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabadash, A. (2012). ICT employment statistics in Europe: Measurement methodology.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital age: Transforming nations, businesses, and our lives. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  33. Stager, G. (2005). Papertian constructionism and the design of productive contexts for learning. In Proceedings of EuroLogo 2005.Google Scholar
  34. Törnkvist, S. (1998). Creativity: can it be taught? The case of engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vandevelde, C., Saldien, J., Ciocci, C., & Vanderborght, B. (2013). Overview of technologies for building robots in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on robotics in education.Google Scholar
  36. Vastenburg, M., Romero Herrera, N., Van Bel, D., & Desmet, P. (2011). PMRI. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems: CHI EA’11 (p. 2155). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979933.
  37. Verner, I. M., & Ahlgren, D. J. (2004). Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential engineering education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(2), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walter-Herrmann, J., & Büching, C. (2013). FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, K., Igel, I., Poveda, R., Kapila, V., & Iskander, M. (2012). Enriching K-12 science and mathematics education using LEGOs. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2).Google Scholar
  40. Wyffels, F., Bruneel, K., Bertels, P., D’Haene, M., Heirman, W., & Waegeman, T. (2012). A human-friendly way of programming robots. In 5th international workshop on human-friendly robotics, abstracts. Google Scholar
  41. Wyffels, F., Hermans, M., & Schrauwen, B. (2010). Building robots as a tool to motivate students into an engineering education. AT&P Journal Plus, 2010(2), 113–116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Systems and Product DesignGhent UniversityKortrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and Information SystemsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Robotics and Multibody MechanicsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations