Robotics as an Undergraduate Major: A Retrospective

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 Polytechnic Institute, where he is Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He has worked at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA, the University of California/Riverside, General Electric Ordnance Systems, Pittsfield, MA and PAR Technology Corporation, 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 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Gennert is interested in Computer Vision, Image Processing, Scientific Databases, and Programming Languages, with ongoing projects in biomedical image processing, robotics, and stereo and motion vision. He is author or co-author of over 100 papers. He is a member of Sigma Xi, NDIA Robotics Division, and the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council Robotics Cluster, 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 21 st 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 US 1 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 21 st 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 FIGURE 1. The WPI Robotics Engineering program is consists of Introduction to Robotics at the structured around a core consisting of Introduction to Robotics, Unified Robotics I-IV, and the Capstone Project [11]. 1000 level (1 st 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. 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]. FIGURE 2. Robotics Engineering laboratory late at night before a term project is due. 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, 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 Unixbased 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

300 RBE Enrollment 200 100 0 AY 06-07 AY 07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY10-11 AY 11-12 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 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

5.0 4.5 RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics 4.0 3.5 3.0 Quality Organization Amount Learned 2.5 2.0 2006-7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 FIGURE 4. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 1001 Introduction to Robotics. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation Quality Organization Amount Learned 2.5 2.0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 FIGURE 5. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 2001 Unified Robotics I: Actuation. Page 23.1049.18

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 RBE 2002 Unified Robotics II: Sensing Quality Organization Amount Learned 2.5 2.0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 FIGURE 6. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 2002 Unified Robotics II: Sensing. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III: Manipulation Quality Organization Amount Learned 2.5 2.0 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 FIGURE 7. Selected student course evaluations for RBE 3001 Unified Robotics III: Manipulation. Page 23.1049.19

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 RBE 3003 Unified Robotics IV: Navigation Quality Organization Amount Learned 2.5 2 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 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. 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