This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 11 November 2014, At: 14:59Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Engineering EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Educational Robotics: An Insight into SystemsEngineeringIGOR M. VERNER , SHLOMO WAKS & ELI KOLBERGPublished online: 27 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: IGOR M. VERNER , SHLOMO WAKS & ELI KOLBERG (1999) Educational Robotics: An Insight into SystemsEngineering, European Journal of Engineering Education, 24:2, 201-212, DOI: 10.1080/03043799908923555

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043799908923555

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 24, No.2, 1999 201

Educational Robotics: An Insight into SystemsEngineering

IGOR M. VERNER, SHLOMO WAKS & EU KOLBERG

SUMMARY The need for engineering educators to influence reform of science-technologyeducation in schools and, especially, contribute in stating technology as a new school subject isargued. The approaches to applying systems theory in education are outlined. An introductory'Robotics and Real Time Control Systems' course has been developed as a possible approachto systems education and insight into engineering. The course concept and the master plan,based on the 'threaded' metacurncular approach, are proposed. The stages ofdesign process forthe course curriculum are considered. The course has been implemented in a number of highschools in Israel. An example of one project performed by a student team is presented.

1. Introduction

The tremendous upsurge of science-technology knowledge, its structural complexityand the increasing impact of engineering decisions on society and the environment urgethe rapid growth of engineering education. The two priority trends of this growth arethe systems approach and project-oriented learning. The systems approach provides ageneral methodology for studying design, communication and control in varioussystems, as suggested by the systems theory. The project-oriented learning is expectedto foster creative and divergent thinking, and promote acquisition of self-learning,communication and practical skills.

These trends are increasingly discussed by the engineering educators, particularly inrecent special issues of the European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21(2) andVol. 23(2). One principal aspect pointed out in this regard is the lifelong learningconcept [I] focused on creating an environment for learning engineering at thepre-academic and post-graduation levels.

There is concern that the number of candidates for academic science and technol­ogy studies is insufficient to meet the needs of modern society [2]. The 'Technology isapplied science' paradigm [3] often leads to minor attention in schools in technologyeducation. In many cases it results in misconceptions of school graduates in theirattitudes towards technological problem-solving and engineering creativity [2, 4]. Theskills and qualifications that technology education should provide to a school graduateare widely discussed in technology education [3, 5].

Engineering educators cannot ignore the deficiencies in prerequisite knowledge andskills of their students, especially in thinking patterns. Their significant contribution instating technology as a new school subject and part of science-technology educationshould be imperative. Their competence in subject matter, as well as in design,implementation and evaluation of engineering curricula should be claimed and applied

0304-3797/99/020201-12 © 1999 European Society for Engineering Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

202 1. M. Verner et al.

by the school educational system. Many concepts of teaching systems approach andproject-based learning can be used at school, but some of the concepts should bereconsidered. As a whole, this revision constitutes a challenging problem for engineer­ing education.

Educational robotics is an area of current interest for engineering educators. Itfosters learning technology and science through designing, constructing and operatingrobot systems.

Robotics studies in higher education are suggested at advanced as well as at juniorlevels. Traditional robotics courses deal with kinematics, dynamics and control ofmanipulators. Our case studies [6, 7] corroborate the conception that the basics ofprogramming robot manipulations can be adapted for high schools, and this learningpractice can stimulate spatial skills of the students.

Another concept of the robotics course is now being pursued by a growing numberof universities, col1eges and even high schools. In this concept, the studies arc based oncreative project work determined by a general goal of building a robot system thatimplements specific predefined intelligent functions [8]. One principal characteristic ofthe learning activities is their focus on systems design-planning, evaluation andimplementation of new, creative solutions as alternatives to existing designs [9].

Robotics competitions such as RoboCup (Robot Soccer World Cup Initiative) [10]present numerous successful examples of robot systems developed by students. Theeducational value of these projects and the RoboCup survey results are discussed in[II]. Most of the projects relate to robotics courses at the advanced university level,whereas a new framework for junior and high school level competitions has beenannounced recently.

Our experiments in teaching an optional course, 'Robotics and Real Time Systems',based on creative projects, in Israel's general high schools started in 1994. The coursehas been implemented in a number of schools [12] and in one ofIsrael's universities (atthe junior level). General schools select it among other technology courses because ofits impact on prospective personal development in engineering.

In this paper, possible directions of systems education are outlined and the role ofthe robotics course as one of these directions is discussed. The concept and curriculumfor the developed course are considered. The proposed master plan of the course canbe adapted to various specific programmes of school and undergraduate engineeringeducation.

2. Reasons for Teaching Systems Approach

Chen and Stroup [13] point out reasons for teaching the basics ofthe systems approachin school as part of science-technology education. We combine these with other reasonsto form a multifunctional sentence, as presented in Fig. I. The multifunctional sen­tence can serve as a comprehensive view of teaching/learning the systems approach (formore details about the multifunctional sentences sec [14]).

The multifunctional sentence includes several facets (A-E). Each facet element(struct) indicates a specific aspect of a certain topic. Meaningful statements can beconstructed by substituting one struct of every facet. Each statement, constructed inthis method, specifies a significant way of applying systems theory in science andtechnology education.

To illustrate the use of the multifunctional sentence, the combinationA3BIC2DIE3 of structs constitutes the following expression: "Cybernetics (A3) pro­vides a set of powerful ideas (BI) that students can use to integrate (C2) their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Robotics 203

A. Systems theoryI. Systemics2. Informatics3. Cybernetics4. Unspecified

B.MeansI. ideas

provides a set of powerful 2. formalisms3. tools4. other

that students can use to

C.Advance1. develop2. integrate3. structure4. improve5. deliberate

D. Know/edge

1

1. understanding I

therr 2. experiences3. skills

within

E. SpecificI. physical2. life3. engineering4. social5. economic

sciences and acrossthe curriculum.

FIG. I. A multifunctional sentence for applying systems theory.

understanding (DI) within engineering (E3) sciences and across the curriculum". Thisstatement provides focus for acquiring cybernetics ideas on integration of knowledge inengineering sciences (e.g. mechanics, electronics, etc.) and in other science fields.These arc the basic ideas for a robotics course that will be discussed in the forthcomingparagraphs.

As an overview, the multifunctional sentence cannot be used for detailed design ofa robotics course. However, it presents the course in the context of alternativeapproaches to systems education, which is important for conceptual design of science­technology curricula for various groups of students. For example, for a biology student,the profile A3B3C ID IE2 might be relevant for acquiring systems approach skills.

3. Integrated Science-Technology Curricula

The approaches to applying systems theory in education are being implemented in newSTS-based (science-technology-society) school curricula and in the curricula for stu­dents majoring in science and technology.

For example, the new science-technology curriculum for junior high schools,approved by the Israel Ministry of Education, contains two sections entitled 'Techno­logical systems and products' and 'Information and communication', in which basics ofsystem structure, information processing and control procedures are suggested.

The curriculum for senior high school students who major in mechanics containssections entitled 'Machine Control' and 'Design and Manufacturing Systems', whichpresent systems theory issues at a more advanced level.

Both the advocates of this STS approach [15] and educators of those studentsmajoring in science and technology agree that the learning of systems theory in schoolshould focus on meeting the goals formulated in the multifunctional sentence. Thequestion remains of how to realize such a constructive learning process as an integratedpart of science and technology education.

The development of systems thinking in science-technology education largely de­pends on the method and level of the teaching of technology. Technology is a newschool subject and is expected to provide engineering science knowledge, designexperiences, and intelligent, practical and technical skills.

The systems approach is a central concept of technology. In technology courses the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

204 1. M. Verner et al.

student studies various technical systems. The following learning activities in technol­ogy may stimulate system thinking:

• Solving practical problems through application of theoretical knowledge;• Active search and comprehension of operational information;• Making decisions based on consideration of a variety of influential factors;• Design, construction and manipulation of technical systems;• Design and implementation of communication and control processes in technical

systems;• Creative teamwork on complex assignments.

4. Threaded Metacurricular Approach

Considerable research effort has been invested in finding rational approaches tointegrating technology and science education [16]. This integration should encouragethe student to learn interdisciplinary issues such as: socio-economic and environmentalaspects of design and production; general principles of structure and operation oftechnical, biological and social systems; principles and methods of man-machineinteraction.

Educators point out a variety of dimensions in which the goals and methods oftechnology education and science education differ [17]. Therefore, the systems ap­proach is highly effective as an organizing concept in the integration process.

A number of system models have been suggested as a means to design an integratedcurriculum [18]. One of them is the so-called 'threaded metacurricular approach'.Accordingly, the study of some 'principal' idea is declared as the general goal of thecurriculum. The purposeful learning process "threads thinking skills, social skills,multiple intelligences, technology and study skills through the various disciplines".

Success in applying the threaded metacurricular approach depends largely on theselection of the original idea, which determines the primary direction of the integratedcurriculum. Two examples of the original ideas that can be used for the integration ofscience-technology curricula are:

• a comprehensive view of physical matter [19];• all-round practice in design [20].

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative 'principal idea' that focuses onsystem communication and control, and to discuss the results of our ease study indesign, implementation and evaluation of a specific integrated science-technologycurriculum.

As a thread in the curricula we propose to take the general cybernetics idea onuniversal mechanisms of control and communication in technical, biological and socialsystems [21]. Actually, this idea leads to curricula that concentrate on design, con­structing and operating various kinds of systems controlled by computers. The learningprocess in such a curriculum may consist of four parts, as shown in Table I.

In the first part a set of instructional modules is offered. Each module is a learningunit in either disciplinary science, technology or an interdisciplinary subject. Theprincipal objective of the unit is to acquire skills for implementing some basic functionof the system. In the second part a practical task of building a system model throughintegrating and applying the acquired knowledge is suggested.

In the third part implementation of general communication and control functions inthe system models is assigned. Practical work in the laboratory on team projects is the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Robotics 205

TABLE 1. Parts of the learning process

Part Objective

1. Implementation of basic system functions2. Design and construction of system models3. Implementation of system control and

communication functions4. Adaptation of the system to a new

environment

Learning activities

Work with instructional modulesLab practiceTeam work on practical project assignments

Work on research projects

most suitable form oflearning activities for this type of assignment. The final part of thecurriculum is research work in which experiments are conducted in order to adapt thedeveloped system to new environmental conditions.

Practice with systems and models has a central role in the learning process.Therefore, selection of the type of systems for this practice is a critical step in thecurriculum design process. We strongly believe that selecting a robot system forlearning practice in a science-technology course can offer the following educationaladvantages:

(I) The acquired skills of robot manipulating are required in many professionalfields.

(2) The robot system accumulates knowledge in hi-tech electrical, mechanical andcomputer engineering.

(3) Various science methods can be studied as applied to the implementation ofrobot navigation, sensing, communication, control and other functions.

(4) General consideration and comparison of robot functions versus human skills,human versus artificial intelligence as well as principles of man-robot interac­tion can promote establishing a meaningful link between science-technologyeducation and humanities.

This section of the paper has dealt with a possible approach to designing integratedscience-technology curricula. Based on this approach, our results in design, implemen­tation and evaluation of a specific curriculum will be discussed in the next sections.

5. Case Study Description

The majority of students in Israel prepare for matriculation certificates at general andtechnological senior high schools. Although the curriculum of the technology schoolsincorporates scientific and general subjects, it is vocationally oriented. Many of thetechnology schools are associated with technical colleges.

The general high school curriculum at present does not include technology studies,but this situation is currently being revised. Also, several models for incorporatingtechnology in the general education as a separate subject or a part of an integratedscience-technology curriculum are being examined.

The Technion Department of Education in Technology and Science providestraining of science and technology teachers for high schools and colleges, Master's andDoctoral degree studies, and a wide range of projects and research, mostly for the IsraelMinistry of Education. The Department serves as a channel for cooperation betweenthe Technion and the school educational system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

206 1. M. Vemer et al.

One of the departmental research projects is a case study presented in this paper. Itimplements the 'threaded' model, considered above, to design a science-technologycourse for general high schools. The pilot course, 'Robotics and Real Time ControlSystems', presents a 2-year programme for grades 11-12. The course has beenapproved by the Israel Ministry of Education as one of the optional matriculationsubjects with which schools can supplement their basic curriculum.

The course and the grade received are included in the advanced discipline sectionof the student matriculation certificate under the title 'Machine Control'. It provides itsgraduates with a considerable bonus when applying for engineering university studies.

TIle programme was initiated in 1994 by one of the authors at the Ohel-ShemGeneral High School. In the 1997/98 school year the programme was offered in fivehigh schools (163 students enrolled in 1997) and is currently recommended for widerimplementation. Teacher training courses for the programme have been conductedsince 1996.

A general view of the course curriculum has been presented in a previous article[12). Here we will concentrate on the process of curriculum design as an implemen­tation of the general approach proposed above.

6. Designing the Curriculum

The design process for the course curriculum can be divided into four stages.

6.1 Determination of the General Goal and the Thread of the Curriculum

It was decided that the curriculum will address those students who study mathematicsand physics at the advanced level, who are not involved in formal technology educationand who are interested in taking an optional science-technology course.

The stated general goal of the COurse is to provide graduates with practical experi­ence, polytechnic background and a positive attitude towards technology and sciencesthrough performing creative tasks of design and construction. Robotics studies areselected to serve as the thread of the course. The mobile robot (MR) system wasselected to be studied, constructed, extended and applied by the students.

MR presents a computer-controlled system for performing motion tasks. Thecomponents of MR are a computer board, motors' controller, internal power source,electrical and mechanical parts, feedback sensors and other modules for performingspecific functions. Being an integrated system by itself, an MR provides a suitableplatform for extensions of modules and robot manipulation functions.

The assignments to extend the MR system for implementing various functionsprovide an area of creative and instructive activities, as will be described. A photographof the student team working on such an assignment is shown in Fig. 2.

6.2 Formulating Behavioral Objectives and Assignments for Creative Practice

The course includes the following hierarchy of learning activities:

• practice in task planning and performing manipulations by the robot;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Robotics 207

FIG. 2. A student team working on extending the MR system.

• implementation of sensing, control and communication functions for the robotsystem;

• design of electrical, mechanical, computer and other modules for constructing therobot;

• learning technology and science subjects as a background needed to carry out thecreative assignments.

We will present possible problems to be solved in a creative assignment, using theexample of one project performed by a student team. This team decided to design andimplement an automatic vacuum cleaner eVAC) based on the mobil robot.

TIle following key problems of the assignment were recognized by the team:

(1) Choosing a vacumm cleaner.A number of vacuum cleaners offered in the market were examined concerningtheir size, weight, form, power and price.

(2) Electronic interface.Possible electronic interface types, considered by the students, were based onimplementation of power transistors, relays or opto-isolators.

(3) Mechanical interface.Two central points were discussed: how to attach the VAC to the robot andwhere to place it on the robot.

e4) Power source.Three possible power sources for VAC were examined: built-in batteries of therobot, additional on-board batteries and wire connection to an external powersupply.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 I. M. Verner et al.

TABLE II. Background learning subjects

Learning subjects

1. Electronics

2. Computer

3. Assembly language

4. Mechanics

5. Control

6. Robotics

7. Laboratory

8. Practical mini project

Topics

1.1 Fundamental concepts and electronic circuits1.2 Components and integrated circuits1.3 Digital electronics1.4 Motor control circuits

2.1 Logic and Boolean algebra2.2 Computer components2.3 Serial communication, address, data and control buses

3.1 Microprocessor structure and addressing modes3.2 Assembly language instructions and commands, interpreter, "high

language" application3.3 Input/output, interrupts and communication implementation

by software3.4 Robot control3.5 Programming robot manipulations

4.1 Materials, forces and torque4.2 Motors and gears

5.1 Control types5.2 Motor control5:3 Robot movement closed loop control

6.1 Robot design considerations6.2 Integrating hardware and software for emergency situations escape6.3 Sensor's types

7.1 Electronic PCB construction7.2 Designing and building a robot7.3 Final tests, troubleshooting, debugging and fixing

(5) Control software.Alternative options in the software design for MR-VAC control were whether touse the carpet size data in the task planning, or not.

(6) Feedback sensors.The capabilities of InfraRed, Microswitch (touch) and Ultrasound sensors fordetermining the carpet edges are reviewed.

6.3 Deriving the Background Learning Subjects

The list of background learning subjects and topics is given in Table II.Special attention in teaching the subjects is paid to establishing cross-disciplinary

links and examining general technical and system concepts.

6.4 Considerations: Prerequisites, Linked Subjects and Time Setup

The multiple didactic connections that exist between the different subjects and topicslisted in Table II prevent teaching any subject-by-subject succession. Therefore, specialattention was paid in the curriculum design to finding the regular succession of thetopics and suitable time setup.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Robotics 209

TABLE III. Course time schedule

HourWeek First Second Third Fourth

1-4 1.1 2.1 2.2 7.15-6 4.1 2.1 2.2 7.17-9 4.1 1.2 2.2 7.110-12 4.2 1.2 2.2 7.113-14 4.2 1.2 2.2 7.215-19 4.2 5.1 3.1 7.220-24 5.2 1.4 3.2 7.225-32 5.3 1.3 3.2 7.233-35 6.3 1.3 3.2 7.236-37 6.3 1.3 3.3 7.338-39 6.2 1.3 3.3 7.340-43 6.2 2.3 3.3 7.344 6.1 2.3 3.3 845-49 6.1 3.4 3.4 850-52 6.1 3.5 3.5 853 3.5 3.5 3.5 8

The following factors were taken into account in the schedule planning of the inte­grated curriculum:

• each topic should be preceded by its prerequisite topics;• each topic should be learned in parallel with its linked topics;• the course plan should be coordinated with the physics and math curricula;• combination of subjects and balance of theoretical and lab studies at each

workshop are desired.

The time schedule for learning background topics for first year studies is planned in theform of a weekly 4-hour workshop. The schedule is presented in Table III.

The course weeks are listed in the left column of Table III. The next four columnsintroduce the topics taught in the first, the second, the third and the fourth hours of theworkshops. Each row of Table III includes four indexes of topics taught at a specificworkshop. The topics corresponding to each index are given in Table II.

For example, the line of Table III which refers to the course weeks 15-19, includesfour indexes: 4.2, 5.1, 3.1 and 7.2. This means that the workshop schedule in this timeperiod is as follows (see Table II): first hour-motors and gears (4.2); second hour­control types (5.2); third hour-microprocessor structure and addressing modes (3.1);and fourth hour-laboratory in designing and building a robot (7.2). As such, theworkshop schedule integrates various subjects and activities.

Second-year studies concentrate on performing creative assignments, while applyinga learning and assessment strategy of student portfolios [12].

6.5 Evaluation

The 2-year course provides favorable opportunities for educational evaluation. Pre-testand post-test questionnaires as well as personal interviews with the students are appliedin the case study. The survey results are partly presented in [12]. In this paper wewill add some fresh results relating to answers given by the course participants tofive similar questions in the pre-test and post-test questionnaires. In these questions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

210 1. M. Verner et al.

TABLE IV. Post-test versus pre-test results

Factors

F I. Importance of complementary knowledge1'2. Expected achievementsF3. Interest in higher educationF4. Course creativity importanceF5. Level of peer cooperation

Pre-test

3.043.172.183.032.88

Post-test

4.374.414.154.254.37

the students were asked to give their grade (from I to 5) to each of the followingfactors:

Fl. Importance of complementary knowledge acquired in the course (with 5indicating very important).

F2. Expected achievements, in case you decide to make a career in engineering(5-strong belief).

F3. Interest in higher engineering studies (5-----<leep interest).F4. Course creativity importance (5-very important).F5. Level of peer cooperation in performing practical assignments (5-close coop­

eration).

The average grades given by 108 respondents of pre-test and 99 respondents ofpost-test are presented in Table IV.

As follows from Table IV, post-test average grades given to the factors FI-F5 aresignificantly higher than pre-test grades. The students became more interested andconfident in engineering professions, and reinforced the skills of practical creativeteamwork.

7. Conclusion

The course described in this paper has been developed to meet a need of schools and,eventually, of higher education in new science-technology curricula focused on systemseducation and providing insight into engineering. We consider this course as a linkbetween the school educational system and engineering education at university.

Robotics presents one appropriate interdisciplinary frame for learning the basics ofmechanical, electronic, programming and control systems. Robotics projects maystimulate development of creative and systems thinking, acquisition of a polytechnicbackground and practical skills.

Our approach to designing the course is based on two main features:

• the general cybernetics idea on universal mechanisms of control and communi­cation;

• the streamlined learning towards practice in designing, constructing and operat­ing robot systems.

Four components of such a curriculum have been proposed:

• learning contents in robotics as the thread of the curriculum;• objectives and assignments for creative practice;• background learning subjects;• sequence of subjects and time setup.

The course "Robotics and Real Time Control Systems" has been successfully imple-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Robotics 211

mented in a number of general high schools. Evaluation of the course results, by meansof questionnaires and personal interviews, indicated that most of the students appreci­ated the course, especially because it had provided creative activities and a techno­logical background as well. For some students, the course entailed a significant changeof their attitude towards technology.

The course concept can be adapted to educational programmes that differ from thecase study. We are currently modifying the course in order to start it at grade 10.

REFERENCES

[I] LENSCHOW, R. (1998) From teaching to learning: a paradigm shift in engineeringeducation and lifelong learning, European Journal of Engineering Education, 23,pp.155-161.

[2] COURT,A. (1998) Improving creativity in engineering design education, EuropeanJournal of Engineering Education, 23, pp. 141-154.

[3] DE VRIES, M. (1996) Technology education: beyond the "Technology is appliedscience" paradigm, Journal of Technology Education, 8, pp. 7-15.

[4] EDER, W. (Ed.) (1996) Engineering design and creativity, Proceedings of theWorkshop EDC, State Scientific Library, Pilsen, Czech Republic, 16-18 Novem­ber, Heurista.

[5] WILLIAMS, A. & WILLIAMS, P. (1997) Problem based learning: an appropriatemethodology for technology education, Research in Science and Technology Edu­cation, 15, pp. 91-103.

[6] WAKS, S. & VERNER, 1. (1993) Positioning issues in the study of robot manipula­tions, The International Journal of Engineering Education, 9, pp. 223-230.

[7] WAKS, S. & VERNER, 1. (1997) Spatial vision development through manipulatingrobot movements, European Journal of Engineering Education, 22, pp. 37-45.

[8] MARTIN, F. (1992) Building robots to learn design and engineering, 1992 Fron­tiers in Education Conference, Nashville, TN, 12C5, pp. 213-217.

[9] GIGCH,J. (1991) System Design Modeling and Metamodeling (New York, PlenumPress).

[10] KITANO, H. (Ed.) (1998) RoboCup-97: Robot Soccer World Cup I (Berlin,Springer).

[II] VERNER, 1. (1998) The Value of Project-based Education in Robotics, in KITANO, H.(Ed.), RoboCup-97: Robot Soccer World Cup I (Berlin, Springer), pp.231-241.

[12] VERNER, 1., WAKS, S. & KOLilERG, E. (1997) Upgrading technology towards thestatus of high school matriculation subject: a case study, Journal of TechnologyEducation, 9, pp. 64-75.

[13] CHEN, D. & STROUP, W. (1993) General system theory: toward a conceptualframework for science and technology education for all, Journal of Science Edu­cation and Technology, 2, pp, 447--459.

[14] WAKS, S. (1995) Curriculum Design: From an Art Towards a Science (Oxford,TEMPUS).

[15] AIKENHEAD, G. (1994) What is STS Science Teaching? In: SOLOMON, J. & AlKEN­HEAD, G. (Eds), STS Education-International Perspectives on Reform (New York,Teachers College Press).

[16] STASZ, C., KAGANOFF, T. & EDEN,R. (1994) Integrating academic and vocationaleducation: a review of the literature, 1987-1992, Journal of Vocational EducationResearch, 19, pp. 25-77.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

212 I. M. Verner et al.

[17] WAKS, S. (1994) Science-technology dimensions in physics education: prospectsand impact, Physics Education, 29, pp. 64-70.

[18] JACOBS, H. (J989) Design options for an integrated curriculum, in: Interdisci­plinary Curriculum (Alexandria, VA, ASCD).

[19] LApORTE, J. & SANDERS, M. (1995) Integrating Technology, Science and Mathemat­ics Education, in: MARTIN, G. (Ed.), Foundations of Technology Education. Forty­fourth Yearbook of the Council on Technology Teacher Education (Lake Forest, IL).

[20] JOHNSEY, R. (J 995) The design process-does it exist? A critical review ofpublished models for the design process in England and Wales, InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education, 5, pp. 199-217.

[21] WIENER, N. (1961) Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and theMachine (Cambridge, MIT Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

59 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014