ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A robot laboratory for teaching artificial intelligence
Full text PdfPdf (577 KB)
Source Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education archive
Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education table of contents
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Pages: 341 - 344  
Year of Publication: 1998
ISBN:0-89791-994-7
Also published in ...
Authors
Deepak Kumar  Department of Mathematics, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA
Lisa Meeden  Computer Science Program, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
Sponsor
SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 9,   Downloads (12 Months): 71,   Citation Count: 29
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/273133.274326
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

There is a growing consensus among computer science faculty that it is quite difficult to teach the introductory course on Artificial Intelligence well [4, 6]. In part this is because AI lacks a unified methodology, overlaps with many other disciplines, and involves a wide range of skills from very applied to quite formal. In the funded project described here we have addressed these problems by

" Offering a unifying theme that draws together the disparate topics of AI;

" Focusing the course syllabus on the role AI plays in the core computer science curriculum; and

" Motivating the students to learn by using concrete, hands-on laboratory exercises.

Our approach is to conceive of topics in AI as robotics tasks. In the laboratory, students build their own robots and program them to accomplish the tasks. By constructing a physical entity in conjunction with the code to control it, students have a unique opportunity to directly tackle many central issues of computer science including the interaction between hardware and software, space complexity in terms of the memory limitations of the robot's controller, and time complexity in terms of the speed of the robot's action decisions. More importantly, the robot theme provides a strong incentive towards learning because students want to see their inventions succeed.

This robot-centered approach is an extension of the agent-centered approach adopted by Russell and Norvig in their recent text book [11]. Taking the agent perspective, the problem of AI is seen as describing and building agents that receive perceptions as input and then output appropriate actions based on them. As a result the study of AI centers around how best to implement this mapping from perceptions to actions. The robot perspective takes this approach one step further; rather than studying software agents in a simulated environment, we embed physical agents in the real world. This adds a dimension of complexity as well as excitement to the AI course. The complexity has to do with additional demands of learning robot building techniques but can be overcome by the introduction of kits that are easy to assemble. Additionally, they are lightweight, inexpensive to maintain, programmable through the standard interfaces provided on most computers, and yet, offer sufficient extensibility to create and experiment with a wide range of agent behaviors. At the same time, using robots also leads the students to an important conclusion about scalability: the real world is very different from a simulated world, which has been a long standing criticism of many well-known AI techniques.

We proposed a plan to develop identical robot building laboratories at both Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore Colleges that would allow us to integrate the construction of robots into our introductory AI courses. Furthermore, we hoped that these laboratories would encourage our undergraduate students to pursue honors theses and research projects dealing with the building of physical agents.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Rodney A. Brooks. A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2(1):14-23, March 1986.
 
2
 
3
Matt Domsch. MIT 6.270 LEGO Robot Design Competition. World Wide Web, URL is http:// www.mit.edu / courses / 6.270 / home.html.
 
4
MarCi A. Hearst. Preface: Improving instruction of Introductory Artificial Intelligence. in Working Notes of the 1994 AAAI Fall Symposium on Improving the Instruction of introductory Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-4. AAAI Technical report, November 1994.
 
5
Deepak Kumar. Introductory AI Course Syllabus. World Wide Web, URL is http" //blackcat.brynmawr.edu:80 / CS / CS372 /Materials/,
 
6
Deepak Kumar and Marti A. Hearst, editors. ACM SIGART Bulletin: Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence Education, volume 6. ACM Press, April 1995.
7
 
8
Fred Martin. The handy board. World Wide Web, URL is http://Ics.www.media.mit.edu / groups / el / Projects / handy-board/.
 
9
Fred Martin. Mini Board 2.0 Technical Reference. MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA, 1994.
 
10
Lisa Meeden. Using Robots As Introduction to Computer Science. In John H. Stewman, editor, Proceedings of the Ninth Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium (FLAIRS), pages 473- 477. Florida AI Research Society, 1996.
 
11
 
12
Carl Turner, Kenneth Ford, Steve Dobbs, and Niranjan Suri.' Robots in the classroom. In John H. Stewman, editor, Proceedings of the Ninth Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium (FLAIRS), pages 497-500. Florida AI Research Society, 1996.

CITED BY  29

Collaborative Colleagues:
Deepak Kumar: colleagues
Lisa Meeden: colleagues