PROPOSAL Developing a Balanced Robotics / Mechatronics Curricula

PROPOSAL 

Developing a Balanced 

Robotics / Mechatronics Curricula 

15 April 2004 

Project Director: Dr. Gregory L. Plett, glp@eas.uccs.edu, (719) 262–3468 

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 

1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, P.O. Box 7150, 

Colorado Springs, CO 

80933–7150 

Co-Project Director: Dr. Michael D. Ciletti, ciletti@eas.uccs.edu, (719) 262–3112 

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 

1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, P.O. Box 7150, 

Colorado Springs, CO 

80933–7150 

1

Project Summary 

This proposal requests funding for a project to develop a balanced, hands-on curriculum in robotics/mechatronics 

in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University 

of Colorado at Colorado Springs to broaden career opportunities for students by preparing them 

for Colorado's technology workforce of the future. Project funds will purchase advanced robot 

kits and develop two new courses (senior and graduate level) to leverage existing resources and 

build on the success of the department's new first-year course in robotics. 

The project will exploit recent results in modern learning theory (i.e., the so-called Kolb- 

4MAT learning cycle) to balance the curriculum in robotics so that it addresses the spectrum of 

learning modalities, and incorporates hands-on experiential learning in its pedagogy. Using university 

funds, the project team has already developed and successfully implemented a first-year 

course in robotics. The proposed courses will build on that success to provide an opportunity for 

students to take senior- and graduate level courses in conjunction with the existing degree programs 

in electrical, computer, and mechanical engineering, and to participate in internships with 

industry. 

Results of the proposed robotics thrust at UCCS will be shared with other engineering programs 

in the state to foster cooperation, collaboration of new projects for students, and joint research 

efforts. 

2

1. Project Description 

The goal of this project is to establish a curriculum in robotics that will benefit the students and 

industry of Colorado. Our premises are: 

1 Since technology is vital to Colorado's economy and since it impacts our daily life, it is 

important for students of all disciplines—and especially those in engineering programs—to 

have a solid fundamental understanding of the complex choices underlying the 

design, construction, and operation of technology-based systems. 

1 A curriculum in robotics can be a very effective and versatile pedagogical tool for teaching 

technology and for preparing students for careers where they develop new technology. 

Robots comprise sensors, actuators, electronics, wireless communications, processor 

selection / custom design, and programming—all the elements potentially present in a 

technological system, whether “intelligent” or not. Furthermore, study in robotics allows 

students to use technology to learn about and understand technology. A robot's dynamic 

nature provides immediate feedback as to whether it is accomplishing its task; robots 

are understandable to students in all disciplines, of all backgrounds; their design 

spans the disciplines of mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering, and they relate 

to every-day experience. 

1 A curriculum in robotics is aligned with clear trends indicating the importance of this 

technology. Robots are widely used in manufacturing processes, in hazardous environments, 

by the military, and in emerging consumer markets: “Most robotics applications 

have been in industry, with about 770,000 robots currently working worldwide. Sales of 

service robots for personal and private use are expected to almost quadruple over the next 

few years, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The 

group predicts that 2.1 million service robots will be sold by 2007 and that they will increasingly 

become everyday tools for humankind [Valigra04].” 

Mechatronics is a term that has been coined in recent years to name the field of study comprising 

design of systems with mechanical, electronic and software elements such that the device 

has the ability to perceive its surroundings and react to those perceptions. Robots are examples 

of mechatronic systems that are useful in applications that are: dangerous, dirty, dull, or difficult; 

or that require automation, augmentation, assistance, or autonomy. These application areas include: 

Homeland security (surveillance, fire fighting, search and rescue, military tactical robotics, 

distributed robotics (DARPA), minefield clearing), industrial robotics for manufacture (assembly, 

welding, painting, wafer handling, automation), industrial robotics for biotechnology 

(micro/nano manipulation, sample handling, automated analysis), entertainment and “toys” 

(film-making, Honda Asimo, Sony Aibo), assistive technology for persons with disabilities (intelligent 

wheelchairs, dexterous manipulators), space exploration (Mars rover, Canada arm), and 

service applications (floor cleaning, sewer inspection, lawn mowing, vacuum cleaning, tennis 

ball collecting). Compared to humans, robots boast repeatable precision, superior accuracies, 

increased efficiency (no fatigue, vacation), increased safety (dangerous environment), and decreased 

cost (less scrap, lower labor cost, lower in-process inventory) in manufacturing. 

The faculty team advocating the importance of mechatronics resides in the Electrical and 

Computer Engineering (ECE) Department at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 

(UCCS). The team recently inaugurated a very successful freshman-level course, ECE1001 Introduction 

to Robotics. This proposal would expand that success by introducing two new advanced 

courses to the curriculum: Embedded Robotics (senior-level), and Robotic Manipulators 

(graduate level). 

3

1.1 Preliminary Work: Introduction to Robotics 

A historic limitation to introducing technological design at an early stage in the student's education 

has been that significant mathematical and scientific maturity is required before many projects 

can be contemplated. Recently, however, a number of universities have reported great success 

using LEGO robotics to teach the basics of engineering to freshman students. The LEGO 

kits provide a technological medium for hands-on learning of engineering design and problem 

solving without requiring university-level knowledge of mathematics or the sciences. 

Supported by a grant from the UCCS Teaching and Learning Center in the fall semester 

2003, the faculty team co-designed, implemented, and co-taught a new hands-on freshman 

course ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics. It has an on-line course reader, an on-line integrated 

set of laboratory exercises (with pre-lab assignments), and a comprehensive final design project 

where students must generalize from their lecture and lab experiences to independently use technology 

to solve a design problem. 

A significant advantage of using the LEGO robotics, in particular, is that we are able to teach 

fundamental technological concepts in a hands-on way, without requiring a high level of mathematical 

and scientific maturity, and thereby enlarging the market for the course. The “LEGO 

MINDSTORMS Robotic Invention System” kit approach that we used in Introduction to Robotics 

includes a programmable LEGO “brick” whose microprocessor can operate motors, lights, 

and other devices, and can sense its surroundings with touch sensors, light sensors, and rotation 

sensors. The kit includes gears (spur, bevel, crown, worm, differential, rack), pulleys, a clutch, 

axles, wheels, beams and other parts so that one may quickly construct very elaborate robots. 

Anyone who is interested may take this course and learn something about the fundamentals 

of technology-based systems and their design. We encourage participation from students in all 

colleges on campus by making this course open to everyone—there are no prerequisites. Each 

student can then benefit from all of the advantages of inter-disciplinary team participation. 

1.2 Preliminary Work: A Balanced Pedagogy 

The pedagogy behind ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics recognizes that students perceive and 

assimilate academic content in different ways. One well-known instrument used to assess 

learning styles is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [Myers80]. With it, students complete a survey 

that categorizes them as either: introverts or extroverts; sensors or intuitors; thinkers or feelers; 

and judgers or perceivers. The exact definitions of these terms are not critical here besides 

noting the following: extroverts like working in settings that provide activity and group work; 

introverts prefer internal processing; sensors like concrete learning experiences; intuitors prefer 

instruction that emphasizes conceptual understanding; thinkers like logically organized presentations; 

feelers prefer personal rapport with their instructors; judgers like well-structured teaching; 

and perceivers like choice and flexibility in their assignments [Felder02]. The engineering profession 

requires that its practitioners function in diverse circumstances, so the goal of the educational 

process should then be to provide a balance between all of these modalities to reach, 

reinforce, and challenge all students. 

An instrument used to formulate balanced engineering curricula is an understanding of the 

Kolb elements of learning combined with the 4MAT system [Harb93]. A condensed summary is 

presented in graphical form in Figure 1. In Kolb’s framework, students’ learning styles are projected 

onto two dimensions: perception (how a student takes things in), and processing (how a 

student makes things part of him/herself). Perception may be either concrete or abstract, and 

processing may be either reflective or active. Based on these two continuums, Kolb enumerated 

four different types of learner, as identified by the four quadrants in Figure 1. Each quadrant is 

4

characterized by a question: quadrant 1 asks the question “Why?”; quadrant 2 asks the question 

“What?”; quadrant 3 asks “How?”; and quadrant 4 asks “What if?”. These four questions form 

the basis of a learning cycle, the 4MAT system, which an instructional cycle passes through as 

indicated by the arrows in Figure 1. The purposes of teaching in this way are to: (1) reach students 

of all learning types, and (2) teach students how to traverse the learning cycle for themselves, 

preparing them for life-long learning. Representative teaching/learning activities that 

stimulate students of each learning style are listed in the appropriate quadrant. In the first three 

quadrants, the instructor plays the roles of motivator, expert, and coach, respectively. In the 

fourth quadrant, the instructor plays a diminutive role, as the student is fully in charge of learning 

in this mode. Learning elements from these four quadrants are present in ECE1001 and will be 

designed into the curriculum to be developed under this project. 

Active Experimentation (Doing) 

Quadrant 4: What if? 

Open-ended problems/ laboratories 

Capstone/ design undergraduate research 

Group problem solving/ project reports 

Think tanks/ student lectures 

Problems prepared by students 

Homework problems/ guided laboratories 

Computer simulation/ demonstrations 

Objective examinations 

Individual report 

Computer-aided instruction 

Quadrant 3: How? 

Concrete Experience (Sensing/ Feeling) 

Quadrant 1: Why? 

Role playing/ journal writing 

Field trips/ simulations 

Motivational examples/ stories 

Interactive discussion/ lecture 

Class/group discussion 

Formal lecture, visual aids, notes 

Textbook reading assignment 

Instructor problem solving/ demonstration 

Professional meeting/ seminar 

Independent research/ library search 

Quadrant 2: What? 

Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking) 

Figure 1: Kolb elements of learning and learning styles with overlaid learning activities and 4MAT 

learning cycle (arrows); adapted from [Harb93]. 

1.3 Preliminary Results: Development of a Baseline Experience 

Introduction to Robotics is a team-taught, hands-on course that serves as a baseline for developing 

other courses in our curriculum. It has an on-line course reader, an on-line integrated set 

of laboratory exercises (with pre-laboratory assignments), weekly quizzes, and a comprehensive, 

open-ended, final design project where students must generalize from their lecture and laboratory 

experiences to use technology to solve a design problem. The subject of robotics was chosen as 

a pedagogical tool and unifying thread for our work because it lets students use technology to 

learn about technology, preparing them to design new technology. A robot's dynamic nature 

provides immediate feedback as to whether it is accomplishing its task; robots are understandable 

to students in all disciplines and of all backgrounds; their design spans the mechanical, 

electronic, and software fields; and they relate to everyday experience. Using the LEGO MIND- 

STORMS system, our course teaches fundamental technological concepts in a hands-on way, 

without requiring a high level of mathematical and scientific maturity. 

Our instructional goals for this course have been met beyond our expectations. Students 

with no background beyond high-school mathematics and the ability to read English are: (1) 

writing programs using structured, procedural programming methods; (2) building robotic 

structures that are robust to typical abuse; (3) designing low-level control systems and learning 

Reflective Observation (Watching) 

5

about electronics; (4) gaining a basic understanding of how microprocessors and microcontrollers 

operate; (5) cooperating in interdisciplinary teams; (6) working with technology to understand 

technology; and (7) learning how to write a proper laboratory report. Three-member teams 

accomplish the laboratory experiments, where the three prime responsibilities of building the robot, 

programming the robot, and documenting the laboratory with a formal laboratory report are 

distributed by rotating them among the members from week to week. All laboratory teams successfully 

built, programmed, and demonstrated working robots, and all groups completed laboratory-report 

write-ups during the pilot offering of the course in Fall 2003. Quiz grades demonstrated 

a high level of comprehension, student surveys indicate a high level of satisfaction, and 

all teams were able to develop a robot satisfying the design constraints of the final project. Student 

surveys, with results summarized here in Appendix III, indicate that the students strongly 

felt that the course improved their understanding of technology. Minimal intervention was 

needed to foster team spirit and to address interpersonal issues. 

Our success in developing, implementing, and team-teaching Introduction to Robotics 

has been recognized in three significant ways: (1) the developers were named this year's recipients 

of the campus annual prize for “Innovation in Teaching with Technology” award; (2) the 

team was awarded a grant to enable the course to attract and accommodate a campus-wide enrollment; 

and (3) the project is being nominated to represent our campus in a CU-system-wide 

(four campuses) award competition. 

Our approach to Introduction to Robotics addresses all four quadrants of the 4MAT 

method illustrated by Figure 1. Motivational examples, stories, and interactive discussions 

(Quadrant 1) serve to stimulate interest in robotics; our formal lectures, reading assignments, and 

demonstrations (Quadrant 2) provide a base of knowledge to support the laboratory work in 

Quadrant 3, where a guided series of progressively more difficult robot projects unfolds over 

seven weeks. Quizzes are administered to encourage study and evaluate progress. The first 

three quadrants of the 4MAT cycle set the stage for the last, a seven-week self-guided experience 

in which our students engage in an open-ended design project requiring them to develop a conceptual 

approach and design a robot to compete against other robots while adhering to constraints 

that limit the resources that can be used. 

2. Vision and Goals 

We envision selectively enhancing the ECE program at UCCS with curricula in robotics. The 

goal of the proposed project is to build on the success of our Introduction to Robotics course in 

two ways: (1) by integrating robotic exercises into existing courses, and (2) introducing two advanced 

courses in robotics. 

2.1 Integrating Robotic Experiences into Existing Courses 

We believe that the medium of robotics is well suited for instruction that links engineering and 

technology. First, their design potentially includes elements from several fields: embedded systems, 

control systems, intelligent systems, power systems, sensory systems, vision systems, signal 

processing, communication, and electronic design—a truly wide scope of engineering topics. 

Secondly, robots are well suited for hands-on instruction. The immediate feedback from robot 

implementation to robot operation back to the student is valuable for learning. Third, robots 

are fun. This final element is not trivial—we have observed very high levels of motivation, enrollment, 

and retention in Introduction to Robotics, and we expect similar things from additional 

curriculum in robotics. 

6

The first goal of this project is to introduce the theme of robotics as a unifying thread 

woven through the existing ECE curricula. Students presently begin their engineering education 

with Introduction to Robotics with the very basic LEGO MINDSTORMS kit, but there is no 

follow-on course, and we lack advanced robot kits to support and advanced course. For this 

project we specifically intend to introduce robotics in an existing course, ECE 4242 Advanced 

Digital Design Methodology. This course, and its accompanying laboratory, teaches digital design 

methods using Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), which is a type of programmable/reconfigurable 

logic. It is the technology used in software radio, for example. For this 

course, we will design an interface circuit board to enable connection between FPGA boards and 

advanced robotic hardware. Robots will then be used in assignments, lab exercises and projects 

in the course. The introduction of robotics in ECE 4242 will enable us to balance the curriculum 

of this course, in the sense discussed in section 1.2. 

The advanced robot kits purchased by this grant will also be used in other courses. One example 

where they will be used is in ECE 4899 Design Project. This course is the capstone design 

experience for our Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering students. Nearly 

every semester, at least one design team builds a robot for some application. These teams are 

marginally successful, but rarely accomplish as much as desired in the time constraints of the 

course due to the complex nature of robotics, a lack of advanced course background, the immense 

amount of work to design one “from scratch”, and economic reasons (it is expensive for 

students to purchase all the components to build a robot). Much more complex designs will be 

undertaken with the new robotics platforms, since the basic embedded robotics aspects will be 

already present. Further, the platforms, discussed in Appendix IV, include such advanced capabilities 

as vision, wireless networking, 32-bit processing, and so forth, which will enable much 

more sophisticated design projects. 

2.2 Advanced Courses in Robotics 

The second overall goal of this project is to introduce two new courses in robotics into the curriculum. 

This project will create two new courses with proposed syllabi in Appendix II. 

The first course is a senior-level elective in Embedded Robotics. It will provide advanced 

treatment of the computational, electrical and mechanical technologies underlying robots. Using 

powerful 32-bit microcontrollers programmed in “C” and assembly language, and FPGA-based 

custom reconfigurable processors executing Verilog HDL based student-developed programs, 

students will engage in engineering design and problem solving via interactive, hands-on projects 

with mobile robots while working on structured exercises and independent designs. 

The second course is a graduate-level course in Robotic Manipulators. This course will 

cover the mathematical framework required for fast, precise, nonlinear control of robotic systems 

such as robotic arms. These manipulators are used primarily as industrial robots for welding, 

painting, pick-and-place, and so forth, but are beginning to find use in other areas such as assistive 

technologies. Note: The present ECE/MAE Control Systems Laboratory has a single sixdegree-of-freedom 

robotic arm that may be used with this course, but a concurrent parallel proposal 

to the CIT Equipment RFP by Drs. Plett (ECE) and Saunders (Mechanical and Aerospace 

Engineering), A Multidisciplinary Robotics/Mechatronics Laboratory, is requesting ten robotic 

arms (and additional equipment) to set up ten lab stations that may be used for this course. 

The advanced robotic student kits to be acquired under this grant can be combined with 

equipment being concurrently proposed in the equipment proposal to create possibilities of interdisciplinary 

research in mechatronics, computer and electrical engineering, computer science, 

7

cognitive psychology, perception and neuroscience. Open problems in manipulation, locomotion, 

control, navigation, human-robot interaction, learning and adaptation will be addressed. 

3. Project Plan and Timeline 

The project goals will be accomplished through the eight project tasks identified in this section. 

At the end, a timeline for task completion is given. The project directors will jointly complete all 

tasks, unless otherwise indicated. 

Task 1: Design and manufacture of FPGA I/O board 

Robotics will be implemented in the ECE4242 Advanced Digital Design Methodology course, 

which teaches design using FPGA technology. In order to use FPGAs with robots, analog-todigital 

converters, digital-to-analog converters, H-bridge motor driver circuits, stepper motor 

driver circuits, servo motor driver circuits, and sensor conditioning circuits must be developed. 

We are calling this combination of capabilities the “FPGA Input/Output (I/O) board”. 

A student team will design this board, breadboard and prototype it to ensure full functionality, 

and have it professionally fabricated. The design will be replicated to make I/O boards for 

an entire class. 

Task 2: Purchase components for student robot kits 

The undergraduate courses that teach robotics or teach using robotics will use kits purchased under 

this grant. This is a major component to the project’s budget. These kits will comprise: a 

32-bit embedded processor with rich I/O capability, a variety of sensors including vision and 

GPS, and mechanical robot platforms that include rolling and walking systems. For more detail 

with respect to the kits, confer Appendix IV. The second project task is to purchase these kits. 

Task 3: Develop lectures for advanced courses in robotics 

The third project task is to develop lecture (in-class) materials for ECE4242 Advanced Digital 

Design Methodology, Embedded Robotics, and Robotic Manipulators. Sample syllabi for these 

latter two courses are contained in Appendix II. These lecture materials will be carefully integrated 

with the hands-on experiences developed in task 4, and the project ideas generated in 

task 5 to provide a balanced curriculum of the type discussed in section 1.2. 

Task 4: Develop hands-on robot laboratory experiences 

The fourth task is to develop hands-on experiences to complement the theory being taught. This 

will be a major part of the new curriculum (e.g., hands-on experiences account for half of the 

contact time in Introduction to Robotics). These projects will be team based, and will require 

formal write-ups, oral briefings, and poster presentations, to promote “soft skills”. 

Task 5: Develop project ideas for advanced courses in robotics 

To become a successful engineer, each student must learn how to perform research. Every engineer 

must be able to: (1) locate information relevant to a specific problem; (2) read that literature; 

(3) understand what s/he reads; (4) implement the new knowledge in some useful way; and 

(5) generalize the knowledge to a unique yet related situation. The same basic steps apply to 

solving any problem, from designing a circuit using datasheets to writing a Ph.D. dissertation. 

This task addresses how to integrate research into the curriculum. Open-ended design project 

ideas will be developed that require generalization of the theory learned. Based on experiences 

in other courses in our curriculum, we anticipate that many of these final projects will result in 

publication in conference proceedings. 

8

Task 6: Teach courses for first time—Evaluate 

The sixth task is to teach the courses for the first time, perform formative and summative 

evaluation (as outlined in the evaluation plan in task 7), and iterate on tasks 2–5 as necessary to 

improve the learning experience for the students. 

Task 7: Evaluate the Results 

Project evaluation is a necessary step in this proposal in order to inform the CIT, the project directors 

and a wider audience (via dissemination) whether the proposed ideas and methodologies 

were effective. The normal evaluation process has three stages [NSF93, NSF97]: planning 

evaluation, formative evaluation and summative evaluation. Planning evaluation assesses understanding 

of the project's goals and objectives, strategies and timelines. Formative evaluation assesses 

ongoing project activities and summative evaluation evaluates project success. 

This proposal itself is part of our planning evaluation. The current need is diagnosed. The 

stakeholders—students, faculty at UCCS, administrators at UCCS, and members of local industry—have 

been consulted. We are in strong agreement that curriculum in robotics would further 

enhance the already-strong EE and CpE programs. We agree as to the methodology to pursue in 

order to rectify the current need, as has been outlined in other sections. 

Formative evaluation will start once the project begins. We will assess whether or not the 

project is going ahead as scheduled, whether materials for student kits have been ordered and 

whether curriculum and hands-on assignments are being developed at a sufficient rate to be in 

place when the Fall 2005 semester starts. Once students are using their kits and new curriculum, 

we will monitor their activities and note whether changes need to be made to the new curriculum 

and assignments to make them clearer and pedagogically sounder. 

Summative evaluation will occur at the end of the project, using data gathered over the project's 

lifetime. The objective of this project is to improve student learning of robotics systems via 

lecture and hands-on experimentation. Therefore, we need to assess whether knowledge is 

gained (relative to the old curriculum) and not just that student satisfaction is improved (although 

that is important too). Both “insiders” (students and faculty) and “outsiders” (alumni and members 

of local industry) will conduct the evaluation. 

We will, of course, cooperate fully with CIT-managed evaluation. 

Task 8: Dissemination of Results 

We anticipate that several publications in journals and conferences (e.g., ASEE Annual Conference 

and Exposition, IEEE Frontiers in Education, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, ASEE 

Journal of Education, or IEEE Transactions on Education) will result as an outcome of the 

learning-experience gained in establishing and testing this curriculum. Further tangible results 

include lecture materials, hands-on laboratory exercises, and project descriptions for an undergraduate 

embedded robotics course, and for a graduate robotic manipulators course. These materials 

will be made available to students in the UCCS classes, and also to faculty from other Colorado 

institutions, on request. This way, other state schools can leverage the experiences gained 

and faculty development at these schools will also be promoted. Acknowledgement of CIT- 

CCHE support will be made in all publications, and talks at conferences and meetings. 

Timeline for Project Tasks 

Table 1 on the next page gives an approximate timeline for this project. Teaching, evaluation, 

dissemination and refinement of the original course materials will be ongoing projects. 

9

Table 1: Project timeline 

Task \ Timeline Spring 2005 Summer 2005 Fall 2005 

1. Develop FPGA I/O board 

2. Purchase robot kits 

3. Develop lectures 

4. Develop hands-on exercises 

5. Develop project ideas 

6. Teach first course offerings 

7. Evaluate results, refine 

8. Disseminate results 

4. Expected Outcomes / Impacts 

The following sections outline the outcomes and broader impacts that we expect from this grant. 

4.1 Improved student learning 

This proposal would improve student learning by (1) building on a very successful entry-level 

course in robotics, (2) developing a senior-level follow-on elective course in robotics, (3) developing 

a graduate-level course in robotics to support a research thrust in new robotics technology, 

(4) using the Kolb learning cycle paradigm to balance the curriculum of each of these courses, 

and (5) implementing a strong hands-on component of learning in each course. The courses in 

robotics/mechatronics would enable students to integrate their understanding of key elements of 

electrical/computer engineering, mechanical engineering, feedback control systems, sensors, signal 

processing, processor architectures, and so forth. 

4.2 Increased student interest in the subject matter and career fields 

This project will increase student interest in robotics/mechatronics and related subjects (e.g., 

processor design) by providing an opportunity for undergraduates to take a follow-on course and 

by providing a graduate level course that will establish a platform for their research in robotics. 

4.3 Increased career opportunities for program graduates 

The courses developed under this project will give students a clearer understanding of the career 

opportunities in robotics/mechatronics, and better enable our graduates to contribute to the 

growth of this industry in Colorado. 

4.4 Participation by minorities and women 

The College of Engineering and Applied Science at UCCS has a suite of resources available to 

recruit and retain students with diverse backgrounds. One project goal is to ensure that the robotics 

curriculum is connected to these resources. These include: clubs (e.g., American Indian 

Science and Engineering Society, the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Hispanic 

Professional Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers), the Office of Student Support 

(tutoring assistance, internships, scholarships, support for student clubs and activities), and 

the Colorado Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (CO-AMP). CO-AMP is a statewide 

consortium, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, for the purpose of attracting 

and preparing students for careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. 

We will invite these clubs and offices to support the robotics curriculum with tutors and 

mentors via their volunteer student members who have participated in these courses before, 

forming a bridge between students and available resources. Our present freshman robotics 

course has approximately 20% women enrolled, and significant minority participation—we expect 

these numbers to improve as word gets out about their success in the program. 

10

4.5 Collaboration with other higher education institutions, where possible 

At the present time we have no formal plans for collaboration with other institutions. However, 

we are planning to base our robotic kits on the University of Western Australia “EyeBot” board, 

and to use the textbook written by Thomas Bräunl of the same university. When developing the 

syllabus for the senior-level elective, we will contact him, to see if collaborations are appropriate. 

We are open to involvement with any other Colorado university that wishes to work with us 

on this project. 

4.6 Improved opportunities for student projects and research 

This project provides new and improved opportunities for student projects and research. First, 

students will design, build and debug the FPGA input/output board for this project (a student 

project in and of itself). This FPGA I/O board will be available for student projects and research 

within the context of Hardware Description Language courses, the robotics courses to be developed 

by this grant, Senior Design courses, and graduate-student research. 

Secondly, the robotic kits to be purchased and assembled for the robotics course comprise all 

the pieces required for very general robots. We will encourage senior design projects and graduate 

research using these components, which are also capable of supporting cutting-edge research 

in artificial intelligence, vision and image processing, robotic planning and control. We anticipate 

that the knowledge gained in the courses, the expertise gained by the hands-on experiences 

and open-ended design projects in the courses, and the robotic kits will result in students electing 

to pursue graduate studies and perform research of their own in these areas. 

4.7 Increased enrollment in affected courses/programs 

It is our experience that students are fascinated by robotics and quickly become engrossed in any 

study relating to them. One reason that we are submitting this proposal is that a cadre of students 

from the first offering of the freshman robotics course (last semester) have requested (begged) 

that we expand the curriculum to provide more advanced offerings in robotics. These are not 

just engineering students, either; they are from a wide variety of disciplines from across campus—fewer 

than half of the students enrolled are declared as EE or CpE majors. After the first 

day of class (when students tend to still be “shopping” for courses to take), we have had an extraordinarily 

high retention rate for a freshman course. In our first class of 58 students, we had 

one student drop the course; in our present class of 37 students (an off semester in the curriculum, 

so a much higher than expected enrollment) we have had no students drop the course. 

We anticipate that enhancing our curriculum in robotic will serve to attract more students to 

the EE/CpE programs. Presently, students in the freshman robotics course who have come from 

a non-technical background are realizing that they can “do” engineering. The prospect of more 

advanced and more interesting courses in robotics will motivate them to stick with the program, 

increasing retention, and increasing overall enrollment. 

5. Review Criteria 

5.1 Project leverages existing quality education and/or research programs 

This project leverages quality education and research programs, both at our own University, and 

at others. For example, we intend to make use of the University of Western Australia’s EyeBot 

and the accompanying textbook by Thomas Bräunl in the Embedded Robotics course. We will 

also leverage the experiences gained and the student interest generated by our Introduction to 

Robotics course. The courses enhance excellent programs already present at UCCS: In recent 

years, U.S. News and World Report named CU-Colorado Springs a top Western public university 

11

and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities named the university one of two 

national leaders in community engagement efforts. 

5.2 Education programs serve a diverse audience of students 

The proposed courses build on the pipeline created by our successful introductory course in robotics, 

which attracts students from a variety of disciplines, not only electrical/computer engineering. 

Our entry-level population includes women and other underrepresented minorities. 

5.3 Project leverages college, university, state and/or federal funds 

Our proposal leverages (1) a UCCS grant of $4,000 that enable the development of our introductory 

course in robotics, (2) a UCCS grant of $4,000 that developed the online course management 

software used by ECE1001, (3) another grant of $4,500 from the ECE department to 

purchase LEGO MINDSTORMS kits for the introductory course, (4) a technology fee grant of 

$9,000 that purchased additional LEGO MINDSTORMS kits to support offering the course to 

the general campus audience, (5) an NSF grant of $70,570 to establish the control-systems laboratory 

(a supporting discipline for robotics), (6) matching grants from the University and Educational 

Control Products Inc. totaling $70,738, and (7) a UCCS grant of $1,000 to develop a controller 

for a robotic manipulator. (All of these grants awarded in 2000–2004). 

5.4 Proposal is responsive to stated research and educational goals 

This proposal supports state goals of educating a competent workforce in a field of growing importance 

to our economy and national (homeland) security. 

5.5 Project provides the potential for replication and/or transportability either in total or 

by cross-linkages with other institutions as demonstrated by collaboration at the outset 

The curriculum developed under this proposal can be transported to other engineering programs 

in the state. Additionally, cross-coupling between collaborating programs could (1) strengthen 

the effectiveness of our using the Kolb learning cycle to balance the curriculum, (2) lead to efficiencies 

in developing topics for student projects, (3) promote collaboration in research, and lead 

to student internships with industry. 

5.6 Project has clearly documented business and industry interest 

The attached letters of support from Intel Corporation, Sturman Industries, NAVSYS, Rocky 

Mountain Tech Alliance, and the Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation underscore 

the importance and relevance of our proposal. 

5.7 There is the ability to sustain the project after CIT funding 

The funds requested for this project represent one-time costs of developing curricula and purchasing 

components for student robot kits. We anticipate no ongoing costs beyond replacing lost 

or damaged components from the robot kits, which will be funded by student instructional fees. 

5.8 Results will be disseminated to a wide audience 

The results from this project will be published at conferences and in journals, as discussed in 

greater detail in section 3, task 8. Acknowledgement of CIT-CCHE support will be made. 

5.9 There is an evaluation plan, and an indication of willingness to participate in the 

overall CIT managed evaluation 

Our evaluation plan is discussed in detail in section 3, task 7. We will cooperate fully with the 

CIT-managed evaluation. 

12

Vita for Michael D. Ciletti, Ph.D. 

Professor, Phone: (719) 262-3112 

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, FAX: (719) 262-3589 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, email: ciletti@eas.uccs.edu 

Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150. 

Educational Background 

• Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, 1968, University of Notre Dame 

• M.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1965, University of Notre Dame 

• B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1964, University of Notre Dame 

Employment History 

• Jan. 1999–, Professor, ECE Department, Univ. of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) 

• Sept. 1993–Jan. 1999, Professor and Chairman, ECE Department, UCCS 

• Sept. 1986–Sept. 1993, Professor, ECE Department, UCCS 

• Sept. 1982–Sept. 1986 Associate Professor, ECE Department, UCCS 

• Sept. 1977–Sept. 1982 Associate Professor, ECE Department, and Resident Dean, College of 

Engineering and Applied Science, UCCS 

• Sept. 1976–Sept. 1977, Assistant Professor, ECE Department and Acting Assistant Dean, 

College of Engineering and Applied Science, UCCS 

• Sept. 1974–Sept. 1976 Assistant Professor, ECE Department, UCCS 

Teaching Experience 

Circuit Analysis VLSI Circuit Design 

Linear System Theory Advanced Digital Design Methodology 

Probability Theory Verilog Hardware Description Language 

Feedback Control Systems VHISC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) 

Differential Game Theory Rapid Prototyping with FPGAs 

Synthesis with the Verilog HDL 

Significant Publications Related to this Project 

• M.D. Ciletti, A Starter's Guide to Verilog 2001, Prentice-Hall, 2004. 250pp. 

• M.D. Ciletti, Advanced Digital Design with the Verilog HDL, Prentice-Hall, 2003, 983 pp. 

• M.D. Ciletti and M. Szczutkowski, “Circuit Works TM ,” with Basic Engineering Circuit 

Analysis, J. David Irwin, John Wiley and Sons, 2002. 

• M.D. Ciletti, Modeling, Synthesis, and Rapid Prototyping with the Verilog HDL, Prentice- 

Hall, April 1999, 724 pp. 

• M.D. Ciletti, “Software for New Directions in Undergraduate Circuits Instruction,”Proceedings 

1998 ASEE Annual Conference, Seattle. 

• M.D. Ciletti, “Technical Overview and Tutorial on the Verilog HDL,” Tutorial Notes: International 

HDL Conference and Exhibition, Santa Clara, March 1998. 

• S. van Tonningen and M.D. Ciletti, “ADM, A New Technique for the Simulation of CMOS 

Circuit Transients,” International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Seattle, April 1995. 

• W. Mao and M.D. Ciletti, “Reducing Correlation to Improve Coverage of Delay Faults in 

Scan-Path Design,” IEEE Transactions on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems, pp. 

638–646, May 1994. 

13

Vita for Gregory L. Plett, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, Phone: (719) 262-3468 

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, FAX: (719) 262-3589 

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, email: glp@eas.uccs.edu 

Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150. http://mocha-java.uccs.edu/glp/ 

Educational Background 

• Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, June 1998, Stanford University, Stanford CA. 

• M.S. Electrical Engineering, October 1992, Stanford University, Stanford CA. 

• B.Eng. (High Distinction) Comp. Systems Eng., 1990, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. 

Research Experience 

• 1998–, Assistant Prof. of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Colorado Springs. 

• Summer 1997, Invited Researcher, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 

• 1992–1998, Research Assistant, Stanford University, Stanford CA. 

• 1986–1991, Scientific Staff, Bell Northern Research (Nortel), Bells Corners, ON, Canada. 

Teaching Experience 

• Freshman-level Introduction to Robotics; 

• Junior-level Linear Systems Theory and Engineering Probability and Statistics; 

• Senior-level Feedback Control Systems, Digital Control Systems, Feedback Control Laboratory, 

Digital Control Laboratory and Electrical Engineering Design Project; 

• Masters-level Multivar. Ctrl. Systems I & II, Digital Signal Processing, Adapt. Inverse Ctrl. 

Selected Publications Related to this Project 

• Plett, G., “Extended Kalman Filtering for LIPB Battery Management Systems, Parts 1–3”, 

Journal of Power Sources, in press. 

• Plett, G.L., and Wickert, M. “Web-assisted learning via on-line course supplements”, in CD- 

ROM Proc. 2003 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Nashville, TN: June 2003). 

• Plett, G.L., “Adaptive inverse control of linear and nonlinear systems using dynamic neural 

networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 14, No. 2, March 2003, pp. 360–76. 

• Plett, G.L., and Schmidt, D.K. “A multidisciplinary digital control-systems laboratory”, in 

CD-ROM Proc. 2002 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Montreal, PQ: June 2002). 

• Plett, G.L., “Adaptive inverse control of unknown stable SISO and MIMO linear systems,” 

Intl. Journal Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 243–72, May 2002. 

• Plett, G.L., “Efficient linear MIMO adaptive inverse control” in Proc. 2001 IFAC Workshop 

Adapt. and Learning in Ctrl. and Sig. Pro., Cernobbio-Como, Italy (Aug. 2001), pp. 89–94. 

• Plett, G.L., and Schmidt, D.K. “Multidisciplinary lab-based controls curriculum”, in CD- 

ROM Proc. of 2001 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, (Albuquerque, NM: June 2001). 

• Plett, G.L., Doi, T., and Torrieri, D., “Mine detection using scattering parameters and an artificial 

neural network,” IEEE Trans. Neural Nets., Vol. 8, No. 6, Nov. 1997, pp. 1456–1467. 

U.S. Patents 

• “Call set-up in a radio communication system with dynamic channel allocation,” (5,345,597) 

• “Inter-cell call hand-over in radio communication systems with dynamic channel allocation,” 

(5,239,682) 

• “Intra-cell call hand-over in radio communication systems with dynamic channel allocation,” 

(5,239,676) 

• “Radio link architecture for wireless communication systems, (5,229,995) 

14

Budget and Budget Explanation 

The budget for this project is tabulated below: 

Materials for 30 student robot kits 

30 “EyeBot”s $27,000 

30 “EyeCam”s $4,200 

30 Four-wheel-drive robot chassis $6,360 

30 Hexabot robot chassis $11,250 

30 GPS sensor units $6,000 

30 Misc sensor supplies, batteries, electronics $18,000 

30 Xilinx boards $6,000 

Cost of FPGA I/O board prototype $1,500 

30 FPGA I/O boards $6,000 

Shipping and handling $500 

Total materials budget $86,810 

Personnel 

Two course offloads for Dr. Plett $25,872 

Two course offloads for Dr. Ciletti $38,624 

Two months summer salary, Dr. Plett $19,164 

Two months summer salary, Dr. Ciletti $28,611 

Undergraduate student labor $6,000 

Total personnel costs $118,271 

Travel and publication costs $5,000 

Indirect costs 1 

$16,326 

Total project budget $226,407 

The senior personnel comprise Project Director Dr. Plett and co-Project Director Dr. Ciletti. 

They have budgeted two course offloads each (at the college standard rate) and two months 

summer salary each in order to devote this time to curriculum development. They will develop 

lecture materials, hands-on exercises, and project ideas for the courses, test the hands-on exercises, 

and write course readers and lab manuals. The junior personnel comprise three undergraduate 

students, $12.50/hour, 10 hours per week, 16 weeks. These students will design and 

test the prototype FPGA I/O board. 

Materials for this project comprise a large part of the budget. We will assemble thirty student 

robot kits at a cost of about $2,867 per kit. This has been broken down somewhat more in 

the above table, and in Appendix IV. These kits will be used for the courses to be developed, and 

in existing courses, as described in the main narrative. 

The travel and publication budget will allow travel for both investigators to one national conference, 

with sufficient funds remaining for one investigator to attend a second conference, 

and/or for publication of results in a journal with page charges. 

1 Indirect costs are calculated as 8% of all costs less student labor. 

15

Indirect costs have been calculated, per CIT instructions, as 8% of the total budget, less student 

labor. 

Note that this budget leverages a number of other projects that have already occurred: 

• Software tools and programming environment are already in place, and PCs are already 

in place for this project (PCs provided by an Intel grant); 

• Experiences gained from the ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics course (funded by a 

UCCS Teaching and Learning Center grant) will be applied to the new curriculum, with 

follow-on funding from the UCCS Instructional Fee; 

• On-line course management system EduFile (funded by a UCCS Teaching and Learning 

Center grant) will be used to supplement the educational experience; 

• The graduate Robotic Manipulator course, in particular, will leverage existing equipment 

in the Control-systems laboratory—a shared resource between ECE and MAE department, 

funded by an NSF CCLI grant, with cost sharing from the University, College, and 

the Educational Control Products Corporation, with follow-on funding from a William 

Senscenbaugh Grigsby grant to design a control box for the existing robotic arm; 

• Potential funding from the CIT for the parallel proposal for equipment, “A Multidisciplinary 

Robotics / Mechatronics Laboratory”, to be submitted by Drs. Plett and Saunders to 

the CIT Equipment RFP, to establish a versatile senior-graduate level laboratory that may 

be used for the instruction of control systems, robotics and mechatronics. 

16

Certification Sheet 

The grantee agrees to maintain its status as a non-profit entity or is part of an institution of higher 

education, maintaining its tax-exempt status. 

All expenditures of funds will be within the categories approved in the final budget submission. 

No transfers of funds between categories in excess of $1,000 will take place without prior CIT 

approval. A no cost extension may be granted for up to 6 months only upon written request. 

The grantee agrees to keep all financial records up to date, including records of all receipts and 

expenditures relating to this grant. These records must be kept for three years from the date of 

signature. 

The grantee agrees to provide all evaluation data as requested, including the names of students 

served by the project. 

Checks are issues after issuance of an award letter to the grantee institution and upon completion 

and approval of the final budget sheets. 

This grant is non transferable. 

Certification for Project Directors: the statements herein are true and complete – 

Project Director(s) (typed) Signature Date 

Dr. Gregory L. Plett 

Dr. Michael D. Ciletti 

Signature of Institutional Representative for grant awards: __________________ 

17

Appendix I: References cited 

[Felder02] R. M. Felder, G. N. Felder, and E. J. Dietz, “The Effects of Personality Type on 

Engineering Student Performance and Attitudes,” Journal of Engineering Education, 

Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 3–17, Jan. 2002. 

[Harb93] J. N. Harb, S. O. Durrant, and R. E. Terry, “Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and 

the 4MAT System in Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 

Vol. 82, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 70–77. 

[Harmon04] M. Harmon, “Proving their mettle” Chico Statements—A magazine from California 

State University, Chico, Spring 2004, pp. 8–11. 

[Myers80] I. B. Myers and P. B. Myers, Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo 

Alto, CA, 1980. 

[NSF93] National Science Foundation, User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: 

Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. NSF 93–152, Arlington, VA: 

NSF, 1993. 

[NSF97] National Science Foundation, User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method 

Evaluations. NSF 97–153, Arlington, VA: NSF, 1997. 

[Valigra04] L. Valigra, “Looking technology in the eye,” Christian Science Monitor, February 

5, 2004. 

18

Appendix II: Sample syllabus for each of two courses 

Sample syllabus for Embedded Robotics 

Course Description: This course introduces a combination of mobile robots and embedded systems 

(off-the-shelf microcontrollers and Verilog-programmed FPGAs), from introductory to intermediate 

level. It is structured in three parts, dealing with embedded systems (hardware and 

software design, actuators, sensors, PID control, multitasking), mobile robot design (driving, 

balancing, walking, and flying robots), and mobile robot applications (mapping, robot soccer, 

genetic algorithms, neural networks, behavior-based systems, and simulation). These topics will 

be exemplified with Matlab/Simulink simulation studies and supplemented with laboratory exercises 

using mobile wheeled and walking robots. 

Class Format: Initially, the course has a lecture format. Later during the course, labs will be 

added by splitting the course participants into small groups. There will be a final open-ended 

design project. 

Topical Prerequisites: Each student should: (1) have a basic understanding of electronics; (2) be 

able to program in “C”; (3) have a basic understanding of computer architecture. 

Learning Objectives: For each student to be able to: (1) select appropriate sensors, actuators, 

and interfaces for solving a particular technical problem; (2) design embedded system hardware 

with specific sensors and actuators; (3) program an embedded robotic system with a combination 

of C and assembly language (off-the-shelf micrcontroller) or Verilog (FPGA); (4) develop and 

use algorithms for robotic sensing, motion and path finding. 

Sample syllabus for Robotic Manipulators 

Course Description: This course introduces fundamental concepts in robotic manipulation. 

Topics include: coordinate transformation, kinematics, dynamics, Laplace transforms, equations 

of motion, feedback and feedforward control, and trajectory planning. These topics will be exemplified 

with Matlab/Simulink simulation studies and supplemented with laboratory exercises 

using a 6 degree-of-freedom robot arm. 

Class Format: Initially, the course has a lecture format. Later during the course, labs will be 

added by splitting the course participants into small groups. There will be a final open-ended 

design project. 

Topical Prerequisites: Each student should: (1) know the basics of linear algebra; (2) trigonometric 

identities; (3) be able to program in Matlab (or the willingness to learn quickly); and (4) 

some understanding of 3D space (coordinate systems). 

Learning Objectives: For each student to: (1) understand the concept of fixed and moving coordinate 

systems; (2) be able to find the homogenous transformation matrix relating two coordinate 

systems in terms of position and rotation; (3) be able to find the homogenous transformation 

matrix after rotation about and translation along the principle axes and about an arbitrary axis; 

(4) understand and set up link frames; (5) find the Denevit Hartenberg parameters; (6) obtain the 

direct kinematic solution of a manipulator; (7) obtain the closed-form solution of the joint variables 

given the position of the end effector (inverse kinematics); (8) obtain the velocities of the 

end effector given the joint velocities; (9) be able to plan trajectories in the joint space; and (10) 

implement linear and nonlinear robotic controllers. 

19

Appendix III: Survey results from ECE1001 Introduction to Robotics, Fall 2003 

After ten lectures, we surveyed the students enrolled in ECE1001 to ascertain their perception re. 

how the class improved their technological understanding and team-participation skills. A majority 

of the class responded, and the results are summarized here in the boxed regions. The data 

shows significant improvement in technical knowledge (e.g., programming, robotic structures, 

control systems and sensors) and moderate improvement in non-technical components of this 

course (e.g., cooperation in inter-disciplinary teams). These results exceed our expectations. 

We include these results to demonstrate that the subject of robotics may be used to effectively 

teach a wide range of technological topics. 

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 

Mid-Semester Evaluation of ECE 1001, Introduction to Robotics 

Answer Scale: None = 0, 1 = Low, 2 = Moderate, 3 = High 

1. Indicate your level of experience before and after taking this course in writing computer 

programs for real-time execution requiring interaction with the host machine's environment. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 

_____ Moderate _____ Moderate 

_____ High _____ High 

2. Indicate your level of experience building robotic structures before and after taking 

this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 

Average Average 

Before After 

1.1 = Low + 1.9 = Moderate − 

Improvement = +73% 


Before After 

0.8 = Low − 

2.1 = Moderate + 

Improvement = 163% 

3. Indicate your level of experience in designing low-level feedback control systems 

before and after taking this course. 


Before 

_____ None 

_____ Low 

After 

_____ None 

_____ Low 

Before 

0.5 = None 

After 

_____ Moderate 

_____ High 

_____ Moderate 

_____ High 

+ 1.5 = Low + 


20

4. Indicate your level of knowledge about electronics before and after taking this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 

5. Indicate your level of knowledge about sensors and your experience using them before 

and after taking this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 

6. Indicate your level of experience in cooperating in inter-disciplinary teams before and 

after taking this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 

7. Indicate your level of experience in working hands-on with technology to learn about 

technology before and after taking this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 

8. Indicate your level of experience in writing proper laboratory reports before and after 

taking this course. 

Before After 

_____ None _____ None 

_____ Low _____ Low 


_____ High _____ High 


Before After 

1.3 = Low + 1.8 = Moderate − 



Before After 

0.9 = Low − 

1.8 = Moderate − 



Before After 

1.8 = Moderate − 2.2 = Moderate + 



Before After 




Before After 



21

Appendix IV: Materials to be ordered for student kits 

The new curriculum requires purchasing robot components to form kits for students to use in 

hands-on instruction. These kits will comprise: Xilinx FPGA boards, EyeBot microcontrollers, 

and mechanical chassis. 

The EyeBot 2 is depicted in Figure IV-1. Its main features 

include: a 25MHz 32bit controller (Motorola 68332), 

1MB RAM, 512KB ROM (for system and user programs), 2 

dc motor drivers, background debugging module, 1 parallel 

port, 2 serial ports, 8 digital inputs, 8 digital outputs, 8 analog 

inputs, 16 timing processor I/Os (programmable as input 

or output, generally used to control servo motors), interface 

for color and grayscale camera that allows real time onboard 

image processing (depending on image size and complexity 

of operation), large graphics LCD (128x64 pixels), 4 

input buttons, reset button, power switch, speaker for audio 

output, and a microphone for audio input. We will also purchase 

sensors, including: EyeCams (camera), GPS, and others. 

The mechanical chassis for the kits are shown in Figure IV-2. In the left frame we show the 

Lynxmotion 3 “4WD 2” four-wheel-drive articulating robot chassis, and in the right frame we 

show the Lynxmotion “Extreme H2 Hexbot” chassis. Student kits will contain both chassis so 

that they receive experience in rolling mobile robots and in walking mobile robots. 

Figure IV-2. Robot chassis to be ordered for student kits. 

2 http://robotics.ee.uwa.edu.au/eyebot/ 

3 http://www.lynxmotion.com/ 

Figure IV-1. EyeBot. 

22

Appendix V: Letters of Industry Support 

This appendix contains letters of support for this project from local industry. They are written by 

prominent members of local industry. In particular, they are written by 

• Intel Corporation, 

• Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation, 

• Rocky Mountain Tech Alliance, 

• Dr. Bruce Johnson, Sturman Industries, 

• Dr. Alison Brown, Founder, President, and CEO, NAVSYS. 

The letters are scanned into this document, so the quality is less than perfect. Photocopies of the 

original are available on request. 

23

PROPOSAL Developing a Balanced Robotics / Mechatronics Curricula

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?