About educational robotics and circles
The stars so agreed that last year I took a close look at educational robotics. I did not have to organize a circle. School LEGO-circle itself found me - my son grew up.
At first I joined the work of the circle as an assistant coach and began to prepare my son's team for the World Robotics Olympiad. Fortunately, the relevant expertise is available: I am an assistant professor at the department of electronics at a local university, taught control theory and design of process control systems, circuit design and programming of microprocessor systems, designing electronic equipment, measuring equipment, processing experimental data. I am responsible for the National Instruments measurement technology laboratory. Yes, and I practiced the practice on R & D, then, as an entrepreneur, I installed and started up automation systems, now I’m a scientific consultant in a robotic company.
Since last September, when the head of the circle went to work at the regional center of children's technical creativity, I picked up the banner and became responsible for the work of the circle. Thus, I had the opportunity to look at the problem of educational robotics from different angles. And as a parent, and as a head of the robotics circle, and as a university teacher, where the guys from the circles come, and as an employer and project manager, in which new engineers participate, and as an electronics engineer and systems engineer who is familiar with the design of real robotic systems and automation . In addition, I recently entered the inter-university working group to finalize the domestic educational-methodical complex for educational robotics. It will be possible to combine the experience and expertise of a fairly large circle of specialists.
By the way, in the list of participants at the All-Russian WRO stage, there is a rather noticeable share of teams where the names of the coach and the child are the same. There is a very logical explanation for this: you can practice with your own child at least every night, while the school teacher of computer science, who was hanged on - often just hung up - has the obligation to prepare the team for the Olympiad there is simply no such enthusiasm. I myself heard a grumble at a meeting in the management of education: “Where will I take so much time?” From my own experience and in conversations with colleagues from St. Petersburg, Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk and other cities, I realized that everywhere, by and large, everything rests on the enthusiasm of the coach and children, and preparing for competitions at All-Russian and international level requires unsustainable costs time that no employer is willing to pay. I liked the quote in a recent article here on Habré: “in order for an employee to at least somehow work, he needs a carrot in the front and a carrot in the back. But for an employee to work really well - he needs a “carrot” inside. ”
')
First, some thoughts about who and why educational robotics are needed.
Here it is necessary to take into account the expectations and motives of all interested parties: children, parents, teachers and trainers, heads of educational institutions, schools and clubs where circles are organized, educational departments of different levels and ministry of education, officials of municipal and regional administrations, suppliers of equipment for classes, fund Free deed ”and similar to it public organizations and associations, universities, employers in IT, defense industry and other industries where appropriate specialists are needed. And everyone has their own expectations, their own buns and motivating factors.
Parents and children should be proud of their achievements. It is also important for parents that the child gets away from the computer and TV, and get a sought-after profession with a high salary in the future. This can be an argument in justifying parental contributions to the development of the circle, in order to involve parents in the design and prototyping process.
Schools and officials are important indicators and reporting. I will not speak about financial interest from manufacturers. I have no reliable information and I will not base it unreasonably.
Suppliers are important sales and margin.
Universities need applicants interested in their own development, motivated to study and professional growth, with whom there will be no problems at the deans. Again, indicators of academic performance, publication, competitive and grant activity of students.
Employers also need qualified and motivated employees. With a "carrot" inside.
This is what is on the surface. Real expectations need to find out directly from specific people. What is important and interesting is not speculation, but the information from the original source.
But with coaches everything is much more complicated. Judging by conversations with colleagues, publications on Habré, other resources about robotics, the motives are very, very different. From here and preferences when choosing equipment and when planning work.
All others hope not technical expertise of the coach. It’s just that no one else from the participants of the process, apart from manufacturers and associations, possesses it.
Often there is an interest to “play” with an interesting piece of hardware with good functionality. We choose what is interesting for ourselves and expect that children and everyone else will like it. Without asking anyone. And who else will understand the technical characteristics.
But the technical side is not the most important thing. In my opinion, it is more important to understand how and what competences you can and need to be pumped, what competences are really important for becoming an engineer, designer, programmer, how can you build a process so as not to frighten off complexity and not lose interest, thereby getting positive reinforcement?
Here we still use at the university training kits based on the KP580, which are morally and physically obsolete, but I have not seen any other stands that allow us to show the processor’s work at the level of machine cycles and system bus signals. He himself studied back in the 90s, and he had a complete understanding of the very basics, but there were no secrets and white spots.
A few words about the choice of educational kits for robotics. LEGO or Arduino?
The LEGO concept satisfies the expectations of a large number of stakeholders and, above all, those who make procurement decisions. Just in mastering both children and teachers, take-off and landing courses are enough to start classes. There are ready-made kits, federal and regional training infrastructure has been created, a lot of methodical literature has been accumulated, extensive experience has been exchanged between teachers at conferences, connections with officials and equipment supply channels, grant support for procurement, and a well-developed international competitive base have been established. If something is missed, correct in the comments.
But as for complaints about the closeness and low flexibility of the system, the weakness of the technical characteristics, it depends on which hands. Hacking is not difficult at all, HDK and SDK are on the LEGO website, the interfaces are standard. This confirms many interesting projects that go beyond the factory system.
Arduino has more flexibility, more space for creativity, popularity among amateur enthusiasts, cheap in bulk purchases, but the LEGO-compliant kit for the methodical functionality and the price corresponds to LEGO. High requirements for the level of training of teachers, the rank of the competition is thinner, the school management still does not understand why to contact - this is a real opinion of the head of the group using the Arduino in the educational process.
The rest of the designers felt only at exhibitions or seen in publications. Interesting, but only the technical side is clear, everything else that I have listed with LEGO is not yet clear.
Domestic developments are interesting from the standpoint of import substitution. But patriotism alone is not enough for the project to fly. Need infrastructure. But now we have the opportunity to influence the composition and functionality of the sets, while they are being designed.
Self-soldering systems allow you to go deeper into electronics and get closer to industrial developments, but the high standard of requirements for teachers and children greatly reduces the likelihood of widespread experience scaling.
I do not pretend to complete coverage of the problem. Just one year of experience and the lack of teacher education are affected. But I plan to develop the topic further. I think all participants in the process will be interested in the feedback and experience of their colleagues. I would be grateful for constructive comments.
At first I joined the work of the circle as an assistant coach and began to prepare my son's team for the World Robotics Olympiad. Fortunately, the relevant expertise is available: I am an assistant professor at the department of electronics at a local university, taught control theory and design of process control systems, circuit design and programming of microprocessor systems, designing electronic equipment, measuring equipment, processing experimental data. I am responsible for the National Instruments measurement technology laboratory. Yes, and I practiced the practice on R & D, then, as an entrepreneur, I installed and started up automation systems, now I’m a scientific consultant in a robotic company.
Since last September, when the head of the circle went to work at the regional center of children's technical creativity, I picked up the banner and became responsible for the work of the circle. Thus, I had the opportunity to look at the problem of educational robotics from different angles. And as a parent, and as a head of the robotics circle, and as a university teacher, where the guys from the circles come, and as an employer and project manager, in which new engineers participate, and as an electronics engineer and systems engineer who is familiar with the design of real robotic systems and automation . In addition, I recently entered the inter-university working group to finalize the domestic educational-methodical complex for educational robotics. It will be possible to combine the experience and expertise of a fairly large circle of specialists.
By the way, in the list of participants at the All-Russian WRO stage, there is a rather noticeable share of teams where the names of the coach and the child are the same. There is a very logical explanation for this: you can practice with your own child at least every night, while the school teacher of computer science, who was hanged on - often just hung up - has the obligation to prepare the team for the Olympiad there is simply no such enthusiasm. I myself heard a grumble at a meeting in the management of education: “Where will I take so much time?” From my own experience and in conversations with colleagues from St. Petersburg, Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk and other cities, I realized that everywhere, by and large, everything rests on the enthusiasm of the coach and children, and preparing for competitions at All-Russian and international level requires unsustainable costs time that no employer is willing to pay. I liked the quote in a recent article here on Habré: “in order for an employee to at least somehow work, he needs a carrot in the front and a carrot in the back. But for an employee to work really well - he needs a “carrot” inside. ”
')
First, some thoughts about who and why educational robotics are needed.
Here it is necessary to take into account the expectations and motives of all interested parties: children, parents, teachers and trainers, heads of educational institutions, schools and clubs where circles are organized, educational departments of different levels and ministry of education, officials of municipal and regional administrations, suppliers of equipment for classes, fund Free deed ”and similar to it public organizations and associations, universities, employers in IT, defense industry and other industries where appropriate specialists are needed. And everyone has their own expectations, their own buns and motivating factors.
Parents and children should be proud of their achievements. It is also important for parents that the child gets away from the computer and TV, and get a sought-after profession with a high salary in the future. This can be an argument in justifying parental contributions to the development of the circle, in order to involve parents in the design and prototyping process.
Schools and officials are important indicators and reporting. I will not speak about financial interest from manufacturers. I have no reliable information and I will not base it unreasonably.
Suppliers are important sales and margin.
Universities need applicants interested in their own development, motivated to study and professional growth, with whom there will be no problems at the deans. Again, indicators of academic performance, publication, competitive and grant activity of students.
Employers also need qualified and motivated employees. With a "carrot" inside.
This is what is on the surface. Real expectations need to find out directly from specific people. What is important and interesting is not speculation, but the information from the original source.
But with coaches everything is much more complicated. Judging by conversations with colleagues, publications on Habré, other resources about robotics, the motives are very, very different. From here and preferences when choosing equipment and when planning work.
All others hope not technical expertise of the coach. It’s just that no one else from the participants of the process, apart from manufacturers and associations, possesses it.
Often there is an interest to “play” with an interesting piece of hardware with good functionality. We choose what is interesting for ourselves and expect that children and everyone else will like it. Without asking anyone. And who else will understand the technical characteristics.
But the technical side is not the most important thing. In my opinion, it is more important to understand how and what competences you can and need to be pumped, what competences are really important for becoming an engineer, designer, programmer, how can you build a process so as not to frighten off complexity and not lose interest, thereby getting positive reinforcement?
Here we still use at the university training kits based on the KP580, which are morally and physically obsolete, but I have not seen any other stands that allow us to show the processor’s work at the level of machine cycles and system bus signals. He himself studied back in the 90s, and he had a complete understanding of the very basics, but there were no secrets and white spots.
A few words about the choice of educational kits for robotics. LEGO or Arduino?
The LEGO concept satisfies the expectations of a large number of stakeholders and, above all, those who make procurement decisions. Just in mastering both children and teachers, take-off and landing courses are enough to start classes. There are ready-made kits, federal and regional training infrastructure has been created, a lot of methodical literature has been accumulated, extensive experience has been exchanged between teachers at conferences, connections with officials and equipment supply channels, grant support for procurement, and a well-developed international competitive base have been established. If something is missed, correct in the comments.
But as for complaints about the closeness and low flexibility of the system, the weakness of the technical characteristics, it depends on which hands. Hacking is not difficult at all, HDK and SDK are on the LEGO website, the interfaces are standard. This confirms many interesting projects that go beyond the factory system.
Arduino has more flexibility, more space for creativity, popularity among amateur enthusiasts, cheap in bulk purchases, but the LEGO-compliant kit for the methodical functionality and the price corresponds to LEGO. High requirements for the level of training of teachers, the rank of the competition is thinner, the school management still does not understand why to contact - this is a real opinion of the head of the group using the Arduino in the educational process.
The rest of the designers felt only at exhibitions or seen in publications. Interesting, but only the technical side is clear, everything else that I have listed with LEGO is not yet clear.
Domestic developments are interesting from the standpoint of import substitution. But patriotism alone is not enough for the project to fly. Need infrastructure. But now we have the opportunity to influence the composition and functionality of the sets, while they are being designed.
Self-soldering systems allow you to go deeper into electronics and get closer to industrial developments, but the high standard of requirements for teachers and children greatly reduces the likelihood of widespread experience scaling.
I do not pretend to complete coverage of the problem. Just one year of experience and the lack of teacher education are affected. But I plan to develop the topic further. I think all participants in the process will be interested in the feedback and experience of their colleagues. I would be grateful for constructive comments.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/252791/
All Articles