skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173940acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Evaluating CoBlox: A Comparative Study of Robotics Programming Environments for Adult Novices

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

A new wave of collaborative robots designed to work alongside humans is bringing the automation historically seen in large-scale industrial settings to new, diverse contexts. However, the ability to program these machines often requires years of training, making them inaccessible or impractical for many. This paper rethinks what robot programming interfaces could be in order to make them accessible and intuitive for adult novice programmers. We created a block-based interface for programming a one-armed industrial robot and conducted a study with 67 adult novices comparing it to two programming approaches in widespread use in industry. The results show participants using the block-based interface successfully implemented robot programs faster with no loss in accuracy while reporting higher scores for usability, learnability, and overall satisfaction. The contribution of this work is showing the potential for using block-based programming to make powerful technologies accessible to a wider audience.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Brenna D. Argall, Sonia Chernova, Manuela Veloso, and Brett Browning. 2009. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robotics and autonomous systems 57, 5: 469--483. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Cory Bart, J. Tibau, D. Kafura, C. A. Shaffer, and E. Tilevich. 2017. Design and Evaluation of a Blockbased Environment with a Data Science Context. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing PP, 99: 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. David Bau. 2015. Droplet, a blocks-based editor for text code. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 30, 6: 138--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. David Bau, Jeff Gray, Caitlin Kelleher, Josh Sheldon, and Franklyn Turbak. 2017. Learnable programming: blocks and beyond. Communications of the ACM 60, 6: 72--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A Begel and E Klopfer. 2007. Starlogo TNG: An introduction to game development. Journal of ELearning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Geoffrey Biggs and Bruce MacDonald. 2003. A survey of robot programming systems. In Proceedings of the Australasian conference on robotics and automation, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Aude Billard, Sylvain Calinon, Ruediger Dillmann, and Stefan Schaal. 2008. Robot programming by demonstration. In Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, 1371--1394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rainer Bischoff, Arif Kazi, and Markus Seyfarth. 2002. The MORPHA style guide for icon-based programming. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2002. Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Workshop on, 482--487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Douglas Blank, Deepak Kumar, Lisa Meeden, and Holly Yanco. 2006. The Pyro toolkit for AI and robotics. AI magazine 27, 1: 39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cynthia Breazeal and Brian Scassellati. 2002. Robots that imitate humans. Trends in cognitive sciences 6, 11: 481--487.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Brian Broll, Akos Lédeczi, Peter Volgyesi, Janos Sallai, Miklos Maroti, Alexia Carrillo, Stephanie L. Weeden-Wright, Chris Vanags, Joshua D. Swartz, and Melvin Lu. 2017. A Visual Programming Environment for Learning Distributed Programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17), 81--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Edward Colgate, J. Edward, Michael A. Peshkin, and Witaya Wannasuphoprasit. 1996. Cobots: Robots For Collaboration With Human Operators.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Cooper, W. Dann, and R. Pausch. 2000. Alice: a 3D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 15, 5: 107--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C Duncan, T Bell, and S Tanimoto. 2014. Should Your 8-year-old Learn Coding? In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '14), 60--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sarah Esper, Stephen R. Foster, and William G. Griswold. 2013. CodeSpells: embodying the metaphor of wizardry for programming. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 249--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Annette Feng, Eli Tilevich, and Wu-chun Feng. 2015. Block-based programming abstractions for explicit parallel computing. In Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 2015 IEEE, 71--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D Franklin, G Skifstad, R Rolock, I Mehrotra, V Ding, A Hansen, D Weintrop, and D Harlow. 2017. Using Upper-Elementary Student Performance to Understand Conceptual Sequencing in a Blocks-based Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17), 231--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. Fraser. 2015. Ten things we've learned from Blockly. In 2015 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 49--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. E. Freund and B. Luedemann-Ravit. 2002. A system to automate the generation of program variants for industrial robot applications. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1856--1861 vol.2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas A. Fuhlbrigge, Gregory Rossano, Hui Zhang, Jianjun Wang, and Zhongxue Gan. 2010. Method and apparatus for developing a metadata-infused software program for controlling a robot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Shuchi Grover, Roy Pea, and Stephen Cooper. 2015. Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education 25, 2: 199--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Martin Hägele, Walter Schaaf, and Evert Helms. 2002. Robot assistants at manual workplaces: Effective cooperation and safety aspects. In Proceedings of the 33rd ISR (International Symposium on Robotics), 7-- 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert Hopler and Martin Otter. 2001. A versatile C++ toolbox for model based, real time control systems of robotic manipulators. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 2208--2214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. S Horn, C Brady, A Hjorth, A Wagh, and U Wilensky. 2014. Frog pond: a codefirst learning environment on evolution and natural selection. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children, 357--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Andri Ioannidou, Alexander Repenning, and David C. Webb. 2009. AgentCubes: Incremental 3D end-user development. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 20, 4: 236--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Kelleher and R. Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys 37, 2: 83--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Kock, T. Vittor, B. Matthias, H. Jerregard, M. Källman, I. Lundberg, R. Mellander, and M. Hedelind. 2011. Robot concept for scalable, flexible assembly automation: A technology study on a harmless dualarmed robot. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Daisuke Kushida, Masatoshi Nakamura, Satoru Goto, and Nobuhiro Kyura. 2001. Human direct teaching of industrial articulated robot arms based on force-free control. Artificial Life and Robotics 5, 1: 26--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Tom Lauwers and Illah Nourbakhsh. 2010. Designing the finch: Creating a robot aligned to computer science concepts. In AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Lego Systems Inc. 2008. Lego Mindstorms NXT-G Invention System. Retrieved from http://mindstorms.lego.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Makeblock Co., Ltd. 2017. mBot. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from http://www.makeblock.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. H Maloney, M Resnick, N Rusk, B Silverman, and E Eastmond. 2010. The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 10, 4: 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J Maloney, M Nagle, and J Mönig. 2017. GP: A General Purpose Blocks-Based Language. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17), 739--739. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Microbric Pty, Ltd. 2017. Edison Programmable Robot. Retrieved from https://meetedison.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Brad A. Myers. 1990. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 1, 1: 97--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ozobot & Evollve, Inc. 2017. Ozobot. Retrieved from http://ozobot.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Zengxi Pan, Joseph Polden, Nathan Larkin, Stephen Van Duin, and John Norrish. 2012. Recent progress on programming methods for industrial robots. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 28, 2: 87--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. N. Pires, K. Nilsson, and H. G. Petersen. 2005. Industrial robotics applications and industry-academia cooperation in Europe. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 12, 3: 5--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Mitchell Resnick, Brian Silverman, Yasmin Kafai, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, and Jay Silver. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM 52, 11: 60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Wolfgang Slany. 2014. Tinkering with Pocket Code, a Scratch-like programming app for your smartphone. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. A. Strauss and J. Corbin. 1994. Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, 158--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. D. Weintrop, D. C. Shepherd, P. Francis, and D. Franklin. 2017. Blockly goes to work: Block-based programming for industrial robots. In 2017 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop, 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. D Weintrop and U Wilensky. In Press. Comparing Blocks-based and Text-based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky. 2012. RoboBuilder: A program-to-play constructionist video game. In Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. D Weintrop and U. Wilensky. 2015. To Block or Not to Block, That is the Question: Students' Perceptions of Blocks-based Programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15), 199--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. H. Wilkerson-Jerde and U. Wilensky. 2010. Restructuring Change, Interpreting Changes: The DeltaTick Modeling and Analysis Toolkit. In Proceedings of the Constructionism 2010 Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. David Wolber, Hal Abelson, Ellen Spertus, and Liz Looney. 2014. App Inventor 2: Create Your Own Android Apps. O'Reilly Media, Beijing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Wonder Workshop, Inc. 2017. Dash & Dot. Retrieved from https://www.makewonder.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Y. F. Yong and M. C. Bonney. 1999. Off-Line Programming. In Handbook of Industrial Robotics, Shimon Y. Nof (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 353-- 371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Open Roberta. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from https://www.open-roberta.org/en/welcome/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating CoBlox: A Comparative Study of Robotics Programming Environments for Adult Novices

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2018
        8489 pages
        ISBN:9781450356206
        DOI:10.1145/3173574

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 April 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader