Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Curio: A Cost-Effective Solution for Robotics Education

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Curio, a sub-$50 robot that uses a student's smartphone for computation and vision, can make AI and robotics education more affordable while keeping tasks such as face tracking possible, and that a 20-person case…

desk verdict Curio is a real, useful robot with a genuinely novel web-control approach, but its $50 price and learning claims are not yet supported and need major revision before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18437 v1 pith:3E3UKIMX submitted 2025-05-24 cs.RO

Talha Enes Ayranci , Florent P. Audonnet , Gerardo Aragon-Camarasa , Mireilla Bikanga Ada , Jonathan Grizou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords educationalroboticssmartphone-integratedrobotcost-effectiveeducationAIstudentengagementfacetrackingweb-basedcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Curio is a small two-wheeled robot that sells for under $50 and uses a student's own smartphone as its eyes and brain, removing the need for an onboard processor, camera, or extra sensors. The paper argues that this design lowers the cost barrier that keeps advanced robotics and AI platforms out of classrooms, while still supporting AI-based tasks such as face tracking. To back this up, the authors ran a hands-on case study with 20 computing students and report high engagement and motivation scores, a System Usability Scale score of 88, and 95% of participants agreeing that their understanding of robotics improved. The claim matters because a one-robot-per-student ratio is currently out of reach for many institutions using platforms priced at $150 or more.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the outsourcing of robot intelligence to the student's smartphone: the phone's camera and CPU run the AI, while a low-cost MDBT42Q Bluetooth module with a built-in JavaScript interpreter turns high-level commands such as go(left steps, right steps, speed) into stepper-motor motion. This removes the three most expensive subsystems of comparable educational robots — an onboard processor, a dedicated camera, and extra sensors — and enables zero-installation web control, because the same JavaScript interpreter accepts commands over Bluetooth from a browser using the WebBluetooth API or from an external Python environment. The robot body is laser-cut plywood with a manual smartphone mount, keeping the bill of materials low enough that the claimed sub-$50 retail price depends mainly on these choices.

What would settle it

Obtain the full bill of materials and a production quote for Curio; if the minimum feasible retail price is above $50, the paper's cost-effectiveness comparison collapses. A second check would be to re-run the face-tracking case study with a pre/post knowledge test and a control group, since the reported 95% improvement is a self-reported understanding measure rather than a measured learning gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a robot does not need onboard computation to teach modern AI and robotics. Curio shifts all processing and sensing to a smartphone mounted on a laser-cut plywood body, with a small Bluetooth microcontroller (the MDBT42Q module) driving two stepper motors. At a retail price below $50, the paper positions Curio as more affordable than comparable educational platforms and as the only one in its comparison that requires no dedicated software installation, because control can run through a web browser or through a Python library on a PC. The authors test the platform with a face-tracking activity in which students tune five parameters of a pre-coded notebook, and they report uniformly high engagement, a System Usability Scale score of 88, and 95% agreement that understanding of robotics improved.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Curio can actually be manufactured and sold at a retail price below $50; the paper lists components qualitatively (plywood body, MDBT42Q module, stepper motors, 9V battery) but gives no bill of materials, component costs, or supplier evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sub-$50 price holds, an institution can buy a full class set of robots instead of sharing a few expensive ones, moving toward a 1-1 student-to-robot ratio.
  • Because the phone provides camera and computation, the same physical robot can switch between AI tasks — face tracking, object detection, navigation — by changing only the software running on the phone or PC.
  • Web-based control lets teachers distribute a project as a URL or QR code, so students can start programming without installing dedicated software on their devices.
  • The paper reports roughly six hours of typical use on a single rechargeable 9V battery, which would let one robot serve several lab sessions in a day.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the claimed sub-$50 price is backed up by a public bill of materials, phone-as-robot designs could push the entry cost of AI robotics education close to toy prices — an implication the paper gestures at but does not price out.
  • The study measures self-reported understanding and engagement, not learning gains; a controlled pre/post design would show whether the 95% figure reflects durable learning or the novelty of working with a physical robot.
  • The zero-install web architecture could also support remote or shared laboratory use, since a browser link can drive the same robot from any networked device, a mode the paper mentions only in passing through collaborative coding platforms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Curio, a low-cost, smartphone-integrated mobile robot for robotics and AI education. The hardware is a plywood two-wheeled robot with an Espruino MDBT42Q BLE module driving stepper motors, powered by a 9V battery, with the user's smartphone providing computation, camera, and sensors. The software supports JavaScript via WebBluetooth and a Python library over BLE. The authors report a retail price below $50, claim this is cheaper than platforms such as Duckietown, DonkeyCar, and DeepRacer, and describe a case study with 20 postgraduate students who performed a face-tracking task and then completed a 35-question survey including SUS, NARS subscales, engagement, motivation, and self-reported learning outcomes. The reported results include high engagement and motivation scores, a SUS score of 88, and 95% of participants agreeing that their understanding of robotics improved. The paper argues that Curio fills a gap in affordable platforms suitable for 1-1 student-to-robot ratios in AI and robotics education.

Significance. If the design and cost claims are substantiated, Curio would be a useful contribution to low-cost robotics education: the smartphone-as-processor approach is practical, the web-based and Python interfaces are accessible, and the open repositories for code, survey instruments, and the face-tracking notebook support reproducibility. The paper's central educational claims, however, rest entirely on a small, self-reported case study with no control group and no objective pre/post assessment, and the headline cost-effectiveness claim is not backed by a bill of materials or supplier evidence. The platform's strengths are real but currently overshadowed by the mismatch between the strength of the claims and the strength of the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section III-A, Table I, Section V] The paper repeatedly asserts a retail price below $50 as an established fact, including in the abstract, the conclusion, and the comparison in Table I. Section III-A, however, lists only qualitative components (plywood body, MDBT42Q module, stepper motors, 9V battery) and provides no bill of materials, unit costs, or supplier quotes. Table I also marks Curio as not commercially available, so no retail price exists yet. The comparison against Duckietown ($150), DonkeyCar ($200), and DeepRacer ($400) therefore rests on an unverified estimate. Please either add a complete bill of materials with component prices and a rationale for the $50 figure, or explicitly label the price as a prototype cost target and remove the unqualified price claim from the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section IV-B and Section V] The engagement, motivation, and learning claims are based on 20 self-selected volunteer participants who completed a self-report survey after a one-hour activity, with no control condition, no pre/post objective assessment, and no statistical inference tests. Statements such as 'results indicate high engagement and motivation levels across all participants' and the abstract's '95% of participants reported an improvement in their understanding of robotics' are descriptive self-reports, not evidence of learning gains or of a causal effect of the platform. Please reframe the study as a pilot feasibility evaluation, soften the causal wording in the abstract and conclusion, or add a comparison condition and objective outcome measures.
  3. [Section IV-B, correlations and descriptive statistics] The reporting of the experience-level data is internally unclear: the text states 'Nine had no robotics experience (SD = 1.08), and one had no AI experience (SD = 0.97)', which appears to give a standard deviation for a count and does not specify the full distribution across the four stated experience levels. In addition, correlation 1 is described as 'Participants who would feel uneasy about using Curio in a professional setting tended to report a lower understanding of controlling robots (r = 0.75)', but r = 0.75 is positive under the standard convention, implying the opposite association. Please report the exact variables, sign conventions, and the full distribution for the experience-level data, and correct the correlation interpretations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The price comparison for Duckietown, DonkeyCar, and DeepRacer would be easier to verify if each price were accompanied by a citation or a dated source, and the conclusion's mention of OpenBot as a comparable platform should also state its price if it is to be included in the cost comparison.
  2. [Section III-B] The statement that 'all Bluetooth-enabled smartphones, except iOS devices, support WebBluetooth' overstates browser-dependent support; WebBluetooth is available only in certain browsers and configurations, so the claim should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Section IV-A] The sentence 'the IP camera application was any IP camera application can be found on the market' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten to specify how the IP camera application was selected and installed.
  4. [Section IV-B] Figures 5 and 6 would be clearer if the captions stated that error bars represent standard deviations across the 20 participants and if the sample size were repeated in each caption.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies, including 'These suggestion will be considered' (Section IV-B), the extra parenthesis in '(Fig. 5)', and inconsistent capitalization of 'Deepracer' versus 'DeepRacer'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an engineering design and a self-report survey; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) Curio is a cost-effective smartphone-integrated robot with a retail price below $50, and (ii) a 20-participant case study showed high engagement and improved understanding. Neither claim is produced by a derivation chain. There are no fitted parameters, no normalizing equations, and no model outputs that are compared with the inputs from which they were calibrated. The '$50' price is an asserted design target, not a prediction obtained from a cost model; Table I and the component list in Section III-A provide qualitative support but no bill of materials. That makes the price claim under-evidenced, but it is not circular because the conclusion is not equivalent to the premise by construction. Likewise, the engagement and understanding results are self-reported Likert responses; the paper reports the survey statistics (e.g., 95% agreement) as the outcome rather than deriving them from a theory. Self-selection and self-report bias are validity threats, not instances of circularity. The paper cites its own GitHub repositories and website as resource links, but no load-bearing mathematical or empirical result is imported from a self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. In sum, the derivation chain is not forced by definition or by prior work of the authors; the main weaknesses are missing cost evidence and limited external validity, which belong to correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims depend on two external assumptions about smartphone availability and capability, and on two internal assertions (price below $50, 6-hour battery life) that are stated without supporting measurements or cost data. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Smartphone ownership among individuals aged 16 to 35 in the UK is around 98%, so most students already own a capable device.
    Invoked in Section I to justify using smartphones as the main computing unit; relies on a Statista summary of Ofcom data [40].
  • domain assumption Smartphones have sufficient processing power, cameras, and sensors to serve as the primary computation and sensing unit for AI education tasks.
    Invoked in Section I and III; supported by a 2019 smartphone AI benchmark citation [22], but not re-tested here.
  • ad hoc to paper Curio's retail price is below $50 while maintaining the described functionality.
    Load-bearing for the 'cost-effective' claim; no bill of materials, supplier quotes, or manufacturing cost model is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The robot achieves an average operational time of 6 hours on a single 9V battery under normal usage.
    Stated in Section III-A without measurement methodology or test conditions.
invented entities (1)
  • Curio robot platform independent evidence
    purpose: A low-cost two-wheeled robot that uses a user's smartphone for sensing and computing, controlled via BLE and web-based or Python interfaces.
    The robot is a physical artifact demonstrated in Fig. 1-2, with open-source code repositories (curio-python, face-tracking-case-study) and a website (trycurio.com). This is not a speculative entity; it exists and is described in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curio: A Cost-Effective Solution for Robotics Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3E3UKIMX

@misc{pith2026250518437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curio: A Cost-Effective Solution for Robotics Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3E3UKIMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18437}
}
abstract

Student engagement is one of the key challenges in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) education. Tangible learning approaches, such as educational robots, provide an effective way to enhance engagement and learning by offering real-world applications to bridge the gap between theory and practice. However, existing platforms often face barriers such as high cost or limited capabilities. In this paper, we present Curio, a cost-effective, smartphone-integrated robotics platform designed to lower the entry barrier to robotics and AI education. With a retail price below $50, Curio is more affordable than similar platforms. By leveraging smartphones, Curio eliminates the need for onboard processing units, dedicated cameras, and additional sensors while maintaining the ability to perform AI-based tasks. To evaluate the impact of Curio on student engagement, we conducted a case study with 20 participants, where we examined usability, engagement, and potential for integrating into AI and robotics education. The results indicate high engagement and motivation levels across all participants. Additionally, 95% of participants reported an improvement in their understanding of robotics. Findings suggest that using a robotic system such as Curio can enhance engagement and hands-on learning in robotics and AI education. All resources and projects with Curio are available at trycurio.com.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Curio robot. Left: Back view with a smartphone. Right: Curio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Components of the Curio robot and the communication process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the case study environment. The laptop (1) is running [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The flowchart of the face-tracking activity. The process begins with the Jupyter Notebook establishing a connection (1). The smartphone, acting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean scores of engagement-related questions with standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of experienced and non-experienced groups in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lahtinen, K

    E. Lahtinen, K. Ala-Mutka and H.-M. J ¨arvinen, ”A study of the difficulties of novice programmers”, ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 14-18, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    O. O. Ortiz, J. ´A. Pastor Franco, P. M. Alcover Garau and R. Herrero Mart ´ın, ”Innovative Mobile Robot Method: Improving the Learning of Programming Languages in Engineering Degrees,” in IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 143-148, May 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Increasing student motivation in computer programming with gamification,

    J. Figueiredo and F. J. Garcia-Penalvo, “Increasing student motivation in computer programming with gamification,” IEEE Global Engineer- ing Education Conference, EDUCON, vol. 2020-April, pp. 997–1000, Apr. 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Ching, Y .-C

    Y .-H. Ching, Y .-C. Hsu and S. Baldwin, ”Developing computa- tional thinking with educational technologies for young learners”, TechTrends, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 563-573, Nov. 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    An ultra-low cost line follower robot as educational tool for teaching programming and circuit’s foundations,

    E. Serrano P ´erez and F. Ju´arez L´opez, “An ultra-low cost line follower robot as educational tool for teaching programming and circuit’s foundations,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 288–302, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    L. Paull, et al., ”Duckietown: An open, inexpensive and flexible plat- form for autonomy education and research,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, 2017, pp. 1497-1504

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    MuSHR: A Low-Cost, Open-Source Robotic Racecar for Education and Research,

    S. S. Srinivasa, et al., “MuSHR: A Low-Cost, Open-Source Robotic Racecar for Education and Research,”

    work page

  8. [8]

    DeepRacer: Educational Autonomous Racing Plat- form for Experimentation with Sim2Real Reinforcement Learning

    B. Balaji, et al., “DeepRacer: Educational Autonomous Racing Plat- form for Experimentation with Sim2Real Reinforcement Learning.” ArXiv.org, 4 Nov. 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Rubenstein, B

    M. Rubenstein, B. Cimino, R. Nagpal and J. Werfel, ”AERobot: An affordable one-robot-per-student system for early robotics education,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, W A, USA, 2015, pp. 6107-6113

    2015

  2. [10]

    Lopez-Rodriguez, Francisco M., and Federico Cuesta. 2021. ”An An- droid and Arduino Based Low-Cost Educational Robot with Applied Intelligent Control and Machine Learning” Applied Sciences 11, no. 1, pp. 48

    2021

  3. [11]

    Daran robot, a reconfigurable, powerful, and affordable robotic platform for STEM education[J]

    Mingfeng Wang, Ruijun Liu, Chunsong Zhang, Zhao Tang. Daran robot, a reconfigurable, powerful, and affordable robotic platform for STEM education[J]. STEM Education, 2021, 1(4), pp. 299-308

    2021

  4. [12]

    Donkey car: An opensource DIY self driving platform for small scale cars,

    W. Roscoe, “Donkey car: An opensource DIY self driving platform for small scale cars,” http://donkeycar.com, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    J. Yu, S. D. Han, W. N. Tang and D. Rus, ”A portable, 3D-printing enabled multi-vehicle platform for robotics research and education,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, 2017, pp. 1475-1480

    2017

  6. [14]

    Arvin, F., Espinosa, J., Bird, B. et al. Mona: an Affordable Open- Source Mobile Robot for Education and Research. Journal of Intelli- gent & Robotic Systems, 2019, vol. 94, pp. 761–775

    2019

  7. [15]

    M ¨uller and V

    M. M ¨uller and V . Koltun, ‘OpenBot: Turning Smartphones into Robots’. arXiv, Mar. 10, 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.10631

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Thanyaphongphat, K

    J. Thanyaphongphat, K. Thongkoo, K. Daungcharone and W. Areep- rayolkij, ”A Game-Based Learning Approach on Robotics Visual- ization for Loops in Programming Concepts,” 2020 Joint Interna- tional Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Confe...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cultivating students’ computational thinking through student–robot interactions in robotics education

    Qu, J.R., Fok, P.K. Cultivating students’ computational thinking through student–robot interactions in robotics education. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 1983–2002 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andr ´es Monroy-Hern ´andez, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosen- baum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (November 2009), 60–67

    2009

  11. [19]

    Teaching Pro- gramming in Secondary Education Through Embodied Computing Platforms: Robotics and Wearables,

    Merkouris, K. Chorianopoulos, and A. Kameas, “Teaching Pro- gramming in Secondary Education Through Embodied Computing Platforms: Robotics and Wearables,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education, vol. 17, pp. 9:1–9:22, May 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    F1/10: An Open-Source Autonomous Cyber-Physical Platform,

    M. O’Kelly, V . Sukhil, H. Abbas, J. Harkins, C. Kao, Y . V . Pant, R. Mangharam, D. Agarwal, M. Behl, P. Burgio, and M. Bertogna, “F1/10: An Open-Source Autonomous Cyber-Physical Platform,” Jan. 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Goldfain, P

    B. Goldfain, P. Drews, C. You, M. Barulic, O. Velev, P. Tsiotras, and J. M. Reh, ”AutoRally: An Open Platform for Aggressive Autonomous Driving,” in IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 26- 55, Feb. 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ignatov, R

    A. Ignatov, R. Timofte, A. Kulik, S. Yang, K. Wang, F. Baum, M. Wu, L. Xu, and L. Van Gool, ”AI Benchmark: All About Deep Learning on Smartphones in 2019,” 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW), Seoul, Korea (South), 2019, pp. 3617-3635

    2019

  15. [23]

    G. F. Williams, Making Things Smart: Easy Embedded JavaScript Programming for Making Everyday Objects into Intelligent Machines. Maker Media, Inc., 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Artificial Intelligence, Ma- chine Learning and Deep Learning in Advanced Robotics, A Re- view,

    M. Soori, B. Arezoo, and R. Dastres, “Artificial Intelligence, Ma- chine Learning and Deep Learning in Advanced Robotics, A Re- view,” Cognitive Robotics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 54–70, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogr.2023.04.001

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    ”SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale.” Usability Evalu- ation in Industry, 1996

    Brooke, J. ”SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale.” Usability Evalu- ation in Industry, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    Determining what individual SUS scores mean,

    A. Bangor, P. Kortum, and J. Miller, “Determining what individual SUS scores mean,” Journal of Usability Studies archive, May 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.5555/2835587.2835589

    2009

  19. [27]

    A review of mobile robots: Concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications,

    F. Rubio, F. Valero, and C. Llopis-Albert, “A review of mobile robots: Concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Sys- tems, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 172988141983959, Mar. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881419839596

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A sys- tematic review study on educational robotics and robots,

    N. Atman Uslu, G. ¨O. Yavuz, and Y . Koc ¸ak Usluel, “A sys- tematic review study on educational robotics and robots,” In- teractive Learning Environments, pp. 1–25, Jan. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890

    2022

  21. [29]

    OpenBot Robot Kit - Turning Smartphones into Robots,

    “OpenBot Robot Kit - Turning Smartphones into Robots,” Kickstarter, Jun. 2023. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/openbot/openbot- robot-kit-turning-smartphones-into-robots/description (last accessed Feb. 24, 2025)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction,

    T. Nomura, T. Kanda, and T. Suzuki, “Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction,” AI & SOCIETY , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 138–150, Aug. 2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation,

    R. Yilmaz and F. G. Karaoglan Yilmaz, “The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 100147, p. 100147, J...

    2023

  24. [32]

    A Comprehensive Study of Mobile Robot: History, Developments, Applications, and Future Research Perspec- tives,

    R. Raj and A. Kos, “A Comprehensive Study of Mobile Robot: History, Developments, Applications, and Future Research Perspec- tives,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 14, p. 6951, Jul. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12146951

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    A Holistic Approach to Use Educational Robots for Supporting Computer Science Courses,

    Zhumaniyaz Mamatnabiyev, C. Chronis, Iraklis Varlamis, Yas- sine Himeur, and Meirambek Zhaparov, “A Holistic Approach to Use Educational Robots for Supporting Computer Science Courses,” Computers, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 102–102, Apr. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13040102

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    The Effectiveness of Educational Robots in Improving Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,

    K. Wang, G.-Y . Sang, L.-Z. Huang, S.-H. Li, and J.-W. Guo, “The Effectiveness of Educational Robots in Improving Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 4637, Jan. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054637

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Modeling the structural relationship among primary stu- dents’ motivation to learn artificial intelligence,

    P.-Y . Lin, C.-S. Chai, M. S.-Y . Jong, Y . Dai, Y . Guo, and J. Qin, “Modeling the structural relationship among primary stu- dents’ motivation to learn artificial intelligence,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, p. 100006, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/1...

    2021

  28. [36]

    A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for in- clusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education,

    Q. Xia, T. K. F. Chiu, M. Lee, I. T. Sanusi, Y . Dai, and C. S. Chai, “A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for in- clusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education,” Computers & Education, vol. 189, no. 104582, p. 104582, Nov. 2022, doi: https://doi.org...

    2022

  29. [37]

    H. -C. Kuo, Y . -T. C. Yang, J. -S. Chen, T. -W. Hou and M. - T. Ho, ”The Impact of Design Thinking PBL Robot Course on College Students’ Learning Motivation and Creative Thinking,” in IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 124-131, May 2022, doi: 10.1109/TE.2021.3098295

    2022

  30. [38]

    J. M. Keller, Motivational Design for Learning and Performance. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4419-1250-3

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, Self-determination theory: Basic psycho- logical needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    [Online]

    Smartphone ownership penetration in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2012-2024, by age [Graph], Ofcom, July 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271851/smartphone- owners-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age/

    2012

  33. [41]

    S. Wilson et al., ”The Robotarium: Globally Impactful Opportunities, Challenges, and Lessons Learned in Remote-Access, Distributed Con- trol of Multirobot Systems,” in IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 26-44, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1109/MCS.2019.2949973. keywords:...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Perceived usability evalua- tion of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review,

    P. Vlachogianni and N. Tselios, “Perceived usability evalua- tion of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review,” Journal of Research on Technol- ogy in Education, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1–18, Feb. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1539152...

    2021

  35. [43]

    B ´ek´esy, L

    M. B ´ek´esy, L. Gul ´acsi and O. Szigeti, ”Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Robots - Based on Negative Attitude towards Robots (NARS) Scale: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review,” 2024 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Robot Operating System 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,

    S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall, “Robot Operating System 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, May 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Koenig and A

    N. Koenig and A. Howard, ”Design and use paradigms for Gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), Sendai, Japan, 2004, pp. 2149-2154 vol.3, doi: 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.