IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013 129

Experiences in Developing an Experimental RoboticsCourse Program for Undergraduate Education

Seul Jung, Member, IEEE

AbstractAn interdisciplinary undergraduate-level roboticscourse offers students the chance to integrate their engineeringknowledge learned throughout their college years by buildinga robotic system. Robotics is thus a core course in system andcontrol-related engineering education. This paper summarizesthe experience of developing robotics courses presented in theliterature and shares the authors experiences through many yearsof teaching and developing robotics courses with other educatorsin the Department of Mechatronics, Chungnam National Uni-versity (CNU), Daejeon, Korea. First, the CNU robotics coursedescribed here has classroom and laboratory sections. In class,students learn the theories behind robotics and practice themby performing simulation studies. In parallel, students performrobotics exercises in the laboratory. Second, the lab exercises arefocused on hands-on experiments on robot systems; these includean experimental kit, LEGO robots, humanoid robots, indus-trial robots, and home service robots. Third, competition-basedlearning is explored by assigning a class project to develop aboxing robot, which covers both manipulation and mobility. Fi-nally, the course introduces robotics-associated outreach activities.The analysis of several years of student evaluation is presented.

Index TermsCompetition-based learning, hands-on experi-ence, outreach activities, robotics experiments, robotics theory.

I. INTRODUCTION

E NGINEERING education at the university level has al-ways required educators to decide the appropriate bal-ance between the theoretical and experimental aspects, both ofwhich are necessary to satisfy the needs of industry. Recently,the ability to design and integrate creative systems has becomeenormously demanded by industry and research institutions.The many educational kits in the market offer an easy and

efficient paradigm that can act as a supplement for a roboticsclass. Robots, being interdisciplinary systems that integrate allengineering knowledge, prove an excellent tool for teaching en-gineering technologies to students of all ages, from children tocollege students.Many university engineering departments provide robotics

courses as an indispensable part of engineering education,

Manuscript received April 17, 2012; accepted August 07, 2012. Date of pub-lication September 07, 2012; date of current version January 30, 2013. Thiswork was supported in part by the KRF under Grant KRF 2011-0027055 andthe Human Resources Development Program for Convergence Robot Special-ists Support Program NIPA-2011-C7000-1001-0003.The author is with the Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Chungnam

National University, Daejeon 305-764, Korea (e-mail: jungs@cnu.ac.kr).Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online

at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2012.2213601

emphasizing hands-on experience, creativity, and teamwork.Table I lists various examples from the literature of roboticseducation in Electronic/Electrical, Information/Computer Sci-ence, and Mechanical/Mechatronics Engineering departmentsdealing with dynamical systems, computer systems, and artifi-cial intelligence.Accordingly, upper-level robotics courses can be closely con-

nected with capstone design programs in the engineering cur-riculum to satisfy current industrial needs. The intention of cap-stone design classes is that seniors should integrate all their pre-viously learned knowledge to build creative systems to satisfyspecific goals.The literature offers valuable comments about curricula,

projects, and contests in robotics courses offered in universi-ties. An introduction to some low-cost robots for research andteaching activities is given in [1]. The three-course roboticstrack at the United States Naval Academy is introduced in [2]to explain three basic principles of modern robotics education.In the area of manipulation, [3] presents laboratory exercises

to give students hands-on experience in robotic manipulation,computer vision, artificial intelligence, and mechatronics. Mul-timedia practices for controlling mobile robots by audio andvisual information for engineering education were presentedin [4]. Internet-based programming tools were used to generatethree-dimensional models of robot manipulators based on kine-matics derived from DenavitHartenberg (D-H) parameters [5].A practical robotics education program was developed by Rit-sumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan [6]. Internet-based controlof robot arms has been implemented for teaching an online con-trol engineering course [7].There are many case studies of mobile robots. Integration

of robotics research with undergraduate courses was demon-strated by developing a robot called Rusty [8]. LEGO-basedrobots have been used in lab exercises and projects, in basicto advanced courses covering operating systems, networks,and artificial intelligence [9]. A class project of developingpersonal robots has been used to motivate computer sciencestudents [10].A mobile robot design class taught engineering students to

build their own robots as a team [11]. An autonomous fire-fighting robot design competition was held to inculcate in under-graduates the abilities to use interdisciplinary concepts and toengage in interdisciplinary teamwork [12]. Robot-based coursesin computer science curricula that built on the experience ofcomputer science and artificial intelligence educators and re-searchers were described in [13]. Other authors describe out-reach activities for high school teachers and children that used

0018-9359/$31.00 2012 IEEE

130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE IROBOTICS COURSES OFFERED IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS

mobile robot kits as an effective means of explaining science,math, and computers in classrooms [14], [15].A philosophy of competition-based robot education is

proposed in [16], suggesting that this is highly beneficial tostudents because it stimulates creativity. As an extension to thisdiscussion of mobility, vision sensors are employed to exploreuncertain environments. Vision-based mobile robot contestshave shown that competition-based robot education is an effec-tive way to teach system integration in university engineeringcurricula [17], [18]. The University of Pennsylvania, UniversityPark, used a hockey-playing robot as part of their Mechatronicscurriculum [19]. SmatROB, a mobile robot, is a mechatronicsproduct that has been used in laboratory work to elaboratemechatronics education based on learning by doing [20].The principle conclusions of these robotics educators fall into

three categories, as in Table I.1) Robotics course curricula: Hands-on experiences are required for engineering ed-ucation.

Robotics laboratory practicals are necessary, along within-class teaching, for practical learning.

The robotics laboratory should offer a variety of robotsto provide students with a range of experiences.

2) Robotics course projects: Competition-based projects are beneficial to stimulatestudents creativity.

Teamwork-based projects encourage students to com-municate and cooperate with each other.

3) Robotics course roles: Robotics courses can incorporate outreach activities toeducate children and high-school teachers from localschools.

Research on robotics can be integrated into the curriculaof undergraduate robotics courses.

After analysis of the valuable observations in the literature,the robotics course described in this paper was reformulatedaccording to four strategies. First, it was organized in twotracks: class teaching of robotics theory and robotics practi-cals in the lab. The class teaching covered robot kinematics,dynamics, path planning, and control. It is not easy to imple-ment experiments that illustrate the theoretical contents dueto the high cost of industrial robot manipulators. Therefore,most robotics courses rely on simulation studies to confirmtheoretical analyses, leading to a lack of practical experience.Second, to compensate for this lack, the laboratory section of

the course provides hands-on learning and experience with var-ious robot systems. The laboratory exercises, formulated withexperimental kits, deal with motor control, humanoid robots,LEGO robots, industrial robots, and mobile service robots.Third, students are assigned a project to design and build a

robot system for competition-based learning. One of the can-didates for this project is a boxing robot whose structure is a

JUNG: EXPERIENCES IN DEVELOPING EXPERIMENTAL ROBOTICS COURSE PROGRAM FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 131

Fig. 1. The five Mechatronics program curriculum tracks, indicated by their icon shapes ( Math, Science, and Computer).

wheeled-drive mobile robot with two arms, thus covering thecharacteristics of both robot manipulators and mobile robots.Students carry out the project in parallel with the theoreticallecture so that they can apply the theories they have learned topractical problems.Finally, the course incorporates an outreach program to

children from local schools as an effective means of sharingknowledge.

II. ROBOTICS COURSE CURRICULUM

A. Mechatronics CurriculumThe Department of Mechatronics Engineering at Chungnam

National University (CNU), Daejeon, Korea, offers three cur-riculum tracks: Mechanics, Electronics, and Computers. Sincethese all focus on experimental studies, core courses cover me-chanical design using computer-aided design (CAD), industrialmachines, electrical circuits using Pspice, digital circuits usingMax plus/Quatus II, microprocessors, and computer measure-ment using LabVIEW.Students learn to use computer-based design tools for de-

signing mechanical systems and electrical systems, to make me-chanical parts using machines, to build electrical circuits, and

to work with computers. They also take theory-oriented classessuch as statics, dynamics, control systems, and computer archi-tecture. The overall curricula of the three major tracks, as wellas those of the Design and the Math, Science, and Computer(MSC) tracks, are shown in Fig. 1.

B. Robotics Course Curriculum

The three-credit course Creative Robot Design is offered an-nually in the spring semester at the senior level. It consists of2 h of lecture and 2 h of lab per week. Although this course isknown to be an extensive interdisciplinary course that requires asignificant time commitment by students, the course enrollmentremains steady at about 1030 students per year. There are noprerequisites, but students who have previously taken coursessuch as control, sensors and signal processing, microprocessors,and dynamicswill find it easier to understand the classmaterials.The course contents have often been changed in order to en-

gage students interest in both theory and practice. As men-tioned above, the lecture part of the course covers theoreticalcontents such as kinematics, kinematic Jacobian, dynamics, andcontrol of robot manipulators, and the laboratory part of thecourse covers motor control, humanoid robots, LEGO robots,

132 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE IICREATIVE ROBOT DESIGN SYLLABUS

and industrial robots. In this context, it can be classified as acapstone design course since robots are made with interdiscipli-nary techniques such as mechanical design, software and hard-ware design, and control. Specific techniques include creativeCAD, modeling, analysis of kinematics and dynamics, simu-lations, and control. They use software tools such as Pro-E forrobot modeling,MATLAB/Simulink for simulations, and C pro-gram for real-time application.Table II gives the syllabus of both parts of the course. There

are eight lab exercises; these are finished in the earlier part ofthe course to give students time to develop their boxing robotproject.

III. CLASSROOM TEACHING

The theory-oriented lectures cover kinematics, dynamics, andcontrol of robot manipulators. Students learn coordinates, coor-dinate transform, D-H parameters, and inverse transforms in thecategory of kinematics. Since mobile robots are popular thesedays, mobile robot kinematics is also treated. Students learn thekinematic Jacobian relationship between velocities in two dif-ferent spaces. The midterm exam covers kinematics of robotmanipulators.Simultaneously, students learn the MATLAB and Simulink

program tools for simulation studies, so they can solve

Fig. 2. RoboMotor laboratory kit.

homework assignments in kinematics, dynamics, and control.Simulation plays an important role in bridging the gap betweentheoretical and physical systems. They also learn how to set updynamic equations for robot manipulators and are introducedto Lagrange and NewtonEuler formulations of dynamic equa-tions as well as control algorithms for position control of robotmanipulators.Then, students are assigned the task of simulating position

control for a robot manipulator using SIMULINK, either as anin-class project or as a take-home final exam. Although simu-lating robots works quite well by mimicking the movements ofreal robots, it requires many assumptions to be made, which be-comes problematic when building physical robots. It is thus im-portant that students realize that simulation results do not com-pletely predict the behavior of real robots. Hence, laboratorywork is required [11].

IV. LABORATORY EXERCISES

The main purpose of the practical part of the course is forstudents to acquire hands-on experience with various physicalrobots and to master the concepts behind the different robotswith different mechanisms. As mentioned in [1], when oper-ating within a limited budget, low-cost robots, such as LEGOrobots and humanoid robots, can be valuable teaching aids.Readily available in the market, these commercial productsare cost-effective systems that introduce students to practicalrobotics issues and provide them with insights into the variousstructures and mechanisms of robots. Several of the lab exer-cises are introduced here.

A. RoboMotor Experimental Kit: Motor Control

Some of the enrolled students do not have any experiencewith microcontrollers, considered as the most important tech-nique in developing robot systems. Laboratory exercises usingan experimental kit are provided to address this lack of micro-processor application ability. The experimental kit, shown inFig. 2, has several individual testbeds controlled by an 8-bit mi-croprocessor module. The testbedmodules are dcmotor control,RC servomotor control, step motor control, one-link robot armcontrol, and an inverted pendulum system module.Students spend four weeks learning to use microprocessors to

control dc motors and RC servomotors and learning to controlthe inverted pendulum system in the experimental kit.

JUNG: EXPERIENCES IN DEVELOPING EXPERIMENTAL ROBOTICS COURSE PROGRAM FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 133

Fig. 3. Bioloid humanoid robot. (a) Front. (b) Back.

Fig. 4. LEGO line tracer.

B. Humanoid Robots: Walking Gait

After completing the first third of the laboratory program ex-periments using the kit, students learn about various robots, suchas humanoid robots and LEGO line tracer robots, encounteringthe different mechanisms from robot manipulators introducedin class. Students are required to program the humanoid robotsshown in Fig. 3 to perform given tasks, such as walking withcollision avoidance or dancing. Programming humanoid robotsto walk teaches students the concept of walking gaits.

C. LEGO Robots: Mobility

LEGO systems are quite popular in engineering educa-tion [21]; challenging robotic systems have been built of LEGOMindstorm and blocks, and their control demonstrated [22].The concept of mobility is demonstrated by an exercise in

which students build a line tracer using LEGO, as shown inFig. 4. A line tracer is a mobile robot that follows lines on thefloor by using UV sensors.

D. Industrial Robot: Manipulation

The next experiment is to control a real industrial robot: agantry-type robot manipulator robot, shown in Fig. 5. Studentsare required to derive the kinematics and Jacobian of the robotmanipulator. In using this robot to carry out the exercise ofwriting students names, they learn how industrial manipulatorswork and how to control the movements of the arms.

E. Service Robots

Since robotic systems research is moving rapidly from indus-trial robots to service robots, it is worth showing students a mul-tifunctional home service robot, as in Fig. 6, and demonstratingand explaining a variety of multimedia functions.

Fig. 5. Gantry-type industrial robot.

Fig. 6. Hanwool home service robot.

V. CLASS PROJECT

A. Examples of Previous Projects

Since 1998, students have been required to build specificrobots as a class project. Sample projects include wrestlingrobots, boxing robots, bird robots, and frog robots, as shown inFig. 7.Requirements for the bird and frog robot projects were to use

only one actuator. For the bird robot, students were required touse one dc motor to actuate the wings to move forward. The frogrobot was required to jump high using only one actuator with alinkage structure. These projects are intended to stimulate stu-dents to design creative mechanisms under taxing constraints.

134 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

Fig. 7. Examples of robotics class projects before 2008. (a) Wrestle robots(1998). (b) Boxing robots (1999). (c) Bird robot (2002). (b) Frog robot (2003).

TABLE IIIPART LIST GIVEN TO STUDENTS

B. Boxing Robot

Since 1999, boxing robots have been further developed asa research topic. In 2008, the project of designing upgradedboxing robots was given to students at the beginning of thesemester. After midterm, each pair of students made weeklypresentations on the progress of their projects, during whichthey discussed and modified their designs based on other stu-dents opinions. This ensures that all of the students can keepto the schedule and finish their projects on time. Designed as awinwin activity, the goal is that all the teams should success-fully finish their projects.Before starting the projects, each team is given the major

component parts, listed in Table III, to build a boxing robot.This ensures a fair competition since most of these parts are ex-pensive for students to buy; other parts, such as aluminum forthe body and other electrical parts, are left for students to buythemselves.

Fig. 8. Boxing game competition.

C. Competition-Based Learning

The nine teams competed with each other, as shown inFig. 8. Those students who failed in the competition weregiven a second chance to be evaluated. First, each robot wastested and controlled by the remote joysticks to check propermovements of wheels and arms. Then, the teams competed.Although the sensor device was designed to count hits by theopponent, it turned out that scoring by hits was quite difficult;the arm movements were not powerful enough, and tangling ofthe arms frequently stopped the flow of the game. Therefore, therule was changed such that the team whose robot first touchedthe back of the opponent robot would win the game. Each robothas a balloon attached on its back, and pins at the end-effectorof the two arms. The robots are controlled to puncture theopponents balloon to win. This allows easy evaluation of therobot movements by remote controllers.

D. Outreach Activities to Children

One last important suggestion for robotics course is outreachactivities [14], [15]. The course contents of the Creative RobotDesign course are suitable for outreach activities to children andteachers from local schools. During the summer vacation, theMechatronics Engineering Department offers a robot school forchildren, using the same facilities as the undergraduate courselaboratory practicals.The boxing robots implemented for a class project by under-

graduate students can be used to demonstrate boxing games.Children can participate by controlling and playing boxingrobots. The hands-on experience of controlling robots enor-mously influences childrens level of interest in robotics, oneof goals of the school. Fig. 9 shows children attending robotschool in the robotics lab, which has a capacity of 20 students.

VI. COURSE EVALUATION

Students evaluate the Creative Robot Design course eachyear. Table IV gives the results of this evaluation from 2008 to2010. In 2008, the boxing robot project was assigned for thefirst time. Some students could not finish their project on time,and thus felt that the boxing robot project was a burden and

JUNG: EXPERIENCES IN DEVELOPING EXPERIMENTAL ROBOTICS COURSE PROGRAM FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 135

TABLE IVROBOTICS COURSE EVALUATION FOR THREE YEARS

Fig. 9. Robot school for children from local schools.

time-consuming. As a result, the student enrollment for 2009dropped from 19 to 12.In 2009, all the students finished their boxing robot projects

successfully and on time. A major reason for this was the avail-ability of the previous years students. This success inspiredmore students to register in 2010, with the enrollment doublingas shown in Fig. 10(a).In 2010, the laboratory exercises mentioned in Section V

were implemented for the first time. The 2010 student eval-uation increased from 4.325 to 4.754 out of 5, as shown inFig. 10(b). The students comments indicate that they enjoyedthe laboratory robotics practicals, although they found it quite atime-consuming and intensive course. The many opportunitiesto learn on a variety of robots were very motivating to students.Some student comments included the following.1) I understand the movement of robots and am quite satisfiedwith the experiments.

Fig. 10. Course evaluation for three years. (a) Enrollment Numbers. (b) Eval-uation score (out of 5).

2) The robotics class is quite satisfactory and exciting, al-though it is time-consuming.

3) I prefer taking an in-class exam rather than a take-homeexam.

4) I understand how to use kinematics and dynamics in realsystems.

5) I can apply all of my knowledge of mechatronics by per-forming the boxing robot projects.

VII. CONCLUSION

In the literature, robotics educators from various back-grounds have proposed valuable strategies for developingrobotics courses. Among these are the following.1) Laboratory exercises along with in-class lectures are re-quired to compensate for the lack of practical experience.

2) Giving hands-on experience to students is necessary in en-gineering education.

3) Competition-based learning is an efficient way of teachingstudents in a robotics class.

136 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 56, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

4) Robotics courses can be used for outreach to children andteachers from local schools.

This paper has described the experience of developing arobotics class based on these strategies. Over the last 15 yearsof developing the robotics course, the most important concernhas been how to attract students, despite limited budgets. Ex-perience suggests that there are many ways to develop excitingrobotics projects, for example the design of robots requiring asingle actuator. It is also suggested that, even with low budgets,a variety of robot systems can be prepared if this is done overseveral years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe author would like to thank those teaching assistants who

helped him and the students enrolled in the robotics class. Theauthor would also like to express sincere thanks to colleagues intheMechatronics EngineeringDepartment, ChungnamNationalUniversity, Korea, for their kind support.

REFERENCES[1] M. Ceccarelli, Robotic teachers assistants, IEEE Robot. Autom.

Mag., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 3745, Sep. 2003.[2] J. A. Piepmeier, B. E. Bishop, and K. A. Knowles, Modern robotics

engineering instruction, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.3337, Jun. 2003.

[3] E. Krotkov, Robotics laboratory exercises, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol.39, no. 1, pp. 9497, Feb. 1996.

[4] T. Kikuchi and T. Kenjo, Developing multimedia training materialsfor use with small robot controls at Chubu Polytechnic center in Japan,IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 349356, Aug. 1996.

[5] M. F. Robinette and R. Manseur, ROBOT-DRAW, an internet-basedvisualization tool for robotics education, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 44,no. 1, pp. 2934, Feb. 2001.

[6] K. Nagai, Learning while doing: Practical robotics education, IEEERobot. Autom. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3943, Jun. 2001.

[7] M. Wu, J. H. She, G. X. Zeng, and Y. Ohyama, Internet-basedteaching and experiment system for control engineering course, IEEETrans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 23862396, Jun. 2008.

[8] B. A. Maxwell and L. A. Meeden, Integrating robotics research withundergraduate education, IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl., vol. 15, no. 6, pp.2227, Nov.Dec. 2000.

[9] F. Klassner and S. Anderson, LEGO Mindstorms: Not just for K12anymore, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1218, Jun.2003.

[10] L. Greenwald and J. Kopena, Mobile robot labs, IEEE Robot. Autom.Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2532, Jun. 2003.

[11] J. M. M. Tur and C. F. Pfeiffer, Mobile robot design in education,IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6975, Mar. 2006.

[12] D. J. Jack, R. Avanzato, D. J. Ahlgre, and I. M. Verner, Fire-fightingmobile robotics and interdisciplinary design-comparative perspec-tives, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 369376, Aug. 2004.

[13] T. Balch, J. Summet, D. Blank, D. Kumar, M. Guzdial, K. Ohara, D.Walker, M. Sweat, G. Gupta, S. Tansley, J. Jackson, M. Gupta, M. N.Muhammad, S. Prashad, N. Eilbert, and A. Gavin, Designing personalrobots for education: Hardware, software, and curriculum, PervasiveComput., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 59, Apr.Jun. 2008.

[14] S. Bruder and K.Wedeward, Robotics in the classroom, IEEE Robot.Autom. Mag., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2529, Sep. 2003.

[15] E. M. Jimenez, E. C. Bravo, and E. B. Cortes, Tool for experimentingwith concepts of mobile robotics as applied to childrens education,IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 8895, Feb. 2010.

[16] R. R. Murphy, Competing for a robotics education, IEEE Robot.Autom. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 4455, 2001.

[17] N. Chen, A vision-guided autonomous vehicle: An alternative micro-mouse competition, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 253258,Nov. 1997.

[18] A. J. Baerveldt, T. Salomonsson, and B. Astrand, Vision-guided mo-bile robots for design competitions, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol.10, no. 2, pp. 3844, Jun. 2003.

[19] J. Fiene, The Robockey Cup, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 17, no.3, pp. 7882, Sep. 2010.

[20] R. Siegwart, Grasping the interdisciplinarity of mechatronics, IEEERobot. Autom. Mag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 2734, Jun. 2003.

[21] S. H. Kim and J. W. Jeon, Introduction for freshmen to embeddedsystems using LEGO Mindstorms, IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1,pp. 99108, Feb. 2009.

[22] S. S. Prieto, T. A. Navarro, M. G. Plaza, and O. R. Polo, A monoballrobot based on LEGOMindstorms, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 32,no. 2, pp. 7183, Apr. 2012.

Seul Jung (M12) received the B.S. degree from Wayne State University, De-troit, MI, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California,Davis, all in electrical and computer engineering.He joined the Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Chungnam National

University, Daejeon, Korea, in 1997, where he is currently a Professor. His re-search and teaching is in the areas of intelligent systems, robotics, digital sys-tems, and signal processing, with particular focus on robotics and intelligentcontrol systems. He developed a graduate program in intelligent control androbot control, and established an Intelligent Systems and Emotional Engineering(I.S.E.E.) Laboratory for both theoretical and experimental studies. This Labfocuses on validation of theories by experimental studies of mechatronics sys-tems. His research interests include robot systems, intelligent control systems,embedded systems, and robotics education.