In 2012, the African Robotics Network (AFRON) challenged the robotics community to design a $10 educational robot that could inspire kids worldwide about Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. With so many expensive products on the market, the goal was to create a class of robots that are “an order of magnitude less expensive than existing products”. The latest iteration of the competition challenged teams to enhance upon the winning 2012 designs, and to develop easy-to-use software and curricula to go with them. AFRON announced the winners earlier this week.

The big winner for the competition was the print-and-fold robot from MIT, which won first place in the Hardware and Curriculum categories, and second place in the software category. This robot is made from a “patterned 2D sheet, which is folded and then equipped with actuation mechanisms and electronics,” allowing for quick, low-cost assembly. The AERobot from Harvard followed close behind with first place in Software, and two second place spots, in the Hardware and Curriculum categories. The PANYABOT from iHub in Kenya also caught the judge’s attention, earning first place in the Community Challenge category and honourable mentions in the Software and Curriculum categories.

Creating affordable robots for STEM education was AFRON’s mission, but education is not the only area where ultra low-cost robots are desirable. Swarm robotics (where large numbers of robots might work together to perform collective tasks) is another area where robustness, simplicity and affordability reign high.

Says Mike Rubenstein, team member behind the AERobot, “In my research I have created swarm robots, which have many properties that are also desirable in education robots. After seeing the contest requirements, I realized that with some minor modifications, my swarm robots could make useful education robots.” The AERobot is in fact a modified version of the Kilobot robot, with Kilobot’s swarm capabilities removed, the charging and programming simplified, and with some additional sensors.

Despite Rubenstein’s previous experience developing low-cost robots, he says that creating an $11 robot with features like sensing, thinking and locomotion was a challenge, especially when considering that one of the assessment criteria for the competition was the ability of the robot to engage with students and teach them about robotics.

“The software and planned curriculum drove the robot design, so it was critical to understand how the design choices for the robot impacted the possible curriculum for the robot,” says Rubenstein. “For example, we wanted to use software that allowed the robot to be programmed over USB without any additional hardware, which impacted the robot shape, and choice of micro-controller.”

Jury members Dr. Sam Cubero (The Petroleum Institute, UAE), Dr. M. Bernardine Dias (Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA), and James Manyika (Mckinsey Global Institute) evaluated each of the submissions along several criteria, including robustness, cost, versatility, ease of use/assembly, documentation, and the ability to engage students and help them learn.

Here are the winners and runners up in each category:

Hardware category

First Place: MIT Printable Robot (MIT, USA)	Ankur Mehta Joseph DelPreto Benjamin Shaya Lindsay Sanneman Daniela Rus
Second Place: AERobot (Harvard, USA)	Michael Rubenstein Bo Cimino Radhika Nagpal
Honorable Mention: Tiny CNC Drawing Robot (PlotterBot, USA)	Jay Shergill

Software Category

First Place: AERobot (Harvard, USA)	Michael Rubenstein Bo Cimino Radhika Nagpal
Second Place: MIT Printable Robot (MIT, USA)	Ankur Mehta Joseph DelPreto Benjamin Shaya Lindsay Sanneman Daniela Rus
Honorable Mention: PANYABOT (iHub, Kenya)	Jessica Colaco Wachira Ndaiga Muuo Wambua Elizabeth Ondula James Kinyanjui Brian Bosire

Curriculum Category

First Place: MIT Printable Robot (MIT, USA)	Ankur Mehta Joseph DelPreto Benjamin Shaya Lindsay Sanneman Daniela Rus
Second Place: AERobot (Harvard, USA)	Michael Rubenstein Bo Cimino Radhika Nagpal
Honorable Mention: PANYABOT (iHub, Kenya)	Jessica Colaco Wachira Ndaiga Muuo Wambua Elizabeth Ondula James Kinyanjui Brian Bosire

Community Challenge Category

First Place: PANYABOT (iHub, Kenya)	Jessica Colaco Wachira Ndaiga Muuo Wambua Elizabeth Ondula James Kinyanjui Brian Bosire
Second Place: ARX LollyBot Workshop (Ashesi, Ghana)	Wumpini Alhassan Hussein
Honorable Mention: Tiny CNC Drawing Robot (PlotterBot, USA)	Jay Shergill

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• FIRST 2013 photo essay: Girls of Steel in the trenches at the FRC championship finals
• Introducing the Cybathlon
• ROS 101: Intro to the Robot Operating System
• Robots Podcast: Origami robots
• Getting started in robotics, an educational concern

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Today, AFRON announced the 2013 Design Challenge, with a goal of augmenting the robots from the first $10 robot design challenge. In 2012, the AFRON launched with a Design Challenge to build a $10 robot. The African Robotics Network (AFRON) is a community of institutions, organizations and individuals engaged in robotics in Africa, founded by Ayorkor Korsah & Ken Goldberg. AFRON seeks to promote communication and collaborations that will enhance robotics-related education, research, and industry on the continent. Since it launched May 2012, AFRON has 380 regular and affiliated members from 51 countries around the world.

18 June 2013

Announcing:The Ultra Affordable Educational Robot Project
2013 Design Challenge: Robot Enhancements, Software, and Teaching Plans
Sponsored by:
The African Robotics Network (AFRON) and IEEE Robotics and Automation SocietyGoal

Robots excite people of all ages.  Their physical behavior often inspires primary and secondary student interest in computers, science, math, and engineering more broadly.  However, existing platforms are often too expensive for students.  This project aims to collaboratively create an Ultra-Affordable Robot (an order of magnitude less expensive than existing products) to inspire young people around the world.The 2012 Design Challenge emphasized an ultra-low-cost robot hardware platform in three categories: tethered, roaming, and all-in-one.  The winning designs were all highly creative, and the Grand Prize in the tethered category went to Lollybot, a brilliant design by Tom Tilley of Thailand, costing just under 10 USD and incorporating two functional Lollipops.  Starting with a generic dual-shock game controller, Lollybot can be built using commonly available tools anywhere in the world.

In the 2013 Design Challenge, our goal is to create incentives for designers to select any of the winning designs from 2012 and work on enhancements in one or more of 3 categories: 1) hardware 2) software, or 3) curriculum. This year, we are placing a special emphasis on Lollybot, encouraging next steps in the 3 categories: 1) enhance the Lollybot hardware design, simplifying assembly, increasing robustness, adding useful features, 2) extend and improve the open-source software for Lollybot, and 3) create exciting lesson plans using the Lollybot.  In addition, there is a special “community challenge” for participants who organize a robotics workshop for students using one of the winning designs, with or without enhancements.

Competition Categories

1) Hardware enhancements

Propose design enhancements to make the chosen robot more effective, robust, re-usable, and even easier to assemble or manufacture.  For example, possible design enhancements for the Lollybot include:
·      Improved robustness (particularly of wheels and bumpers) to allow for more reliable behavior
·      Ability to design and switch in and out different sensor circuits, such as the current line sensor circuit.
·      Ability to control the robot with an old feature phone, a Raspberry Pi, or other low-cost computing platform

2) Software enhancements
Further open-source software development to add functionality to the chosen robot, and more importantly, make it easy for high school students with no prior programming experience to learn how to program new behaviors for the robot.   For Lollybot, this could include, for example, a drag-and-drop programming interface, or a software interface to introduce basic features of JavaScript for programming the robot.

3) Curriculum
Outline 20+ hours of educational activity using the chosen robot.  The educational value could come from the process of assembling the robot and from programming it.  However, at least 15 hours of the curriculum should be re-usable, meaning that it can be used with an already-assembled robot.  This ensures that learning continues after the robot is assembled for the first time.  The lesson plans can assume a basic age-appropriate science and math background, but should not assume any background in robotics or prior experience programming or using tools such as a soldering iron — it should help students learn what they need to know.4) Community challenge
Build one of the winning designs in collaboration with students (primary, secondary or early college), documenting the process and the learning experience for the students.Prizes

Each category attracts a grand prize of $500, and a runner-up prize of $250.  A single entry can win in more than one category.  Additionally, there will be “honorable mentions” for other creative submissions.

EligibilityThe competition is open to individuals, teams of individuals, or institutions from anywhere in the world.  We welcome submissions from hobbyists and students, in addition to professionals.  For the community challenge, entries are particularly encouraged from participants working with students in Africa.

Submission Deadline18th September 2013.   Winners will be announced at the end of October 2013What to submit, and how

Create one HTML webpage with the following information:

1.     A high-level description of your hardware enhancements, software enhancements, curriculum and/or student workshop. 

2.     For hardware enhancements, include:
a.      A list of parts, their sources (include URLs if applicable), availability, and prices.
·      Note that your parts list should be complete, including things like required adhesive, screws etc.
·      Note that salvaged parts are allowed, if these salvaged parts are commonly available in your particular context.  Think of this list of parts as the starting point if someone in a similar context to you wanted to reproduce your robot.
·      Your parts list should include any consumables (e.g. batteries) and their associated cost and replacement frequency. This is a caution to think of sustainability.

b.     A list of tools/equipment needed to create the robot, and estimated prices
c.      Relevant drawings with dimensions.
d.     Step-by-step instructions for creating your robot
e.     A description of any experiments conducted
f.      Pictures and videos of your robot in action

3.     For software, include:
a.     A link to documentation (a “user guide”) for your software
b.     If relevant, screenshots of your software
c.      A link to the open-source software.

4.     For curriculum, include:
a.     The target age range / level (e.g. primary school – approximately below age 12, junior high or middle school – approximately between ages 12 and 14, and senior high school – approximately between ages 14 and 18)
b.     The learning goals
c.      Materials needed
d.     Activities

5.     For the community challenge (student workshops), include:
a.     The robot that was used
b.     Information about participants (number, age range, location)
c.      Sources of parts for robot-building
d.     Description of activities
e.     Description of outcomes
f.      Pictures and/or video

Please share with us your intent to participate via this form.  When you are done, you can then make your final submission via the submission form, which asks for your name, contact information, and the URL of your webpage. Note that by participating in this competition, you agree to have your designs or curriculum published on the Internet (and attributed to you, of course).Criteria

Hardware enhancements will be assessed using the following criteria:
·      Robustness & effectiveness
·      Cost (try to stay below 20 USD, excluding computing)
·      Versatility
·      Ease of assemblySoftware will be assessed using the following criteria:
·      Effectiveness
·      Ease of use
·      Quality of documentationCurricula will be assessed using the following criteria:
·      Clarity
·      Potential to help students learn
·      Potential to engage students’ interestThe community challenge will be assessed using the following criteria:
·      Completeness of documentation of the experience
·      Creativity
·      Student impact

About AFRON
Web: www.robotics-africa.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AfricanRoboticsNetwork