Christian Stary
ABSTRACT
Cyber-Physical System (CPS) development becomes challenging when digital representations, so-called Digital Twin (DT) models, are synchronized with physical counterparts for real-time design and control. Learner support requires transparent and intelligible capacity building tools to grasp the idea of such complex systems and develop integrated design and engineering skills. Tangible components can help as physical cognitive artifacts for Internet-of-Things (IoT) applications being part of CPS. However, the intertwining of physical and digital elements requires a didactically grounded vocabulary and development concept to learn with tangible artifacts as mental representation. In this paper we introduce an integrated tangible design and engineering learning support system. It synchronizes physical IoT components with their DT representation, as composed by means of M5Stack (m5stack.com), UIFlow© (flow.m5stack.com) using Blockly for visual programming, and the diagrammatic D3j-editor (D3js.org) for editing DTs and monitoring/controlling CPS behavior. Learners can design and engineer a CPS either via tangible IoT (control) elements, or digitally. Prepared use cases from smart home management and home healthcare serve as teasers for actively engaging learners in CPS development tasks.
- M. Tan, Y. Yang, and P. Yu, “The influence of the maker movement on engineering and technology education,” World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 89–98, 2016.Google Scholar
- H. K. Tripathy, S. Mishra, and K. Dash, “Significance of IoT in Education Domain,” in Internet of Things: Enabling Technologies, Security and Social Implications, S. Kumar Pani and M. Pandey, Eds. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2021, pp. 59–83.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Al-Emran, S. I. Malik, and M. N. Al-Kabi, “A Survey of Internet of Things (IoT) in Education: Opportunities and Challenges,” in Toward Social Internet of Things (SIoT): Enabling Technologies, Architectures and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 846, A. E. Hassanien, R. Bhatnagar, N. E. M. Khalifa, and M. H. N. Taha, Eds. Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 197–209.Google Scholar
- C. Kaar and C. Stary, “Structuring Academic Education in Makerspaces: Consolidated Findings from the Field,” in 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Apr. 2019, pp. 920–927, doi: 10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725080.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Stary and C. Kaar, “Design-Integrated IoT Capacity Building using Tangible Building Blocks,” in 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Tartu, Estonia, Jul. 2020, pp. 185–187, doi: 10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00060.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Kim, Y. Choi, H. Lee, G. Lee, and A. Bianchi, “VirtualComponent: A Mixed-Reality Tool for Designing and Tuning Breadboarded Circuits,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland Uk, May 2019, pp. 1–13, doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300407.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Kubitza, P. Bader, M. Mogerle, and A. Schmidt, “Developing IoT Systems: It's All About the Software,” Computer, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 58–62, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1109/MC.2020.2972658.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Tao, Q. Qi, L. Wang, and A. Y. C. Nee, “Digital Twins and Cyber–Physical Systems toward Smart Manufacturing and Industry 4.0: Correlation and Comparison,” Engineering, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 653–661, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.01.014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. de Lima Sobreira , “IoTalho: IoT Advancing Learning from High-tech Objects,” in 2020 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE), 2020, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/EDUNINE48860.2020.9149530.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Kwon, M. R. Hodkiewicz, J. Fan, T. Shibutani, and M. G. Pecht, “IoT-Based Prognostics and Systems Health Management for Industrial Applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 3659–3670, 2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2587754.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. S. Cerqueira, A. M. Ambrosio, and C. Kirner, “Tangible user interface vocabulary to physically enhance space systems engineering tools,” Concurrent Engineering, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 305–313, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1177/1063293X19875505.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Fleischmann, S. Oppl, W. Schmidt, and C. Stary, Contextual Process Digitalization: Changing Perspectives – Design Thinking – Value-Led Design. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Embodied learning via tangible user interfaces: the impact of physical interaction on learning performance
Tangible user interfaces have been introduced as a form of Human-Computer Interaction to promote embodied learning pedagogy. This interaction modality offers the possibility to support students' cognitive development through manipulating objects in the ...
Tangible programming and informal science learning: making TUIs work for museums
IDC '08: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and childrenIn this paper we describe the design and initial evaluation of a tangible computer programming exhibit for children on display at the Boston Museum of Science. We also discuss five design considerations for tangible interfaces in science museums that ...
CPS: Role, Characteristics, Architectures and Future Potentials
AbstractCPS entails the incorporation of four key characteristic technologies. CPS device technologies, CPS computational technologies, Cyber Physical System of Systems (CPSoS) and CPS networking and communication (CPS-ComNet) technologies. Multiple CPS ...
Comments