Invited keynote presentation given at Virtual Worlds Best Practices in Education conference in July 2013. Website http://www.vwbpe.org/ai1ec_event/keynote-speaker-michael-vallance-sl-dafydd-beresford?instance_id=413

1. Virtual World simulations
to support
Robot-Mediated Interaction.
Dr. Michael Vallance
Future University Hakodate, Japan
http://www.mvallance.net

2. Research aim (long term): To design an evidence-­‐based
framework
of
learning when undertaking tasks
of
measurable
complexity in a 3D
virtual
world.
How?
(i) procedural processes,
(ii) learning reflections,
(iii) collate data of students collaborating in-world when programming
a robot
# A successful task consists of a robot and program solution to solve
specified circuit challenges.
In
this
presentation, the focus is upon the
development
of
measuring
complexity
of
tasks
involving
robot-­‐mediated
interactions
(RMI).

3. March 11, 2011 Fukushima Japan nuclear plant
disaster.
Earthquake and tsunami damaged cooling
systems to reactors.
Four reactors exploded and radioactivity was
released to the atmosphere.
Currently:
evacuees cannot return home and depression is
becoming prevalent among the strained residents [1];
the Japanese government has changed its
criteria for dangerous levels of radioactivity so
leaving residents confused [2];
workers are struggling to maintain the safety of
the plant [3];
deformities have been discovered in local wildlife
[4].
Why?
Our motivation for context

4. Lack of robots in Japan to assist with the recovery operations!!!
Less than a week iRobot USA donated two PackBot 510 robots and
Warrior 710 robots, and iRobot engineers trained Japanese operators.
3 weeks for TEPCO to authorize their use [5].

5. 1. People need to be better informed and equipped to make sense
of information.
Give students learning opportunities: reflecting, organizing,
negotiating and creating.
A challenging project like programming robots also provides
opportunities for learning content in the Science, Technology,
Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects.
2. International collaboration is essential communication for now
and the future.
A virtual world as a future 3D space.
A safe medium for communication and experiential learning.
The tasks in this research aim to support (1) and (2).
As educators, what can we learn from this
disaster?

6. The students’ aim is to communicate solutions to
problems which involve the programming of a LEGO robot
to follow specific circuits.
This is undertaken by
1. designing circuits
- with robot maneuvers and sensors
2. experiencing collaboration
- students in Japan and UK within 3D space.
Experiences lead to personal strategies for teamwork,
planning, organizing, applying, analyzing, creating and
reflection.
# Measured as Essential Skills for Wales Baccalaureate Qualification, UK. Evidence
required by Education Authority for post-16 qualification.
About the research ...

7. Literature review of task
complexity involving robots

8. CTC
=
Σ
(d
+
m
+
s+
o)
for
example
CTC = Σ (4 + 3 + 2 + 2) = 11
There is no consensus in the discipline of Robotics or Human-Robot Interaction for
accurately measuring task complexity [6].
Given the specific purposes of the robot in our research, task complexity was calculated
according to the number of sections that make up a given maze [7] [8].
Circuit Task Complexity (CTC) = number of directions + number of maneuvers +
number of sensors + number of obstacles.
Circuit
Task
Complexity

9. We found that the logic of assigning task complexity to circuits was
inadequate.
For instance, complexity values were assigned to distinct maneuvers
such as forward – turn – back.
Over the course of our previous research, as circuits became more
challenging, the NXT programming became more complex.
Especially adding sensors to maneuver around and over obstacles.
Simply counting the number of obstacles in the circuit task
complexity was flawed because the programming required to
maneuver over a bridge using touch sensors, for instance, was far
more complex than maneuvering around a box using touch
sensors.
CTC
=
Σ
(d
+
m
+
s+
o)
Circuit
Task
Complexity

10. In the NXT Mindstorms software, the
Move block controls the LEGO robot
direction and turns.
Move block contains 6 variables:
NXT ‘brick’ port link - direction - steering -
power - duration - next action.
In other words, the students have to
make 6 specific decisions about the
values which make up the programmable
block. Therefore, we assign v1 a value of
6.
This was repeated for sensor, switch and
loop.
Robot Task Complexity
RTC
=
Σ
Mv1
+
Σ
Sv2
+
Σ
SW
+
Σ
Lv3

11. RTC
=
Σ
Mv1
+
Σ
Sv2
+
Σ
SW
+
Σ
Lv3
where,
M
=
number
of
moves
(direcHon
and
turn)
S
=
number
of
sensors
SW
=
number
of
switches
L
=
number
of
loops
for
example
RTC
=
Σ
Mv1
+
Σ
Sv2
+
Σ
SW
+
Σ
Lv3
RTC = (8 x 6) + (3 x 5) + 0 + 3
RTC = 66
v
=
number
of
decisions
required
by
user
for
each
programmable
block
v1
=
6
v2
=
5
v3
=
2
Robot
Task
Complexity
We acknowledge that, at present, our modified Robot
Task Complexity metric applies only to the Mindstorms
NXT software and LEGO robot, but it does provide a
useful indicator in our attempts to analyze the
experiential learning during the collaborative tasks. The
CTC problem can now be evaluated against the RTC
solution.

12. Students in one country
1. provided with task specification
2. work on a solution to the task
3. construct their circuit in the virtual world + in their real-world lab
4. develop a NXT program to maneuver the physical LEGO robot
appropriately.
The problem and the
proposed solution are then
communicated in real-time
to
students
in
the
other
country via the 3D virtual
world.
Task implementation

13. Task specification examples
Task
Task: robot
actions
CTC/ target CTC only /
objective is to iteratively
increase CTC/
Collabo
ration
STEM/ anticipated
Essential
Skills (Wales
Baccalaureat
e)/
anticipated
RTC/ post
task
calculation
based upon
students’
solution.
T1
Movement:
follow the
line.
Sensors: light
and touch
CTC = Σ (d + m + s+ o)
CTC= 1+2+2+1 = 7
Japan
teach
UK
S: Recognition of light sensor values. What
happens when trigger point increased/ decreased?
T: Learn how to organise NXT program blocks
logically.
E: Construct a robot. Connect software to
hardware.
M: Recognise spatial movements and the
problem of friction. Change surface to see if
robot works the same. Calculate coefficient of
friction.
Identify
Plan/
manage
Explore/
Analyse
(organize)
Evaluate
(checking)
Reflect
T2
Movement:
follow the
line.
Sensors:
colour and
action.
CTC= 1+2+2+2 = 8
UK
teach
Japan
S: Recognition of light sensor values. What
happens when trigger point increased/ decreased?
How does the NXT sensor recognise colour R, G
or B? Try different colour variations and observe
subsequent robot actions.
T: Learn how to organise NXT program blocks
logically.
E: Construct a robot. Connect software to
hardware.
M:
Identify
Plan/
manage
Explore/
Analyse
(organize)
Evaluate
(checking)
Reflect
T3
Movement:
square.
Sensors:
touch and
sound.
CTC = 4+3+1+1 = 9
Japan
teach
UK
S:
T: Learn how to organise NXT program blocks
logically.
E: Construct a robot. Connect software to
hardware.
M: Calculate distance, speed and force (touch).
Identify
Plan/
manage
Explore/
Analyse
(organize)
Evaluate
(checking)
Reflect

14. Resources.
• LEGO Mindstorms NXT software version 2.1
• LabView 2010 with NXT module.
• LEGO robot 8527 kit
• LEGO blocks and similar workspaces/lab in Japan university + 2 UK schools
• All have same Apple technologies (MacBook Pro + OSX 10.7)

15. reactor
off switchradioactive bins
control
station

19. www.firesabre.com
Resources.
• Aurora-Sim hosted by
Firesabre.

26. Virtual Fukushima in
JIBE hosted by Reaction
Grid
reactiongrid.net

27. Virtual Fukushima in JIBE hosted by
Reaction Grid reactiongrid.net

28. telerobotics
“for the rest of us”
inspired by

29. Task flow
chart for
simulation

30. Task Task description
T1 Assemble LEGO robots. JPN + UK students introductions
T2 NXT program + circuit. JPN teaching UK
T3 NXT program + circuit (90 degree turns + measured length). UK teaching JPN
T4 Circuit + NXT program. Move. Touch sensor. Turn 90 degrees. JPN teaching JPN.
T5 Circuit + NXT program. Around obstacles. JPN teaching JPN.
T6 Circuit + NXT program. Around obstacles. JPN teaching JPN.
T7 NXT program + touch sensors + circuit. Locate and press switch off. JPN teaching JPN.
T8 Over an obstacle. NXT program + sensors + bridge building (cardboard). JPN teaching JPN.
T9 Over an obstacle. NXT program + sensors + bridge building (wood). JPN teaching JPN.
T10 Robot arm + scoop. UK teaching JPN
T11 Robot arm + NXT program. JPN preparation
T12 Robot arm + scoop + NXT program. Streaming video. JPN teaching UK.
T13 Programming LabView for remote control.
T14 Programming LabView for remote control.
T15 Programming LabView for remote control.
T16 UK teaching Japan. Robot construction + NXT program + stop and swing arm to hit ball.
T17 Suika robot. Rotate + follow line+ sensor + chop down. Japan preparation 1.
T18 Suika robot. Rotate + follow line+ sensor + chop down. Japan preparation 2.
T19 Suika robot. Rotate + follow line+ sensor + chop down. Japan preparation 3.
T20 Robot construction + NXT program + + obstacles + sensors.
T21 Suika robot. Rotate + follow line+ sensor + chop down. Japan teach UK.
T22 Programming LabView for remote control.
T23 Programming LabView for remote control.
T24 Remote control for search & rescue circuit A.
T25 Remote control for search & rescue circuit B.
T26 Remote control for search & rescue circuit C.
T27 Remote control for search & rescue circuit D.
T28 Move to black line, stop and throw ball to hit over obstacle. UK teaching Japan.
Tasks

31. CTC
=
Σ
(d
+
m
+
s+
o)
RTC
=
Σ
Mv1
+
Σ
Sv2
+
Σ
SW
+
Σ
Lv3
Task CTC RTC
T2 0.56 0.22
T3 0.50 0.42
T4 0.81 0.22
T5 0.81 0.57
T6 1.00 0.85
T7 0.69 1.00
T8 0.25 0.39
T9 0.31 0.33
T10 0.19 0.20
T11 0.63 0.76
T12 0.63 0.84
T16 0.56 0.83
T17 0.25 0.22
T18 0.31 0.65
T19 0.31 0.65
T20 0.69 0.48
T21 0.31 0.65
T28 0.25 0.17
Circuit
Task
Complexity
Robot
Task
Complexity
Task
TaskComplexity

32. Graph
of
Task
~
Task
Fidelity
Task TF
T2 0.34
T3 0.08
T4 0.59
T5 0.24
T6 0.15
T7 -0.31
T8 -0.14
T9 -0.02
T10 -0.01
T11 -0.13
T12 -0.21
T16 -0.27
T17 0.03
T18 -0.34
T19 -0.34
T20 0.21
T21 -0.34
T28 0.08
Task
TaskFidelity

33. Immersion ( flow ) - how immersed students become within
the process of each task.
To record immersion (or flow), a virtual FlowPad appears in front
of the virtual world avatars.
At regular intervals during the task procedures each avatar has to
answer two questions, with four options:
Q1. How challenging is the activity?
• Difficult (score 4)
• Demanding (score 3)
• Manageable (score 2)
• Easy (score 1).
Q2. How skilled are you at the activity?
• Hopeless (score 1)
• Reasonable (score 2)
• Competent (score 3)
• Masterful (Score 4).
These questions were chosen based upon research in flow by Pearce
et al. [9].

34. Graph of
task immersivity (flow)
Task Challenge Skill
T2 0.5 1
T3 0.75 0.5
T4 0.5 0.75
T5 1 0.67
T6 0.8 0.67
T7 0.67 0.8
T8 0.67 0.5
T9 0.42 0.92
T10 0.42 0.5
T11 0.8 0.5
T12 0.58 0.58
T16 0.8 0.45
T17 0.25 1
T18 0.7 0.7
T19 0.25 1
T20 0.94 0.5
T21 0.75 0.75
T28 0.75 0.58

35. If we look at the data of Task Fidelity and
immersivity, we suggest that T10 and T28 would be
considered most successful tasks when students are
engaged in robot mediated interactions.
TF value for T28 was only + 0.08; slightly above
the optimal Task Fidelity line. T28 was slightly below
the optimal path of immersivity.
Similarly for T10 with immersivity slightly above
optimal path of immersivity and Task Fidelity at +0.01.
The challenge for instructors is to seek tasks
similar to T28 and T10 where immersivity is close to
or on the optimal path of immersivity, and task
complexity is close to or on the optimal line of Task
Fidelity.
The challenge for researchers is to seek ways to
transfer these observations to further tasks with
different participants in order to develop more
reliable optimal learning tasks when engaged in robot
mediated interactions in a virtual space [10].

36. This applied research is developing metrics for learning when conducting virtual world
tasks.The motivation to implement this research was the nuclear disaster of 3-11.A
virtual Fukushima nuclear plant and an OpenSim training space have been iteratively
designed and built. International collaboration by students as non-experts has highlighted
the benefits and challenges posed when engaged in constructing robot-mediated
interactions (RMI) within the context of distance-based communication in 3D spaces.
Students’ immersion (or flow), Circuit Task Complexity, and Robot Task Complexity have
been calculated. Optimal learning tasks have been highlighted.A new metric is suggested
for measuring tasks involving robots, which we term Task Fidelity [10].
Many thanks to UK collaborators and students at University of South Wales and CynonValley
schools, my students at Future University, Japan, and metaverse designers at Firesabre and
Reaction Grid.
Conclusion
Next question
How can a better taxonomy be designed to identify specific learning when students are
engaged in mixed reality (real and 3D virtual world) Robot Mediated Interactions?
Acknowledgements

37. References
(1) T. Morris-Suzuki, D. Boilley, D. McNeill and A. Gundersen. Lessons from Fukushima. Netherlands: Greenpeace
International, February 2012.
(2) J. Watts. “Fukushima parents dish the dirt in protest over radiation levels.” The Guardian, May 2, 2011. [Online].
Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/parents-revolt-radiation-levels [Accessed August 20, 2012].
(3) L. W. Hixson. “Japan’s nuclear safety agency fights to stay relevant.” Japan Today. [Online]. Available: http://
www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/japans-nuclear-safety-agency-Fig.hts-to-stay-relevant [Accessed August
20, 2012].
(4) N. Crumpton. “Severe abnormalities found in Fukushima butterflies.” BBC Science & Environment. [Online].
Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818 [Accessed August 20, 2012].
(5) E. Guizzo. “Fukushima Robot Operator Writes Tell-All Blog.” IEEE Spectrum, August 23, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/fukushima-robot-operator-diaries [Accessed August 20,
2012].
(6) M. Vallance and S. Martin. “Assessment and Learning in the Virtual World: Tasks, Taxonomies and Teaching For
Real.” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research Vol. 5, No. 2, 2012.
(7) S. B. Barker and J. Ansorge. “Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment.”
Journal of Research in Technology and Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 229-243, 2007.
(8) D.R. Olsen and M.A. Goodrich, “Metrics for evaluating human-robot interactions.” [Online]. Available: http://
icie.cs.byu.edu/Papers/RAD.pdf [Accessed March 14, 2009].
(9) M. Pearce, M. Ainley and S. Howard. “The ebb and flow of online learning.” Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 21,
pp. 745–771, 2005.
(10) M. Vallance, C. Naamani, M. Thomas and J. Thomas. “Applied Information Science Research in a Virtual World
Simulation to Support Robot Mediated Interaction Following the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.” Communications in
Information Science and Management Engineering (CISME). Vol. 3 Issue 5, pp. 222-232.