50 IEEE REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE TECNOLOGIAS DEL APRENDIZAJE, VOL. 14, NO.

2, MAY 2019

A Survey of Research in Microcontroller Education

Dimosthenis E. Bolanakis

Abstract— Microcontrollers constitute a popular technology
of our age. While a few decades ago, it seemed extremely
difficult to teach non-electronic engineers how to program a
single-chip computer system, nowadays, inexperienced designers
share microcontroller-based prototypes over the Internet. The
emergence of today’s do-it-yourself (DIY) culture has introduced
pervasiveness of this technology and rendered the development of
embedded computing systems easier than ever before. This com-
munication identifies two fundamental eras in the advancement
of microcontroller programming and application development,
and distinguishes the ‘back then’ with ‘nowadays’ trends and
consequent risks in education. Then, attention is paid to the
classification and progress in educational research over a span of
twenty years, along with a prediction of the prospective direction
in microcontroller education in the upcoming decade. In this
paper, in the recognition of the growing interdisciplinary nature
of microcontroller technology, the information summarized could
serve as a reference guide for further research study in diverse
disciplines.
Index Terms— Computer science education, electrical engi-
neering education, electronics engineering education, engineering
education, microcomputers, microcontrollers.
I. I NTRODUCTION
M ICROCONTROLLER technology belongs to the cate-
gory of embedded computer systems that follow the
rules of the conventional (sequential) programming method
and do not run an operating system (OS). The latter attribute
differentiates microcontrollers from the allied technology of
microprocessors. The DIY effect on microprocessor tech-
nology has shaped today’s single-board computers (such as,
the Raspberry Pi board), where the OS is commonly loaded to
an on-board secure digital (SD) card. While the programming
and application development of a single-board computer can
be performed in a similar way as in personal computers (PCs),
the corresponding procedure for a microcontroller-based sys-
tem entails particular challenges. The challenges are in agree-
ment with the low-level control of hardware that is regularly
hidden by the operating system in a PC or single-board
computer. Because of this differentiation in the application
development with microcontrollers, along with the possibility
of implementing abundant fascinating applications, microcon-
troller education has gained ground lately, and continues to
attract more and more attention.
Manuscript received October 15, 2018; revised January 2, 2019; accepted
March 14, 2019. Date of publication June 13, 2019; date of current version
July 3, 2019. (Spanish version received May 11, 2019; revised May 24, 2019;
accepted May 24, 2019).
The author is with the Department Air Force Science, Hellenic Air Force
Academy, 13671 Athens, Greece (e-mail: dbolanakis@gmail.com).
There exists a Spanish version of this paper available at
http://rita.det.uvigo.es/VAEPRITA/V7N2/A3.pdf.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/RITA.2019.2922856
1932-8540 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This communication focuses on the research challenges
of microcontroller technology and identifies two fundamental
eras in the advancement of microcontroller programming and
application development, while also distinguishing the ‘back
then’ with ‘nowadays’ trends and consequent risks in educa-
tion. Then, attention is paid to the classification and progress
in educational research over a span of twenty years, along with
a prediction of the prospective direction in microcontroller
education the upcoming decade. In recognition of the interdis-
ciplinary nature of microcontroller technology, the information
summarized in this paper could serve as reference guide for
further research study in diverse disciplines and miscellaneous
levels of education.
II. T HE A DVANCEMENT OF M ICROCONTROLLER
P ROGRAMMING AND A PPLICATION D EVELOPMENT
The advancement of microcontroller technology and pro-
gramming can be separated into two major eras, that is, the a)
long-cycle development era and b) short-cycle development
era. The recommended differentiation is in agreement with
the requisite time needed to learn, program and develop a
microcontroller-based application/system, while the passage
from the former to the latter era resulted from an advancement
of the software as well as hardware domain. To clarify the
significant progress of both aspects of advancement, it is
wise to make a reference to the basic internal structure and
operation of a microcontroller device.
A microcontroller unit constitutes a synchronous digital
circuit that incorporates a central processing unit (CPU) and
a memory for holding the firmware code (that is, the program
memory) as well as the data generated during the code execu-
tion (that is, the data memory). The earlier memory technology
that was used for holding the microcontroller’s firmware code
was an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM),
where erasing of the internal data was performed by exposing
the microcontroller device to ultraviolet (UV) light and hence,
this type of memory was also known as UVPROM. The
latter memory type was one of the main causes of the long-
cycle development process in the earlier era of microcontroller
programming, as the erasing of the microcontroller’s memory
required typically 30 min (resulting in the situation of testing
the functionality of a firmware under development 2 to 3 times
per hour).
Due to the long time needed to re-program the microcon-
troller, the designer had to spend considerable effort in sim-
ulations before uploading the updated firmware to the device
(in order to check its functionality). The simulation supported
by the microcontroller’s standard programming method of that
era, which was in line with a low level of programming; that is,
BOLANAKIS: SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN MICROCONTROLLER EDUCATION
the assembly language programming. The simulation allowed
the inspection of the microcontroller’s internal registers on
each assembly mnemonic execution.
Because of the numerous separated windows and the influx
of information held by a simulator program at the same
time, several research endeavors of the previous era were
orientated to custom-designed simulation tools for educational
purposes [1]. Other instructors were orientated to the imple-
mentation of custom-designed educational platforms, as the
time-consuming process for building a microcontroller appli-
cation on the breadboard, was often focusing the attention of
students away from the purpose of the course [2].
In both directions, the purpose of the course was to
focus students’ attention on the unstructured – and difficult
to follow – assembly programming techniques, in order to
acquire total control over the machine operations. Teaching
methodologies toward the parallelization between low-level
and high-level programming (built around a set of keywords
and symbols familiar to the humans), were also a case study
of that era [3]. It can, therefore, be concluded that the ‘back
then’ entailed risks in education were primarily a concern of
the microcontroller programming method (that is, the assembly
language learning). In addition, the available development
tools for microcontrollers were rather impractical, inflexible
and of considerable cost and hence, they were negatively
affecting the assembly language learning process.
A. Hardware-Related Advancement
A significant reduction of the requisite time needed among
successive updates in microcontroller’s firmware, resulted
from the hardware advancement of the memory technology.
The Flash type of memory of today’s microcontroller devices,
along with the in-system programming (ISP) capability, ren-
ders feasible the update of a firmware within seconds (sec),
without needing to move the device between the main board
system and a separate programmer. Modern development
boards are preloaded with a separated portion of code in
microcontroller’s memory, which permits the uploading of the
new firmware to the microcontroller device. In addition, the
RS-232 port of personal computers has been replaced with the
familiar USB port which provides a rapid reprogramming of
the microcontroller, as well as the possibility of supplying 5V
power to the board.
In addition, the hardware advancement of the chip package
from dual in-line package (DIP) to surface-mount technol-
ogy (SMT) is strongly associated with the revolution of the
printed-circuit board (PCB) design and fabrication, and has
gradually leaded to the availability of the modern and ready-
to-use collection of microcontroller board systems. Modern
hardware development tools for microcontrollers (such as the
familiar Arduino Uno board) are delivered with a bootloader
code and also powered, interfaced and programmed through
a common USB connector. Such board systems incorporate
header pins which are placed in a specific position and admit
an abundance of mezzanine cards. Today’s low-cost hardware
tools, along with the ready-to-use software libraries available
to the users, render feasible the implementation of advanced
51
microcontroller systems – by inexperienced users – within
minutes; thereby outlining today’s DIY culture.
B. Software-Related Advancement
Despite the hardware-related advancement of microcon-
troller technology, significant progress has also been made
to the methods of programming. The assembly-level has
been replaced with a higher-level of programming, where the
embedded C code holds the primary and dominant microcon-
troller programming method, nowadays. Other modern and
popular programming methods include, but are not limited to
the Arduino, MicroPython, and Scratch for Arduino (S4A),
which accelerate the “getting started with microcontrollers”
process.
While the modern hardware development tools for micro-
controllers have been considerably matured, the diverse soft-
ware development tools give rise to a thriving Tower of Babel,
when it comes to microcontroller education. Even the simplest
example of a blinking light emitter diode (LED) with 1 sec
delay between the ‘on’ and ‘off’ states, reveals inconsistency
in the syntax rules among diverse C compilers. It is worth
noting that the code developers using low-level programming
were struggling to make a passage among different assembly
languages, and the fact that this challenge still exists in
the modern programming methods for microcontrollers [4],
is remarkable in a negative sense.
III. R ESEARCH S TUDIES AND P ROGRESS IN
M ICROCONTROLLER E DUCATION
THE L AST T WENTY Y EARS
This section attempts a classification of the research studies
while also exploring the progress in microcontroller educa-
tion over a span of twenty years, that is, from 1998 to
2017. To support consistency in the classification, the infor-
mation obtained exclusively from IEEE Xplore database,
using the advanced search of phrases ‘microcontroller edu-
cation’ or ‘teaching microcontrollers’ within the index terms.
A preliminary examination of the 476 returned records showed
that only 170 entries (approximately 35%) direct the tutoring
sessions toward microcontroller learning. The rest entries
exploit the microcontroller device as a mean toward integrating
an application, so that students gain a comprehensive view
of a particular educational topic (other than microcontroller
learning). It is here noted that the approximately 10% of papers
excluded from further analysis as they were either marked by
IEEE to be in violation of the Publication Principles, or were
irrelevant (e.g., referring to the teaching of a microprocessor
model).
A. Educational Research in Learning Microcontroller
Programming and Relevant Application Development
A thorough examination of the 170 educational papers
that apply in this area of study revealed 5 different research
methods, the last 20 years, where one of them appears only
the last 10 years (i.e., from 2008 to 2017). The pie chart of
Fig. 1a) represents the four research methods (common in the
52 IEEE REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE TECNOLOGIAS DEL APRENDIZAJE, VOL. 14, NO. 2, MAY 2019
Fig. 1. Research methods (a, b) and papers (c) in microcontrollers’ tutoring.
last 20 years) as well as the percentage within each category
during the period 1998-2007. The 5 methods of the period
2008-2017 are given in Fig. 1b), where the exclusive method
(i.e., Technology Migration) of that period is separated from
the pie to provide a clear visualization. It should be noted
that papers incorporating two (or more) research methods
(e.g., an innovative teaching approach and a custom-designed
teaching tool) were considered as a part of a single category
only, in accordance with the highest weight of contribution of
the corresponding research method.
Table I presents the number of published papers of each
research method (in each period), while the bar graph of
Fig. 1c) depicts the number of published papers for each
year (2018 is also included in the graph). It is worth noting
that there is an increase of 430% to the published papers
in microcontroller education the period 2008-2017 (compared
to the period 1998-2007). Hereafter is presented a detailed
description of the kind of papers applying to each particular
research method.
1) Teaching Strategies: The papers associated to this cat-
egory apply to a teaching approach/strategy as revealed by
the indicative examples presented next. Tuma et al. [5] let
the students have a bad programming experience first before
starting over with the proper approach. Kramer et al. [6]
on the other hand, start the tutoring from the level of an
operating system and gradually move on to the direct hardware
access. Instructors in [7] discuss about the arrangements that
could attract more female students in microcontroller pro-
gramming courses, while the teaching strategies on embedded
C programming, in regard to a generated source code that
is straightforwardly adaptable by diverse compilers and/or
processor models, are given in [8].
Because the microcontroller unit constitutes the “brain” of
several different applications, about half of papers in this cat-
egory address a project-based learning (PBL) approach. That
is, a student-centered pedagogy that directs tutees to a deeper
learning competency, through the active exploration of a
realistic, major design problem [9]. For example, the students’
progressive design in [10] motivates their learning processes
over a microcontroller-based project, and helps them in devel-
oping skills required by a future professional career. A racing
contest using line-following robots (with the support of the
local branch of Microchip Corporation) motivates students
to learn all the skills that are included in the embedded
system design laboratory [11]. Moreover, an abundance of
PBL approaches attempt to train students to the development
of particular application systems as well as to the utilization
of modern technologies; e.g., the supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA) systems [12], the touch sensing
technologies [13], etc.
It is worth mentioning that the plethora of papers applying
to PBL approach appears the period 2008-2017. This high
percentage is in agreement with the advancement of micro-
controller technology along with the prevalence of a high-level
programming method for microcontrollers in the short-cycle
development era. The organization of a PBL-based course in
microcontrollers was not trivial in the long-cycle development.
The impractical hardware tools as well as the difficulties in
learning assembly language programming were opposed to
the arrangement of the tutoring over a large (and demanding)
microcontroller-based project.
2) Distance Education: The majority of papers in this
category apply to remotely-accessed experiments or labo-
ratories, which are observed in the literature in a regular
base (approximately) since 2005. For instance, Gomes and
Costa [14] propose an 8031 microcontroller-based setup to
support a set of experiments, so as to alleviate the labo-
ratory’s physical occupation. Zalewski [15] presents a web-
based lab for teaching (among others topics on embedded
systems) remote software development for microcontrollers.
The remote control of a microcontroller based modular system
in [16] is provided together with visual feedback through
a web camera. An overview of the available architectures
for microcomputer-based remote laboratories, along with a
proposition for additional support of a wireless sensor network
(WSN), is described in [17]. Remote experiments for indus-
trial training (on mechatronics and alternative technologies)
through three different microcontroller-based courses are given
in [18]. In addition, educators in [19] point out another
frequent reason for implementing remote experiments, that is,
the need to provide students access to expensive laboratory
equipments.
Due to the “distance” that exists between the students and
physical equipment in the remote laboratory experimentation
method, the virtual laboratory approach has also been consid-
ered to be part of this category (as it stands in opposition
to the hands-on experiments, as well). Particular examples
of this indirect method of experimentation (by means of a
mental engagement toward completing the experiments) are
given in [20]–[23].
BOLANAKIS: SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN MICROCONTROLLER EDUCATION
TABLE I
D ISTRIBUTION OF R ESEARCH M ETHODS (1998-2007 AND 2008-2017)
The pie chart of Fig. 1 reveals a decrease to the percentage
of distance education method the period 2008-2017 (that
is, 15%) compared to the period 1998-2007 (that is, 26%).
This is a logical consequence which arises from the merit
of teaching microcontrollers with hands-on hardware exper-
iments. One of the major reasons for arranging remotely-
accessed or virtual experiments relies on a demand to reduce
the cost of the laboratory apparatus. Due to the availability of
abundant low-cost development platforms for microcontrollers,
nowadays, there is no such motivation in regard to the labo-
ratory cost.
3) Teaching Tools: Two subcategories are available in this
group, as well. The former method applies to hardware kits
to support hands-on experience, while the latter applies to
software tools. The numerical superiority of the first approach
is clearly greater than the second one.
Accordingly, there are propositions on custom-designed
board systems that apply to a particular core of microcon-
trollers, such as the Freescale HC11 [24] (where a few models
of this family are currently supported by NPX), the Freescale
HC08 [25] (currently extended to the NPX S08 family),
the AVR ATmega32 [26] (recently purchased by Microchip
Inc), the INTEL 8051 [27] provided by various third-party
53
manufactures (such as, the Silicon Labs), etc. Other research
endeavors on hardware kits emphasize on the evaluation of
multi-microcontroller cores, by either developing universal
hardware kits [28]–[30] or exploiting commercial kits [31].
A few pedagogies focus on the development of take-home
kits [32], [33], or occasionally motivate students to purchase
their own commercial packages so they can work with them
whenever they wish [34]. Additional custom-designed boards
apply to the teaching of specific topics; e.g., mobile [35]
and wireless embedded systems [35], [36], sensor-based
systems [37], etc.
Software teaching tools regularly apply to custom-designed
simulators, which are addressed to help students visualize the
inner workings of a microcontroller device [1], [38] or of mul-
tiple microcontrollers with matching [39] or different archi-
tecture [40]. It is worth noting that simulators thrived during
the era of low-level microcontroller programming, while they
started to eliminate when the high-level programming methods
emerged. Propositions on educational technology in harmony
with the trends of the short-cycle development era, aim at
reducing the developer’s effort. In detail, Bai et al. [41] provide
an automated generation of the microcontroller initialization
code (based on user’s configuration), while Kato et al. [42],
54 IEEE REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE TECNOLOGIAS DEL APRENDIZAJE, VOL. 14, NO. 2, MAY 2019
enable an icon-based visual programming scheme (appropriate
for non-specialists students, as well).
According to Table I, the superiority of the papers dedi-
cated to hardware teaching tools (that is, 75%) is quite clear
compared to the corresponding papers dedicated to software
teaching tools (that is, 25%). On one hand, this occurrence
results from the fact that the assembly language has been
replaced with a higher-level of programming and hence,
the demand for custom-designed simulators has been elimi-
nated. On the other hand, the particular interest of educators
in hardware teaching tools reveals the society’s requirement
for a standardized educational platform, able to be utilized
by several diverse disciplines and various levels of education.
There is often required considerable effort just to trace and
identify (from an abundance of manufactures that deliver allied
electronic devices) the appropriate hardware module and/or
electronic chip for a custom-designed experiment. Moreover,
the incompatibility among different hardware tools for micro-
controllers motivates propositions on the arrangement of a
smooth conduct of the experimentation processes [31]. To this
end, it is worth noting that this area of research constitutes
the one and only method (common in the last 20 years) that
is not been subjected to a considerable decrease.
4) Share/Promote Practices: Quite a few researchers share
and/or promote their experience in teaching microcontrollers.
This may include an initiative to offer a professional course on
the up-to-date and advanced technologies. Indicative examples
are in line with the arrangement of a course on low-
power [43] and industry-standard [44] underlying technolo-
gies, or a course applying to the new cultures of application
development (such as, the DIY culture) [45], [46], etc. Allied
research in this category is in line with a promoting of the
educational experiences that should be addressed within the
curriculum [47], [48].
Other efforts that fall within this area, share an experience
on a mixed course related to the teaching of microcontroller
architecture and organization. The term architecture refers
to the microcomputer features that are “visible” to the pro-
grammer during the code development process. The term
organization is associated to the design of microcontroller’s
internal structure. The design process is usually carried out
with complex programmable logic device (CPLD) [49] or
Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) technology [50],
and commonly performed in a hardware description language
(HDL), usually VHDL or Verilog. Those mixed approaches in
HDL and sequential programming (e.g., embedded C), extend
further the learner’s perspective on the embedded computer
systems.
Because of the experiential nature of microcontroller edu-
cation, a sharing/promoting of practices can be considered the
most typical area of educational research with many differ-
ent aspects. Instructors may share an educational experience
arising from a) the application of one or more pedagogies in
the tutoring system, b) the application of particular hardware
technologies in the experimental processes, c) the impact of the
employed programming language (e.g. Python, C, Arduino) to
the results obtained by the students, and much more.
5) Technology Migration: For many years now, the micro-
controller technology periodically migrates to serve the needs
of education in engineering disciplines other than Elec-
tronic Engineering (e.g., BioEngineering [51], Mechanical
Engineering [51], [52], Aerospace Engineering [53], etc.)
However, the emergence of today’s DIY culture and the
consequent industry formation in the direction of ready-to-
use hardware development for microcontrollers, has intro-
duced pervasiveness of this technology to non-engineers,
as well. Hardware-based courses around microcontroller
units are nowadays offered to computer science students
(within software-orientated curricula) [54]–[56], while micro-
controllers (and/or microcontroller-like machines [57]) are
addressed for the teaching of Computer Architecture and
Introductory Programming courses [57]–[59].
Because microcontrollers constitute single-chip computer
systems, this technology is strongly associated with the com-
puter programming processes. Yet, the mutual relationship
between the firmware and hardware, along with the designer’s
intense involvement on both sides of the development, had
for long left software-orientated students outside the game.
The progress in hardware technology and the DIY effect on
building microcontroller-based systems with add-on boards
in a stacking configuration, allowed the entry of software
developers into the interesting and challenging world of
microcomputers. This fact is revealed by the emergence of
‘Technology Migration’ method (during the last 10 years) and
the equivalent share that holds in the pie chart of Fig. 1.
It is also evidenced by the (approximately 430%) increment
of published papers (during the same span) in microcontroller
education (Fig. 1).
According to Table I, the greater amount of published
papers in this area (that is, 62%) is strongly associated with
topics related to the discipline of computing. This occurrence
relies on the progress in embedded computer systems which,
nowadays, can be found almost anywhere, and influence/shape
the current educational landscape. The future challenges and
prospective direction in microcontroller education, the upcom-
ing decade, is discussed hereafter.
IV. F UTURE P ROSPECTS AND C HALLENGES
Programming is one the most popular areas in the discipline
of computing. One of the recent challenges of the discipline
is the shift of the traditional programming of PCs toward the
programming of embedded computer systems (ECS). The fact
that software engineering students might work on the program-
ming of ECS in their perspective career has (already from the
previous decade) been discussed in the literature [60]. Nowa-
days, some instructors attempt to introduce embedded software
development in K12 education [61], [62]. Because of the
technological advancement in embedded computer systems,
it is anticipated a considerable increase (the next ten years) in
the number of perspective research papers in microcontroller
education. This will most probably be a result of the absorption
of microcontroller technology in K12 education, in a similar
way Scratch programming language [63] has been absorbed
BOLANAKIS: SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN MICROCONTROLLER EDUCATION
at all levels of education. It could be said that it is a demand
of today’s maker movement in education (that is, the shift
away from the ready-made knowledge to a classroom which
engages students in creativity, innovation and collaboration
through building, rather just using things [64]), where a large
share of makers incorporates microcontroller technology in
diverse areas of innovation (e.g., in science, art, music, and
so forth). Of course, this will not be easy as the microcom-
puter programming and application development differs a lot
from the corresponding procedure in a conventional personal
computer, mainly due to the non-standard ‘input/output (IO)
interfacing with the outside world’ along with the fact that
the conventional microcontroller technology does not run an
operating system (OS).
It is worth noting the abstraction processes are more effec-
tive and clear when applied to a personal computer rather
than a microcontroller of no operating system. Today’s add-on
peripheral modules for microcontrollers, such as the familiar
Arduino, are delivered with shareable libraries that hide the
composite configuration and readout processes, and provide
designers with a simplified interface to the outside world.
However, the OS-less microcontroller technology does not
provide the possibility of reusing the prototype libraries in
diverse software and hardware development platforms [4], [8].
Moreover, some authors have highlighted the loss of ability
to design Arduino-based systems by students due to the vast
amount of information generated by the maker movement [65].
Martínez-Santos et al. [65] identified 4 categories in the
Arduino platform when attempting to solve a design problem
in a more efficient way (e.g. reduced power consumption,
higher rate of instruction execution, etc.). It can therefore
be concluded that the contribution of DIY culture and maker
movement has certainly brought revolution and introduced the
application development with microcontrollers to a broader
audience, but it is not a panacea for educational issues. Many
issues still need to be explored and solved so as to facilitate the
absorption of microcontroller technology at various disciplines
as well as levels of education.
V. C ONCLUSION
This communication identified two fundamental eras in
the advancement of microcontroller programming and appli-
cation development (that is, the short-cycle and long-cycle
development era) and discussed the corresponding trends and
risks in education. Then, a survey of research in microcon-
troller education (over two decades) revealed five elemental
research categories: (a) Teaching Strategies, (b) Distance Edu-
cation, (c) Teaching Tools, (d) Share/Promote Practices, and
(e) Technology Migration (with the final approach being
emerged the latter decade).
In regard to the research area (a), the advancement of tech-
nology along with the prevalence of a high-level programming
method for microcontrollers (in the short-cycle development
era), promoted the arrangement of the tutoring around a
project-based learning (PBL) approach (found to be the domi-
nant pedagogy in microcontroller education the latter decade).
The merit of learning microcontrollers with hands-on hard-
ware experiments, along with the widespread dissemination
55
of low-cost hardware development platforms for microcon-
trollers, caused a decrease (the period 2008-2017) to the
number of published papers of research area (b).
In consideration of the research area (c), the replace-
ment of the assembly language programming method with
a higher-level of programming reduced the research plan for
custom-designed simulators (which constituted the fundamen-
tal software teaching tools of the long-cycle development
era). On the other hand, the particularly increased interest
of educators in hardware teaching tools reveals the soci-
ety’s requirement for a standardized educational platform for
microcontrollers. This requirement maintains the percentage
of published papers the periods 1998-2007 and 2008-2017,
which fall within this research area.
Because of the experiential nature of microcontroller edu-
cation, research area (d) can be considered as being the most
ordinary area of educational research with many different
aspects. For instance, a sharing of experience may rely on
the application of one or more pedagogies in the tutoring
system, the application of particular hardware technologies in
the experimental processes, and so forth.
The research method (e), exclusively present in the years
2008-2017, reveals the maturing of microcontroller technology
which renders feasible their migration to diverse scientific and
engineering disciplines. Because of the progress in embedded
computer systems nowadays (which can be found almost
anywhere, and hence influence/shape the current educational
landscape) 62% of the published papers in this area are
associated with topics from the computing discipline. This
eventuality is related to the high probability of software engi-
neering students to work on the programming of embedded
computer systems in their perspective career.
Programming is one the most popular areas in the discipline
of computing. The recent shift of the traditional programming
of personal computers toward the programming of embed-
ded computer systems forecasts a considerable increase (the
next years) in the number of perspective research papers
in microcontroller education. This fact is evidenced by the
approximately 430% increment of the overall published papers
the period 2008-2017, as well as by the new research area
(referred to as Technology Migration) which was emerged
during the same period. Yet, the increased interest of educators
in hardware teaching tools (in spite of the abundant availability
of modern training platforms for microcontrollers) reveals the
current limitation of a standardized training model in micro-
controllers, able to be utilized by several diverse disciplines
and various levels of education.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. del Rio and J. J. R. Andina, “UV151: A simulation tool for
teaching/learning the 8051 microcontroller,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu.
Conf. (FIE), Kansas City, MO, USA, 2000, pp. F4E:11–F4E:16
[2] D. E. Bolanakis, E. Glavas, and G. A. Evangelakis, “An integrated
microcontroller-based tutoring system for computer architecture labora-
tory course,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 785–798, Jul. 2007.
[3] D. E. Bolanakis, G. A. Evangelakis, E. Glavas, and
K. T. Kotsis, “A teaching approach for bridging the gap between
low-level and high-level programming using assembly language
learning for small microcontrollers,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 525–537, Apr. 2009. doi: 10.1002/cae.20333.
56 IEEE REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE TECNOLOGIAS DEL APRENDIZAJE, VOL. 14, NO. 2, MAY 2019
[4] D. E. Bolanakis, “Microcontroller education: Do it yourself, reinvent
the wheel, code to learn,” in Synthesis Digital Library of Engineering
and Computer Science—Synthesis Lectures on Mechanical Engineering
(Collection Nine). San Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan & Claypool, 2017,
p. 193.
[5] T. Tuma, I. Faifar, and J. Puhan, “The principle of vaccination in
teaching,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), San Juan, Puerto Rico,
1999, pp. 11B4:16–11B4:20.
[6] M. Kramer, R. Beneder, and P. Brejcha, “Reducing the entrance hurdle
in embedded systems engineering courses,” in Proc. IEEE EUROCON,
Lisbon, Portugal, Apr. 2011, pp. 1–4.
[7] P. Brejcha, M. Kramer, and R. Beneder, “Increasing the attractivity
of embedded systems courses,” in Proc. IEEE EDUCON, Marrakech,
Morocco, Apr. 2012, pp. 1–9.
[8] A. K. Rachioti, D. E. Bolanakis, and E. Glavas, “Teaching strate-
gies for the development of adaptable (compiler, vendor/processor
independent) embedded C code,” in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Inf. Tech-
nol. Based Higher Edu. Training (ITHET), Istanbul, Turkey, 2016,
pp. 1–7.
[9] M. Hedley, “An undergraduate microcontroller systems laboratory,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 41, no. 4, p. 345, Nov. 1998. doi:
10.1109/13.728278.
[10] J. W. Bruce, J. C. Harden, and R. B. Reese, “Cooperative and progressive
design experience for embedded systems,” IEEE Trans. Edu., vol. 47,
no. 1, pp. 83–92, Feb. 2004. doi: 10.1109/TE.2003.817618.
[11] C. S. Lee, J. H. Su, K. E. Lin, J. H. Chang, and G. H. Lin, “A project-
based laboratory for learning embedded system design with industry
support,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 173–181, May 2010.
doi: 10.1109/TE.2008.2010990.
[12] A. K. R. Segund, J. A. N. Cocota, R. Q. Hilário, V. O. de Gomide, and
D. V. M. Ferreira, “Low cost SCADA system for education,” in Proc.
IEEE EDUCON, Tallinn, Estonia, 2015, pp. 536–542.
[13] N. He, H.-W. Huang, and Y. Qian, “Teaching touch sensing technologies
through project-based learning,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE),
Erie, PA, USA, Oct. 2016, pp. 1–7.
[14] L. Gomes and A. Costa, “Remote laboratory support for an introductory
microprocessor course,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Microelectron. Syst.
Edu., Anaheim, CA, USA, Jun. 2005, pp. 21–22.
[15] J. Zalewski, “A comprehensive embedded systems lab for teaching Web-
based remote software development,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Softw. Eng.
Edu., Training, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Mar. 2010, pp. 113–120.
[16] J. V. Martínez, R. M. Bejarano, R. S. Reillo, and R. M. Bolea, “Virtualab,
a teaching/learning system for 8 and 32 bits microcontrollers,” in Proc.
IEEE EDUCON, Madrid, Spain, Apr. 2010, pp. 1419–1423.
[17] D. Fudurić, D. Cmuk, P. Knežević, and S. Mrvoš, “Assimilation of
wireless sensor networks and remote microcomputer laboratories,” in
Proc. 34th Int. Conv. Inf. Commun. Technol., Electron. Microelectron.
(MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 2011, pp. 1075–1083.
[18] O. Dziabenko, A. Rojko, I. Angulo, J. Garcia-Zubia, and P. Orduna,
“Training of microcontrollers using remote experiments,” in Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. Remote Eng. Virtual Instrum. (REV), Bilbao, Spain, 2012,
pp. 1–6.
[19] H. Mostefaoui and A. Benachenhou, “Design of a remote elec-
tronic laboratory,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Interact. Mobile Com-
mun. Technol. Learn. (IMCL), Thessaloniki, Greece, Nov. 2015,
pp. 160–162.
[20] J. Richardson, N. Adamo-Villani, E. Carpenter, and G. Moore, “Design-
ing and implementing a virtual 3D microcontroller laboratory envi-
ronment,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), San Diego, CA, USA,
Oct. 2006, pp. 1–5.
[21] W. Xinhuan, Z. Hongwei, G. Qinghua, and Z. Wei, “the construction
of single-chip microcomputer virtual experiment platform based on
proteus,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Educ. (ICCSE), Hefei,
China, 2010, pp. 609–611.
[22] R. Mohanty and A. Routray, “Advanced virtual embedded system
laboratory,” in Proc. 2nd Interdiscipl. Eng. Design Edu. Conf. (IEDEC),
Sanata Clara, CA, USA, 2012, pp. 92–95.
[23] J. V. V. Sánchez, J. A. M. Zamora, and F. J. A. García, “Virtual lab
for digital systems,” in Proc. Technol. Appl. Electron. Teaching (TAEE),
Seville, Spain, 2016, pp. 1–7.
[24] B. R. Horowitz, R. J. Recltenwald, P. A. Kute, and T. G. Cleaver,
“Updating an instructional laboratory for a computer interfacing course:
A flexible configuration based on the M68HC11 microcontroller,” in
Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, 1999,
pp. 13C6:1–13C6:6.
[25] D. E. Bolanakis, E. Glavas, and G. A. Evangelakis, “A multidisciplinary
educational board system for microcontrollers: Considerations in design
for technically accurate custom-made platforms,” in Proc. 1st Int. Symp.
Inf. Technol. Appl. Edu., Kunming, China, 2007, pp. 391–395.
[26] G. Mostafa, “Development of an 8-bit RISC microcontroller learning
kit using atmel ATmega32 architecture,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Electr.
Eng. (ICAEE), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013, pp. 154–159.
[27] M. U. Kamaluddin, S. Shahbudin, N. M. Isa, and H. Z. Abidin,
“Teaching the Intel 8051 microcontroller with hands-on hardware exper-
iments,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Eng. Educ. (ICEED), Kanazawa, Japan,
Nov. 2015, pp. 100–105.
[28] A. Drumea, P. Svasta, and A. Vasile, “Universal development board for
education in embedded systems,” in Proc. Int. Spring Seminar Electron.
Technol., Budapest, Hungary, 2008, pp. 575–578.
[29] R. S. K. Selvakumar, K. H. Ghazali, N. M. K. N. Yusoff, and
H. AbdulAziz, “Learning embedded systems with multi-microcontroller
evaluation tool,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Electr., Control Comput. Eng.
(INECCE), Malaysia, 2011, pp. 288–292.
[30] V. K. Abdrakhmanov, N. N. Bikbaev, and R. B. Salikhov, “Devel-
opment of low-cost electronic training boards based on universal
microcontroller,” in Proc. 13th Int. Sci.-Tech. Conf. Actual Prob-
lems Electron. Instrum. Eng. (APEIE), Novosibirsk, Russia, 2016,
pp. 319–325.
[31] D. E. Bolanakis, A. K. Rachioti, and E. Glavas, “Nowadays trends
in microcontroller education: Do we educate engineers or electronic
hobbyists? Recommendation on a multi-platform method and system
for lab training activities,” in Proc. IEEE EDUCON, Athens, Greece,
Apr. 2017, pp. 73–77.
[32] C. Ma, Q. Li, Z. Liu, and Y. Jin, “Low cost AVR microcontroller devel-
opment kit for undergraduate laboratory and take-home pedagogies,” in
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Edu. Technol. Comput. (ICETC), Shanghai, China,
2010, pp. V1-35–V1-38.
[33] J. Sarik and I. Kymissis, “Lab kits using the Arduino prototyping
platform,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), Washington, DC, USA,
2010, pp. T3C:1–T3C:5.
[34] O. H. Graven and J. Bjørk, “The use of an Arduino pocket lab to
increase motivation in electrical engineering students for programming,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Teaching, Assessment, Learn. Eng. (TALE), Bangkok,
Thailand, 2016, pp. 239–243.
[35] K. Kosturik and P. Weissar, “Application of microcontrollers in education
based on mobile platform,” in Proc. IEEE EUROCON, Belgrade, Serbia,
Nov. 2005, pp. 902–905.
[36] J.-S. Chenard, Z. Zilic, and M. Prokic, “A laboratory setup and
teaching methodology for wireless and mobile embedded systems,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 378–384, Aug. 2008. doi:
10.1109/TE.2008.919690.
[37] A. Kommu, N. K. Uttarkar, and R. R. Kanchi, “Design and development
of sensor-based mini projects for embedded system laboratory using
ARM Cortex-M3(LPC1768),” in Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Embed-
ded Syst. (ICICES), Chennai, India, 2014, pp. 1–6.
[38] G. Malhotra, N. Atri, and S. R. Sarangi, “emuARM: A tool for teaching
the ARM assembly language,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. e-Learn. e-
Technol. Edu. (ICEEE), Lodz, Poland, 2013, pp. 115–120.
[39] A. del Rio, J. J. Rodriguez-Andina, and A. A. Nogueiras-Melendez,
“Learning microcontrollers with a CAI oriented multi-micro simulation
environment,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 44, no. 2, p. 197, May 2001. doi:
10.1109/13.925846.
[40] B. Deaky, N. B. Lupulescu, and D. Ursutiu, “Extended educational use
of the microcontroller student learning kit (MCU SLK),” in Proc. IEEE
EDUCON, Amman, Jordan, Apr. 2011, pp. 913–916.
[41] G. Y. Bai, E. S. Chng, and G. P. Bhanu, “An MCU descrip-
tion methodology for initialization code generation software,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Parallel Distrib. Syst., Hsinchu, Taiwan, Dec. 2007,
pp. 1–7.
[42] Y. Kato, “Splish: A visual programming environment for Arduino to
accelerate physical computing experiences,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf.
Creating Connecting Collaborating Through Comput. (C5), La Jolla,
CA, USA, 2010, pp. 3–10.
[43] D. Ursutiu, C. Samoilǎ, V. Nascov, and M. Moga, “Microcontroller
technologies in low power applications,” in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Interact.
Collaborative Learn. (ICL), Villach, Austria, Sep. 2012, pp. 1–5.
[44] N. Alaraje, A. Sergeyev, J. Reutter, C. Kief, B. Matar, and D. Hata,
“Technology driven university and community college collaboration:
Faculty training on ARM microcontrollers,” in Proc. Portland Int.
Conf. Manage. Eng. Technol. (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2016,
pp. 1681–1687.
BOLANAKIS: SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN MICROCONTROLLER EDUCATION
[45] P. J. S. Ruiz, F. D. T. Aguilera, F. J. S. Pacheco, and A. P. Ruz,
“Towards the implementation of a personal learning environment in
microprocessors by DIY method,” in Proc. Technol. Appl. Electron.
Teaching (TAEE), Bilbao, Spain, 2014, pp. 1–7.
[46] A. A. Galadima, “Arduino as a learning tool,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf.
Electron., Comput. Comput. (ICECCO), Abuja, Nigeria, 2014, pp. 1–4.
[47] M. Bezdek, D. Helvick, R. Mercado, D. Rover, A. Tyagi, and Z. Zhang,
“Developing and teaching an integrated series of courses in embedded
computer systems,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), San Diego, CA,
USA, 2006, pp. 19–24.
[48] V. F. de Lucena, J. P. de Queiroz-Neto, I. B. Benchimol, A. P. Mendonca,
V. R. da Silva, and M. F. Filho, “Teaching software engineering for
embedded systems: An experience report from the manaus research and
development pole,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu. Conf. (FIE), Milwaukee, WI,
USA, 2007, pp. S4C:3–S4C:8.
[49] N. Bencheva, N. Kostadinov, and Y. Ruseva, “Interdisciplinary projects
in teaching ‘microprocessor systems,”’ in Proc. 20th Eur. Assoc. Edu.
Electr. Inf. Eng. (EAEEIE), Valencia, Spain, Jun. 2009, pp. 1–4.
[50] G. Morison and P. Barrie, “An integrated approach to teaching embedded
systems early in the curriculum—Flip flops to PONG,” in Proc. 5th Eur.
DSP Edu. Res. Conf. (EDERC), Valencia, Spain, 2012, pp. 169–172.
[51] S. Su, J. Kerwin, S. Crowe, J. Cavallaro, and G. L. Woods, “Teach-
ing embedded programming to electrical engineers, BioEngineers, and
mechanical engineers via the escape platform,” in Proc. 3rd Interdis-
cipl. Eng. Design Edu. Conf. (IEDEC), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2013,
pp. 87–92.
[52] R. Grepl, “Real-time control prototyping in MATLAB/simulink: Review
of tools for research and education in mechatronics,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Mechatronics (ICM), Istanbul, Turkey, 2011, pp. 881–886.
[53] L. Gil-Sánchez, R. Masot, and M. Alcañiz, “Teaching electronics to
aeronautical engineering students by developing projects,” IEEE Rev.
Iberoamericana Tecnol. Aprendizaje, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 282–289,
Nov. 2015. doi: 10.1109/RITA.2015.2486398.
[54] S. Ristov, M. Stolikj, and N. Ackovska, “Awakening curiosity—
Hardware education for computer science students,” in Proc. 34th
Int. Conv. Inf. Commun. Technol., Electron. Microelectron. (MIPRO),
Opatija, Croatia, 2011, pp. 1275–1280.
[55] N. Ackovska and S. Ristov, “Hands-on improvements for efficient
teaching computer science students about hardware,” in Proc. IEEE
EDUCON, Berlin, Germany, Mar. 2013, pp. 295–302.
[56] N. Ackovska and S. Ristov, “OER approach for specific student
groups in hardware-based courses,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 57, no. 4,
pp. 242–247, Nov. 2014. doi: 10.1109/TE.2014.2327007.
[57] N. L. Ribas-Xirgo, “Yet another simple processor (YASP) for
introductory courses on computer architecture,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 3317–3323, Oct. 2014. doi:
10.1109/TIE.2010.2044118.
57
[58] D. C.-T. Lo, K. Qian, and L. Hong, “The use of low cost portable
microcontrollers in teaching undergraduate computer architecture and
organization,” in Proc. 2nd Integr. STEM Edu. Conf. (ISEC), Ewing,
NJ, USA, Mar. 2012, pp. 1–4.
[59] J. O. Hamblen, Z. C. Smith, and W. W. Woo, “Introducing embedded
systems in the first C/C++ programming class,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Microelectron. Syst. Edu. (MSE), Austin, TX, USA, 2013, pp. 1–4.
[60] M. Anguita and F. J. Fernandez-Baldomero, “Software optimization
for improving student motivation in a computer architecture course,”
IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 373–378, Nov. 2007. doi:
10.1109/TE.2007.906603.
[61] M. Gasser, Y.-H. Lu, and C.-K. Koh, “Outreach project introducing
computer engineering to high school students,” in Proc. Frontiers Edu.
Conf. (FIE), Washington, DC, USA, 2010, pp. F2E:1–F2E:5.
[62] F. Geth et al., “Development of an open-source smart energy house
for K-12 education,” in Proc. Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting (PES),
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[63] M. Resnick et al., “Scratch: Programming for all,” Commun. ACM,
vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 60–67, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1592761.1592779.
[64] T. Roffey, C. Sverko, and J. Therien, “The making of a makerspace:
Pedagogical and physical transformations of teaching and learning
(curriculum guide),” Univ. British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada,
2016, p. 40.
[65] J. C. Martínez-Santos, O. Acevedo-Patino, and S. H. Contreras-Ortiz,
“Influence of Arduino on the development of advanced microcontrollers
courses,” IEEE Rev. Iberoam. Tecnol. Aprendizaje, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 208–217, Nov. 2017. doi: 10.1109/RITA.2017.2776444.
Dimosthenis E. Bolanakis received the B.S. degree in electronic engineering
from the Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki,
Greece, in 2001, the M.S. degree in modern electronic technologies from
the Department of Physics, University of Ioannina, Greece, in 2004, and the
Ph.D. degree in education sciences from the Department of Primary Education,
University of Ioannina, Greece, in 2016.
From 2003 to 2009, he was a Laboratory Associate with the Epirus
Educational Institute of Technology for the teaching of microcomputer archi-
tecture while also participating in research projects for reinforcing informatics’
education and broadening higher education. He was with industry from
2010 to 2014. He joined European System Sensors SA in 2014. Since 2014,
he has been with the Special Lab & Teaching Personnel, Hellenic Air Force
Academy, Greece. He has coauthored over 30 papers, mainly on research in
engineering education.