Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement
Learning with agency: Ball Detection Using Deep Learning Implemented on an Educational Robot Based on Raspberry Pi
AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.
Evidence and context
Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Secondary school. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.
Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:
RoboCupJunior is a project-oriented competition for primary and secondary school students that promotes robotics, computer science and programing. Through real life scenarios, students are encouraged to engage in robotics in order to help people. One of the popular categories is Rescue Line, in which an autonomous robot has to find and rescue victims. The victim is in the shape of a silver ball that reflects light and is electrically conductive. The robot should find the victim and place it in the evacuation zone. Teams mostly detect victims (balls) using random walk or distant sensors. In this preliminary study, we explored the possibility of using a camera, Hough transform (HT) and deep learning methods for finding and locating balls with the educational mobile robot Fischertechnik with Raspberry Pi (RPi). We trained, tested and validated the performance of different algorithms (convolutional neural networks for object detection and U-NET architecture for sematic segmentation) on a handmade dataset made of images of balls in different light conditions and surroundings. RESNET50 was the most accurate, and MOBILENET_V3_LARGE_320 was the fastest object detection method, while EFFICIENTNET-B0 proved to be the most accurate, and MOBILENET_V2 was the fastest semantic segmentation method on the RPi. HT was by far the fastest method, but produced significantly worse results. These methods were then implemented on a robot and tested in a simplified environment (one silver ball with white surroundings and different light conditions) where HT had the best ratio of speed and accuracy (4.71 s, DICE 0.7989, IoU 0.6651). The results show that microcomputers without GPUs are still too weak for complicated deep learning algorithms in real-time situations, although these algorithms show much higher accuracy in complicated environment situations.
What kind of evidence is this?
Embodied learning agents · Design requires full-text appraisal
Stage: Secondary school. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.
Limitations and uncertainty · source passage
However, the results also indicate that implementing deep neural networks on programmable devices, such as Raspberry Pi and educational robots, can be challenging due to their complexity and limitations in processing power. The processing time on Raspberry Pi is generally much higher than on Colab, and some algorithms, such as EFFICIENTNET-B2, show a significant drop in performance on Raspberry Pi compared to Colab.
Design the system before the pilot
Compare the embodied interaction with an equivalent human-led or screen-based activity. Separate the effects of novelty and social presence from learning. Review physical access, sensory needs and adult supervision.
- Measure engagement separately from achievement. Check whether novelty-driven participation persists and whether it translates to independent performance.
A 90-day district pilot
- Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
- Days 16–30 · Design. Ask learners to attempt a problem unaided, compare an agent hint, explain a revision and verify the final reasoning against a trusted source. Make the permitted use explicit for each assignment. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
- Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
- Days 61–90 · Decide. Measure unaided transfer and delayed retention, calibration of confidence and the ability to identify an incorrect AI explanation. Record whether help-seeking becomes answer copying. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.
The board decision brief
Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.
Attribution and reuse
Dominik Keča; Ivan Kunović; Jakov Matić; Ana Sovic Krzic. Ball Detection Using Deep Learning Implemented on an Educational Robot Based on Raspberry Pi. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) (2023-04-18). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23084071
Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.