Session: Working Group Presentations ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy

Courses, Content, and Tools for Internet of Things in Computer

Science Education
Barry Burd∗ Lecia Barker Monica Divitini
Drew University University of Colorado Boulder Norwegian University of Science and
USA USA Technology
bburd@drew.edu barkerl@colorado.edu Norway
divitini@idi.ntnu.no

Felix Armando Fermin Perez Ingrid Russell Bill Siever

National University of San Marcos University of Hartford Washington University in St. Louis
Perú USA USA
fferminp@unmsm.edu.pe irussell@hartford.edu bsiever@gmail.com

Liviana Tudor
Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti
University Politehnica of Bucharest
Romania
tudor.liviana@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Smart devices are everywhere, yet the Internet of Things revolution
is still in its infancy. In the Internet of Things (IoT) everyday ob-
jects share data over networks, with or without human intervention.
Teaching IoT entails selecting among many technical and social top-
ics, such as hardware, networking, data storage, data analysis, data
presentation, human-computer interaction, platforms, embedded
systems programming, web technologies, ethics, privacy, and secu-
rity. In addition to the many variations on each of these topics, other
challenges for computer science educators include connecting and
integrating hardware and software, finding adequate physical space
and infrastructure, preparing instructors and teaching assistants
for the content, and implementing realistic security measures. This
report considers four major approaches computer science educators
are using to integrate IoT concepts and courses into their curricula,
summarizes the choices and challenges related to teaching IoT, and
describes some tools that allow new IoT teachers to get started.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Social and professional topics → Computer science educa-
tion; Computer engineering education; Computational sci-
ence and engineering education; Professional topics;
∗ Working Group Leader
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a
fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
ITICSE-WGR’17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
© 2017 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5627-5/17/07. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3174781.3174788
KEYWORDS
Internet of Things; IoT technologies; Computer Science Education
ACM Reference Format:
Barry Burd, Lecia Barker, Monica Divitini, Felix Armando Fermin Perez,
Ingrid Russell, Bill Siever, and Liviana Tudor. 2017. Courses, Content, and
Tools for Internet of Things in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings
of ITiCSE 2017 Working Group Reports (ITICSE-WGR’17). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3174781.3174788
1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATIONS
Self-driving cars, thermostats, door locks, pet feeders, light bulbs,
wearables of all kinds, and smart materials for manufacturing all
belong to the new Internet of Things (IoT). IoT integrates sensors
and cloud computing to allow for object-to-object communication
for use in many application areas, such as in smart cities, homes and
buildings, energy and power grid management, health, transporta-
tion and mobility, manufacturing, environmental monitoring, and
many more. These few examples show the potentially pervasive
and transformative impact IoT can have on people and businesses.
Definitions for IoT are plentiful, as discussed in the 86-page re-
port of the IEEE IoT Initiative [47]. Several published pedagogical
works that reference a definition of IoT also use the ITU’s “Overview
of the Internet of things” [58] (Cited by [15], [11], [39]). Simply
stated, the Internet of Things refers to a multi-layered system that
includes hardware devices that communicate data across the Inter-
net. The data are analyzed either manually or automatically, and
transformed into usable information. The goal of this paper is not
to define IoT, but to support computer and information science ed-
ucators in making decisions about how to teach this multi-layered
sociotechnical system.
Postsecondary computer and information science educators offer
several motivations for teaching IoT concepts, such as:

125
Session: Working Group Presentations
• IoT is a significant trend in industry and today’s students
will need to understand how to develop and maintain these
systems.
• IoT is inherently interdisciplinary and may introduce com-
puting in a way that broadens participation in computing.
• IoT systems span significant aspects of contemporary com-
puting, including embedded systems, networking, client–
server architectures, cloud services, service-oriented archi-
tectures, and human-computer interaction.
• IoT provides a rich opportunity to engage students by show-
ing an application domain that is part of their daily life and
may show them broader applications of computing.
• IoT can extend students’ knowledge areas as they produce,
analyze, and use data to maintain systems or build solutions
in ethical and secure ways.
Teaching IoT, however, requires addressing several challenging
questions, such as: How will we integrate IoT concepts and tech-
nologies into existing curricula? How will we handle the mix of
software and hardware topics that most IoT projects involve? How
will we deal with the legal, social, and ethical issues? How will we
choose from the growing number of IoT industry standards? What
kinds of equipment and lab spaces are optimal for small, medium,
and large-scale programs, and how will we budget for all this? What
are the opportunities for interdisciplinary studies? How will we
leverage the enthusiasm students feel when they create projects
that go beyond text, beyond graphics, beyond virtual reality and
into the tactile, three-dimensional, realm of moving real-world ob-
jects? With the goal of supporting postsecondary educators who
are considering teaching IoT either out of interest or because they
are so assigned, we turned to the community of educators paving
the way. The research questions we address in this report are:
Q1 Which types of IoT courses are currently offered?
Q2 What content and technologies currently dominate the
postsecondary IoT course landscape?
To answer these questions, we conducted a review of existing
post-secondary courses, literature reporting experiences with IoT
in education, and tools that have been or could be used in the edu-
cational context. We also interviewed a small group of instructors
who have taught courses covering IoT topics. We present our find-
ings below, with the report proceeding as follows. In Section 2, we
describe our methodological choices for conducting this study. In
Section 3, we present four categories of existing courses that we
found and provide examples of each. Section 4 addresses the kinds
of decisions instructors must make in teaching IoT for the first time
and Section 5 presents examples of tools for getting a quick start
and for teaching novice computer science students. Section 6 dis-
cusses what we perceive as potential challenges and opportunities
for the teaching of IoT.
2 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
The purpose of conducting this review was to collect and present
ideas to support postsecondary faculty who plan to or are asked
to teach Internet of Things, but who have no or little experience
doing so. We focused primarily on undergraduate educators. We
compiled a set of information for review based on the formalized
criteria described in this section. To develop this information set, we
126
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
searched the Internet and specialized databases and we conducted
interviews with educators. The criteria for search and selection as
well as the guiding interview questions are described below.
2.1 Search for Courses and Articles
We conducted a search of IoT courses online using different search
approaches. First, we searched on popular sites listing open on-
line courses and aggregators (e.g., Coursera, Class-Central) for the
search strings “internet of things” and “IoT”. Second, we conducted
a broad search using the terms “internet of things” or “IoT” and
“course” and “syllabus” and/or “.edu”. In our initial search, we iden-
tified and reviewed 17 courses from U.S., Swedish, and Norwegian
universities.
We searched for articles describing definitions, experience re-
ports with specific course approaches or components, and curricu-
lum using a general web search, Google Scholar, the ACM Digital
Library, and the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. These sources index
papers published in education-related conference proceedings, jour-
nals, and magazines relevant to computing education. Search terms
include “internet of things” or “IoT” and words related to teaching,
such as “education”, “pedagogy”, “teaching”, “course”, “curriculum”,
and “learning”. These searches yielded hundreds of results before
we filtered them using the following selection criteria. We selected
articles that were:
• Full papers, written in English language, and published in
reputable proceedings or journals (i.e., most cited and con-
sidered reliable by computing educators).
• With the exception of articles defining IoT in general, were
focused on teaching students to develop or participate in the
development of IoT systems in various ways, but not, for
example, how IoT might change how we teach (e.g., creating
“smart lectures” by using real-time data) or machine learning
approaches for analyzing IoT data.
• Focused on postsecondary education, primarily at the un-
dergraduate level. That is, we did not choose articles that
described experiences or tools for primary or secondary
education except when these could also be used at the post-
secondary level. We found articles focused on graduate cer-
tifications, which we reviewed for course topics.
• Focused on formal education, not informal education, boot
camps, or corporate or other specialized training (e.g., the
IBM Watson IoT Summit).
• Items that did not appear in our initial search, but were cited
from our initial set and met the above criteria.
This search resulted in 24 experience reports of teaching, nine
definitional papers, 19 descriptions of the use or components of
specific tools or toolkits, and 11 descriptions of curriculum more
generally (that is, series of courses or how IoT concepts fits into
computing curriculum more broadly).
2.2 Interviews
Six semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper un-
derstanding of choices behind syllabi and course descriptions found
online. Interviewees were selected based on convenience: people to
whom we reached out through email and who were willing to talk
on the phone. Qualitative data can provide deeper, more nuanced
Session: Working Group Presentations
understanding of specific cases, though it is not intended to be
generalizable. Guiding questions fell in four categories, curricular,
course mechanics, content, and reflections:
Curricular motivation for the course; intended audience and
level; pre-requisites to a course; working definition of IoT;
other contextual information (e.g., when first taught).
Mechanics style of delivery; structure of assessment; resources
needed and how these are supplied.
Content topics covered and time on each; use made of the data
generated by devices and preparation of students for analyz-
ing data; content industry wants taught; topics taught purely
as pre-requisite material rather than being fundamental IoT
topics.
Reflections what might be done differently and why; what
worked and what did not; what is missing or under-covered;
awareness of other IoT courses we should consider for this
study.
Insights from interviewees are integrated throughout the report
rather than appearing in their own section.
2.3 Analysis of Documents
Depending on the purpose of the document, (e.g., syllabus or other
course guide; description of an evaluated teaching approach), or
interview notes, we identified several course components (if de-
scribed):
• Course content in general; e.g., what is covered (design,
electronics, communication and networking, programming,
cloud concepts, data analytics, societal challenges including
security, ethics, and privacy)
• Purpose of offering course (e.g., engage students)
• How the course fits into the curriculum of the author (elec-
tive/required; introductory/depth; etc.)
• Depth topics
• Hardware devices used
• Networking topics addressed
• Programming languages used
• Security topics: vulnerabilities and how to avoid them
• Privacy (when addressed)
• Use cases
In reviewing the course syllabi, interview notes, and articles, pat-
terns emerged in terms of the nature of courses, their content, and
technologies used. In particular, we identified four common course
approaches, which we present in Section 3. In Section 4, we de-
scribe typical topics we found across the documents. In Section 5,
we describe many tools and kits that educators can choose from for
a quick start to teaching IoT.
3 EXISTING COURSE APPROACHES: STATE
OF PRACTICE
The literature on IoT covers a few different, but often overlapping,
topics that may be of interest to those hoping to include IoT in their
programs:
• Correspondence with ACM and/or IEEE-CS curriculum or
accreditation ( [14, 40, 63])
127
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
• Development efforts to include IoT in existing programs or
create new programs/degrees/certificates ([11, 30, 40, 52])
• Experience reports, including overview of topics, from teach-
ing IoT topics ([8, 13, 16, 18, 22, 37, 39, 43, 49, 56])
• Tools of facilities to support IoT courses ([10, 27, 29, 41, 64])
In reviewing this literature, course descriptions, syllabi, and inter-
viewees’ comments, we identified four general categories of courses
that integrate IoT. Some departments offer single courses either
as introductions of IoT or to describe use cases that employ IoT;
some integrate IoT concepts into multiple courses; and some offer a
series of courses that build a broader understanding of IoT concepts,
often leading to a certificate or other certification. In the following
sections, we describe these categories and present examples of each.
We do not pretend to present all possible examples as of this writing,
nor does any single course epitomize the category. Nevertheless,
we hope that these descriptions will inspire readers to plan their
own offerings.
3.1 Category 1: Broad Introduction to Internet
of Things Concepts in a Single Course
This category of course is intended to provide an overview of IoT.
Depending on the course level, this course may or may not go into
depth in any particular aspects of IoT, but familiarizes students with
concepts. Courses of this kind vary from introductory (involving
no prerequisites) to intermediate and advanced (involving prereq-
uisites from computer science, information science, engineering,
or all of these). One might use IoT as an introductory course to
support student learning of computation through tangible objects.
Course topics might include:
• System or product design
• Introductory electronics
• Communication and networking topics
• Programming
• Cloud concepts
• Data analytics
• Societal challenges such as security and privacy
Broad introductory courses cover various aspects of IoT, such as:
• Society
• Users
• Software
• Hardware
An example is the introductory course on IoT offered by the Uni-
versity College in Oslo and Akershus, Norway [53]. The course
is intended for students at the bachelor’s level and has minimal
prerequisites. The course’s goal is to introduce both technical and
societal challenges connected to IoT. It covers definitions and his-
torical background, core concepts related to networking, high level
architecture and communication models, privacy and security, inter-
operability, design (at the overall application level), and algorithms
for analytics.
Northwestern University offers a course titled “The Internet of
Things,” [31], which requires just two prerequisites (an introduc-
tion to computer systems with C programming and Unix, and Data
Structures). This course’s main objective is “. . . to expose the stu-
dents to the fundamentals of IoT as a paradigm and to help them
Session: Working Group Presentations
become familiar with some of the foundational problems in this
realm, along with the approaches/methodologies for addressing
them.” The course begins with traditional lectures to establish basic
terminology, followed by individual student presentations, and then
an extended team project.
Another approach, such as the “System Design for the Internet of
Things” [60] course offered at the Technical University of Munich,
requires students to have extensive experience prior to taking the
course. The course’s recommended prerequisites are embedded
systems, internet communication, and programming. The course
contents include:
• Applications of IoT;
• Design and modeling;
• Sensors and actuators;
• Large data sets;
• Energy supply and constraints;
• Communication frameworks and protocols;
• Safety, information security and privacy concepts;
• Software design patterns for dependable systems; and
• Application examples, among others, from the smart energy,
smart manufacturing and automotive domains.
For other examples of Category 1 courses see: [7, 8, 16, 22, 30, 43, 56].
3.2 Category 2: Integrate IoT Concepts into
Existing Courses
Another approach integrates IoT concepts into one or more ex-
isting courses, such as courses in networking, computer security,
ubiquitous computing, and embedded systems, among others.
In some cases, e.g. courses in networking, security, IoT may be
presented in a few examples, while much of the course either covers
non-IoT applications or doesn’t dwell on specific applications. For
example, Washington University in St. Louis’ “Recent Advances
in Networking” [35] integrates IoT concepts into an advanced net-
working course at the graduate level.
In contrast, the “Sensor Networks, Internet of Things, and Smart
Environments” [23] course at the University of Pisa, Italy teaches
networking through the context of IoT, covering wireless sensors,
architectures and network protocols, localization and routing, syn-
chronization, energy harvesting and management, as well as con-
tent on smart environments, ZigBee, and Bluetooth products.
Ambient intelligence or Smart+ technologies have been included
in Master’s degree programs in European countries. For example,
the academic degree Master of Science in Engineering at Leopold-
Franzens University Innsbruck in Austria offers a study program
in Mechatronics & Smart Technologies [34] and brings together
mechanical engineering, electronics and IT knowledge. This pro-
gram promotes technologies like electronic image processing, smart
robotics, simulation and rapid manufacturing.
For other examples of Category 2 courses see: [14, 26, 30, 39].
3.3 Category 3: Focused Course Intended as
Part of an IoT Specialization
Some programs offer a combination of courses intended to be taken
together in order to build expertise or specialization in IoT concepts.
Each topic is addressed in depth and therefore cannot typically fit
128
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
into one course. Some specializations are geared to a broad range
of learners and require minimal technical background, typically
intermediate knowledge of a programming language such as C or
Python. Intended to build an understanding of the foundational
principles and concepts in IoT, such certifications tend to be offered
through institutions’ professional and continuing education pro-
grams and whose intended audience includes working professionals
who are interested in learning more about IoT technology. Typi-
cally, students complete the certification in a few months and the
curriculum consists of an introductory overview course, followed
by several courses, each covering a topic in some detail, leading to
a capstone type project that involves designing an IoT system.
One example is the multi-course IoT certification offered by
the University of California, San Diego. The courses are available
via Coursera and are suitable for a broad range of learners. One
of the courses in the specialization, “Internet of Things: Sensing
and Actuation From Devices” [12], focuses on just the embedded
systems component of a broader IoT system. Course topics include:
• General purpose input/output (GPIO) programming with the
DragonBoard™ 410c
• Building an amplifier
• Running a stepper motor
• Manipulating LED matrices
• Using infrared sensors
• Communicating with Bluetooth
• Monitoring and control using HTTP
A similar certification is offered by the University of Washington
through its professional and continuing education program [51].
This certification is designed for software developers and those
who work with connected devices and networks. The three-course
certification includes foundations of IoT, protocol and networks,
and cloud computing and analytics.
3.4 Category 4: Courses about Specific
Use-Cases that Employ IoT
A final approach is inclusion of IoT via a focused study of a specific
application of IoT. Themes and application areas include healthcare
monitoring, smart cities, smart homes, gerontechnology, and many
others. For example, the two-semester “Gerontechnology” course
at Washington State University [62] introduces students to the ag-
ing process and assistive and monitoring technologies. Students
gain real experience helping aging adults. IoT concepts include an
introduction to engineering methods for data collection, analysis,
and design of health-assistive tools, the smart environments, and
sensors. Another use-case approach is presented in a University
of Surrey, UK course called “Smart Cities,” [42] in which students
learn typical problems cities faced and how these can be managed
using components of IoT. Specific topics include hardware devices,
communication networks and protocols, data analysis, and others.
At the University of Rhode Island, a course on “Wearable Internet of
Things” [45] presents IoT concepts and architectural components
of wearable IoT, with applications in healthcare. Topics covered in-
clude design of wearable sensors for health monitoring, developing
algorithms that run on wearable sensors, generating networking
architecture for data transfer, data processing, and data analysis.
Session: Working Group Presentations
3.5 Observations about the Four Course
Categories
Answering our first research question, we identified four different
course categories. Categories 1 and 3 are the natural ways for a
new topic to fit into an existing curriculum. The topic either gets a
course of its own (as in Category 1) or gets several courses, with
each course going deeply into a particular aspect of the topic (as in
Category 3).
Categories 2 and 4 are a bit different. The ease with which we
found Category 2 examples isn’t unique to IoT, but it speaks directly
to the way IoT overlaps many core computer science topics. In a
similar way, the existence of Category 4 courses comes from the
intersection of IoT with other disciplines and with many of today’s
real-world issues.
This overview does not aim to provide an evaluation of the
different approaches or assess their effectiveness. The identified
course types satisfy different needs and learning objectives. The
examples provided for each category are intended as inspiration
for the teachers who have to design an IoT course under similar
conditions.
4 YOU PLAN TO TEACH IOT. WHAT NEXT?
Imagine being assigned to teach an Internet of Things course, but
never having done so before. The technologies comprise several
IoT stack layers, which are described and counted in different ways,
varying by definition of IoT. Layers include: devices that collect
and store data; network and communications, which allows the
physical devices to communicate data with each other, with the
network and with storage devices; and data storage, data analy-
sis, and application, which supports transformation of data into
meaningful and usable information. Privacy and security are critical
issues within each layer. This section is intended to give course de-
signers a starting point for making decisions about teaching within
this complex system. Below, we identify the categories of decisions
course designers need to make and several choices for each, varying
by learning outcome goals and course types.
Figure 1 shows the complexity of a system architecture. A course
designer can use this diagram as part of the decision-making pro-
cess. For example, an app developers’ course may focus on the
topmost-center part of the diagram with units on IoT Applications
and Enterprise/Industrial IoT. A course for engineering students
might emphasize the diagram’s bottommost topics such as Sen-
sor/Actuator, Digital Logic, and the Device Layer. A system archi-
tect’s course will cover the Management Capabilities near the left
side of the diagram.
In Section 3, we described four general course types, including: a
standalone broad introductory course centering on IoT, the integra-
tion of IoT concepts into multiple courses in a curriculum, in-depth
courses intended to be taught as a series for students wanting to
specialize in IoT, and a specific use-case course in which IoT con-
cepts merely support the course’s main topic. Below we describe
several issues instructors can explore for making decisions about
what and how to teach IoT.
129
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
4.1 Students’ Existing Knowledge and Learning
Objectives
Before making any choices, a course designer needs to know what
students already know. This may seem obvious, but given the com-
plexity of an IoT system, stopping to identify the expected audience
and make an inventory of their preexisting knowledge may dictate
other decisions. A freshman introduction implies students have a
modest technical background, so assuming students will be able
to conduct statistical analysis of data is unreasonable. Creating a
survey course embedded in a use-case, however, may be a suitable
way to engage IoT novices while introducing them to both the
social and technical considerations of IoT. For master’s students
with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, it may be reasonable
to expect them to be able to generate programming code or address
security vulnerabilities, but unreasonable to expect them to be able
to develop a model and use statistical analysis techniques to make
sense of the data. Similarly, students with a computer engineering
background may be very familiar with sensing devices, but less
familiar with user interfaces or visualization techniques.
Exploring students’ pre-knowledge can help instructors make
appropriate choices. For example, if students can be expected to
know a specific programming language, it makes sense to choose
platforms that support that language. If the students have no pro-
gramming knowledge, one might decide to choose a platform that
supports a novice friendly visual language.
Identifying the course’s learning objectives will also help the
course designer determine how to address different topics. If the
course is a general introduction, then relatively superficial coverage
of the different technologies, interfaces, use cases, etc. may make
the most sense. A student who wants to know more will be able
to see the big picture and understand how later instruction fits
into it. At the other extreme, if the goal is to establish a degree
program in IoT, then depth in several knowledge and skill areas
will be important. In that case, a course might go into depth in
only one topic, such as hardware, machine learning, or privacy.
Exploring learning objectives can support choices about what to
include, depth of coverage, and what can be omitted.
4.2 Topic Selection
Teaching IoT offers the possibility to touch upon different issues
of computer science, data and information science, engineering,
and human and societal issues within a coherent framework. This,
however, creates the need to focus on breadth vs. depth, and is
the principal choice for an educator. Topics and depth of coverage
should be selected based on both curricular needs and instructor
expertise. However, to be considered an authentic IoT experience,
more than one layer should be included. Three core IoT issues were
consistent across nearly all examples of the state of practice and
should probably be addressed in any IoT-focused course: concepts of
the “things”; connectivity, the cloud, and data; and human-computer
interaction. Moreover, the interfaces between these three core ar-
eas should be addressed so that students can explicitly situate the
course’s topics fit in a full IoT system. Several topics are critical to
real-world IoT that may be covered in varying degrees of depth.
Below, we present a set of “core” and “specialized” topics.
Session: Working Group Presentations
Figure 1: Many Layers and Concerns of the Internet of Things
With this division, we do not intend to marginalize any of the
issues connected to IoT. We identify as core the topics that are
connected intrinsically to the notion of IoT, i.e., as discussed in the
Introduction, multi-layered socio-technical systems that include
hardware devices communicating data across the Internet. Without
the core topics, students would not be able to appreciate the richness
of IoT systems. The other topics might be chosen when students
are ready to deal with more advanced aspects of IoT systems. The
selection of topics and the time that is dedicated to each topic
is strongly influenced by students’ pre-knowledge and learning
objectives of the course.
4.2.1 Core (Common and Strongly Recommended).
Concepts of Things (Hardware) One of the distinguishing
features of IoT is the pervasive use of embedded computing
both to interact with the environment (e.g., motors, lights,
and other forms of output) and to collect and process data
from the environment (sense light, pressure, temperature,
vibration, distances, etc.). Students should gain some aware-
ness of digitization of data, the limitations of precision and
accuracy of sensors, the volume of data being produced and
stored, the system robustness for working with potentially
130
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
unreliable hardware, and the security and privacy of data
they collect and store.
The concepts in this part of the core depend mainly on the
Sensor/Actuator topic, shown at the bottom of Figure 1. But
other topics in the figure come into play also. These other
topics include Digital Logic, the Device Layer, and Security
Capabilities.
Connectivity, the Cloud, and Data Although the specific tech-
nologies and protocols vary based on problem domain, dig-
ital networks are a fundamental aspect of any IoT system.
Courses should address how networks are used to collect,
and disseminate, and/or analyze data being exchanged by
the “things” and made useful to people. Students also need
to learn ways in which the networks can be vulnerable to
hacking.
This part of the core belongs to the very middle of Figure 1
(the Network Layer) and to topics on the right side of the fig-
ure (especially IoT Server, Cloud IoT, and Cloud of Sensors).
Of course, all parts of the core should touch on the Security
Capabilities topic in Figure 1.
Human-Computer Interaction The intent of any IoT sys-
tem is to facilitate human activities or interests, such as
home automation, smooth operation of a supply chain, or
Session: Working Group Presentations
monitoring the safety of a natural environment. IoT courses
should provide some insight into both the benefits and li-
abilities of the IoT system, the relevant human-computer
interaction issues (e.g., high-quality user experience), and
theories about human behavior that inform selection and
interpretation of data. This part of the core belongs to the
upper part of Figure 1.
4.2.2 Specialized (Varying Depth of Coverage). There are a vari-
ety of topics where the inclusion and degree of coverage may vary
based on the needs and objectives of the academic program. Several
of these specialized (or advanced) topics are summarized below.
Platform-Specific Development IoT systems span multiple
platforms and, consequently, provide a rich opportunity to
provide either a broad view of platforms, deep exposure to
specific platforms, experience with developing and maintain-
ing a platform, or experience analyzing existing platforms.
The three most significant types of platforms are: 1) embed-
ded, 2) web stacks & services, and 3) mobile, as summarized
below.
Embedded Platforms Many courses choose to emphasize
the development of “things”, the embedded systems. This
approach provides an opportunity to cover a variety of
constraints and implementation issues that are part of
the ACM curricular guidelines, such as the limitations of
constrained systems (potential power constraints or lim-
ited bandwidth/connectivity), programming fundamen-
tals, impacts of data representation, operating systems,
etc. Addressing this topic, students might go into detail
about one or more hardware platforms. For example, see
the Raspberry Pi and Arduino topics in Figure 1.
Web Stacks & Service Platforms Contemporary IoT sys-
tems often utilize a variety of internet technologies and
tools, such as JavaScript, HTML+CSS, PHP, webhooks,
cloud-based back ends, etc. Moreover, IoT system archi-
tectures often follow the architectural patterns developed
for web-based applications, such as service-oriented archi-
tectures. This topic emphasizes many of the topics on the
right side of Figure 1, especially WebSockets, SOA, and
Cloud IoT. The Cloud of Sensors and IoT Server topics
may also be covered in depth.
Mobile Platforms Many IoT applications employ native
mobile apps to provide a richer user experience. Conse-
quently, IoT courses may devote significant time to mobile
platforms.
Security Issues Security is especially important in IoT due to
the combination of Internet access (in many IoT systems)
and access to private information (e.g., a webcam), control of
personal security (e.g., a door lock), and safety (e.g., health
care devices). Unlike many existing systems, IoT systems
pose risks to both security and privacy of information and
may also pose physical threats. These threats are already
common in other cyber-physical systems and often network
isolation provides some degree of restriction of liability. As
seen in Figure 1, this topic cuts across many layers of IoT
application stacks.
131
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
Making/Electronics/Mechanical Engineering IoT projects
often combine multiple science, engineering, and human-
istic or social disciplines. IoT provides an opportunity for
interdisciplinary projects or the ability to introduce students
to different disciplines or interdisciplinary study.
From Figure 1, a course may concentrate on the Raspberry Pi
or Arduino along with the Sensor/Actuator topic. The course
also targets the Application Layer with software for the
enterprise, for industry, or for consumers. (For a discussion
of the Arduino, Raspberry Pi and some alternate hardware
platforms, see Section 5.2 of this report.)
Machine Learning and Big Data Concepts IoT systems pro-
vide new opportunities for data collection, analysis, infor-
mation presentation, and decision-making. Courses could
devote significant time to data management and storage,
data fusion, analytic techniques, and machine learning. Ma-
chine learning algorithms can also be applied to improve IoT
system performance. IoT concepts can also be introduced
through use of automatic learning technologies like data min-
ing for knowledge discovery in data, discovering analysis
patterns, data segmentation, or assessment of the likelihood
of future actions. As can be seen in Figure 1, big data topics
are a peripheral issue and typically rely on existing device,
network, and application support layers.
Privacy, Ethics, and Societal Impact The unprecedented con-
nection of devices, networks, and data has both positive and
negative potential with nontrivial consequences for indi-
viduals and society. IoT can serve a huge range of human
needs, including unethical or illegal activities. The theories
on which applications are based must also be sound if hu-
mans are to benefit and to avoid harm. Data collected and
communicated by sensors may be personal and may get into
the “wrong hands.” Within each layer, therefore, considera-
tions of trust, privacy, and security should be addressed. Not
all courses address these topics, but their importance cannot
be understated. These overarching issues that pervade all
aspects of IoT are shown at the top of Figure 1.
Human-Computer Interaction Issues Considerations of user
experience — making systems that are useful, usable, and
pleasurable to use — is relatively immature in IoT systems
and could be an excellent research topic for students. In-
terfaces vary widely and a particular IoT application might
interface with only one device or across many, which may
have very different functionalities and forms (e.g., wrist, mo-
bile phone, or desktop interface). Since human needs are
the main motivation behind IoT systems, Human-computer
interaction is pictured as an overarching goal along the top
of Figure 1.
4.2.3 Content Knowledge and Community. Teaching an IoT course
can require multiple competencies for instructional staff, includ-
ing teaching assistants. For example, an open project that creates
an entire IoT application can require knowledge of the electron-
ics, networking, and cloud services. Teaching IoT can therefore be
a considerable investment in both time to learning content and
time spent training teaching assistants. Team teaching may help
to address this issue. One such multi-faculty approach was used at
Session: Working Group Presentations
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology’s pilot IoT course using lean
startup principles [22].
Another source of support is the relevant communities of prac-
tice and potential user audiences in the local area. Access to in-
dustry and community partners as technology providers, guest
lecturers, internship providers, and “problem owners” (e.g., sources
of projects capstone courses) can support course decision-making.
Partners’ tools and approaches will then influence teaching choices
with respect to platforms, software, and competencies to address.
Moreover, partners can often aid vetting projects for merit, techni-
cal feasibility, and scope. For example, Elon University’s IoT course
has students pitch their work to a panel of faculty and alumni, who
then can negotiate to “buy-in” to projects much like on the game
show “Shark Tank” [16].
4.3 Space and Technology Challenges
The computer labs available in most universities are mainly de-
signed for software development. Working on IoT projects requires
spaces for manipulating physical devices, often as a team activ-
ity. Supporting tools might be necessary too, such as soldering
equipment, electronic test equipment, 3D printers or fabrication
equipment, tools, etc. It can be useful to understand how industrial
or academic labs are set up or to cooperate with other departments
whose labs are better suited to support the work (and have experi-
ence supporting the labs themselves).
Network access may also be a significant consideration. Many
of the commonly used Wi-Fi and Ethernet based tools may have
limited support for authentication and security mechanisms and
may not work with existing campus networks. Although this may
be overcome by installation of special purpose equipment for the
course, such as a Wi-Fi access point, this incurs a cost, requires
coordination with campus infrastructure to deploy, and may limit
students’ ability to work outside of class.
Integration of hardware with software can be a challenge too.
For example, batteries die and students may attribute problems to
faulty code, resulting in needless debugging. Conversely, errors
in programming may be blamed on faulty hardware, such as an
illogical temperature value being blamed on a faulty sensor rather
than the code used to convert a raw voltage value to the appropri-
ate units. Finally, the additional complexity of IoT systems often
introduces timing delays that also delays feedback that is often
used by students to validate their work. For example, a delay in a
light turning on may be due to an error in code, an error in how
hardware is connected, a fault in the network, of just a serious
network delay. Inexperienced developers may lose confidence as
they struggle to identify the source of problems and debug systems.
4.4 The Selection of Tools
In Section 4, we have described the many challenges and instructor
decisions involved in an initial offering of an IoT course. The first
set of challenges and choices concern topic selection, space needs,
and other broad-stroke issues. In many cases, these challenges and
choices involve other members of the department or the institution
as a whole. After settling questions on the broader issues, the in-
structor must decide on course specifics. For example, what kind of
132
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
Figure 2: The Tiles cards and workshop (Source [48]).
pedagogy will be used? What kinds of examples will be presented?
We deal with some of these issues in the next section (Section 5).
5 TOOLS FOR A QUICK START
In this section, we list some of the tools used to support new IoT
users in our IoT course review. The list is not intended to be ex-
haustive, but will give ideas to those wanting to provide basic
experiences. As discussed in Section 4, the choice of tools may
depend on different situations, such as an industry partner’s plat-
form preferences or lab support. However, educators starting from
scratch may find some useful ideas below.
5.1 IoT Design
Given the novelty of IoT, it might be challenging for students to
imagine meaningful IoT applications, potentially limiting their moti-
vation. Students in introductory courses need to be able to envision
meaningful user experiences without getting lost in technical de-
tails. Some introductory IoT tools are based on traditional games,
which can be quickly introduced, require no technical expertise,
and provide a way to explore significant IoT solutions.
For example, Tiles Cards (Figure 2) [48] use traditional playing
cards that allow novices to explore combinations of user interface
metaphors, digital services, and physical objects. The deck consists
of 110 cards and is used via a workshop technique. Some cards
provide technology primitives that describe the IoT design space,
providing triggers for divergent and creative thinking. In addition,
there are cards offering criteria for reflecting on and evaluating the
ideas generated. The Tiles Workshop structures the use of the cards
in ideation with step-by-step guidance, support for collaboration,
and complementing the cards’ use with traditional design thinking
techniques and artifacts.
The IoT Service Kit [9] is a board game based approach to intro-
duction of IoT concepts. The board represents a specific IoT context,
such as a smart home or smart city. Tokens represent the physical
things in the IoT system. Players construct an IoT system in the
Session: Working Group Presentations ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy

context using a variety of cards representing 1) enablers, like sen-

sors and networks; 2) interactions, which represents interactions
with humans; 3) users; and 4) services/APIs. Essentially players
construct a physical model representing a user story for an IoT
system in the given context.
Thingclash [59], another card based approach, has a greater focus
on the social impact of IoT. Players are given a worksheet and dealt
cards for things, places, and personas. The players then explore
potential clashes, such as unexpected problems or conflicts, that
may arise.

5.2 Hardware Platforms

When a course involves projects, the instructor needs to choose one
or more hardware platforms (e.g., Arduino, Raspberry Pi, NXP Pico,
Figure 3: Arduino
ESP8266, micro:bit, LightBlue Bean, etc.), one or more software
platforms (e.g., C, Java, Python), and one or more cloud services
(e.g., MQTT, CoAP, Custom, Peer-to-Peer). In many cases, decisions
about hardware and software are interrelated. For example:
• Particle’s [54] Photon hardware locks you into C++ and
favors Particle’s proprietary cloud service.
• Using a native iPhone app locks you into using Swift, Objective-
C, while using a native Android app locks you into using Java
or Kotlin. On the other hand, cross-platform frameworks,
like Cordova or Xamarin, often sacrifice some functionality
or look-and-feel.
• The Raspberry Pi [21] comes with Wolfram Mathematica
[65], a rich, mature language that is well suited to IoT analyt-
ics and big data applications. Mathematica is quite expensive
when purchased separately, so the Raspberry Pi platform
may be strongly preferred as a vehicle to economically access Figure 4: Raspberry Pi
Mathematica.
• High-level tools, like Node-RED, require significant process-
ing power and some access to a GUI, so they require a more sense. Regardless, we present some general observations distin-
sophisticated platform such as a Raspberry Pi or desktop- guishing Arduino and Raspberry Pi, shedding light on the state of
class machine. prototyping hardware in general.1
What is it? Arduino is a microcontroller-based board to which
Many courses are using a combination of platforms in order to take
sensor and actuators can be wired. In contrast, Raspberry Pi
advantage of their complementary strengths. Some platforms are
is a small, general-purpose computer.
based on an open source/open hardware approach, while others rely
What does it run? Arduino doesn’t run an operating system.
on proprietary solutions. An important factor when selecting the
Arduino, is a microcontroller. Technically speaking, Rasp-
hardware platform to use is the availability of an online community
berry Pi is a small, general-purpose computer and it has its
to provide examples of educational activities and access to online
own version of the Linux operating system (Raspbian) with
support.
the capability of running other operating systems as well.
5.2.1 Microcontroller and Computer Platforms. The two most How do you program it? To develop for Arduino, you run
popular prototyping platforms are Arduino [3] and Raspberry Pi the Arduino integrated development environment (IDE) on
[21] (Figures 3 and 4). Arduino was initially developed for the maker a PC, Mac, or Linux computer or via a web browser. The
community, but has gained in popularity among educators at all IDE compiles your code (also known as your “sketch”) and
levels. Thanks to software libraries that simplify the writing of code, loads the executable onto the Arduino. The Arduino runs
students are able to develop challenging projects with limited or the executable immediately. In contrast, the Raspberry Pi
no knowledge of electronics. can be connected to a monitor and keyboard and you can
The Raspberry Pi has more computational power and might develop code on the Raspberry Pi the way you would on
be an appropriate choice for handling elaborate data, executing any general-purpose computer. (Alternatively, you can use
complex tasks, or extending connectivity. remote access to eliminate the need for a dedicated key-
There are many versions of both the Arduino and Raspberry Pi board/monitor/mouse.)
platforms, with new versions being released frequently; therefore, 1 Theauthors of [36] and [6] present additional no-nonsense arguments comparing
a side-by-side feature comparison of the platforms doesn’t make the Arduino and Raspberry Pi for different projects’ needs.

133
Session: Working Group Presentations
How does it communicate with hardware on a low level?
Arduino has both analog and digital inputs and outputs built-
in. The Raspberry Pi’s inputs and outputs are all digital. This
makes tasks such as sensing and controlling analog values,
like brightness, easier on Arduino than on Raspberry Pi.
How do you communicate with it on a higher level? The
Raspberry Pi’s built-in components include many of the el-
ements of a full-sized computer, including USB ports, net-
working (Ethernet or Wi-Fi), an HDMI port, and an audio
jack. The high-end Arduino boards have some of these com-
ponents but, in general, these components come as Arduino
add-ons.
How powerful is it? In general, the processor on a Raspberry
Pi is much faster than the processor on an Arduino board. In
addition, a Raspberry Pi’s memory is easily expanded with a
microSD card. An Arduino’s program memory is limited to
the amount of storage on the processor.
How easy is it to use? With both analog and digital I/O, and
with no operating system, Arduino is easier in most respects.
You can stop an Arduino simply by unplugging it. No shut-
down procedure is required.
How versatile is it? With complexity comes versatility. The
Raspberry Pi can easily multitask, while the Arduino’s mul-
titasking abilities are limited. Arduinos can manage modest
amounts of data while Raspberry Pis can run full data base
systems.
How much does it cost? This varies by model, manufacturer,
and capabilities. At the time of this writing the lowest cost
Raspberry Pi, the Raspberry Pi Zero W, costs $10 US. Inclu-
sion of typical accessories, like a case, power supply, and SD
card may raise the price to $25 US. Since the Arduino is an
open source platform it’s available from a variety of sources
besides the official Arduino organization. Entry level models
are available from unofficial sources for as little as $7.50 US.
It’s common for IoT courses to use both Arduinos and Raspberry
Pis in a single project. For example, with its analog I/O, an Arduino
can read sensor values and relay those values to a Raspberry Pi.
The Pi may relay those value to a cloud service, such as ThingSpeak
[61], which can be used to plot and analyze the data.2
Despite the popularity of Arduino and Raspberry Pi, other hard-
ware solutions are worth considering. A few of them include:
Qualcomm Dragonboard 410c Like Raspberry Pi, but includes
GPS and has support for Android.
ESP8266 A low-cost Wi-Fi capable chip that can be programmed
in C++ using the user-friendly Arduino toolchain or via Lua
using a simple serial terminal program or a custom IDE. The
ESP APIs simplify access to web services and a number of
companies (e.g., AdaFruit), provide libraries to access pow-
erful cloud-based IoT services.
NXP Pico iMX7 A low-cost board with connectors for display
output, camera input, and WiFi. This board is part of the
TechNexion Android Things starter kit, which is described
in Section 5.2.2.
2 Instructionsfor allowing Arduinos to interact with a variety of IoT platforms and
services can be found at [5].
134
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
Micro:bit [19] a novice-friendly, low-cost board that includes
sensors (acceleration, compass, ambient light), buttons, a
simple 5x5 pixel "screen," and wireless communication to
other micro:bits or tablets/phones. It supports block-based
programming languages (e.g., Scratch) and a web browser
simulator for simulation, debugging, and diagramming.
Particle Photon and Electron [54] To support rapid devel-
opment for its cloud service, Particle offers the Photon, a Wi-
Fi based IoT platform, and the Electron, which uses cellular
2G/3G networks (and a low cost, data-only plan). Particle’s
products are programmed via a web-based IDE, reducing
development requirements at the expense of dependence on
network access.
UDOO is a family of single board computers that uniquely have
a heterogeneous processor. The Android/Linux boards offer
9-axis motion sensors, Bluetooth 4.0, and a Wi-Fi module.
UDOO is compatible with Arduino, which allows it to be
used in a wide spectrum of systems and use cases [28].
LightBlue Bean [55] The family of LightBlue Bean products
are well suited to wearables. They support development
via the Arduino toolchain; include a variety of sensors, like
accelerometers and temperature sensors; and support Blue-
tooth Low Energy profiles that allow for easy integration
with apps on mobile devices or desktops via Node.js.
5.2.2 HATs and Shields. HATs and Shields3 are modules that
connect Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and other processing boards to
computers. They often contain sensors or the electronics needed
to connect to motors. Unlike simple sensors, actuators can make
changes in the environment. Each sensor and actuator can be a
separate component, but several sensors, some simple actuators,
and even some networking components may come bundled together
on their own board. The board is conveniently designed to plug
onto a particular processor board’s pins (following the Raspberry
Pi or Arduino pin layouts, for example).
Starter kits typically include a board, sensors, and actuators bun-
dled together. A kit typically includes other hardware to facilitate
the connections among components, and may include a HAT and a
power supply. A few commonly used starter kits are listed below.
ARM Mbed Ethernet IoT Starter Kit This kit contains a pro-
cessor on an NXP K64F board with USB, push buttons, and
Ethernet. It also contains a shield with an LCD display, a
joystick, a speaker, an accelerometer, two potentiometers,
LED lights, a temperature sensor, and socket for ZigBee net-
working. The cost is about $120 US. Support and evaluation
kits are often available via ARMs University Program.
Microsoft IoT Pack for Raspberry Pi 3 This kit includes a
Raspberry Pi with an enclosing case and power supply, a
breadboard, sensors for temperature, pressure, humidity and
color, switches, LEDs, an analog input adapter, and a Mi-
croSD card. The cost is about $115 US.
TechNexion Android Things Starter Kit Customized for use
with Google’s Android Things SDK, this kit includes an
NXP Pico iMX7 board, a small display monitor, a camera
3 Arduinos use the term Shield and Raspberry Pis use the term HAT (Hardware Attached
on Top). Other common names for such modular components are bonnet, cape, and
kippah.
Session: Working Group Presentations
module, and a Pimoroni Rainbow HAT with LEDs, pres-
sure/temperature sensors, and a 14-segment alphanumeric
display. The cost is about $200 US.
SenseBoard kit [38] The Arduino-based SenseBoard has a
slider, a pushbutton switch, six LEDs, and analog inputs.
The kit also contains a heat-sensitive resistor, a phototran-
sistor, a motion detector, a motor, and a USB cable. It uses a
block language in an IDE and supports student cooperation
using its own cloud infrastructure. The SenseBoard can be
used in conjunction with a Raspberry Pi, and a version of
the Sense language has been created for the Raspberry Pi.
5.3 Networking
IoT applications may utilize a variety of approaches to networking.
Listed below are some common technologies that are supported by
typical IoT hardware.
Ethernet Common Ethernet is typically used for the wired
component of classroom based IoT systems.
ZigBee Wireless Networks Based on the IEEE 802.15.4 stan-
dard, ZigBee wireless networks allow inexpensive, long-
lasting creation of low power applications. These networks
include sensors and actuators and use wireless communi-
cation to control electrical products (e.g., remote controls,
medical, industrial, security sensors). The ZigBee protocol
easily works on low power microcontrollers and has sup-
port from common IoT platforms like the Arduino (via a
shield). Thousands of nodes can communicate via multi-hop
mesh networks [24]. The security infrastructure is based on
CCM, an authenticated encryption algorithm designed to
provide both authentication and confidentiality for 128-bit
block ciphers [17].
Bluetooth networking supports data exchange over short dis-
tances from fixed and mobile devices. Bluetooth mesh net-
working allows many-to-many communication over Blue-
tooth radio and can communicate with wireless sensor net-
works, making possible intelligent lighting and other envi-
ronmental and industrial applications.
Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) BLE is a recent extension of
the Bluetooth standard. BLE is specifically designed for low
power, low data applications and is very well suited to many
interesting IoT applications, such as wearables and battery-
operated sensor networks. Since all modern cell phones sup-
port Bluetooth Low Energy and provide APIs to interact with
BLE devices, it’s relatively easy to develop apps for these
devices. (See [19, 55]).
Wi-Fi Many IoT development devices already support Wi-Fi
(some models of Raspberry Pi natively, others via a HAT;
some models of Arduinos natively others via addition of
a shield; Particle’s Photon, the ESP8266, and ESP32 chips
all natively). As mentioned previously, support for security
authentication mechanisms varies and should be matched
to the courses environmental needs.
LTE/3G A few IoT products, like Particle’s Electron [54], sup-
port cellular networks. These typically require a special data
plan and support varies from country to country.
135
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
5.4 Programming Languages
An IoT system may involve several programs in several different lan-
guages. In a basic system, one program controls embedded hardware
and another may provide a user interface, data collection/analysis,
or both. More commonly, IoT systems are a distributed application
leveraging a variety of web services.
On the embedded devices, the choice of programming language
depends on the choice of hardware. Therefore, knowing which
programming languages the hardware supports is critical. A list of
programming languages and supported devices follows:
C++/C is supported on Arduino-based devices, like actual Ar-
duinos, ESP8266, Particle’s Photon and Electron, as well as
the Raspberry Pi and platforms supported by ARM’s Mbed,
including the micro:bit.
Block Based languages which are particularly convenient
for novices or for rapid prototyping, are available for some
models of Arduino (See ArduBlock [1], Snap4Arduino [57],
and Microsoft’s TouchDevelop [46]) as well as the micro:bit
(Microsoft’s Block Editor, and Microsoft’s Touch Develop).
Node-RED [50], a graphical data-flow language is also novice
friendly. It is supported on both cloud infrastructures, like
IBM’s Watson [32] and the Raspberry Pi.
LUA a scripting language, is supported by the ESP8266 proces-
sors.
Python and its embedded-platform equivalent, MicroPython,
are supported on several platforms, including the Raspberry
Pi, some models of Arduino, and the micro:bit. In addition,
Python can be used in many cloud infrastructure components
of IoT systems.
JavaScript is also a common component of both Raspberry
Pi-based IoT systems (often via Node.js) and in either the
cloud component of systems or as part of the user interface.
Java and Kotlin are supported by the Android Things SDK
[25], a variant of Google’s operating system for mobile phones
with additional classes for communicating with embedded
hardware. Android Things runs on Raspberry Pi and NXP
Pico boards.
Due to resource constraints, any particular embedded system
will have just one or a small set of supported programming lan-
guages and tools. On the other hand, a full-fledged computer like
the Raspberry Pi or the servers in the cloud may offer many options.
When interfacing with a phone, the phone’s operating system
plays a role in determining the programming language:
Swift and the older Objective-C language are the native lan-
guages for iOS (iPhone) development.
Java and Kotlin are the native languages for Android devel-
opment.
A web page can do some of the work that a native app can do.
In a hybrid mobile app, the app is essentially a webpage with
special access to features not typically available from true
webpages, like Bluetooth hardware, cameras, and contact
information. HTML+CSS provide content and presentation
while JavaScript provides the logic. Frameworks, such as
Cordova, are usually used. Hybrid apps are distributed as
standalone apps and can be sold in App stores.
Session: Working Group Presentations
C# can be used with the cross-platform Xamarian framework.
Much like hybrid apps, Xamarian apps can be distributed
and sold on App stores.
Often the cloud or embedded service needs dictate the choice of
language as well. For example, many cloud services provide APIs
for iOS, Android, or JavaScript, but not Xamarian.
A platform’s official tools often have better support than third-
party tools, but the most appropriate choice for an academic au-
dience is often influenced by other considerations, such as the
students’ prerequisite knowledge and cost.
5.5 Non-Traditional User Interfaces
In addition to traditional user interface issues, IoT topics provide an
opportunity to introduce contemporary forms of human-computer
interaction that may not be covered elsewhere. These include in-
teractions based on physical motion, comparable to the tilt and
rotation interactions on mobile devices as well as voice user inter-
faces (VUIs).
Common choices for VUIs include Amazon Alexa (for the Echo
family of devices) and Google Assistant (for Google Home devices).
Students can create scripts that respond to a voice command, report
on a device’s status, control a device, and reply with generated
voice output. Creating a script (called a skill for Alexa and an agent
for Google Assistant) involves writing code that sends a request,
formatted in JSON, to a server.
5.6 Analyzing Data and Choosing Cloud and
Web Services
Cloud services may be used in combination to provide a variety of
features to IoT applications:
• Infrastructure to collect and dispatch communications be-
tween devices,
• Data storage, and
• Facilities to automatically process incoming data and either
trigger actions as a result or create visualizations.
Cloud services can provide rich, contemporary features, such as
text notifications, tweets, or posts to social media. Some services
that may be particularly good fits include:
• IFTTT (If-This-Then-That) [33], which features an easy-to-
use platform for adding triggers based on actions. Common
uses include triggering SMS text messages due to some event
or triggering other sorts of notifications (e-mail, phone)
based on interaction with web services or web sites.
• ThingSpeak [61], which is owned by Mathworks, the pub-
lisher of Matlab. Consequently, it’s possible to use Matlab’s
concise programming language and rich API for data anal-
ysis and visualization. Among other things, ThingSpeak is
often used for simple visualizations and Twitter integration.
• AdaFruit.io [2], which provides MQTT streams, a ISO stan-
dard publish-subscribe message exchange protocol often
used in IoT, and a user friendly web based IoT dashboard for
their platform. In addition, AdaFruit maintains APIs for a
variety of embedded platforms.
• Watson IoT (IBM’s platform for IoT) which includes access
to Watson’s sophisticated analytics.
136
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
• Amazon’s AWS Internet of Things.
• Google’s Cloud IoT.
Many of the commercial services offer free support that is suit-
able for academic use, such as either: 1) a free, low-volume tier
of support open to anyone, or 2) free limited time access open to
anyone, or 3) free use in academia. In addition, there are a variety
of open source tools that can be hosted locally or via a cloud based
hosting service. The ability to modify open source tools provides the
potential for greater flexibility, but at the expense of maintenance
and hosting costs.
5.7 Example Projects and Project
Considerations
Example projects abound online, making it easy to borrow from
what others have done. The universal “Hello, World” application
for embedded systems is making an LED turn on and off. Banal
as it may seem, this project is exciting for students because of the
newly discovered low-level IoT aspects. Students wire the board,
select the input lines, and tweak the code to make the LED light up
and down.
Many of the available open source frameworks that we have
seen used in IoT courses have a strong educational community, of-
fering ideas and support for projects and tasks that could be used to
design intermediate or capstone projects. For example, the Arduino
Project Hub [4] maintains a repository of exercises. Many of the
exercises can be adapted for Raspberry Pi as well. Similarly, the
Raspberry Pi forums [20] have an Education section with a Teach-
ing and Learning Resources subsection. The subsection has many
posts describing projects for use in courses. Nonetheless, selecting
projects that cover the desired topics and are an appropriate fit for
an academic term can be challenging. In [44] the authors outline a
series of their desired IoT learning outcomes and an approach for
assessing projects. In [22] the authors describe the IoT aspects of
interest in their course and provide a table showing how a variety
of potential projects demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) the topic.
5.8 When in Doubt, Lean Toward Commonly
Used Technologies
Among all the available prototyping platforms, Arduino and Rasp-
berry Pi have the richest ecosystems. Most people program Arduino
with Arduino’s own variant of C/C++. Other languages are avail-
able for use with the Arduino, but students have the best chance of
finding help if they search the Web for C/C++ based solutions to
Arduino programming problems.
Raspberry Pi can be programmed in any language that compiles
on ARMv6, including Python, C/C++, Java, Scratch, Ruby, and oth-
ers. If you anticipate needing support from the user community,
Python is a very safe choice.
6 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE
With the emergence of IoT, what kinds of challenges and opportuni-
ties do we face as computer and information science educators? In
this section, we explore current concerns and the potential future
of academic approaches to IoT.
Session: Working Group Presentations
6.1 Expansion of Topics Covered and Scope
Creep
IoT allows us to expand the topics typically included in computer
and information science. This topic expansion can be accomplished
at many levels in the IoT topic stack. Hardware, network connectiv-
ity, human-computer interaction, and ethics play heightened roles
when we consider smart devices as part of the curriculum. The
use of embedded processors gives us another reason to emphasize
polyglot programming. Security plays a critical role in IoT applica-
tions for transportation, healthcare, and energy management. The
emergence of IoT may convince many departments to introduce
security early on in the CS curriculum.
In addition, IoT spans a variety of disciplines, especially computer
science, computer engineering, and systems engineering. Given the
breadth of topics in IoT, courses may be prone to spending excessive
time on background that is out-of-discipline. Although any effort
to broaden students understanding is valuable, it may be difficult
to ensure that overall curricular needs for individual disciplines are
being met. Moreover, at this time there isn’t any work exploring
the appropriate balance between depth and breadth of coverage
that meets curricular objectives.
6.2 Rapidly Evolving Technology
Although computing itself and educational approaches to comput-
ing are continuing to change, the pace of change for many topics
has slowed down considerably over the past decade. In contrast, IoT
is in its formative years. The sheer variety of platforms and choices
outlined earlier in this paper indicate that a single course will have
to make a variety of complex, inter-related choices about platforms
and tools. Unfortunately, many of these changes are happening
quite quickly and tools or platforms used may become obsolete at a
faster pace than the rest of the computing industry. Moreover, as the
industry evolves the tools used and skills of interest to employers
will continue to change. Consequently, it isn’t yet clear what skills
and educational outcomes of IoT courses should be.
6.3 The Need for Training and Teamwork
Few computer science instructors have deep exposure to all as-
pects of IoT applications (embedded hardware, cloud computing,
networking, etc.). The end-to-end IoT development cycle and its
ramifications in neighboring disciplines is also new territory for
most CS teachers. Educators either need resources to help them
catch up in deficient areas or they need the flexibility to work in
teams that provide all required expertise.
Teaching assistants will also need training. Most computing
students have little or no experience with power requirements,
analog input, circuit timing problems, and other issues surrounding
real physical hardware. On the other hand, students in electrical
or computer engineering seldom have experience with end-to-end
software engineering or cloud computation.
6.4 The Need for Equipment and Space
Many departments can do without labs for desktop computers
because students bring their own laptop computers to classes. But
most students do not own Arduino or Raspberry Pi boards, which,
unlike laptops, may not be available at a local store. IoT puts new
137
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
demands on physical resources for computer science departments.
These departments need money to purchase equipment for use in
IoT instruction as well as technology replacement funds.
For some courses, having each student purchase his or her own
hardware can solve the equipment problem. A student’s equipment
might cost less than a printed textbook. But to learn about some ap-
plications, more costly equipment is required. If students purchase
all of the equipment that they use, the list of topics stays within
the confines of the cost and availability constraints. If a course
topic requires equipment that is costly, troublesome to obtain, or
infrequently used, then instructors can purchase this additional
hardware to supplement the students’ equipment. Of course, this
strategy brings computer science departments back to the need for
increases in purchasing budgets.
Having students buy equipment has ramifications for course
management. To assign a textbook for a course, the instructor an-
nounces the book’s ISBN number and (optionally) has the campus
bookstore purchase several copies in advance. But for a course’s
equipment needs, the instructor may have to list parts from several
vendors. In a large class, some students are bound to purchase the
wrong equipment or not have it in a timely fashion. As an alterna-
tive, the instructor can purchase the equipment in bulk before the
course begins. The instructor divides the equipment into student
kits and sells the kit to the students when the course begins. This
strategy poses its own course management hurdles. In addition, as
with many lab sciences, equipment may fail due to mishandling or
misuse, adding another hurdle to management of equipment.
The work environment for people doing IoT prototyping is dif-
ferent from the environment for software developers. A software
developer spends at least part of the time touching a keyboard
and looking at a screen. This makes solitary work a natural first
choice. The programmer’s attention fixes on the screen, and not
on the other programmers in the room. Even with pair program-
ming, the navigator might be focusing mostly on the driver’s screen.
When the driver and navigator face one another eye to eye, it’s the
exception, not the rule.
In contrast, the work environment of IoT prototyping lends itself
to cooperation. The students in a team may benefit from facing one
another while they work on their project. Students walk around
the room to get parts and to see their projects move about. The
work environment for IoT demands lab space, and this space may
need to be configured differently from the way desktop computer
labs have traditionally been configured. The new demand for lab
space requires planning. Space can’t be reallocated as quickly as
funds are reallocated, so the planning for space must be medium-
to long-term planning.
6.5 Model Curricular Guidelines
Perhaps one of the most significant current needs is a set of guide-
lines for IoT integration that align with both industry needs and
with curricular guidelines, such as the ACM and IEEE-CS curricula
or accreditation requirements. In addition, exemplars of individual
courses that confirm to these guidelines could significantly improve
the consistency of IoT education.
Session: Working Group Presentations
Courses described in the current literature often focus on de-
velopment of IoT applications and often emphasize a project com-
ponent that is often student-selected. Although this approach is
valuable, most examples overlook significant IoT topics such as:
• Data collection, storage, and analysis
• IoT system lifecycle
• Hardware/software co-design
• Design of IoT infrastructure
Although these each may be covered in other courses, curricu-
lar guidelines and exemplars could rectify deficits in existing ap-
proaches to IoT.
6.6 Additional Needs
In this section, we identified key areas of concern for the near future
of IoT education. The far future’s needs are more difficult to discern.
But the tidal wave of IoT technology is in its infancy, so we can
be sure that IoT will present many more ongoing challenges for
computer science educators.
7 CONCLUSION
Despite the challenges, we imagine great value in adding IoT to
the computer and information science curriculum. In this report,
we have attempted to inspire computing educators and to make it
easier for them to add IoT to their curricula by describing typical
course offerings (introductory, in-depth, or use case courses), crite-
ria for selecting an approach (students’ knowledge, topics, space
and technology), and tools for a quick start well suited to novice
learners (games, hardware, networking, programming languages,
user interfaces, data choices, and example projects). IoT allows stu-
dents to connect their creativity to a wide array of domains, from
recreation to saving lives. IoT use will only continue to increase
and those who employ our graduates will increasingly demand
that we teach them how to design systems and turn the data into
meaningful information.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We extend thanks to members of the ITiCSE community who gave
us feedback on our initial conceptualization of this report. We
especially want to thank Jorge Guerra for his ongoing contributions
and the teachers that we interviewed.
REFERENCES
[1] 2017. Ardublock. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from http://blog.ardublock.com/
[2] Adafruit. 2017. Adafruit IO. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://io.adafruit.
com/
[3] Arduino AG. 2017. Arduino Homepage. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
https://www.arduino.cc/
[4] Arduino AG. 2017. Arduino Project Hub. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub
[5] Arduino AG. 2017. Interfacing with Other Software. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1,
2017 from https://playground.arduino.cc/Main/InterfacingWithSoftware
[6] Dann Albright. 2016. Arduino vs Raspberry Pi: A Detailed Comparison. (2016).
Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://beebom.com/arduino-vs-raspberry-pi/
[7] Farha Ali. 2015. Teaching The Internet of Things Concepts. In Proceedings
of the WESE’15: Workshop on Embedded and Cyber-Physical Systems Education
(WESE’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2832920.2832930
[8] Zorica Bogdanovic, Konstantin Simic, Miloš Milutinovic, Božidar Radenkovic, and
Marijana Despotovic-Zrakic. 2014. A Platform for Learning Internet of Things.
International Association for Development of the Information Society (2014).
[9] Ricardo Brito and Paul Houghton. 2017. IoT Service Kit. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1,
2017 from http://iotservicekit.com/
138
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
[10] Victor Callaghan. 2012. Buzz-Boarding; practical support for teaching computing
based on the internet-of-things. In 1st Annual Conference on the Aiming for
Excellence in STEM Learning and Teaching, Imperial College, London & The Royal
Geographical Society. 12–13.
[11] Wang Chunzhi, Xu Hui, and Mao Xia. 2012. Construction of hardware curriculum
group for transition from network to Internet of Things engineering major. In
Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2012 7th International Conference on. IEEE,
1575–1579.
[12] Coursera. 2017. Internet of Things: Sensing and Actuation From De-
vices. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.coursera.org/learn/
internet-of-things-sensing-actuation
[13] Geert de Haan. 2015. Educating creative technology for the internet of things-
research and practice-oriented approaches compared. In Proceedings of the Muliti-
media, Interaction, Design and Innnovation. ACM, 4.
[14] S J Dickerson. 2016. Preparing undergraduate engineering students for the
Internet of Things. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Pro-
ceedings 2016-June (2016). https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.
0-84983335797
[15] Dalibor Dobrilovic and Stojanov Zeljko. 2016. Design of open-source platform for
introducing Internet of Things in university curricula. In Applied Computational
Intelligence and Informatics (SACI), 2016 IEEE 11th International Symposium on.
IEEE, 273–276.
[16] Shannon Duvall and Joel Hollingsworth. 2016. Creating a Course on the Internet
of Things for Undergraduate Computer Science Majors. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32,
2 (Dec 2016), 97–103. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3015063.3015078
[17] Morris Dworkin. 2001. Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation.
methods and techniques. Technical Report. National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
[18] Anna Förster, Jens Dede, Andreas Könsgen, Asanga Udugama, and Idrees Zaman.
2017. TEACHING THE INTERNET OF THINGS. GetMobile: Mobile Computing
and Communications 20, 3 (2017), 24–28.
[19] Micro:bit Educational Foundation. 2017. micro:bit Homepage. (2017). Retrieved
Nov. 1, 2017 from http://microbit.org/
[20] Raspberry Pi Foundation. 2017. Raspberry Pi Forums. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1,
2017 from https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/
[21] Raspberry Pi Foundation. 2017. Raspberry Pi Homepage. (2017). Retrieved Nov.
1, 2017 from https://www.raspberrypi.org/
[22] Valerie Galluzzi, Carlotta A Berry, and Yosi Shibberu. 2017. A Multidisciplinary
Pilot Course on the Internet of Things: Curriculum Development Using Lean
Startup Principles. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE Confer-
ences, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/27486.
[23] Michele Girolami, Alexander Kocian, and Stefano Chessa. 2016. Sensor net-
works, internet of things and smart environments. (2016). Retrieved Nov.
1, 2017 from https://www.di.unipi.it/en/phd/phd-teaching/phd-courses/2016/
887-sensor-networks-internet-of-things-and-smart-environments
[24] Drew Gislason. 2008. ZigBee wireless networking. Newnes.
[25] Google. 2017. Android Things. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https:
//developer.android.com/things/index.html
[26] Jorge Guerra Guerra and Armando Fermin Peréz. 2016. Implementation of a
Robotics and IoT Laboratory for Undergraduate Research in Computer Science
Courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology
in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 369–369.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2925494
[27] Jorge Guerra Guerra and Armando Fermin Perez. 2017. Alignment of Un-
dergraduate Curriculum for Learning IoT in a Computer Science Faculty. In
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Com-
puter Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 362–362. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3073001
[28] hackster.io. 2017. Udoo Projects. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https:
//udoo.hackster.io/
[29] Oliver Hahm, Emmanuel Baccelli, Hauke Petersen, Matthias Wählisch, and
Thomas C. Schmidt. 2014. Demonstration Abstract: Simply RIOT: Teaching
and Experimental Research in the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN ’14).
IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 329–330. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=
2602339.2602399
[30] Jing He, Dan Chia Tien Lo, Ying Xie, and Jonathan Lartigue. 2016. Integrating
Internet of things (IoT) into STEM undergraduate education: Case study of a
modern technology infused courseware for embedded system course. In Frontiers
in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, Erie, PA. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.
7757458
[31] Lawrence J. Henschen and Goce Trajcevski. 2017. EECS 395, 495: Internet
of Things. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.mccormick.
northwestern.edu/eecs/courses/descriptions/395-495-68.html
[32] IBM. 2017. Getting started with Watson IoT Platform using Node-RED.
(2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://developer.ibm.com/recipes/tutorials/
getting-started-with-watson-iot-platform-using-node-red/
Session: Working Group Presentations
[33] IFTTT. 2017. IFTTT. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://ifttt.com/
[34] MCI Management Center Innsbruck. 2017. Mechatronics and Smart Technologies.
(2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.mci.edu/en/study-program/
master/mechatronics-smart-technologies/study-program
[35] Raj Jain. 2015. CSE570S: Recent Advances in Networking (Data Center Virtual-
ization, SDN, Big Data, Internet of Things). (2015). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse570-15/index.html
[36] Patrick Di Justo. 2015. Raspberry Pi or Arduino Uno? One Simple Rule to Choose
the Right Board. (2015). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://makezine.com/2015/
12/04/admittedly-simplistic-guide-raspberry-pi-vs-arduino/
[37] S. G. M. Koo. 2015. An integrated curriculum for Internet of Things: Experience
and evaluation. In 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344347
[38] Gerd Kortuem, Arosha K Bandara, Neil Smith, Mike Richards, and Marian Petre.
2013. Educating the Internet-of-Things generation. Computer 46, 2 (2013), 53–61.
[39] Stan Kurkovsky and Chad Williams. 2017. Raspberry Pi as a Platform for the
Internet of Things Projects: Experiences and Lessons. In Proceedings of the 2017
ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education.
ACM, 64–69.
[40] Linda M Laird and Nicholas S Bowen. 2016. A New Software Engineering
Undergraduate Program Supporting the Internet of Things (IoT) and Cyber-
Physical Systems (CPS). In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE
Conferences, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://peer.asee.org/26192.
[41] Zuzanna Lechelt, Yvonne Rogers, Nicolai Marquardt, and Venus Shum. 2016.
ConnectUs: A New Toolkit for Teaching About the Internet of Things. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3711–3714.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2890241
[42] Intercommunale Leiedal. 2017. SmartCities. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
http://www.smartcities.info/
[43] Hanna Mäenpää, Sasu Tarkoma, Samu Varjonen, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015.
Blending Problem- and Project-Based Learning in Internet of Things Education:
Case Greenhouse Maintenance. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Sym-
posium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
398–403. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677262
[44] Hanna Mäenpää, Samu Varjonen, Arto Hellas, Sasu Tarkoma, and Tomi Männistö.
2017. Assessing IOT Projects in University Education: A Framework for Problem-
based Learning. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software
Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track (ICSE-SEET ’17). IEEE
Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.6
[45] Kunal Mankodiya. 2017. ELE491/ELE591: Wearable Internet of Things. (2017). Re-
trieved Nov. 1, 2017 from http://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/kunalm/491_591.xhtml
[46] Microsoft. 2017. Touch Develop Homepage. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
https://www.touchdevelop.com/
[47] Roberto Minerva, Abyi Biru, and Domenico Rotondi. 2015. Towards a definition
of the Internet of Things (IoT). IEEE Internet Initiative 1 (2015).
139
ITiCSE-WGR'17, July 3–5, 2017, Bologna, Italy
[48] Simone Mora, Francesco Gianni, and Monica Divitini. 2017. Tiles IoT Toolkit.
(2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from http://tilestoolkit.io/
[49] Gary J. Mullett. 2016. Teaching the Internet of Things (IoT) Using Uni-
versally Available Raspberry Pi and Arduino Platforms. In 2016 ASEE An-
nual Conference & Exposition. ASEE Conferences, New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://peer.asee.org/26053.
[50] Node-RED. 2017. Flow-based programming for the Internet of Things. (2017).
Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://nodered.org
[51] University of Washington Professional and Continuing Education. 2017. Cer-
tificate in Internet of Things. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https:
//www.pce.uw.edu/certificates/internet-of-things
[52] Amos O Olagunju and Firasat Khan. 2016. Challenges of Interdisciplinary IoT Cur-
riculum. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Information Technology
Education. ACM, 110–110.
[53] Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. 2016. Internet of
Things. (Oct 2016). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from http://www.hioa.no/eng/Studies/
TKD/Courses-taught-in-english/ADSE1310-Internet-of-Things
[54] Particle. 2017. Particle. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.particle.
io/
[55] PunchThrough. 2017. PunchThrough. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
https://punchthrough.com/
[56] M. M. Raikar, P. Desai, and J. G. Naragund. 2016. Active Learning Explored in
Open Elective Course: Internet of Things (IoT). In 2016 IEEE Eighth International
Conference on Technology for Education (T4E). 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.
2016.012
[57] Bernat Romagosa. 2017. Snap4Arduino Homepage. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1,
2017 from http://snap4arduino.rocks/
[58] Y Series. 2001. Global Information Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects and
Next-Generation Networks. ITU-T Recommendation Y (2001).
[59] Scott Smith, Natalie D. Kane, Susan Cox-Smith, Emma Charleston, and Sjef van
Gaalen. 2017. Thingclash. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from http://www.
thingclash.com/
[60] Sebastian Steinhorst. 2017. System Design for the Internet of Things.
(2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.esi.ei.tum.de/en/teaching/
summer-semester-2017/
[61] Inc. The Mathworks. 2016. Thingspeak Homepage. (2016). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017
from https://thingspeak.com/
[62] Washington State University. 2017. Gerontechnology I. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1,
2017 from http://eecs.wsu.edu/~cook/gt1/
[63] Jeffrey Voas and Philip Laplante. 2017. Curriculum Considerations for the Internet
of Things. Computer 50, 1 (2017), 72–75.
[64] T. Watteyne, P. Tuset-Peiro, X. Vilajosana, S. Pollin, and B. Krishnamachari.
2017. Teaching Communication Technologies and Standards for the Industrial
IoT? Use 6TiSCH! IEEE Communications Magazine 55, 5 (May 2017), 132–137.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700013
[65] Wolfram. 2017. Wolfram Mathematica. (2017). Retrieved Nov. 1, 2017 from
http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/