The Institute For Personal Robots In Education (IPRE)

1. The Institute For Personal Robots In Education (IPRE) Tucker Balch Associate Professor College of Computing at Georgia Tech Stewart Tansley Program Manager Microsoft Research

2. Contents • Attraction and retention in CS • Microsoft’s motivation and role • A program for addressing the challenge • The Institute for Personal Robots in Education • Background -- Context for CS & Threads • Program overview • The robots • Discussion

3. Computer Science In DeclineComputer Science Listed As Probable Major Among Incoming Freshman Source: HERI at UCLA

4. Microsoft Program Vision Partner with academia to bring measurable gains inComputer Science enrollment & retentionthrough the deployment of compellingrobotics-based technologiesin CS1/CS2 curriculum

5. Institute Concept • Concerted, focused applied research effort • Leverage best contemporary technologies and approaches • Target CS1/CS2 specifically • 3-year program, $1M from Microsoft • Use this to establish a center of excellence in robotics-based education • Mutually select a partner from a pre-qualified invited list of potential hosts, using an augmented form of MSR’s proven Request For Proposals program

6. The Institute For Personal Robots In Education (IPRE)Hosted at theCollege of Computing at Georgia Tech,with Bryn Mawr College

7. The Institute • The Institute for Personal Robots in Education • July 12 announcement • Hosted at Georgia Tech with Bryn Mawr College • $1M over 3 years, $1M matching funds • Goal: • To develop a proven, practical, reliable, cost-effective robot technology platform for teaching CS, targeted at CS1/CS2

8. The Institute • Tucker Balch, Director • Doug Blank, Software • Mark Guzdial, Curricula • Deepak Kumar, Curricula

9. Background: Teaching CS At GT • As of 1999: • All GT students must take CS-1 • Many take CS-1 and CS-2 • 3800 students per year • Problems: • 28% WDF rate (50% for non-CS majors) • Solution: Context & Choice • Computational Media (Guzdial) • Engineering/Matlab (Smith)

10. Impact Of Context • WDF rate 16% for non-majors • 1 year later: 20% of non-major students report programming outside class • Students who move to CS major perform as well as “regular” CS students

11. New: Threads CS Curriculum • Computing & Computational Modeling • Computing & Embodiment • Computing & Foundations • Computing & Information Internetworks • Computing & Intelligence • Computing & Media • Computing & People • Computing & Platforms

12. New: • New joint Computing and Engineering research center • ~30 faculty, +2 / year • Henrik Christensen, Director • Endowed chair: KUKA Robotics • Robotics PhD program 2007

13. Robots For CS Education Our proposal is not to create a set of introductory robotics courses . . . but to create a set of introductory computer science courses using robots that reveal the fundamental concepts of computer science

14. Elements Of Our Plan • Novel robots for the student’s desktop • Curricula: Robotics context for CS1 and CS2 • Pyro/Myro: educational robotics • software platform • Evaluation using provenassessment instruments • Broad dissemination • Communicating the message

15. Element: Robots • Recall the PC. • Meet the PR. • Every student with herown robot. • Design goals: • Inexpensive • Reliable • “Brainless”

16. Element: Curricula “Use robots to reveal the fundamental issues in computer science” • This is aresearch problem • We have roadmap pioneered byMark Guzdial

17. Element: CS Teaching Laboratories • Four diverse universities: • Georgia Institute of Technology; • Bryn Mawr College; • Georgia State University; • The University of Georgia

18. Element: Software • The Microsoft Robotics SDK. • Visual Studio • Pyro/Myro: the leading educational robotics software platform

19. Element: Evaluation • Substantial experience with media-based CS education • Test deployments at 4 universities • Proven assessment instruments

20. Element: Dissemination • Initial deployment at 4partner universities • Two workshops for broader audience • Textbooks

21. The Robots

22. Challenges/Tradeoffs • High cost: • Insurmountable obstacle forsome schools • Come to the lab, check outa robot…. • Doesn’t scale • Compile, download and run: • Increases cost • Decreases understandability • Build the robot: • Requires support infrastructure • Reduces reliability • Intimidates some people

23. Our Approach • Low cost • Reliable: • Simple hardware; • Microsoft Robotics SDK. • Easy: • “Brainless;” • Leverages the Microsoft desktop

24. Two Robots

25. CS1 Robot • Bluetooth + PIC • 2 x wheels & motors • 1 x actuator • Sensors • Buttons, LEDs • Speaker • Assembly, packaging $30-- $20-- $10-- $15-- $5-- $5-- $10--

26. Example Lesson • A program is a sequence of stepsto execute: Forward(10) Right(90) Forward(10) Right(90) Forward(10) Right(90) Forward(10) Right(90)

27. Example Lesson • Iteration: For(I=1; I<=4; I++) Forward(10) Right(90)

28. CS2 Robot • Arm and camera

29. Any Questions?

30. © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.