Using Robots to Raise Interest in Technology Among Underrepresented Groups A Technology Day Camp for Women, African Americans, and Hispanics
W
omen and minorities are underrepresented in the IT field at the high school, university, and industry levels. Efforts to address this imbalance are often too late to solve underlying problems such as perceived ineptitude and actual inexperience. By designing and hosting a program for these underrepresented students in the middle grades, the Center for Distributed Robotics at the University of Minnesota hopes to establish a successful annual robotics day camp that will inspire both women and minorities to pursue careers in technology. Detailed accounts of the goals and methodology are provided. Initial survey results reveal a very positive response from the campers as well as strengths and weaknesses that will be useful in designing or refining similar camps. While the demand for workers with high-level information technology (IT) skills exceeds the available supply, women and minorities are not stepping forward to fill the gap [1]. Universities are finding it difficult both to attract and retain these underrepresented groups [2], and research indicates that the underlying factors contributing to the groups’ detachment from IT are similar [2]–[6]. In an effort to address these issues, the Center for Distributed Robotics at the University of Minnesota in conjunction with the Digital Technology Center and the National Science Foundation designed and hosted a week-long technology day camp with a special emphasis on robotics for youth in grades five through eight from the surrounding metropolitan areas. The camp was created with four primary focus areas: 1) to introduce students to opportunities available in technologybased fields and the university experience, 2) to provide them with a gentle introduction to hardware, 3) to acquaint them with the basics of software, and 4) to promote their self© PHOTODISC
BY KELLY CANNON, MONICA ANDERSON LAPOINT, NATHANIEL BIRD, KATHERINE PANCIERA, HARINI VEERARAGHAVAN, NIKOLAOS PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, AND MARIA GINI
JUNE 2007
1070-9932/07/$25.00©2007 IEEE
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
73
The creation of a program for youth in grades five through eight is intended to reach students at a critical time in their education.
esteem—especially in the area of technology. By providing a broad induction to technology via robotics and a sense of accomplishment in the field, it is hoped that these students will be more inclined to enroll in technology-based courses at the high school level and will therefore be better equipped to succeed at the university level. We started with a goal: to create a program that would raise interest in technology among underrepresented groups. Using personal experience and a basic understanding of the concerns held by these groups as supported by previous research, we designed a program that we hoped would be effective. We prepared a short survey for the students to complete in the afternoon of their last day, but the majority of our feedback was obtained through casual conversation and leader observations throughout the week. Although our sample size is inadequate to provide statistical significance, it is appropriate for our number of volunteers as well as our funding. Similarly, our window of interaction with the students cannot possibly provide all the information necessary to fully evaluate success, such as reviewing what percentage of students actually enroll in technology-based programs at the college level, but we also believe that the need for an increase in participation by these groups is urgent; therefore, it is reasonable to implement and support those programs that have not yet been proven to show a long-term change but that have shortterm evidence indicating that such a change might take place. Ideally, we hope that other schools implement variations of such a camp, and that the evidence will one day be gathered from a large number of programs reaching hundreds of students and evolving over ten or more years. To support this cause, we have provided a detailed description of our own motivations when designing the camp, including detailed explanations for our selected methods, how we addressed our four focus areas, and an easy reference describing what was learned as well as what materials were used (see the “Materials Used” box) in order that other schools that might choose to implement a similar program will benefit from our work.
Motivation In 1999, the scientific and engineering workforce in the United States was almost 80% white and 75% male [7]. Although there has been improvement, an ultimate goal of proportional employment for underrepresented groups is still distant. The primary motivation for this robotics day camp is to promote IT among underrepresented groups such as women and minorities in order that the ultimate goal of proportional equality may one day be achieved. 74
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Women in Technology The absence of women in technology is apparent at all levels. While women account for 47% of the United States workforce, they hold only 29% of the jobs in high-tech fields [8], and women only receive approximately 20% of the awarded engineering degrees [9]. At the graduate level, less than one-third of students enrolled are women, and female enrollment in the most prestigious programs is even lower [10]. As early as high school, above-average students in mathematics courses are predominantly male, and males are much more likely to enroll in advanced-placement physics and computer science classes [11]. Minorities in Technology While some minority groups such as Asians are well represented in technology, others are almost nonexistent; both Latin and African Americans are largely missing from the technology sector. Although Latinos proportionally earn more credits in computer science than other groups at the high school level, they are more often enrolled in general education courses as opposed to college preparatory classes [12]. Additionally, Latin Americans are more likely to enroll in two-year programs as opposed to four-year programs, and a high percentage take more than six years to graduate [12]. Latinos are most likely to earn degrees in business, the social sciences, or education, not technology [12]. Latinos account for only 9% of all high-level IT occupations [1]. Falling far behind whites, African Americans are substantially less likely to own a home computer and less likely to use computers in school [1], which may prohibit many such students from becoming computer literate until a late age, if ever. As a potential result, African Americans account for only 11% of all high-level IT occupations [1]. Reaching Underrepresented Students Early Once target groups have been selected, timing is crucial. The creation of a program for youth in grades five through eight is intended to reach students at a critical time in their education. Younger students are prone to lack the patience, hand-eye coordination, and abstract thought necessary to complete activities such as soldering and programming. On the other hand, waiting until college to address the issue of minorities and women in computer science has been shown by previous research to be unacceptable. Research has shown that women have strong opinions about computer science prior to entering college, and that this perception is most often defined during high school [13]. On the whole, women enter introductory computer science courses at the undergraduate level with less previous experience than males, and it has been shown that grades in introductory courses are strongly dependent on the initial levels of experience [6]. Additionally, both women and minorities are less likely to have computers in their home [1], [3]. By giving students early experiences with computers using robotics as a motivation, it is hoped that these same students will be more likely to enroll in technology courses at the high JUNE 2007
school level and thereby to attain experience regardless of their home situations. In order to allow the students time to gain experience, it is vital that they have these experiences prior to high school. Why Robots? Although using robots may seem obvious as evidenced by the number of cartoons that incorporate robots, from the classic “The Jetsons” to the more modern day “Power Rangers,” research shows that middle schoolers are very receptive to robots and a career in robotics [14]. Robots permit a range of subject areas to be addressed from mechanical and electrical engineering to computer engineering and computer science and provide the students with immediate gratification as they see their hard work come to life. Additionally, we selected more professional platforms as opposed to Lego-based systems. It is our belief that Legos, although cheap and entertaining, inherently restrict robotics to a game for kids since adults don’t play with Legos. This decision was made in part to address some of the literature available on why underrepresented groups are not pursuing careers in technology fields. For Hispanics, there appears to be an interest and even an inclination toward technology in high school, but very few of these students further their interests in college or in their career choices [12]. There is a similar transition for women, although this transition occurs much earlier [13], [14]. This seems to indicate that the students see technology as an inviable career option. By presenting robotics to the students as a fun but mature career option, we hope to change this perception. Why a Five-Day Summer Camp? Currently, numerous programs exist in Minnesota with the explicit purpose of drawing more middle-grades students into technology, but our program is unique in many ways. First, our program is held at the end of the summer. During the school year, students are forced to choose between competing programs such as cheerleading, sports teams, social groups, and perhaps most tempting, free time. By providing a camp during the summer, there will be fewer overlapping opportunities ensuring that students can commit to the program without being forced to withdraw from other areas of interest. Positioning the camp at the end of the summer was also intentional as this is the time when students have rested and are once again becoming excited about returning to school and seeing friends. This timing is ideal for the student who has a slight interest in technology but who has not yet had the time to pursue that interest. Three female students admitted that they came to the program primarily because they wanted to see friends during the summer but then realized that they really enjoyed the activities and were very interested in technology. Second, our program is only one week long. Many existing programs require a commitment of a month or more by the students. Although this is great for those students who have a definite interest in technology, those who are as of yet JUNE 2007
unconvinced may find these large commitments to be intimidating. By requiring only a week-long commitment, students with uncertainties may have a taste of what is available in technical fields, and it is hoped that this short experience will provide the evidence needed to convince students to make larger commitments to technology. Third, our program offers students many short opportunities to be successful. Other programs often offer lengthy projects that require many weeks of work before success is achieved. After the initial day of orientation, students attending our camp were able to see their success each day thanks to small projects with very concrete goals. This ensures that students maintain an upbeat attitude and do not become discouraged. Every student attending successfully completed each activity, so no one went home feeling like a failure. Finally, our camp provides a more holistic approach than most other programs. It is no coincidence that the program is held on a university campus. Students completed activities in various labs, were given tours of both the educational buildings such as the Computer Science and Engineering Building and the more social buildings such as the Coffman Memorial Student Union, and were involved in discussions about attending college regardless of their intended field. Although ideally we would like to see these students enter technical fields, it is most important that they realize the value of education, the opportunities available at a university, and the appeal of attending.
Student Selection Students were selected from two organizations: Aurora Charter School and Saint Peter Claver Catholic Church. Aurora Charter School is a dual-language school servicing approximately 200 students in grades kindergarten through fifth with a markedly high rate of eligibility for free lunch, and the student population is 99% Hispanic. Saint Peter Claver was founded over 100 years ago to serve African American Catholics in St. Paul, Minnesota. Seven girls and eight boys chose to attend from the two institutions. With only 15 students in attendance, it is easy to question the impact of the camp. Although larger programs may reach more students, it is our belief that having a limited class size is essential to reaching each and every student on a personal level. Unlike many camps where name tags are necessary, by the end of the first day both leaders and students were comfortable on a first-name basis. These relationships developed throughout the camp as the leaders had a chance to talk oneon-one with all of the students and thereby learn their individual interests, goals, and concerns. With this information, future class sessions could be catered to individual needs and not stereotypes. This setting also helped to ensure that no students were permitted to dominate the conversation or when working in groups. With such a high leader to student ratio, the activities of the students could be closely monitored to ensure that all students had an equal opportunity to participate. Finally, this is a manageable size, both for our financial and personnel constraints. It is hoped that the local and IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
75
Materials Used “Jumbo Blinkey Kit.” The jumbo LED circuit board kits may be purchased from Electronic Rainbow (http://www.rainbowkits.com) in red (DJRB-1) or green (DJGB-1) for US$5.95 each plus tax, shipping, and handling. Each kit requires a 9-V battery, use of a soldering iron, and solder, which are not included. Three faulty timer chips were found and two or three parts were destroyed due to soldering mishaps. Purchasing additional kits is strongly recommended. Palm Pilot Robot Kit (PPRK). PPRKs (R141-PPRK-BS-2) and additional parts may be purchased from Acroname (http://www.acroname.com) for US$325.00 each plus tax, shipping, and handling. Since students are prone to losing the smaller parts, it is strongly recommended that additional parts be purchased. Sony AIBOs. Sony recently decided to cease production of the AIBO. As only one AIBO is necessary, it may be possible to borrow one from a neighboring institution or to find a refurbished AIBO online. Sony AIBO Motion Editor (MEdit). MEdit may be freely downloaded from http://openr.aibo.com. Matlab. Matlab is a product of The MathWorks (http://www.mathworks. com/). In addition to the standard package, the Image Processing Toolbox was also used. Both may be purchased online with special academic pricing.
limited success of this program will serve to inspire other universities to adopt similar programs, thereby creating a more substantial impact.
Opportunities in Technology If students are to be motivated to learn about technology, they must first understand that technology can and will play a role in their futures; therefore, the first day of camp was devoted to showing the students several facets of hands-on technology. Additionally, throughout the camp, students were exposed to a variety of leaders in an effort to deconstruct any preconceived stereotypes about what types of people are involved with technology.
Figure 1. Students experience virtual reality first hand.
76
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Campus Tours and Demonstrations Because many middle schoolers have limited experience beyond basic word processing and video games, much of the first day was spent introducing the students to other hands-on activities. First, the students were given a broad tour of the university with special focus on the computer science, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering buildings as well as the student center where students of all ethnicities gather for food, studying, and fun. The students were then given a tour of the robotics laboratory where they were briefly introduced to many varieties of robots in all levels of completion. Next, they visited a virtual reality laboratory where each student was given the opportunity to ride a virtual roller coaster using a head-mounted display and to explore a virtual world using an immersive projection screen and a head-tracking helmet (Figure 1). Finally, the students toured a computer vision laboratory where they saw samples of vehicle and human tracking programs as well live demos. The students were invited to trespass into a forbidden zone only to be surprised when the camera system reported their activity, and the students attempted to trick a second vision system by leaving objects such as shoes or bookbags in the camera’s view. Again, the camera was not easily fooled and found most of the abandoned objects left by the students. Special emphasis was given on this first day to the social impacts of technology. The use of robots in reconnaissance and surveillance was discussed, and the students were asked to think of and share other ways that robots might be useful to society. Students were also asked to elaborate on the ways that the computer vision algorithms they had seen might be useful. It is hoped that this emphasis would appeal to those students— particularly females—who view computer science and engineering as a hard science with no humanitarian implications [13]. The students not only provided the expected and obvious answers but also provided many creative opportunities for robotics and computer vision to help society. One-on-One and Group Discussions By maintaining an average student/leader ratio of five to one and providing ample free time for open discussion, students
Figure 2. Students and leaders work with Sony AIBOs.
JUNE 2007
were given the opportunity to get to know their leaders and to appreciate their differing backgrounds. The students were very interested to hear personal stories about how individuals came to be graduate students in computer science, and it is hoped that they will one day be able to share their own stories now that they know that not everyone is born a computer scientist. Approximately three hours of time was devoted on the first day to group and individual discussions with leaders with limited or no predefined structure. This helped cement a bond between the students themselves and with the leaders that was invaluable in later sessions.
Demystifying Hardware The second and third days of the program were devoted to helping the students become comfortable working with hardware. Students who fear technology will never be able to master it, so an initial introductory period is vital to the eventual success of the program. Free Time with Sony AIBOs As an introduction to robots, the students were given free time to explore the capabilities of the Sony AIBOs (Figure 2). The dogs were running standard adult mode software that responds to touch, voice, brightly colored balls and bones, and visual cues such as instructional cards. Leaders showed the sensors available on the dogs, gave a few quick examples of behaviors such as following voice commands and reading cards, and told the students to have fun. Although the students were initially hesitant to physically interact with the dogs, they quickly became comfortable and enjoyed experimenting to discover what the dogs were capable of achieving. This activity also provided an opportunity for a discussion about sensors as the students were quick to ask, “How can he/she do that?” By the end of the hour-long session, the students were very comfortable with the dogs, and they were ready to create electronics on their own. Building Flashing LED Circuit Boards In an effort to provide students with a basic understanding of electrical circuits, each student was given an LED circuit board kit consisting of a circuit board, two extra large LEDs, four resistors, one capacitor, a timer chip and chip holder, and a 9-V battery with connector. Following a short introductory presentation describing the function of each part in the kits, students were sternly warned as to the serious and careful manner that is necessary to work with soldering irons. Any student who engaged in any level of horseplay would be removed from the project and forbidden to finish the circuit board. After this warning, the students were divided into groups of five with two adult leaders for each group. The leaders taught basic soldering skills and provided parts while the students followed lengthy instructions for properly completing the kits. Two mis-soldered resistors, a few poorly soldered connections, and three faulty timer chips later, each student proudly held a completed blinking LED circuit board. The average student completed the activity in an hour with JUNE 2007
only minor deviations. Two mild burns were reported with no need for medical attention, and no student misbehaved while using the soldering irons. Despite their youth, the students understood the necessity for maturity while using soldering irons, and they found the experience to be very rewarding (Figure 3). Building LEDs received an average rank of 4.54 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “Did Not Enjoy At All” and 5 is “Enjoyed Very Much,” making this activity tied with programming the AIBOs for the second-favorite activity of the week. Building Palm Pilot Robot Kits Once students were comfortable with a single circuit board, the next step was to help them understand how circuit boards and other mechanical parts combine to form robots. Working in groups of twos and threes, the students built Acroname’s Palm Pilot Robot Kits (PPRKs) (Figure 4). Each group was
Figure 3. Soldering LED circuit boards.
Figure 4. Proud students with a completed PPRK. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
77
provided with packets of parts and accompanying instructions in five stages to ensure that any mistakes made by the students could be caught and corrected in a timely manner. Students were instructed to check their bags for the correct types and numbers of parts, follow the instructions for the current stage to completion, and raise their hands for a leader to approve the work. Once complete, the PPRKs rotate slowly in place assuring the students that their work was a success. Each group completed a PPRK in approximately three hours, and the activity received an average rank of 4.69 on a scale of 1 to 5, making this activity the favorite activity of the week. Robot Olympics In an effort to provide a fun yet educational transition between hardware and software, students had the opportunity to drive Scout robots, two-wheeled robots for reconnaissance and surveillance developed at the University of Minnesota, through an obstacle course (Figure 5). The rules were simple; two students competed against one another to reach the finish
line first. A track was created using long power cords, and improvised obstacles such as water bottles and books made the trek more challenging. Any robot leaving the track would immediately forfeit the match. Because the Scouts are hardened against all but the most extreme abuse, students were actually encouraged to misuse the robots. These robots provide a stark contrast from the delicate LED circuit boards and PPRKs, thereby helping students understand the value of mechanical engineering and its role in technology. Some students chose to complete the course in true BattleBots fashion by ramming their opponents in an effort to force them to leave the track. Other students took a more traditional approach and raced for the finish as fast as possible while maintaining distance from their opponents. Both approaches proved successful in varying rounds. Although this may not seem a girl-friendly activity, care was taken to ensure that this remained a supportive and fun activity for all students. First, students were divided into brackets, which means that no more than two students were competing at any given time. This resulted in the expected cheering for both students. Second, since this was the first time using the unique Scout controller for all students, neither sex was inherently superior. Although it might seem that boys would dominate due to their experience with video games, the results confirmed our belief that the new platform would be equally challenging to all, with a male and a female working their way through the bracket to compete for first place. There was no discrepancy in the surveys indicating that boys or girls preferred the activity. It was strongly received by all participants, receiving an average rank of 4.46 out of 5, which made this activity the third-favorite activity of the week.
Understanding Software
Figure 5. Students compete in the Robot Olympics.
Figure 6. The Sony AIBO Motion Editor (MEdit).
78
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Once students are comfortable working with hardware, it is important that they understand that something makes the hardware function; computers and robots are useless without initial input from human controllers in the form of software. Days 4 and 5 were devoted to helping the students understand the basics of software. Programming Sony AIBOs Using MEdit Because younger students are often drawn to the Sony AIBOs due to their playful appearance, they were an easy choice for the students’ first programming experience. A brief presentation was provided during which the students were taught how to add music, how to create poses, and how to organize those poses to create movements. Basic rules were provided to avoid damaging the AIBOs but students were given great freedom. The Sony AIBO Motion Editor (MEdit) (Figure 6) was used due to its well-designed, intuitive visual programming interface. Since MEdit does not mimic gravity, moves that seemed questionable (for example, lifting two legs at the same time) were tested on the AIBOs prior to the actual competition. The students and occasionally even the leaders were sometimes stumped by why certain moves were safe and other JUNE 2007
moves caused the AIBO to fall over. While this may be seen as a shortcoming of the activity, it was important that the students not believe the leaders to be all-knowing or infallible. After approximately four hours of programming, each group completed a minimum of 30 seconds of dancing without falling, and most groups completed substantially more. The dance contest was a definite highlight of the week as students had a chance to view other groups’ dances. The activity received an average of 4.54 out of 5, tying this activity with creating LED circuit boards for the second-favorite activity of the week. Altering Images Using Matlab On the first day of camp, groups of students were provided with digital cameras and instructed to take as many pictures throughout the week as they desired. By the fourth day, most groups had accumulated well over 300 images. Students were instructed to select 20 of their favorite images for manipulation using Matlab (Figure 7). After a presentation about matrices, digital imagery, and Matlab functions, the students were divided into groups and given the opportunity to alter their own images. Unfortunately, this activity received mixed reviews. Despite what was viewed by the leaders as excellent efforts on the part of the students, this activity received an average rank of 3.92 out of 5, making this activity one of the least favorite activities. This revelation is discussed further in the conclusions.
Promoting Self-Esteem Once students are aware of the possibilities available in technology, it is important that they understand that they are capable of filling these positions. By promoting students’ self-esteem, both through activities and through a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in higher education, it is hoped that these students will be better prepared to pursue a degree if they so choose.
By giving students early experiences with computers using robotics as a motivation, it is hoped that these same students will be more likely to enroll in technology courses at the high school level and thereby to attain experience regardless of their home situations.
cussed among themselves what they enjoyed most and least. During these discussions, the students realized that not everyone enjoyed the same things. One group even created a slide which read, “We built PPRKs. Some thought it was easy. Some thought it was hard. We all enjoyed it.” Without leader intervention, the students realized that they have different strengths and weaknesses, but that they all enjoyed and were good at doing something throughout the week. Similarly, they realized that things that may seem hard at first become easier with time. After completing their slideshows, the students were asked to present them to the group. Surprisingly, none of the students seemed intimidated by this presentation, but it is impossible to know if this is a trait inherent in the students or if this is a result of the activities and group swapping that occurred throughout the week. The week ended with awards for the Robot Olympics, for completion of the PPRKs, and for innovation, such as the group that discovered how to do manipulations with MATLAB not provided by the leaders or the cheat sheet of functions.
One-on-One and Group Discussions Throughout the week, efforts were made to remind the students that succeeding academically—especially in the area of technology—is the result of a number of factors, not just being born smart. Students were encouraged to network, remain determined and focused, and to never give up. Mistakes made by graduate students, such as an inability to always correctly guess if an AIBO will remain standing after a given movement, were not hidden but instead highlighted in an effort to show the students that even professionals make mistakes and that what is important is that the students keep trying. Week in Review PowerPoint Presentations As a conclusion to the week, students were asked to arrange their Matlab-manipulated images into a slideshow. The slideshow was required to have 30 slides, and on any slide without an image the students were asked to list something they learned, something they enjoyed, or a favorite quote from the week. While preparing the slides, the students disJUNE 2007
Figure 7. Students using MATLAB.
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
79
Robots permit a range of subject areas to be addressed from mechanical and electrical engineering to computer engineering and computer science and provide the students with immediate gratification as they see their hard work “come to life.” Conclusions At the end of the fifth day, the students were asked to complete surveys about their experience. Of the 13 students who returned their surveys, 11 indicated that they have learned a lot, and ten reported that they were more interested in computers and technology. All students agreed that they wanted to one day attend college, and 11 were glad they attended the camp. Four students indicated that they definitely wanted to work with computers when they grew up, two indicated they probably wanted to work with computers, and four indicated that they might want to work with computers. Home addresses were kept for all students, and follow-up surveys will be sent to look for a more substantial influence on the students. Leaders, faculty observers, parents, and students returned glowing reviews about the success of the program, and support has been secured to ensure that this will be an annual event. What can be learned from this effort? Age Matters Surprisingly, there appeared to be no correlation between age and perceived difficulty or enjoyment of the activities. Both the leaders’ observations and the survey results confirmed that the program was applicable to the full range of students, and even in those areas where leaders felt that younger students were falling behind such as when reading instructions for building the PPRKs, the students themselves felt equally secure with their peers. Age remains an important issue not because of educational background but because of maturity. Younger students were more prone to become bored with the activities or to ignore instructions. Seventh and eighth graders seemed best able to handle the challenges. Successes and Failures All activities where the students were working with circuit boards or robots were warmly received, while the students were less enthusiastic about both MATLAB and creating presentations with PowerPoint. Although there are no data to support the hypothesis, it is likely that the students 80
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
became accustomed to the physical activity inherent in working with hardware and were thereby less willing to revert to the sedentary style necessary for programming. In future years, it may be necessary to swap the activities so that students program first and then create hardware to see if their perceptions would change.
Acknowledgments We would to athank the anonymous reviewers for their useful and constructive comments. This work was published in part in the Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation and has been supported by the NSF through grant Nos. CNS-0224363, IIS-0219863, CNS-0324864, IIP0443945, and CNS-0420836. Kelly Cannon has been supported partially by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.
Keywords Robotics, computer science education, women in computer science, minorities in computer science, middle grades education.
References [1] M. McClelland, “Closing the IT gap for race and gender,” J. Educational Comput. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 5–15, 2001. [2] M. Mannix, “Getting IT right,” Prism, pp. 15–20, Mar. 2001. [3] A. Fisher, J. Margolis, and F. Miller, “Undergraduate women in computer science: Experience, motivation, and culture,” in Proc. SIGSCE Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education, 1997, pp. 106–110. [4] O. Garcia and R. Giles (2000, June) “Research foundations for improving the representation of underrepresented minorities in the information technology workforce,” National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA [Online]. Available: http://www.cise.nsf.gov/itminorities/it_minorities_ final_ report.pdf [5] W. Haliburton, “Gender differences in personality components of computer science students: A test of Holland’s congruence hypothesis,” in Proc. SIGSCE Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education, Feb. 1998, pp. 77–81. [6] M. Sackrowitz, “An unlevel playing field: Women in the introductory computer science courses,” in Proc. SIGSCE Tech. Symp. Computer Science Education, Feb. 1996, pp. 37–41. [7] K. Dunn, “Diversity pledge,” Technol. Rev., no. 4, pp. M14–M20, Apr. 2005. [8] M. McGee, “Women in technology: Leaders among leaders,” Information WEEK, vol. 807, p. 99, Oct. 2000. [9] J. Tietjen, “Why so few women, still?” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 57–58, Oct. 2004. [10] J. Cohoon and K. Baylor, “Female graduate students and program quality,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 28–35, 2003. [11] M. Thom, “Young women’s progress in science and technology studies: Overcoming remaining barriers,” NASSP Bull., vol. 85. no. 628, pp. 6–19, Nov. 2001. [12] The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, “Latinos in education: Early childhood, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate,” 1999. Available on microfiche. [13] J. Margolis and A. Fisher, Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. [14] J. Rogers, M. Lisowski, and A. Rogers, “Girls, robots, and science education,” Science Scope, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 62–63, Mar. 2006.
Kelly Cannon graduated summa cum laude from Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, in 2003, receiving a B.A. in Spanish and political science and a B.S. in computer JUNE 2007
science. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in computer science at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her research interests include the use of robotics in computer science education, distributed robotics, and robot vision. She is a member of the Upsilon Pi Epsilon, Phi Kappa Phi, and Omicron Delta Kappa honor societies and was awarded a Phi Kappa Phi Award of Excellence in 2003. Kelly is also the recipient of an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, a Grace Hopper Scholarship, and a University of Minnesota Graduate Fellowship. Monica Anderson LaPoint is a Ph. D. candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her research interests focus on bioinspired approaches that merge AI, robotics, and computer vision to accomplish high-level tasks with teams of robots. Her contributions range from electrical designs to new algorithms. In addition, Monica researches gender and minority issues in robotics by focusing on competency and inclusion via learning-style based curriculum changes. Prior to graduate school, Monica was an industry professional with various companies including Cargill, Target, and Northwest Airlines as a software engineer and IBM Global Services as an IT architect. Monica received an honorable mention in the NSF Graduate Fellowship competition and was awarded the SMART fellowship in 2005. Nathaniel Bird received his B.S. in computer engineering from Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio, in 2003 and his M.S. in computer science from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2006. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in computer science at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include computer vision and machine learning, specifically as they relate to automated monitoring of human behavior and other transportation applications. He is a member of the Tau Beta Pi and Phi Kappa Phi honor societies. In addition, he is a recipient of the ITS Institute Student of the Year Award and the Matthew J. Huber Award for Excellence in Transportation Research and Education. Katherine Panciera graduated from Berea College with B.A. degrees in computer science and mathematics in 2005. She is currently a Ph.D. student at the Center for Distributed Robotics at the University of Minnesota. Her primary research interests include human-robot interaction and the use of robotics in education. She is a recipient of a 2006 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to design and evaluate robots for autism therapy. Harini Veeraraghavan received a B.Tech. in electrical engineering from Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra, India, in 1999. She received her M.S in computer science from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2003 and her Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Minnesota in 2006. Her research interests include computer vision, machine learning, and estimation theory applied JUNE 2007
to learning and cognition. She is the recipient of a Grace Hopper Scholarship and an award for excellence in research and education in transportation research. Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos was born in Piraeus, Greece. He received the Diploma degree in electrical and computer engineering from the National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, in 1987; the M.S.E.E. in electrical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1988; and the Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1992. Currently, he is a professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota and Director of the Center for Distributed Robotics. His research interests include robotics, sensors for transportation applications, control, and computer vision. He has authored or coauthored more than 200 journal and conference papers in the above areas (49 refereed journal papers). He was finalist for the Anton Philips Award for Best Student Paper in the 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation and recipient of the best Video Award in the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Furthermore, he was recipient of the Kritski fellowship in 1986 and 1987. He was a McKnight Land-Grant Professor at the University of Minnesota for the per iod 1995-1997 and has received the NSF Research Initiation and Early Career Development Awards. He was also awarded the Faculty Creativity Award from the University of Minnesota. One of his papers (co-authored by O. Masoud) was awarded the IEEE VTS 2001 Best Land Transportation Paper Award. Finally, he has received grants from DARPA, DHS, Sandia National Laboratories, NSF, Microsoft, INEEL, USDOT, MN/DOT, Honeywell, and 3M. He is also an IEEE Fellow. Maria Gini is a professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. Before joining the University of Minnesota she was a research associate at the Politecnico of Milan, Italy, and a visiting research associate in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Stanford University. Her research focuses on methods to distribute intelligence among robots or software agents. Her major contributions include algorithms for multirobot systems, robot navigation, planning with incomplete information, and negotiation for agents. She is the chair of ACM SIGART, a member of the AAAI Executive Council, and a member of the board of the Intelligent Autonomous Systems Society. She is on the editorial board of Autonomous Robots, Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, and other journals, and she was the chair for the 2006 Distributed Autonomous Robotics Systems Conference. Address for Correspondence: Kelly Cannon, Center for Distributed Robotics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. E-mail:
[email protected]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
81
