Robots Coming to Intro Computer Science Classes

BlueCup writes "Two colleges are hoping to make computer science courses more attractive by including personal robots with the textbooks. Looking to boost enrollment in introductory computer science classes, Microsoft Corp. is working with Bryn Mawr College and Georgia Tech on developing new ways to bring robotics technology into the classroom. Douglas Blank, a computer science professor at Bryn Mawr, said the goal will be to start incorporating the robots in introductory courses at the suburban Philadelphia college next spring. Georgia Tech hopes to start during that term as well. The idea behind the program, Blank said, is to make computer science more hands-on and practical, rather than simply about debugging programs." Update: 07/13 15:52 GMT by T :Professor Blank wrote in with some clarification on one of his statements — read on below.

dougblank writes

"Note to self: when talking to the press, don't use complicated technical jargon, like 'debugging' :) I think what I actually said was 'rather than debug a program to make it give the right answer, the students must debug the program to make the robot behave the way they want it to.'

I think many of you will actually like the hardware, software, and curriculum that we are designing. Check out roboteducation.org/ and pyrorobotics.org. The new version of the software will be based on Pyro, Python Robotics. We think of the hardware as something like an iPod on wheels. The software is also being developed with an open source license. This project is not what many of you guess it might be.

The CS1 and CS2 that we are developing won't be watered down, but also won't be just the standard 'intro to programming, using robots.' It's a complete rethinking of the intro courses."

Comments

Great

[jpaz]

As if books aren't already expensive enough. I wonder how much a used robot/textbook will cost, as well.

Re:Great

[SatanicPuppy]

Just sounds like a gimmic to me.

I flirted with Comp Sci a long time before I actually got physical, and took a lot of classes at a lot of different places. I had classes that were too heavy on theory, I had classes that were too heavy on "practical" skills, which usually amounted to "how to use this language/program to do this thing".

I think, in the long run, a lot of places really don't have the faintest idea what it takes to make a good CS person. It doesn't help that CS covers way too much ground anyway. I'm unusual in that I don't really have a specialization within the field. I'm a programmer/administrator with java/c#/perl/php/python experience and unix/linux/windows/mac experience...Not claiming to be godlike at any of those things, but I'm competent and flexible. The thing is, as fricking crazy as I am, I still haven't used all the classes I had to take for my degree.

I can't help but think we need better "gut" courses, and more flexibility with higher level classes, so that you get a more elegant toolkit to take with you into the workforce. If you give people a better range of courses that appeal more to their interests, you don't need a fricking robot to make them excited about their subject. It's a hell of a lot better than pushing students to design another "airline reservation system" (I had to do this in Scheme and Java), or "Pokemon" (Java and C), or "IM client" (Java, C#).

Blah blah. I'm rambling. Summary: Robot == lame...Cooler courses > Robot.

Practical CS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The idea behind the program, Blank said, is to make computer science more hands-on and practical, rather than simply about debugging programs."

Welcome to DeVry.

Re:A bit deceptive, isn't it?

[ThinkingInBinary]

No, it's kinda like discussing economics or physics during calculus to make it more practical and show people the real-world applications. Robots are an application of computer science; Bronte is not an application of math, but physics and economics are.

It's a matter of giving people more practical work, which is both more interesting and easier to learn for some people. I usually find that I learn a language better when I can play with it, and doubly so if I can write something real with it. Having a real piece of hardware that responds to your program is more exciting than just printing messages on a console.

Then it's not computer science

[s1axter]

See the problem is, robotics is not computer science... it's electrical and computer engineering. Just because you want to bring more people to the dicipline doesn't meen you redefine what the dicipline is

Re:Then it's not computer science

[Alamoth]

Anyone who thinks that Robotics is not Computer Science has never actually worked with a robot. Robots encompass Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.

MechE provides the muscles, the bones, the skin, and the structure of the robot.

CompE provides the nervous system, the veins and arteries, the heart, and the hormones.

CompSci provides the brain.

Take any one of these disciplines away and the robot fails.

Lack of Interest

[jchawk]

The problem with Computer Science right now is it's not the "hot" field. Most kids going to college are going to college so they can get out and earn a better living then if they didn't go to school...

The job market for computer science folks is flat right now with respect to new grads... If you don't have 5 years or more experience you are likely to have a difficult time finding a jump off point in the business.

Honestly I can say I don't help much... It's hard for me to hire grads out of college. They tend to be relatively worthless. They have 0 business experience and can't function without constant supervision. It's easier for me to just go out and hire someone with more experience... Until the job market heats up again and IT people are in demand I think most companies will continue to snipe the best people rather then someone new.