engaging robots: innovative outreach for attracting cybernetics students

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 53, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2010 105

Engaging Robots: Innovative Outreach for AttractingCybernetics Students

Richard Mitchell, Senior Member, IEEE, Kevin Warwick, Will N. Browne, Mark N. Gasson, and Jim Wyatt

Abstract—Cybernetics is a broad subject, encompassing manyaspects of electrical, electronic, and computer engineering, whichsuffers from a lack of understanding on the part of potentialapplicants and teachers when recruiting students. However, oncethe engineering values, fascinating science, and pathways to re-warding, diverse careers are communicated, appropriate studentscan be very interested in enrolling. At the University of Reading,Reading, U.K., a key route for outreach to prospective studentshas been achieved through the use of robots in interactive talks atschools, competitions (often funded by Public Understanding ofScience projects), a collectable fortnightly magazine, exhibitionsin museums, open days at the University, and appearances in themedia. This paper identifies the interactive engagement, anthropo-morphic acceptability, and inspirational nature of robots as beingkey to their successful use in outreach activities. The statisticalresults presented show that the continued popularity of degrees atReading in cybernetics, electronic engineering, and robotics overthe last 20 years is in part due to the outreach activities to schoolsand the general public.

Index Terms—Androids, cybernetics, education, engagingrobots, interactive robotics, outreach.

I. INTRODUCTION

S TUDENTS who would be very suited to an engineering de-gree through their general interests and skill sets may not

apply to such a course due to a lack of understanding of engi-neering disciplines. One such discipline is cybernetics, the studyof control and communication in the animal and the machine,which is not part of the modern school curriculum in the U.K.As a result, prospective students and teachers generally do notappreciate its benefits.

At the University of Reading, Reading, U.K., cybernetics ispart of the School of Systems Engineering. In conjunction withcomputer science and with electronic engineering, a variety ofdegrees are offered across the spectrum of the subject. Over thelast 20 years, a number of initiatives have been undertaken thathave succeeded in increasing and maintaining a healthy numberof undergraduates.

In the early 1990s, the department began a process of visits bystaff to schools as part of a student recruitment program. Thesevisits comprised a general talk on cybernetics as an introduction

Manuscript received January 31, 2009; revised May 05, 2009. First publishedSeptember 09, 2009; current version published February 03, 2010.

R. Mitchell, K. Warwick, and W. N. Browne are with the Cybernetics Group,School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH,U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]).

M. N. Gasson and J. Wyatt are with the Cybernetics Group, School of SystemsEngineering, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AH, U.K., and also withKablamm Ltd., Reading RG6 1PL, U.K.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2009.2024932

to the subject rather than as an introduction to the department atReading. As such, many invitations were received to speak ei-ther as part of general studies programs, or to science clubs. Atalk on its own could be quite dry, so various demonstrations ofcybernetic principles were also taken along. One such demon-stration was a simple wheeled mobile robot that could detect itsenvironment with simple sensors and move accordingly. Thisproved to be very successful at generating interest, and so mosttalks ended with the robot running around avoiding obstacles.The visits program itself proved successful, with applicationstrebling over a few years.

This wheeled robot evolved through a series of designs,ultimately becoming a modular robot that could demonstrate avariety of simple preprogrammed behaviors. In addition, facili-ties were added enabling it to be programmed, which allowedschoolchildren to control the robot interactively. Sometimesthis has happened during “summer schools” arranged as part ofwidening participation projects (government-funded schemesto encourage university education for those whose backgroundswould normally make this less likely) or schemes aimed atencouraging more female students. Also, as part of “PublicUnderstanding of Science” schemes, competitions have beenorganized for younger schoolchildren to program the robots.Although the basic robot is the same, different ways, appro-priate to the level of the child, are used to program the robot.

The modular nature of the robots has also meant that they nowform the basis of year-1 experiments and projects in years 2–4 ofthe cybernetics degrees. This is important as the more advancedversions of these robots in turn provide demonstrations that areused in open days for prospective students.

Further outreach using the robots has included their use asexhibits in various museums and appearances in the media andtours. Cybernetics students are also asked to give talks, often atthe school they attended, where they often take a robot to goodeffect.

The successful talks to schools inevitably led to the questionfrom children: “Can we build our own robot?” The solution tothis was a joint venture with a magazine publisher resulting in amagazine series, “Ultimate Real Robots,” that was available tothe general public and with which the modular parts of a robot,a development on the earlier wheeled robots, were provided. Asignificant aim was also to reach out to members of the public,many of whom would be potential students or parents of suchstudents, and so in addition to describing the robot, the magazinehad articles relating to aspects of robotics and cybernetics atReading and elsewhere. The series sold over 23 million copies ofthe magazine and contributed to 500 000 domestic robots beingbuilt worldwide. This is described in detail later in the paper.

0018-9359/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE

106 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 53, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 1. “Simple” wheeled robot shown in (left) schematic form, and (right) three of the complete “Seven Dwarves” robots.

Entertaining extracurricular activities, especially competi-tions and challenges, has proved to be another excellent wayof establishing a sustained interest in science and engineeringamong young people. To capitalize on this, the first “AndroidsAdvance!” humanoid robot tournament was launched by theUniversity of Reading in 2007 as a pilot study to assess theformat and infrastructure of such a public engagement tool andto raise awareness of a proposed subsequent nationwide tour-nament. By basing the tournament on contemporary roboticstechnology, it is believed that even casual viewers among thegeneral public might also consider the underlying science andtechnology issues involved.

The next sections give more details on these various activities,together with some analysis of the work in terms of the popu-larity of the activities and its positive effect on applications tocybernetics.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLE WHEELED ROBOT

FOR OUTREACH

The basic version of the robots developed at Reading has twosimple ultrasonic sensors, known as “eyes,” which allow it todetermine whether the nearest object is closer to its left eye orright eye and how far away the object is from that eye [1]. Theinformation from the sensors is passed to a “brain” whose out-puts control the speed and direction of the two motors on therobot. The “brain” determines how the robot moves given onlythe current information from the sensors; it cannot rememberpast information. Initially, the “brain” was just an EEROM witha lookup table. Later, it became a microprocessor, giving it thepotential for more complicated actions, although often the mi-croprocessor was still only used to move the robot accordingto a similar lookup table. The robot also has “mode” switchesto allow different behaviors to be selected. A schematic of therobot is shown in Fig. 1.

A. Using the Robots in Outreach and Pedagogy

Using an intuitive software program that simulates the robotin an environment, the user is able to devise and test a strategyfor the robot to move based on what “behavior” he/she wishesthe robot to exhibit. The program then creates a lookup table filethat can be downloaded to the robot via a USB port. Users arerequired to decide how the robot should move given the infor-mation from the sensors, and this can be implemented in twoways. Using a programming approach, the user implements thestrategy by writing a function that sets the speeds of the motor,

TABLE ISIMPLE TABLE FOR PROGRAMMING ROBOTS

which is interpreted by the program. Part of this function, whichspecifies the speeds of the left and right motor given the currentsensor range and “closertolefteye” Boolean, has the form

This has worked well for older school children (14–18 yearsold). However, for younger children, it is also possible to specifythe actions by filling in a simplified table of the form shown inTable I.

Having devised the strategy, the children test and refine it inthe simulated environment. Once content that their algorithmis correct, the lookup table is downloaded onto the real robot,and the robot is set on the floor to see if it behaves “correctly.”However, they are warned: “Beware that simulations are notexact—they only mimic the robot approximately.” Typically,the first objective is to get the robot to move around its envi-ronment avoiding obstacles, then to get the robot to follow anobject, and then to get it to follow along a wall.

This concept has been used successfully with children ages6 up to the undergraduate level for over 15 years, teaching con-cepts from control, programming, and problem solving. Gener-ally, the students do well and find that deliberately programmingthe robots to crash is boring as they only move the once, whileprogramming them to just miss objects is more challenging andfar more enjoyable. Once the students have started to think in areactive programming way, they seem to find it largely intuitive[2]. When it has been used in summer schools and at schools,greater supervision is provided, but otherwise it is unchanged.The summer school programs involve a variety of topics, so the

MITCHELL et al.: ENGAGING ROBOTS: INNOVATIVE OUTREACH FOR ATTRACTING CYBERNETICS STUDENTS 107

Cybernetics practical is typically only one small part of a weekof activities. However, comments from the organizers say thatmost students consider that session to be one of the most inter-esting, and some participants have subsequently joined a cyber-netics degree at Reading. It should be noted that, although thebehaviors are simplistic, people tend to anthropomorphize therobots a great deal rather than adopting a purely technical ex-planation of function [3]. In part, this may have something todo with the apparent face made up of the sensor configuration,which is often noted. This seems to enhance the appeal of therobots, especially to those less likely to be captured by a dry en-gineering topic.

B. Museum Exhibits

The robots have also played an important role in being placedon display in museums on many occasions. This not only ful-fills a permanent role of appealing to potential students, but itserves the purpose of widening dissemination to a broad sec-tion of the population. Due to the rigorous procedures requiredby a museum operating scenario, it also confers a degree ofstatus—not all science is presented by a respectable museum,only that which is worthy.

Variants of the robots described (e.g., Mitchell et al. [4] andKelly et al., [5], [6]) initially made an appearance in the ScienceMuseum, London, U.K., as part of an interactive display for anEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council messagedepicting what is good about U.K. science. One robot in its en-closed corral could be started up by a member of the public,at which point it went through a 3-min routine learning howto move around without bumping into the walls—meaning thepublic could actually see the robot learning. The robot had tobe robust and capable of operating on a daily basis for over sixmonths. After being in the Science Museum, the robot went ona tour of other U.K. science museums, including Newcastle andDerby. A further group of interacting robots were constructedthat could interact in a number of ways such as follow mode orescape mode for Ars Electtronica in Linz, Austria, and again forthe Think Tank in Birmingham, U.K. In 2004, a group of a newversion of the robot went on permanent display in the newlyopened Wellcome Wing section of the Science Museum. Thisrequired a specially constructed powered floor for the robots,which were redesigned with power pick-ups on their base. Atthe press of a button, a person viewing the display could requestthe robots to operate in follow-the-leader role, learn, cluster orescape mode [7], [8].

In 2008, the microprocessor control of the robot was replacedby a cultured neural network [9]. This involved growing a bi-ological brain under controlled conditions and linking it viaa Bluetooth connection to the physical robot body situated ina corral. This robot went into a specially constructed display(though, in this case, not interactive) at the London Science Mu-seum at the beginning of October 2008. At the time of writingin 2009, this display is still active. When this robot was first re-leased to the media in August 2008, it was reported on in anarticle in New Scientist magazine [10]. The associated video ofthe robot has now been viewed approximately 2.5 million times.

C. National and International Media

A further area in which the robots have been extremely usefulin terms of appealing to potential students is in assisting inobtaining media coverage in all aspects, particularly TV ap-pearances and newspaper reports, but also assisting with soundbites on radio interviews. The actual appearances of cyberneticsrobots on television have included main news items around theworld, children’s programs, major international documentaries,and chat shows.

In some cases, such as in the BBC TV children’s program“Blue Peter,” the robots have themselves been the focus of theitem in question. On yet other occasions, their capabilities havebeen the point of focus, as on “Stargate SG-1: True Science.”They have also been the practical indicator of what robot ma-chines may be able to do in the future on many appearances,as in “Future Fantastic” and “The Sci-Fi Files.” In other inter-views, the sheer visual appeal in terms of colors and movementhas obtained prolonged air time, as in “Modern Marvels.”

It is important to remember that media coverage has manyroles to play. It is an important ambassador for the courses of-fered, and it provides a stamp of approval because of the rep-utation of the TV channels. However, it is understandably anextremely competitive area. Obtaining 5 min of air time on aprogram viewed by several million people around the world isworth a considerable amount of money, partly for its marketingeffect. Also, many science programs actually get repeated onnumerous occasions, often on different channels, sometimes indifferent countries.

The robots also serve a purpose when newspaper coverage isconcerned. Although a storyline is required, for which the robotsthemselves are rarely the focus, when it comes to a photographopportunity, then the robots play a key role. Not only does theirvisual aspect make the Reading story more likely to appear thana competitor’s, but it also is likely to draw the reader toward thestory, eager to find out exactly what the picture of the robot isall about—essentially robots are unusual photographs for news-papers.

In addition to the publicity in the wide-circulation press suchas Time, Newsweek, or even Playboy, there has been coverage inmore specialist magazines, e.g., Robot [10]. Some of these areread by prospective students, so clearly coverage in this area isalso important.

D. Academic Lecture Tours

One other area where the robots have proved their usefulnessis in terms of presentations and lecture tours. The robots havetraveled the world, for example, working for the British Council.Countries visited include China, India, Russia, Japan, Singa-pore, Malaysia, Italy, and Colombia. In each case, presentationshave been given to both school and adult groups with a poten-tial recruitment and publicity angle. Overall, this has helped interms of recruitment of cybernetics students as well as recruit-ment to other courses in the University.

Word-of-mouth information passes from country to countrythat the robots are popular with attendees. Hence, it has invari-ably been the case that a successful tour, with inherent publicity,is rapidly followed up by further invitations to the same region.


Fig. 2. Complete basic Cybot robot.

E. Developing Outreach Skills

Current third-year cybernetics students are also asked to givean external presentation, perhaps at the school they attended,where many take along a robot. Their host is asked to write aletter to report on the talk, and many of these letters are verypositive, as follows:

— “[The pupils] were fascinated with the work and researchyou had carried out in Robotics and were particularlyinterested in the working models you brought in toshow.”—Head teacher

— “The recipients were fascinated and amazed by this wellpresented and inspirational presentation.”—Head ofPhysics

— “Finally, he produced two robots which used sonar tosense objects and the audience had great fun in puttingthem through their paces.” IBM U.K.

These presentations have evidently helped in recruitment as wellas in developing the skills of the students in this important andoften overlooked area.

III. CYBOT AND THE “ULTIMATE REAL ROBOTS” MAGAZINE

Cybot is based on the simple wheeled robot developed to besold in separate modular parts with a biweekly magazine calledUltimate Real Robots. Fig. 2 shows a fully constructed Cybot

cm cm cm . Its autonomous capabilities includeline following, basic flocking, and obstacle avoidance.

The final design of the robot was based on the factors iden-tified as influencing the user, with focus on the appearance,materials, and construction. The electronic and mechanical de-sign was such that inexperienced users could assemble the robotthemselves and undo any errors without permanent damage. Thedesign was also required to be modular so that functionalitycould be released throughout the product’s lifetime to retain cus-tomer interest (Table II). By monitoring sales of the magazine asthe functionality of the robot increased, the importance of spe-cific functionality could be determined.

The magazine was not only intended to support the assemblyand use of the cover-mounted robot, but also to retain customerinterest in the product in the two-week period between issues.Each strand of the magazine was intended to cover a different

TABLE IISCHEDULE FOR THE DELIVERY OF FUNCTIONALITY

aspect of the customers’ interest in robots and related subjects.See, for instance, Table III.

Due to the diversity of the market relating to robots, additionalmedia (apart from the primary magazine) that would help ex-plain the functionality and overall nature of the robot to potentialcustomers were provided. This material included an eight-pageintroductory supplement, two television commercials, a promo-tional video, and the Web site.

This work also formed the basis of a research project that in-vestigated public attitudes toward robots and the factors influ-encing domestic uptake. A series of surveys were conducted,further details of which are given in [11] and [12]. As an ex-ample, Table IV shows the success of the robot and the impor-tance of the accompanying magazine.

IV. HUMANOID ROBOTS AND THE ANDROIDS ADVANCE

INITIATIVE

While historically the drive behind Reading’s public engage-ment activities has been student recruitment, in more recentyears, this has increasingly become an outreach effort to foster ageneral interest in our contemporary research by creating directdialogue about science and engineering with the public. This re-sulted in the 2007 Androids Advance pilot challenge (www.an-droidsadvance.com), whose primary objective was to evaluatethe feasibility of a national, annual humanoid robot tournamentthat would promote science and technology within schools in anexciting and accessible way and foster interest in further studiesor careers in the field, as well as develop the skills of the partic-ipants [13].

A. The Androids Advance Pilot

The pilot involved 16 teams from schools in London and theSoutheast of England, following the tested format of previouschallenges organized by Young Engineers, who had to “program


TABLE IIISAMPLE CONTENT OF A TYPICAL MAGAZINE

TABLE IVSURVEY OF CYBOT AND MAGAZINE

and upgrade” a commercially available biped robot, suppliedfree of charge, in order to successfully compete in the disci-plines that made up the tournament. This culminated in a live

tournament day held at the Science Museum in London—anexcellent backdrop for this type of event. The challenge struc-ture used was a “common goal” model, with the same overall


Fig. 3. MechRC Humanoid robot, as used in the Androids Advance tour-nament, containing 17 servo motors and controllable via remote control.© Kablamm Ltd.

task to be retained from year to year, namely biped robots nav-igating varied environments. The flexibility this approach pro-vides allows future technology to be adopted in order to keepsubsequent events fresh. The program was designed to be suf-ficiently flexible in order to meet the needs of all ability levels,making it suitable for those with learning difficulties and forthe gifted and talented. Equally, it was designed to encouragegirls as well as boys into this exciting area. This engagementwas further supported by interactive presentations given at eachschool by mentors from the University of Reading during visitsto monitor progress. This opportunity was widely capitalized onby schools, for example, by holding the presentation during aschool assembly and inviting groups from surrounding schools.

The robot used in the competition is the MechRC humanoidrobot (see Fig. 3) designed by a company formed by two gradu-ates of the University of Reading (a good advert for Cybernetics)and ideally suited to this type of endeavor. While a walkingrobot is inherently more complex than those used in previousrobotic competitions, the MechRC system is designed to be in-tuitive and capable of being used by young novices as well asby more advanced technically competent users who can buildextra sensors and actuators to augment the robot. Getting theandroids to balance while doing a variety of tasks is both diffi-cult and fun—there is a lot of humor in watching each other’srobots fall about as strategies are evolved by the users.

As in the simple robots described above, robot motions aredeveloped in a software environment and tested on the simula-tion. Once the user is content with the motions, they are down-loaded to the robot.

For the competition, various challenges were set. These weredesigned such that the amount of modification required to bemade to the electronics, mechanical design, and control programvary for each event from simple to relatively complex. This al-lows each event to be attempted by a different group (varyingin age and ability) within the wider school team, maximizingthe number of students from each school that can work with therobot. The tournament was divided into two sections, Interme-diate and Advanced.

All teams were required to compete in the same two challengeheats on a specially constructed stage.

• Dance-off: The teams’ robots were required to perform adance routine of their own devising. Teams were also re-quired to name their robot and modify its appearance to adistinctive design. Such a range of tasks helped to make theevent widely accessible.

• Assault course: Teams were required to modify their robotsuch that they could navigate a predefined obstacle course.Although the robots were under remote control, the mo-tions and actions were devised and programmed by theteams.

Overall, teams performed exceptionally on the day, and prizeswere awarded in the following categories: Robot Dance-off (1st,2nd, 3rd, Technical Merit Award, Pimp-My-Bot Award, BaddestBot Award), Assault Course (1st, 2nd, 3rd, Innovation Award,Style Award, Judges’ Special Commendation Award x3). Allparticipants were presented with a signed certificate recognizingtheir participation. Media coverage of the event was exceptional,and it is believed that the original estimate of 1 million membersof the public reached will have been exceeded. Television newscoverage was carried around the world, boosting the number ofpeople reached internationally by several million.

B. Results of the Androids Advance Pilot

Participants hailed from a variety of school types, with agood mix of ages, gender, and motivation for taking part (seeFig. 4). Throughout the project, students were excited aboutparticipating and were able to find aspects of the competitionto focus their efforts on that reflected their strengths. Spe-cific school departments notably aligned their efforts with thenational curriculum—i.e., math, science, and information com-munication technology (ICT) departments focused on softwaresolutions, while design and technology (DT) departments alsomade physical modifications. The variety of events within thechallenge and prizes also made it accessible to both male andfemale students. Making this type of robot available to schools(and providing them with a means to program and modify themdirectly) was highly motivational and prompted students (andteachers) to consider the mechanisms and physics involved inkeeping a two-legged robot balanced, as well as considering thesoftware and control aspects. Indeed, the challenge of makingthe robot perform different tasks while maintaining balance wasnot a trivial one. However, participants of all ages put in greateffort and were rewarded with robots that were, on the whole,highly successful and entertaining to watch. Furthermore, theachievements of the teams should not be understated. In apresentation of Androids Advance to the organizers of RTO(Robot Technology Osaka) in Japan, surprise was expressedthat teams of such young students could control such complexrobots. Comments received from teachers after the event werehighly positive and many were keen to be involved in the future:

— “As a first for this type of competition we actually did verywell. I thought that the Dance-off was brilliant and theassault course was actually not too difficult. I’m sure thatI can persuade some new students to take part next yearwhen it goes national!”—Science teacher


Fig. 4. A montage of the final challenge day at the Science Museum in London.

TABLE VSURVEY OF VISIT DAY ATTENDEES

— “I know the kids who took part this year would be inter-ested in doing such an event again (and I have spoken tosome schools in the area who watched the news article on[local news] who are also interested!).”—Head teacher

Of the 13 schools that replied to the questionnaire, 100% of theteachers involved said that they thought the impact on the stu-dents was worthwhile and they would be part of the initiative inthe future. Of the students surveyed, 94% thought it was a very


TABLE VIAPPLICATIONS RECORDED BY THE UK ADMISSIONS SERVICE

good experience, and 90% would take part in the competitionagain.

Mentor visits to schools to give additional presentations al-lowed further interactive engagement, reaching significant num-bers of students and teachers and enhancing impact. Experi-ence showed that this also dramatically increased ownershipand awareness of the competition within the school as a whole.While this is a different type of engagement to those directlyinvolved, its value has shown to be significant. In the year fol-lowing the pilot, two applicants applied to Systems Engineeringat the University of Reading from a school that had participatedin the pilot, even though these students had not been directly in-volved in the initiative. Notably, neither of them had consideredan engineering-based degree course prior to becoming aware ofthe pilot.

In part as a result of the Androids Advance initiative, RMEducation PLC have realized the potential of using robotics tosupport the teaching of related subjects within the national cur-riculum, such as DT, science, mathematics, and ICT, as well ashighlighting the interdisciplinary aspects of robotics. As such,they have launched a version of the robot bundled with educa-tional materials and are set to support the Androids Advancecompetition as it rolls out nationwide. Such commitment willensure robotics continue to have a key role in promoting sci-ence and engineering, in particular to key-stage 3 and 4 students(ages 11–16).

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Using Robots on Visit Days at the University

The Cybernetics group is asked to be involved in visit dayswhere inevitably robots are used as part of the day as well astalks on relevant topics. Table V shows the results of a ques-tionnaire after one such visit day that targeted students fromfamilies with no history of university education. All 37 atten-dees responded, and the results clearly show the success of theapproach.

B. Effect on Applications to University

Although detailed figures are no longer available, when thetalks to schools were first introduced and the media publicity

TABLE VIISURVEY OF ENTRANTS TO THE CYBERNETICS DEGREE ASKING

“HOW DID YOU FIRST LEARN ABOUT YOUR SUBJECT/COURSE?”

began in the early 1990s, there was a very positive effect—thenumber of applications to Cybernetics degrees approximatelytrebled.

More recently, applications to cybernetics have been ana-lyzed in relation to those for other engineering degrees over thelast few years, when the Real Robots, museum exhibits, talks,and media presentations have mainly taken place. Table VIshows the applications recorded by the U.K. admissions serviceUCAS to engineering degrees and to computer science degrees,and then the applications to the School of Systems Engineeringin Cybernetics and to Computer Science. Nationally, and forComputer Science at Reading, there is a marked decline.However, applications to Cybernetics (most markedly affectedby the work described here on outreach using robotics) hasactually increased over this period. It is noticeable that manyapplicants mention that they bought the Real Robots magazine.This is further illustrated by a survey of entrants to the cyber-netics degree (see Table VII). Although this is self-reportingwith many confounding variables such as parental pressureunreported, it demonstrates that multiple outreach activitieshave a broad impact.


VI. CONCLUSION

Robots have been used in a variety of ways by Cyberneticsstaff in the School of Systems Engineering at the Universityof Reading as a way of describing the subject, demonstratingcybernetic principles, and engaging the public. While being dif-ficult to comprehensively quantify, surveys on these approacheshave been positive, and applications to cybernetics degreeshave improved when these activities have occurred. Feedbackfrom the varied outreach activities indicates that using roboticshas been beneficial, as robots are interactive, audiences relateto their anthropomorphic qualities, and futuristic concept en-courages children’s aspirations. More recently, focusing oncontemporary research in robotics concerned with humanoidbiped robots through a competitive event has promoted scienceand engineering to school students and thus inspired them toconsider the engineering sciences as a potential career.

REFERENCES

[1] R. J. Mitchell, “Teaching control of small mobile robots,” in Proc. Inst.Meas. Control Symp. Control Meas. Eng. Educ., Liverpool, U.K., Sep.13, 2001, pp. 43–50.

[2] M. Cooper, D. Keating, W. Harwin, and K. Dautenhahn, “Robots inthe classroom—tools for accessible education,” in Proc. AAATE Conf.,5th Eur. Conf. Adv. Assistive Technol., Germany, 1999, pp. 448–452.

[3] S. T. Levy and D. Mioduser, “Does it ‘Want’ or ‘Was it programmedto…’? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’sadaptive functioning,” Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., vol. 18, no. 4, pp.337–359, 2008.

[4] R. J. Mitchell, D. A. Keating, and C. Kambhampati, “Learning systemfor a simple robot insect,” in Proc. Control, Warwick, U.K, 1994, pp. :492–497.

[5] I. D. Kelly, “The development of shared experience learning in a groupof mobile robots,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Cybernetics, University ofReading, Reading, U.K., 1997.

[6] I. D. Kelly, D. A. Keating, and K. Warwick, M. Beneder and Ed, Eds.,“Mutual learning by autonomous mobile robots,” in Proc. 1st Work-shop Telepresence Robot. Appl. Sci. Art, Linz, Austria, Jun. 1997, pp.103–116.

[7] B. Hutt, K. Warwick, and I. Goodhew, “Emergent behaviour in au-tonomous robots,” in Information Transfer in Biological Systems, De-sign in Nature Series, J. Bryant, M. Atherton, and M. Collins, Eds.Southampton, U.K.: WIT Press, 2005, vol. 2, ch. 14.

[8] B. Hutt and K. Warwick, “Museum robots: Multi-robot systems forpublic exhibition,” in Proc. 35th Int. Symp. Robot., Paris, France, Mar.2004, p. 52.

[9] P. Marks, “Rat-brained robots take their first steps,” New Scientist, vol.199, no. 2669, pp. 22–23, 2008.

[10] T. Atwood, “Future bytes,” Robot Mag., p. 90, Jan./Feb. 2009.[11] J. E. A. Wyatt, “A study of perceptions of robots through the develop-

ment of a mass market consumer robotic product,” Ph.D. dissertation,Dept. Cybernetics, University of Reading, Reading, U.K., 2006.

[12] J. Wyatt, W. N. Browne, M. N. Gasson, and K. Warwick, “A studyof factors influencing the adoption of mass market consumer roboticproducts,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 71–9, Mar.2008.

[13] R. R. Murphy, “Using robot competitions to promote intellectual de-velopment,” AI Mag., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 2000.

Richard Mitchell (SM’03) received the B.Sc. (Hons) degree in cybernetics andcontrol engineering and the Ph.D. degree in cybernetics from the Department ofCybernetics, University of Reading, Reading, U.K., in 1980 and 1987, respec-tively.

He was appointed Lecturer in Cybernetics in 1983 and is now Senior Lecturerin Cybernetics and also Director of Teaching and Learning in the School ofSystems Engineering, University of Reading. He was a member of the teamthat developed the robots described in this paper, has given numerous outreach

talks at schools, and has organized many of the “summer school” activities inrobotics. He has published four textbooks, edited a custom book on cybernetics,and has over 100 research papers in control engineering, robotics, and learningsystems.

Dr. Mitchell is on the Executive Board for the U.K. and Eire section of theSystems, Man, and Cybernetics Chapter.

Kevin Warwick received the D.Scs. degree from both Imperial College,London, U.K., in 1993 and the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, CzechRepublic in 1994.

He has been Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, Reading,U.K., since 1988. He has published over 400 research papers. His research in-terests lie in machine intelligence, control, and in the integration of biologicaland technological entities.

Dr. Warwick was made an Honorary Member of the Academy of Sciences,St. Petersburg, Russia, and presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lecturesin 2000. He received the EPSRC Millennium Award for his year 2000 schoolsrobot project and was party to the interactive learning robot displayed during theEPSRC tour that commenced at the Science Museum, London, U.K. He led theteam to produce a spinoff commercial autonomous robot “Cybot,” which is nowsold internationally. He received The Future of Health Technology Award fromthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, for his research into theconnection between biological and technological systems.

Will N. Browne received the B.Eng. degree in mechanical engineering fromthe University of Bath, Bath, U.K., in 1993, and the M.Sc. degree in energy andthe Doctorate degree from the University of Wales, Cardiff, U.K., in 1994 and1998, respectively.

From 1998 to 2001, he worked as a Post-Doctoral Research Associate in theControl and Instrumentation Research Group, University of Leicester, Leicester,U.K. In October 2001, he was appointed to a lectureship in the Cybernetic Intel-ligence Research Group, University of Reading, Reading, U.K. His research fo-cuses on cognitive robotics through enhancing genetics-based machine learningtechniques with concepts from neuroscience, such as abstraction and emotionalanalogues.

Mark N. Gasson received the B.Sc. degree in cybernetics and control engi-neering and the Ph.D. degree in cybernetics from the University of Reading,Reading, U.K., in 1998 and 2005, respectively.

He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Reading. Heconsiders public engagement of science as an essential component of the scien-tific endeavor, and as such, he has had an active involvement in this spanningover 10 years. Based on the thesis that public interest is generated through directdialogue, he frequently delivers invited public lectures and workshops interna-tionally, aimed at audiences of varying ages. His research interests primarilyfocus on novel methods of human–machine interaction, most notably invasivelyimplantable technologies and their application in the robotics domain. He alsoconducts collaborative, cross-discipline research into the impact that these andother emerging technologies have in the broad context of identity.

Jim Wyatt received the B.Sc. degree in cybernetics and control engineering andthe Ph.D. degree in cybernetics from the University of Reading, Reading, U.K.,in 1997 and 2006, respectively.

Until 2007, he worked with the University of Reading, both in the U.K. andAsia, to develop university-held intellectual property for use in the consumermarket, of which Cybot and Real Robots magazine was a part. He is now Cre-ative Director of Kablamm Ltd., Reading, U.K. (http://www.kablamm.com),which develops robotic products and brands for the consumer market, includingthe MechRC series of humanoid robots. He remains a Visiting Research Fellowto the School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading, where he con-tinues his research into public attitudes toward robots as well as promotingrobotic engineering to schools through the Androids Advance initiative.

engaging robots: innovative outreach for attracting cybernetics students

Documents