Two great designers and great grade 6 kids, Kyle and Mark, worked together in an exceptional way to break my current record for dragster cars. They achieved 7.7 ft/sec beating the old record of 7.63 ft/sec. They created a dozen or so different designs in our once a week, 8 week unit.
I am in the (hopefully) final throes of producing my book Elementary Engineering: Sustaining the Natural Engineering Instincts of Children. I decided to self publish through createspace.com. Going through large companies was taking to long. I hope to have it available within a month. It sure has been a ton of work! But I think it will be a valuable book for PK-6 robotics teachers.
How much young students can plan ahead is a hot topic in educational research (well, at least to me). In discussing our recent designs, my son Aidan (age 7) volunteered that that he thinks about a design ahead of time and then tries to build it. I also noticed today that he seems much more interested in symmetry in his designs. I would like to research various design properties such a symmetry and see how they develop over time. 
I recently completed a exploratory research project that examined how learners respond to a difficult but motivating math problem. I did a small case study, which compared adult math experts, advanced math students (one grade 1 and two grade 4), and two normal grade 4 math students. The problem is a famous problem from discrete mathematics and computer science called the map coloring problem: what is the least amount of colors needed to color in any arbitrary map such that no two neighbors (who share a side) have the same color? Neighbors that only share a point can have the same color.
I found that there were not significant differences in strategies between learners. The adult learners were more able to articulate their strategies. On the other hand, young students were much more motivated to work on the problem when they were told that no one had ever found a five color map before. (A five-color map would require 5 colors.)
I examined the five color map attempts of one of the student experts in detail. This student, without prompting, produced over thirty attempted 5 color maps over several months. When I looked at the progression of this map attempts, I found an interested combination of strategies. He combined old strategies with new strategies in different combinations in his attempts. See if you can color the example below with only 4 colors. Further research is needed to: investigate differences between students in this process, further analyze and classify the progression of ideas and knowledge, and determine the factors that make this problem so motivating. One thing is clear: the adaptation of rich mathematical problems is a highly motivating way to promote deep mathematical thinking and conceptual understanding with elementary students.
For more information, see:
https://kidsengineer.com/?p=620 Video of students working the problem
https://kidsengineer.com/?p=612 Study conclusions
http://csunplugged.org/ Web site with other rich computer science lessons for kids
5 Color Map Attempt #30 – Grade 1 Math Expert With Some Strategies Labelled
I had a great team of 2 boys this week who were the first to build a LEGO NXT Dragster. I usually instruct kids to build a 10 foot course and time the car. Well, I noticed they were setting up a measuring course their own way so I was curious to see what they would do without specific directions.
I watched trying to determine the velocity of their car and was initially confused because the were not using a stop watch but a timer. So they measured the distance (in feet) the car went in 1 second rather than the time to go 10 feet. In the latter case, the velocity is 10/t. The way the boys measured, it is much easier to calculate. The velocity is simply the distance because it is over 1 second. I thought that showed a really good understanding of velocity and possibly ratio. Also, it showed what teachers can learn when the give kids more space to come up with their own solutions.
By the way, their car went 4 ft/sec using 2 gears and they immediately set out to improve the speed using 3 gears.
Year 2 – Longitudinal Robotics Case Study
John Heffernan – 7/7/13
This basic research seeks to understand how children’s engineering skills change over time. Secondarily, I want to know how our K-6 robotics program influences students. Every year from kindergarten to grade 6, they are given the same task, which is to design and built a prototype (model) amusement park ride. Each year, they are offered crafts materials and an age appropriate LEGO ™ kit. I transcribe their verbal output and take photographs of their creations along with selected video clips.
All students primarily used LEGO ™ this year; there were no all craft constructions. In kindergarten, there were 2 all craft constructions.
2 out of 9 students used the computer and motor even though all had learned it in class. Both were advanced students. This suggests that most students were not comfortable with using the computer to program robots yet or it was not a natural technique for them developmentally.
Even one advanced student frequently used tape to augment construction. Construction techniques were major challenge this year. I am seeing certain construction problems across grade levels that would benefit from some scaffolding. Fine motor skills, which were a major challenge for K students, was less of an issue for first graders.
First graders were not concerned with many adult notions like symmetry and consistency though they may notice and comment on them. They often were not able to project out that different design ideas that would not be stable or buildable.
Inherent building styles and personalities seem fairly well set and on a trajectory of some sort. I was surprised by this because I thought developmental gains and what was taught would be much more dominant. However, the use of LEGO ™ at school may have influenced the choice of materials and had some effect on construction.
Self-talk was much less prominent for grade 1 students than K students.
Some students made up the ride as they went along, others had a clear idea and stuck to it, other had ideas but flexibly changed them as they went along.
As you can see from the photos of year 1 and year 2 projects, there was a big jump in sophistication from spring K to spring grade 1.
Click here for the Case Study Year 2 Report with photos.
This is from a very interesting study that looks at how teachers treat boys and girls differently in the context of a STEM LEGO robotics project. It confirms my experience that girls need to be involved in engineering projects all through elementary school.
“It seems that, as early as fourth grade, boys and girls have learned and act on gender stereotypes and that such behavior may precede their development of consonant attitudes and beliefs. This phenomenon warrants further research, but at a minimum, providing girls with technology experiences prior to middle school would give them concrete experience on which to base their decisions. Given the positive experiences of the girls in our project, some girls might then be less influenced by gender stereotypes.”
As part of my book project and for graduate school, I am working on a research chapter for my elementary robotics book. Next step is an annotated bibliography but here is the non-annotated one for now. I will post a nicely formatted PDF of this under Resources.
Alimisis, D. (n.d.). Robotics in Education & Education in Robotics: Shifting Focus from Technology to Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.etlab.eu/files/alimisis_RIE2012_paper.pdf
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229.
Barker, Bradley S., Nugent, G., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2012). Robots in K-12 Education: A New Technology for Learning. IGI Global. Retrieved from http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/978-1-4666-0182-6
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Brophy, S., Portsmore, M., Klein, S., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3).
Cejka, E, Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten Robotics: Using Robotics to Motivate Math, Science, and Engineering Literacy in Elementary School. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.
Cejka, Erin, & Rogers, C. (2005). Inservice Teachers and the Engineering Design Process. Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed. Retrieved from http://soe.rutgers.edu/files/Inservice%20Teachers%20and%20the%20Engineering%20Design%20Process.pdf
Computing Community Consortium. (2009, May 21). A Roadmap for US Robotics From Internet to Robotics. Computing Community Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.us-robotics.us/reports/CCC%20Report.pdf
Erwin, B., Cyr, M., & Rogers, C. (2000). LEGO engineer and ROBOLAB: Teaching engineering with LabVIEW from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(3), 181–192.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The Effect of LEGO Training on Pupils’ School Performance in Mathematics, Problem Solving Ability and Attitude: Swedish Data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182–194.
Hynes, M. (2007). AC 2007-1684: IMPACT OF TEACHING ENGINEERING CONCEPTS THROUGH CREATING LEGO-BASED ASSISTIVE DEVICES. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu,HI: American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://icee.usm.edu/ICEE/conferences/asee2007/papers/1684_IMPACT_OF_TEACHING_ENGINEERING_CONCEPTS_.pdf
Hynes, M., Crismond, D., & Brizuela, B. (2010). AC 2010-447: MIDDLE-SCHOOL TEACHERS’ USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE. American Society for Engineering Education.
Hynes, M. M., Crismond, D., & Danahy, E. (2010). AC 2010-457: USING ROBOBOOKS TO TEACH MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGINEERING AND ROBOTICS.pdf. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY: American Society for Engineering Education.
Kearns, S. A., Rogers, C., Barsosky, J., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2001). Successful methods for introducing engineering into the first grade classroom. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Korchnoy, E., & Verner, I. M. (2008). Characteristics of learning computer-controlled mechanisms by teachers and students in a common laboratory environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 217–237. doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9071-7
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.008
Ma, Y., Lai, G., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Williams, D. (2007). Acquisition of Physics Content Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Robotics Summer Camp. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2007, pp. 3437–3444). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/25146/
Mitnik, R., Nussbaum, M., & Recabarren, M. (2009). Developing Cognition with Collaborative Robotic Activities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 317–330.
Mitnik, Ruben, Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2008). An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Autonomous Robots, 25(4), 367–382.
Nataliia Perova, Walter H. Johnson, & Chris Rogers. (2008). USING LEGO BASED ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING CONCEPTS OF SPEED, VELOCITY, AND ACCELERATION. American Society for Engineering Education.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2009). The use of digital manipulatives in K-12: robotics, gps/gis and programming. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE’09. 39th IEEE (pp. 1–6). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5350828
Nugent, G., Barker, B. S., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/tedfacpub/33/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unomaha.edu%2Ftedfacpub%2F33&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Owens, G., Granader, Y., Humphrey, A., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2008). LEGO ® Therapy and the Social Use of Language Programme: An Evaluation of Two Social Skills Interventions for Children with High Functioning Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(10), 1944–1957. doi:10.1007/s10803-008-0590-6
Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720–729.
Portsmore, M. (2002). Engineering By Design Lego Based Building Lessons for Grade One.
Portsmore, M. D., & Rogers, C. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM education, 5. Retrieved from http://www.greenframingham.com/bring_engr_elem021505.pdf
Portsmore, M., & Swenson, J. (n.d.). AC 2012-3792: SYSTEMIC INTERVENTION: CONNECTING FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FOR ENGAGING FEMALE STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN ENGINEERING.pdf. Presented at the ASEE Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.
Skorinko, J. L., Doyle, J. K., & Tryggvason, G. (2012). Do Goals Matter in Engineering Education? An Exploration of How Goals Influence Outcomes for FIRST Robotics Participants. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(2), 3.
Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 55–65.
Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: pedagogical Beliefs, Teacher practice, and Technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 109–142.
Sullivan, Florence R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394. doi:10.1002/tea.20238
SUOMALA, J., & ALAJAASKI, J. (2002). Pupils’ Problem-Solving Processes In A Complex Computerized Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 155–176. doi:10.2190/58XD-NMFK-DL5V-0B6N
Varnado, T. E. (2005). The Effects of a Technological Problem Solving Activity on FIRSTTM LEGOTM League Participants’ Problem Solving Style and Performance. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04282005-101527/
Voyles, M. M., Fossum, T., & Haller, S. (2008). Teachers respond functionally to student gender differences in a technology course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 322–345.
Wang, E. L., LaCombe, J., & Rogers, C. (2004). Using LEGO® Bricks to Conduct Engineering Experiments. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual conference and exhibition. Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/lacomj/Faculty/Pubs/JCL-2004b.pdf
Wendell, K., Connolly, K., Wright, C., Jarvin, L., Rogers, C., Barnett, M., & Marculu, I. (2010). AC 2010-863: POSTER, INCORPORATING ENGINEERING DESIGN INTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CURRICULA.pdf. Presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL: American Society for Engineering Education.
Wendell, M. K. B., & Portsmore, M. D. (2011). AC 2011-904: THE IMPACT OF ENGINEERING-BASED SCIENCE IN-STRUCTION ON SCIENCE CONTENT UNDERSTANDING. Presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/file_server/papers/attachment/file/0001/1144/Draft_ASEE2011_Wendell_version2.pdf
Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using lego robotics. American Secondary Education, 19–28.
Zeid, I., August, R., Perry, R., Mason, E., Farkis, J., & Hersek, M. (2007). AC 2007-1481: A PARTNERSHIP TO INTEGRATE ROBOTICS CURRICULUM INTO STEM COURSES IN BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu,HI: American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://www.icee.usm.edu/icee/conferences/asee2007/papers/1481_A_PARTNERSHIP_TO_INTEGRATE_ROBOTICS_CURR.pdf
One interesting project would be for students to create their own wild animals that mimics the movement or behavior of a wild animal. In addition to the open ended engineering challenge of building the robot, they would need to research the wild animal.
Here’s a video of my LEGO ™ EV3 Woodpecker Robot.
I made this woodpecker robot for an upcoming conference. It was made from the new LEGO tm EV3 robotic kit.
