AC 2011-1861: ENRICHING K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION USING LEGOS

Keeshan Williams, The Polytechnic Institute of NYU

KEESHAN WILLIAMS received a B.A. degree in Chemistry from Queens College, City University ofNew York (CUNY), Flushing, NY, in 2005. Upon graduation, he worked as a Chemist for a materialstesting laboratory in College Point, NY, and most recently as a Materials Engineer for the Port Authorityof New York and New Jersey. After obtaining his M.S. degree in Chemical and Biological Engineeringat NYU-Poly in 2008, he started pursuing a Ph.D. degree also in Chemical and Biological Engineeringat NYU-Poly in the same year. He is currently serving as a teaching Fellow at the Crispus AttucksElementary School under NYU-Poly’s GK-12 program funded by NSF and CBRI consortium of donors.His research interests include real-time monitoring DNA-protein interactions at electrified interfaces.

Vikram Kapila, Polytechnic Institute of New York University

VIKRAM KAPILA is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Polytechnic Institute of NYU,Brooklyn, NY, where he directs an NSF funded Web-Enabled Mechatronics and Process Control Re-mote Laboratory, an NSF funded Research Experience for Teachers Site in Mechatronics, and an NSFfunded GK-12 Fellows project. He has held visiting positions with the Air Force Research Laboratoriesin Dayton, OH. His research interests are in cooperative control; distributed spacecraft formation control;linear/nonlinear control with applications to robust control, saturation control, and time-delay systems;closed-loop input shaping; spacecraft attitude control; mechatronics; and DSP/PC/microcontroller-basedreal-time control. Under Research Experience for Teachers Site and GK 12 Fellows programs, fundedby the National Science Foundation, and the Central Brooklyn STEM Initiative (CBSI), funded by theBrooklyn Community Foundation, Xerox Foundation, J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation, Motorola Founda-tion, White Cedar Fund, and NY Space Grant Consortium, among others, he has conducted significantK-12 outreach to integrate engineering concepts in science classrooms and labs of several New York Citypublic schools. He received Polytechnic’s 2002 and 2008 Jacobs Excellence in Education Award and 2003Distinguished Teacher Award. In 2004, he was selected for a three-year term as a Senior Faculty Fellowof NYU-Poly’s Othmer Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. His scholarly activities have included 3edited books, 4 chapters in edited books, 1 book review, 43 journal articles, and 92 conference papers.Moreover, he has mentored 67 high school students, over 170 K-12 teachers, 21 undergraduate summerinterns, and 11 undergraduate capstone-design teams, and graduated eight M.S. and four Ph.D. students.

Magued G. Iskander, Polytechnic Institute of New York University

MAGUED ISKANDER is Associate Professor and Graduate Adviser of the Civil Engineering Depart-ment at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, Brooklyn, NY. Dr. Iskander is a recipient of NSF CAREER award,Chi Epsilon (Civil Engineering Honor Society) Metropolitan District James M. Robbins Excellence inTeaching Award, Polytechnic’s Distinguished Teacher Award, and Polytechnic’s Jacobs Excellence inEducation Award (twice). Dr. Iskander’s research interests include Geotechnical modeling with trans-parent soils, foundation engineering, and urban geotechnology. He makes extensive use of sensors andmeasurement systems in his research studies. Dr. Iskander has published 10 books, 90 papers and grad-uated 6 doctoral students, 27 masters students, 12 undergraduate research assistants, and supervised theresearch activities of 3 school teachers and 9 high school students

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

Page 22.630.1

Enriching K-12 Science Education Using LEGOs 1. Introduction

The engineering community has a long tradition of “challenge-based competitions” to spur creativity and yield innovative solutions to numerous real-world technical problems. For example, in the last decade DARPA’s autonomous vehicle and urban challenges have yielded tremendous advancements in mobile robotics. Similarly, the Ansari and Google X Prizes and NASA Centennial Challenges have created a new race to the space. Inspired by the ability of challenge-based programs to draw engineering talent to solve the “grand” problems of our age, professional societies, educators, corporations, and government entities have been offering challenge-based programs such as the West Point Bridge Design, FIRST Robotics, SAE Design competitions, etc., to engage and attract K-12 and college students in engineering education and careers.

As society continues its technological advancement at an exponential rate, maintaining competitiveness in the global economy requires that students at all levels develop technology proficiency in proportion to the tempo of our changing world. In the US, advances in technology have pervaded our daily lives and include the latest cellular phones that can generate step-by-step directions from one’s location to the nearest Starbucks and vehicles with voice activated systems that allow the driver to turn on the radio, adjust the mirrors, and control temperature, without ever lifting a finger. Although today’s students enjoy ready access to these technological advancements and effortlessly interact with such modern technological artifacts, they often lack a fundamental understanding of the underlying science and engineering. Advancing students’ understanding requires pedagogical tools and techniques with the appeal of tech-savvy devices that capture students’ imagination while fostering their learning of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) principles. For over a decade, robotics competitions such as FIRST LEGO League (FLL) have provided a venue where students get an opportunity to explore and interact with advance tools and devices used by engineers and technologists. In fact, on November 23, 2009, when President Obama introduced his new initiative, “To Educate and Innovate,” he said, “I believe that robotics can inspire young people to pursue science and engineering.”

Unfortunately, the extracurricular nature of robotics contests has not made the use of robotics more central to K-12 science and math education. In fall 2010, we surveyed New York City (NYC) FLL coaches and received 43 responses (≈33% response rate). The survey results revealed that ≈50% of respondents do not use robotics in their classrooms and only a small number provided explicit, meaningful examples of their use of robotics in STEM classrooms.

Page 22.630.2

This paper presents three illustrative LEGO-based science lab activities developed under an NSF GK-12 Fellows Program at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. The activities, developed by engineering graduate Fellows in partnership with K-12 teachers, are grade appropriate, address pertinent learning objectives, and adhere to the science learning standards of NYC and New York State. The paper presents overviews of these lessons, their classroom implementation, and assessment of their effectiveness. 2. Robotics Platforms

Examples of using robotics to teach science, math, and engineering concepts abound in literature and cover the entire education spectrum from elementary to graduate school.1-4 Increasingly, educators have been seeking to transition their students’ robotic experiences from an extracurricular, after-school engagement into a classroom one. Many STEM principles are inherently incorporated into performing simple tasks with a robot, especially in math and physics. Moreover, even life and physical science disciplines can be enhanced through robotic activities. To promote students’ science understanding, FIRST requires a comprehensive research presentation on competition theme, e.g., nanotechnology, climate, transportation, biomedical engineering, etc. The LEGO Mindstorms platform offers a variety of components that not only help engage students’ creativity but also allow the application of teaching strategies such as scaffolding and problem-based learning. For example, judicious integration of sensors in hands-on lab activities can engage students’ understanding since it allows connecting abstract concepts or textbook formulae to tangible measurements performed by students. Finally, the variety of sensors available with the LEGO robotics platform permits the acquisition and processing of a multitude of physical stimuli arising in science subjects that often require separate, standalone equipment. 3. Experimental Protocol

The following science-based activities employed robotics as a tool to enhance relevant concepts of science lessons and, in some cases, aid in the reporting of experimental data. Using LEGO Mindstorms, three science lessons were developed and conducted in elementary, middle, and high school classes in Brooklyn schools. Specifically, The Mechanical Advantage, Acceleration due to Gravity, and Fluid Flow Rate activities were conducted in two 5th grade science classes, two 8th grade technology classes, and two 9th grade science integration classes, respectively. To measure the effectiveness of the use of LEGO-based lab activities in the science lessons, pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys, consisting of content and evaluation questions, were administered to all participating students immediately before (pre-assessment) and immediately after (post-assessment) the lessons. The assessment surveys were developed by the graduate Fellows in collaboration with the teachers of respective grades and subjects. The Fellows also consulted with a science education expert on the appropriateness of survey questions.

Page 22.630.3

For each of the three lessons, content questions were chosen to address the core concepts of the corresponding lessons. The content questions sought to examine students’ knowledge gained through the LEGO-based lab activity by asking the same questions on the pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys. A dependent t-test5 for paired samples was used to evaluate the difference in students’ average scores on the pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys content questions. Moreover, a McNemar’s test5 on paired proportions was performed using the number of students that scored above and below the class’s average on the pre- and post-lesson assessment survey content questions. The results of both tests were used to examine the null hypothesis that there is no statistical difference between students’ scores on the pre- and post-lesson assessments.

The evaluation questions sought to obtain information on students’ perception of science, their prior experiences with robotics, and their opinion about the LEGO-based science lessons. Table I shows the evaluation questions used in all activities, the three questions of pre-lesson assessment survey were repeated in the post-lesson assessment survey. For the survey questions that required descriptive answers, students’ responses were analyzed and categorized as either Positive or Negative (EPr/o1) and Liked, Disliked, or No Response (EPo4 and EPo5). Illustrative examples of students’ descriptive responses are provided in the Discussion and Conclusions section. Table I: Evaluation questions.

Pre-lesson assessment survey evaluation questions EPr1 What gets you excited about science? EPr2 If you were given the chance to create this lesson which method would you use:

a. lecture; b. read textbook; c. watch movie; d. conduct hands- on activity; e. research on the internet

EPr3 Do you think robotics can be helpful when used to collect data in science experiments? a. yes; b. no; c. unsure

Post-lesson survey evaluation questions (EPo1—Epo3 repeat Epr1—Epr3) EPo4 What did you like or dislike about the lesson? EPo5 What did you like or dislike about the robotic device? EPo6 Rate this lesson using the following

a. strongly disliked; b. disliked; c. liked; d. strongly liked EPo7 Do you think the use robotics to collect data:

a. made the lesson easier; b. made the lesson harder; c. made no difference in the lesson

Page 22.630.4

4. Activities and Data Analysis 4.1. The Mechanical Advantage: Using the LEGO Mindstorms kit, a wirelessly controlled mechanized elevator platform is constructed to demonstrate the use of pulleys in producing mechanical advantage (see Figure 1). Fifth grade students in science labs explore the setup by adding or removing pulleys from the mechanical system, adding weights to the platform, and controlling power input to the drive motors of the platform using a custom designed controller which uses the Bluetooth feature of the LEGO NXT brick. The students are asked to identify the pulleys in the setup and examine the role of pulleys by operating the setup with and without pulleys. The effects of use or absence of pulleys is qualitatively assessed and recorded by the students as the system’s ability or inability to lift objects of a certain weight, the speed at which objects are lifted, and the tension along the strings holding the platform. This lab activity reinforces the concept of producing mechanical advantage through the use of pulleys and it promotes a more coherent and complete identification of pulleys as a simple machine. The activity was assessed in two elementary science classes consisting of a total of 44 students using the content questions of Table II and the evaluation questions of Table I. However, the reported data corresponds to only 42 students who fully completed the surveys. Figure 2(a) displays the results of content questions C1—C3, Figure 2(b) displays the pre- and post-lesson class average for content questions, and Figures 2(c—d) display the results of evaluation questions 2—3. Finally, Tables III—V provide the results of evaluation questions 4—7.

Figure 1: Schematic of the pulleys setup used for The Mechanical Advantage activity (left) and

students performing the activity (right).

Page 22.630.5

Table II: Content questions for The Mechanical Advantage activity.

C1 What is a pulley and what is the purpose of using a pulley? C2 Draw the way pulleys can be installed on the given platform to help lift the weight

shown below.

C3 What happens to the string when pulleys are added to them?

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Figure 2: Students’ response to pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys for The Mechanical

Advantage activity. (a) content questions, (b) class average on content questions, (c) evaluation question 2, and (d) evaluation question 3.

Weight

Platform

Page 22.630.6

Table III: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation questions 4 and 5 for The Mechanical Advantage activity.

Statement Liked

response Disliked response

No response

What did you like or dislike about the lesson? 89% 9% 2% What did you like or dislike about the robotics device? 81% 5% 14%

Table IV: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 6 for The

Mechanical Advantage activity.

Statement Strongly disliked

Disliked Liked Strongly

liked

Rate this lesson using the following: 2% 2% 29% 67% Table V: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 7 for The

Mechanical Advantage activity.

Statement Made the

lesson easier

Made the lesson harder

Did not make a

difference

Do you think the use of robotics to collect data: 93% 0% 7% 4.2. Acceleration due to Gravity: Using the Lego Mindstorms kit, students construct an experimental setup where the time to travel a specified distance by a free falling body is measured (see Figure 3). Students use a touch sensor, a rotational sensor, and two LEGO NXT bricks, to measure the time of flight for the falling object, at different release heights. A robotic gripper holds the object and releases it upon receiving the operator command. When the object reaches the end-point of its travel, the touch sensor is triggered and the time of object's descent from release to impact at the touch sensor is recorded and displayed on the NXT screen. Moreover, using several different release points, students calculate the corresponding average velocity of the falling object. Next, they plot a graph of average velocity versus time and apply a best fit line to this graph. Finally, they determine the slope of the best fit line (one-half g) and compare it to the standard value of g (see Figure 4). This lab activity reinforces the concept of gravitational acceleration and an experimental method to determine this constant. The activity was assessed in two middle school technology classes consisting of a total of 52 students using the content questions of Table VI and the evaluation questions of Table I. However, the reported data corresponds to only 41 students who fully completed the surveys. Figure 5(a) displays the results of content questions C1—C3, Figure 5(b) displays the pre- and post-lesson class average for content questions, and Figures 5(c—d) display the results of evaluation questions 2—3. Finally, Tables VII—IX provide the results of evaluation questions 4—7.

Page 22.630.7

Figure 3: Experimental apparatus for the Acceleration due to Gravity activity (left) and students performing the activity (right).

Figure 4: Schematic of motion for a free falling body (left) and plot to determine g (right).

Table VI: Content questions for the Acceleration due to Gravity activity.

C1 What is a force? C2 What is velocity? C3 What is acceleration?

Page 22.630.8

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Figure 5: Students’ response to pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys for the Acceleration

due to Gravity activity. (a) content questions, (b) class average on content questions, (c) evaluation question 2, and (d) evaluation question 3.

Table VII: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation questions 4 and 5 for

the Acceleration due to Gravity activity.

Statement Liked

response Disliked response

No response

What did you like or dislike about the lesson? 71% 29% 0% What did you like or dislike about the robotics device? 60% 34% 6%

Table VIII: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 6 for the

Acceleration due to Gravity activity.

Statement Strongly Disliked

Disliked Liked Strongly

Liked

Rate this lesson using the following: 7% 22% 61% 10%

Page 22.630.9

Table IX: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 7 for the Acceleration due to Gravity activity.

Statement Made the

lesson easier

Made the lesson harder

Did not make a

difference

Do you think the use of robotics to collect data: 61% 10% 29% 4.3. Fluid Flow Rate: This activity introduces students to the concepts of flow rate and its dependency on pipe diameter. A pair of LEGO Mindstorms light sensors is used in a photogate configuration. The designed setup functions in the manner of a stopwatch wherein the events are timed using the light sensor signals instead of manually operating a stopwatch (see Figure 6). A plastic bottle is used as a liquid reservoir and is fitted with a nozzle at its bottom to release the liquid. Upon release from the reservoir, the liquid falls into a glass beaker which acts as a basin. As the liquid draining from the reservoir fills up the basin to the level of light sensor #1, the “stopwatch” programmed on LEGO Mindstorms is triggered to initiate timing of the event. Next, the liquid level in the basin continues to rise and triggers light sensor #2 upon reaching its level. Triggering of light sensor #2 signals the termination of the stopwatch timer. The time elapsed between the triggering of two light sensors is recorded and displayed on the Mindstorms NXT screen and used to compute the average volumetric flow rate of the system. By attaching orifice fittings of various diameters to the bottom of the bottle, students discover the effects of different diameter orifices on the average volumetric flow rate of the system. Similarly, by changing the initial level of liquid in the reservoir, students can examine the effect of initial liquid level on the average volumetric flow rate.

Figure 6: Experimental apparatus for the Fluid Flow Rate activity (left) and students

performing the activity (right).

This lab reinforces the concepts of fluid flow and quantitative measurements of flow rates. The activity was assessed in two high school science integration classrooms consisting of a total of 44 students using the content questions of Table X and the evaluation questions of

Page 22.630.10

Table I. However, the reported data corresponds to only 41 students who fully completed the surveys. Figure 7(a) displays the results of content questions C1—C3, Figure 7(b) displays the pre- and post-lesson class average for content questions, and Figures 7(c—d) display the results of evaluation questions 2—3. Finally, Tables XI—XIII provide the results of evaluation questions 4—7. Table X: Content questions for the Fluid Flow Rate activity.

C1 What is flow rate? C2 Which parameters affect flow rate? C3 Give a physical example of where regulating flow rate is important and how it is

regulated in practice?

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Figure 7: Students’ response to pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys for the Fluid Flow

Rate Activity. (a) content questions, (b) class average on content questions, (c) evaluation question 2, and (d) evaluation question 3. P

age 22.630.11

Table XI: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation questions 4 and 5 for the Fluid Flow Rate activity.

Statement Liked Disliked No

response

What did you like/dislike about the lesson? 84% 7% 9% What did you like/dislike about the robotics device? 64% 7% 29%

Table XII: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 7 for the Fluid Flow Rate activity.

Statement Strongly disliked

Disliked Liked Strongly

liked

Rate this lesson using the following: 0% 2% 56% 42%

Table XIII: Students’ response to post-lesson assessment survey evaluation question 6 for The Fluid Flow Rate activity.

Statement Made the

lesson easier

Made the lesson harder

Did not make a

difference

Do you think the use of robotics to collect data: 85% 0% 15%

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The use of modern technologies such as robotics and sensors in engaging the interest of

K-12 students in STEM disciplines is being explored widely. Prior studies have yielded evidence that robotics-centered activities provide compelling opportunities for learning and skill-building to students.6 Moreover, integration of sensor-based activities in science labs has led to increased student achievement in standardized tests.7 In a similar vein, we have focused on integrating a variety of sensors, which are compatible with the LEGO Mindstorms NXT platform, to develop experimental apparatus that facilitates inquiry-based scientific explorations and broaden the use of student-friendly robotics technology.8,9 Typical extracurricular or in-class robotics programs with LEGO Mindstorms involve introducing students to robot construction, programming, and behavior generation through the interaction of robot sensors and program with its environment. Although, mobile robotics can be used to illustrate and reinforce numerous science and math concepts, in practice, many K-12 robotics programs concentrate solely on mechanical design and programming aspects of the robot. Such an approach fails to exploit the motivational powers of robotics for students’ science and math learning. That is, in science and math classrooms, robotics technology needs to be presented to students as a tool to perform real-world experimental investigations. Unfortunately, as noted in Ref. 10, the potential for explicitly

Page 22.630.12

exploring science and math principles using robotics-based activities remains largely untapped in K-12 environment.

In this paper, we presented three LEGO-based experimental apparatuses that have been used for hands-on science investigations in elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. Our effort had three main goals: (1) provide concrete illustrations of the versatility of robotics to extend its application to K-12 classrooms; (2) exploit robotics to facilitate automated data collection for K-12 relevant experimental activities that otherwise use tedious and error prone data collection methods; and (3) demonstrate through assessment of robotic activities in K-12 classrooms, that robotics can be exploited to enhance the teaching of science. All lessons and corresponding evaluation instruments can be obtained by accessing the GK-12 project website.11

To measure the effectiveness of developed lessons, pre-lesson and post-lesson assessment surveys were employed. The content questions of the surveys examined students’ prior knowledge of the subject matter and showed that the learning goals of the lesson were successfully communicated to the student. The evaluation surveys gauged students’ prior experiences with robotics and their beliefs about the usefulness of robotics as a tool for scientific inquiry and data acquisition. In all cases, assessment surveys showed that the hands-on lab activities impacted the students positively. A strong transference of the lessons’ underlying concepts occurred for all students as shown in Figures 2a, 5a, and 7a. Moreover, as evidenced from Figures 2b, 5b and 7b, there was a substantial increase from pre- to post-lesson class average on content questions. Finally, the results of a dependent t-test5 for paired samples (Table IX) and the McNemar’s test5 on paired proportions (Table X) both suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of the alternative one, indicating that there is a statistically significant difference between students’ average scores on the pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys. Table IX: Results of a dependent t-test for paired samples. Values calculated using students

average scores on content question of the pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys.

Activity n Mean of the differences

Standard deviation

tcalculated p Value

The Mechanical Advantage 42 0.444 0.282 10.216 < 0.001 Acceleration due to Gravity 41 0.585 0.256 14.615 < 0.001

Fluid Flow Rate 41 0.423 0.298 9.073 < 0.001

Page 22.630.13

Table X: Results of a McNemar’s test on paired proportions. Values calculated using students average scores on content question of the pre- and post-lesson assessment surveys.

Activity n χ2 Significance Level

The Mechanical Advantage 42 56.06 < 0.001 Acceleration due to Gravity 41 7.45 < 0.001

Fluid Flow Rate 41 13.19 < 0.001

Even as numerous factors12 are involved in determining whether a lesson is successfully

communicated to students, the survey data reveals that students are intrigued by the use of LEGO Mindstorms in a science classroom setting. The results of the evaluation section of the surveys indicate a positive attitude towards the use of LEGO Mindstorms as experimental apparatus for the lessons. Figures 2c, 5c and 7c indicate students’ strong preference for hands-on lessons in both pre-lesson and post-lesson assessment surveys. This suggests that students are inherently inquisitive in dealing with scientific topics and are interested in using their senses to learn about the subject in an explorative manner. The LEGO-based experimental devices of the lessons facilitated students’ preferred methods of learning even as it fostered their creativity while simultaneously establishing boundaries and structure in accordance with the learning goals of the lesson. Moreover, as reflected in Figures 2d, 5d and 7d, in post-lesson assessment surveys a larger proportion of students acknowledged that the use of LEGO Mindstorms was helpful in the lesson. Finally, as evidenced from Tables III-V, VII-IX and XI-XIII, students’ response to evaluation questions in post-lesson assessment surveys suggests that LEGO-based activities proved effective in engaging them in the lesson.

The descriptive responses to EPr/o1 were categorized into either a positive or negative response to quantify the collected data. The overall response reported at all three school levels was overwhelmingly encouraging with more than 85% of the participating students displaying a positive attitude towards science, both before and after the lessons were conducted. For example, sample responses categorized positive for the Fluid Flow Rate activity include: “Technology being used” and “Realization of a problem that I always wondered about.” Moreover, an example of a sample response categorized negative for the same activity includes: “Nothing, I don’t like it.” In a similar vein, student responses to the lessons and robotic devices (EPo4 and EPo5, respectively) were compiled as Liked, Disliked, or No Response, as outlined in Table III, VII and XI. For example, for elementary school students conducting the Mechanical Advantage activity, sample responses to EPo4 categorized as “Liked” include: “I like how it is a simple machine,” or “I like how we get to touch stuff.” Moreover, for the same students, a sample response to EPo4 categorized as “Disliked” includes: “I didn’t understand some of the terms used.” For middle school students performing the Acceleration Due to Gravity, a sample response to EPo5 categorized as “Liked” includes: “I liked how it connected with Bluetooth.” Finally, for high school students performing the Fluid Flow Rate activity, a sample response to

Page 22.630.14

EPo5 categorized as “Disliked” includes: “I didn’t like that it was extremely sensitive so we had to redo it several times.”

There are two main concerns with using LEGO Mindstorms, or any technology, in the classroom. First, a sufficient number of units must be made available to keep the ratio of number of students to the number of LEGO devices relatively low (e.g., 3 or lower). This ensures that all students remain engaged in the task at hand and can follow the structured and explorative components of the hands-on lesson, thus further reinforcing the goals of the lesson. Unfortunately, financial constraints may limit the number of LEGO devices made available in the classroom. Second, integration of technology such as LEGO in the classroom presupposes that the students possess a fundamental understanding of how the device functions so that they can fully utilize its capabilities, which may not always be the case.

Even though pre- and post-lesson assessment survey results of our study indicate that the use of LEGO Mindstorms in science classrooms is generally received positively by the participating students, it would be informative to conduct a study where students are asked to design their own experiment to explore some given scientific concept. Such a study would serve as a true testament to the application and use of LEGO Mindstorms to promote a culture of investigations in science classrooms. Such an approach can allow students to learn how to build their own understanding of science concepts and phenomena.

Finally, we plan to hold an annual professional development workshop to disseminate the LEGO-based science lessons developed by our project team to all science teachers in our participating schools as well as to a wider audience of science teachers from NYC. In fact, we held our first such professional development workshop in late October 2010. We had originally expected to host approximately 40 teacher participants but had to accommodate over 100 attendees. Fluid Flow Rate lesson of this paper was one of the lessons conducted by over 25 workshop attendees. As we conduct additional workshops and survey the workshop attendees, in a future paper, we will report on teachers’ workshop experience and their successes or difficulties in integrating workshop activities in the classroom. Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the following schools, teachers, and Fellows, respectively: Purvis J. Behan Elementary School–PS11, Robyn Tommaselli, Carlo Yuvienco; Philippa Schuyler Middle School for the Gifted and Talented–JHS383, Lindrick Outerbridge, Jennifer Haghpanah; and Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women–K527, Noam Pillischer, Karl Abdelnour. This work is supported in part by the GK-12 Fellows Program of National Science Foundation under grant DGE-0741714: Applying Mechatronics to Promote Science (AMPS). In addition, it is supported in part by the Central Brooklyn STEM Initiative (CBSI), which is funded by the Black Male Donor Collaborative,

Page 22.630.15

Brooklyn Community Foundation, J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation, Motorola Innovation Generation Grant, NY Space Grant Consortium, Xerox Foundation, and White Cedar Fund. References

1. W. Church, T. Ford, N. Perova, and C. Rogers, “Physics with Robotics Using LEGO MINDSTORMS in

High School Education,” Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium, Palo

Alto, CA, 2010 Available online at:

http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/viewFile/1062/1398.

2. B. Erwin, M. Cyr, and C. Rogers, “Lego Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabView from

Kindergarten to Graduate School,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(3): 181-192, 2000.

3. C. Rogers, and M. Portsmore, “Bringing Engineering to Elementary School.” Journal of STEM Education.

5(3): 17-28, 2004.

4. R. Shoop, Robotics Educator 2.5 Curriculum Guide. Robotics Academy. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Mellon

University. Available online at: http://www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu/roboticscurriculum/

curriculum/curriculum_2.5.pdf.

5. D. Sheskin, Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, Chapman & Hall/CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007.

6. Evaluation of the FIRST LEGO League, Center for Youth and Communities, Waltham, MA: Brandeis

University. Available online at: www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=46.

7. E. Yu, M. Iskander, V. Kapila, and N. Kriftcher, “Promoting Engineering Careers using Modern Sensors in

High School Science Labs,” Innovations in E-learning, Instruction Technology, Assessment, and

Engineering Education, 229—235, Springer, 2007.

8. D. Kee, Classroom Activities for the Busy Teacher: NXT, 2008. Available online at:

http://www.domabotics.com.

9. D. Astolfo, Building Robots with LEGO Mindstorms NXT, Syngress Publishing, Inc., MA, 2007.

10. S.J. Norton, C.J., McRobbie, and I.S. Ginns, “Problem Solving in a Middle School Robotics Design

Classroom,” Research in Science Education, 37(3): 261–277, 2007.

11. Online: http://gk12.poly.edu/amps-cbri/, website of the Applying Mechatronics to Promote Science

(AMPS)/Central Brooklyn Robotics Initiative (CBRI) Project.

12. How Students Learn, M.S. Donovan and J.D. Bransford, (eds.), National Research Council, Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 2005. Available online at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10126.

Page 22.630.16