LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: TeachingEngineering with LabVIEW fromKindergarten to Graduate School*

BEN ERWIN, MARTHA CYR and CHRIS ROGERSCenter for Engineering Education Outreach, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA.E-mail: crogers@tufts.edu

For the past 6 years, faculty members at Tufts University have developed two different softwarepackages between LabVIEWTM and LEGOTM data acquisition systems. These packages allow usto teach engineering with both LEGO bricks and LabVIEW to students from 5 to 50 years old. Theversatility of the hardware and software allow a wide variety of possibilities in what students canbuild and programÐfrom robots and remote sensing devices to kinetic sculptures. As studentsdesign and build their projects, they are motivated to learn the math and science they need tooptimise their project. Both college students and kindergartners respond to this motivator. In thepaper, we explain how we designed software to complement these projects in allowing automationand animation. The software uses LabVIEW, extending its capabilities to kindergartners andLEGO bricks. Finally, we will show how we have used LabVIEW and LEGO data acquisition toteach elementary school science, freshman engineering, instrumentation and experimentation, andhow college seniors and graduate students have used both the hardware and software to solvevarious data acquisition problems.

THE HISTORY

IN THE SUMMER of 1993, when searching for acheap data acquisition system for an under-graduate course at Tufts University, we stumbledacross the Control Lab Interface from LEGOTM

DACTA. The building capability of the LEGObricks, coupled with the computer interfaceresulted in an ideal combination for fast, creative,and fun experiment design and construction. TheControl Lab Interface connects to the computerthrough a serial port and controls LEGO motorsand lights and reads from LEGO sensors. These fitthe bill quite well and so we started working onLabVIEWTM drivers for the box and called itLEGO Engineer. Soon after, the first LabVIEWstudent version came out and we quickly adaptedthe code to work with the student version.Coupling this with a web site and a curriculum,we convinced NASA to fund a full-scale project inlocal elementary schools. This resulted in over 100teachers working together to build curriculum andideas andÐto dateÐover 4000 students. We haveworked with schools all over the United States andpeople have down loaded the drivers from our website from almost every continent.

Kindergartners have used LabVIEW and theLEGO bricks to build their town and automateda bus to stop at each house [1]. Along the way theylearned cartography, practiced their budding read-ing and writing skills and had animated discussions

about friction and design optimisation to improvethe performance of their busses. Likewise, NSFfunded the introduction of the LEGO Engineersoftware into the college curriculum to teachexperimentation [2]. College juniors learnedabout statistical analysis, sampling theory, andreport writing while enjoying the versatility theLEGO bricks have to offer. College seniors wenton to build a computer-controlled milling machinewith three degrees of freedom as a capstone designexperiment. The user could draw the hull of a boaton the computer, and the milling machine wouldcut it out of balsa wood. One graduate studentbuilt a drop tower out of LEGO bricks and usedthe LabVIEW server subroutines to allow anyoneanywhere to control the tower over the web. Adrop tower allows a scientist to view behaviour inthe absence of gravity since as the experimentdrops, everything in the experiment drops at thesame acceleration. When users logged in, theycould hoist a small chamber containing the desiredexperiment. The students built four differentchambers: a simple candle (the flame goes fromteardrop to round in a zero gravity environment),water in a test tube (in the absence of gravity, thewater surface becomes highly curved as the water`walks' up the walls), two opposing magnets(balanced only in a gravity environment sincegravity opposes the magnetic repulsion), and asmall scale (so that one could see the weight ofan object to zero in the zero gravity environment).Two accelerometers placed on the bottom of thechamber were used to control the ascent rateof each side of the chamber to ensure that the* Accepted 9 September 1999.

1

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 000±000, 2000 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 2000 TEMPUS Publications.

chamber rose evenly. Then the user could drop thechamber and the LabVIEW server would sendback sequential video images of what happenedinside the chamber as it dropped.

LEGO Engineer was so successful that LEGO,Tufts, and National Instruments set up an allianceto generate the educational software for their nextgeneration data acquisition system, the RCX. TheRCX was different from the previous interface inthat it was an independent microprocessorembedded in a LEGO brick. The computer wasused only to down load the control code into themicroprocessor. After that point, the user isindependent of the computer. This resulted inRoboLab; a library of subroutines (VIs) andvirtual instruments (panels) powered by LabVIEW5.01 that has gone into over 1000 schools since itshipped in September of 1998. Since then, Robo-Lab has been used in classrooms from preschool tocollege [3].

The main goal of this paper is to explain theprogramming philosophy we used in developingthese two software packages. The ultimate goalwas to develop software that has a low entry level(can be used by kindergartners) and high ceiling(can be used by college students) without eitherextreme feeling overwhelmed or limited. We willoutline first the design philosophy and some of theways we used LabVIEW G code to interfaceLEGO bricks with students and then present howthese students have liked it so far; students rangingfrom elementary school to college. LEGO Engi-neer is freeware and is available from the WWW athttp://ldaps.ivv.nasa.gov/LEGOEngineer/ or from

the accompanying CD. RoboLab is sold byPITSCO LEGO DACTA for $25 [4].

THE HARDWARE

Before presenting the software, it is importantto understand the capabilities of and differencesbetween the two sets of LEGO hardware. Thehardware must be similar to the software: lowentry level, few limits, very capable, and cheap.The LEGO material fits this limitation well.One can build simple cars or complex machineswith the same bricks, sensors, and motors. Allbricks, motors and sensors are common to bothdata acquisition platforms. The first, theControl Lab Interface, is an extension of thecomputer. It connects through a serial port andtherefore is limited to one experiment percomputer. The second, the RCX, is an autono-mous microprocessor and only relies on thecomputer to down load the control code. There-fore one can have many more experiments thancomputers.

Fig. 1. The control lab interface box.

Fig. 2. LEGO output devices.

B. Erwin et al.2

Control lab interfaceThe LEGO control lab interface (CLI), a $250

data acquisition device that connects to the serialport. Figure 1 shows the interface box. LEGOEngineer (LE) is a set of LabVIEW virtual instru-ments and subroutines that control this box. TheCLI has 8 output ports (black) and 8 input ports(yellow and blue). The 8 output ports supply avariable voltage out to LEGO motors, lights orsound makers (dubbed `sound blasters' by thirdgraders)Ðsee Fig. 2. The input ports are multi-plexed to a 10 bit A/D with a 0±5 V range. Theupper (yellow) inputs are used for resistive sensorssuch as the touch sensor (a switch) and thetemperature sensor. The lower (blue) inputs canuse powered sensors and are used for an anglesensor and a light sensor. One can adapt othersensors by simply externally powering the sensorand then using the upper ports to measure thevoltage drop across the sensor. LEGO is currentlydeveloping an adaptor that will allow one to powerand read the sensor from the lower ports. Figure 3shows the available LEGO sensors. With a littleingenuity one can build force sensors, displace-ment sensors, bar code readers, and a number ofother sensors with these basic sensor bricks.

The RCXThe RCX (Fig. 4) evolved from work done at

the MIT media lab and is the basis for a whole new

line of LEGO bricks in toy stores called Mind-stormsTM. It costs a bit less that the CLI (about$120) and has only three input and three outputports. Because the RCX is autonomous, thestudent can walk up to the computer, down loada program, and then walk away and execute theprogram. The program can control a robot, anintelligent house, or act as a data collection device,measuring anything from light to acceleration. TheRCX has a 10±bit A/D, four timers, 32 internalvariables, and three pulse-width modulated outputports. The input ports on the RCX are identical tothe lower blue ports on the CLI. The same sensorsand output devices work on both hardwareplatforms. RoboLab is a revised version ofLabVIEW 5.01 and a set of subroutines and virtualinstruments that allow the user to program theRCX. RoboLab was designed for LEGO specifi-cally for the school environment and differs fromthe MindstormsTM software in the toy stores inthat it has a lower entry and a higher ceiling. Also,since it is based on LabVIEW, it is cross-platformand can run on both PCs and Macs.

The software interfaceOur general philosophy in the development of

software for both hardware sets was to introducethe user to programming through levels. At theintroductory level (front panel programs), students

Fig. 3. The LEGO sensors.

Fig. 4. The RCX.

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabVIEW 3

pick and choose from a preselected set of choices.At the higher level (block diagram programs), thestudents actually write G programs by stringingsubroutines together in a LabVIEW diagram.Each of these levels have sub-levels as well tokeep the user from getting overwhelmed early on.LEGO Engineer and RoboLab differ some in howthey present the levels and what is capable in eachlevel, but the basic philosophy is the same: learnprogram structure first through picking from a fewchoices and then apply this knowledge to morecomplicated programs in the higher level. The

introductory level has the further advantage thatin classrooms where projects are limited to 45minute time blocks, the students can actuallybuild something and animate it in a single timeblock. The main difference between the two soft-ware products is that RoboLab is a LEGOproduct that requires no knowledge or ownershipof LabVIEW (although the seasoned LabVIEWuser can port RoboLab into LabVIEW and useboth together) and LEGO Engineer is freewareand meant for users who already own LabVIEW(or RoboLab).

Fig. 5. Sample front panel.

Fig. 6. Possible criteria.

B. Erwin et al.4

Fig. 7. Pilot 1 panel.

Fig. 8. Controlling a bumper car.

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabVIEW 5

Front panel programsThe front panel programs in LEGO Engineer

are called the `Builder Programs' and allow theuser to quickly select from a number of choices.For instance, the program in Fig. 5 will turn onthe motor connected to channel A at a speed 5(out of 8), then wait for the touch sensor to be hitbefore turning the motor off and turning on thesound blaster for 5 seconds. This could be thecode for a car that drives until it hits the wallÐwhen it stops and plays a victory dance. Clickingon the picture of the motor (for instance) andselecting a different option (Fig. 6) can change

any of these settings. This simplistic interfacedoes not allow for a very high ceiling in termsof the software capability but it does allow thestudents to get something to work immediately.Further, it starts to teach them logical thinking:something happens, you wait for a condition, andthen something else happens. They get used tothe idea of program sequence and will use this inthe higher level programs where the ceiling ismuch higher.

LEGO Engineer has a number of Builderprograms with more available from the web.RoboLab, on the other hand, has four levels of

Fig. 9. Engineer level programming.

Fig. 10. Using modifiers.

Fig. 11. The code for the automatic garage door.

Fig. 12. The bumper car in inventor level.

Fig. 13. The bumper car using structures.

B. Erwin et al.6

panel programming, called the `Pilot level'. Pilot 1introduces the concept of programming by onlyallowing the user to control one motor (see Fig. 7).The capabilities increase until Pilot 3 allows thestudents to build and program a number of simplerobots. Figure 8 shows the program that wouldallow a bumper car to continually bounce fromwall to wall. Pilot 4 gives the user the ability toprogram an infinite number of sequential steps,but usually by this time the student is ready tomove on to G programming. The Pilot and Builderprograms are an excellent way to show how thecomputer can control the LEGO bricks and howone can start to teach programming skills. Thelimited capability allows that every program willworkÐit might not do what was intendedÐbut itwill run. There are no syntax errors and, moreimpressively, there is no language. Because it is allgraphical, kids can write programs before they canread. Very young kids (3 years old is the youngest)have successfully programmed cars and smarthouses with this style of programming.

Block diagram programmingMost kids quickly leave the sheltered environ-

ment of the panel programs to the increasedcapability of the diagram programming. Againboth sets of software differ in the presentationbut the basic philosophy is the same: all program-ming can be done from the diagram alone. That isthe user builds up a continuous thread ofcommands that defines the program. Figure 9shows a sample program in LEGO Engineer thatdoes the same thing as Fig. 8. These programs canbecome more complicated when one starts to usemodifiers to the string. Modifiers either define theport or give a value. Figure 10 shows the sameprogram as Fig. 9 only using modifiers. Most VIs(in both LE and RoboLab) have the same connec-tor setup: a string across the top to define prece-dence in execution and defining modifiers (ports,motor speed, etc.) on the in the lower right. Thereare two basic differences between LE and Robo-Lab, however. The first is that LE has only onediagram programming level. RoboLab, on the

other hand, has four. This is a direct result thatRoboLab was written for those not already usingLabVIEW, whereas LE has no such limitation.

The second difference between LE and Robo-Lab is that the Control Lab Interface is in constantcommunication with the computer and therefore inLEGO Engineer, all structures and conditionalstatements are done using standard LabVIEWstructures. For instance, Fig. 11 will wait for acar to approach the garage door before opening it.The angle indicator dictates how long to run themotor to open the door. Since the RCX is not inconstant communication with the computer, wecould not use standard LabVIEW structures inRoboLab. Therefore, although the modifier andstringing part are similar (Fig. 12 shows the sameprogram as Fig. 8Ðonly for the RCX), the struc-tures are done entirely differently. Figure 13 showsagain the same program only this time usingstructures. With the RCX, the user can have asmany forks and loops as he/she wishes. One canalso take advantage of the multitasking environ-ment of the RCX to do two things at once.Further, one can use the on-board variables onthe RCX to do real-time calculations. Figure 14shows a sample program for an intelligent house.The first task simply checks the light outside andwhen it gets dark, turns on the outside lights. Thesecond task measures the temperature in the room.If it starts to get too hot, it turns the fan on. Thehotter it gets, the faster the fan spins. The redcontainer (an on-board variable) can be used toconvert the temperature reading into an appro-priate blade speed for the fan. This programcomplexity is beyond the grasp of most elementaryschool students, but has been extensively used bymiddle school, high school, and college students.

THE SOFTWARE IN THE CLASSROOM

The elementary schoolTogether, LEGO and LabVIEW can change the

nature of the learning process in the classroom,and the way in which K-12 students view tech-

Fig. 14. The smart house.

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabVIEW 7

nology and engineering. Kids (and adults) learnsomething by experiencing it. They learn aboutwriting by writing their own stories and theylearn about engineering and design by designingtheir own mechanical creations and computerprograms. LEGO materials and the LabVIEWprogramming environment are the tools thatallow them to do so. The true power of thesetools is not simply to enhance the pre-existingcurriculum, but actually to transform the learningenvironment into one of an inventor's workshopor engineering design firm. In the `workshop'environment, students work on designing theirown personally meaningful creations from theirown ideas. In the `design firm' environment, anentire class of students (with its designated fieldexperts) need to work together to solve a complexdesign problem. In both environments, the latter ofwhich will be discussed below, engineering isn'tviewed as something that is purely competitive, oronly `for boys', since everyone is able to explorehis/her own ideas about technology and bringpersonal expertise and interest to the group. Wehave on the Web over 50 pages of what studentsdid and what they thought of it [5]. Below, wehighlight two different learning environments: theclassroom and an after-school program.

Lincoln Brooks SchoolIn an effort to teach kindergartners about forces

(including the concept of friction), we brought afew RCX bricks and a computer into a classroom.We first discussed forces by pushing each otherand then pushing pillows on a carpet and then on asmooth floor. They then built Duplo cars that werepushed using RCX-based pushers. The pusherswere simply an RCX with two motors in the

back directly connected to the tires. By placingthese pushers behind their vehicles, studentsquickly started to argue about pusher designsand where it was best to push. We then talkedabout why some designs could not be pushed onthe carpet, where others could. This discussionspawned a number of design modifications andpretty quickly students decided that they wanted tochange the speed and direction of their pusher andso were motivated to start programming. Aftershowing them once how to work the Pilot 2program, they had no problem making their carsmove in all directions and speeds (although asfast as possible for as long as possible was thefavorite). Because they could independentlycontrol the speed of each wheel, a number decidedto make their car turn. We worked more closelywith a few kindergartners, who quickly learnedhow to do diagram programming. One kinder-gartner made a little robotic car that wouldfollow you around if you sped up, so would it.He simply had the light indicator brick controllingthe speed of the motors, when the sensor no longerread the reflection off of the person, the car wouldgo faster. In general, the kindergartners hadlittle difficulty programming (the earliest we haveworked with is 3-year-olds). The panel program-ming quickly taught them how to think logicallyand the basics of programming structure. Armedwith this, they have little difficulty moving into thediagram programming environment. Interestingly,however, the younger students seem much moreinterested in the physical construction rather thanthe programming. If the program basically works,that is good enough. College students, on theother hand, will often spend far longer on thecode than the construction with the theory that if

Fig. 15. The glass sorter.

B. Erwin et al.8

the structure basically works, that was goodenough.

In fourth grade, the science teacher decided totake an engineering approach to teach her classabout recycling. Not only did the students readand discuss the recycling process, they collectivelydesigned an entire recycling center out of LEGObeams, motors, axles, and other parts. One team ofstudents decided to separate blue bottles (blueLEGO pieces) from other ones using the LEGOlight sensor. Their design involved one motorrunning a conveyor belt, and a second motorconnected to a rack and pinion device thatknocked the blue LEGO pieces off the conveyorbelt and into a bin. The conveyor belt and theLEGO Engineer program for it are shown in Fig.15. For these fourth-graders, the unit on recyclingwas unforgettable. After the recycling center was

built, they wrote stories about it and displayedthem both for the rest of the school. The lessonwas able to capture the complete attention of somestudents that were otherwise bored with thetraditional style of learning. For the group thatprogrammed the conveyor belt, the ability to havea command over technologyÐto be a designer andnot just a userÐwas the most powerful lesson.

The Paraclete CenterThe Paraclete Center is an after-school center in

South Boston whose main goal is to provide anacademic working environment where students canbecome involved in a number of different projectswith mentors. We challenged the kids to design anintelligent house (Fig. 16) as a true systems engi-neering project. During a brainstorming session,everyone talked together about what kinds offeatures the building might have: a porch light, amoving garage door, a doorbell, a ceiling fan, asecurity system, an elevator, etc. (top-downdesign). They had to make trade-offs as to whichcomponents to include based on the limitednumber of sensors (bottom-up design). Next, thestudents decided which was to be their area ofexpertise: programming, structures/electronics, orarchitecture/landscaping. These categories corre-sponded to the interests of the particular studentsinvolved.

These students ran into genuine systems engi-neering issues, such as when one group is

Fig. 16. The intelligent house.

Fig. 17. Charlotte's Web.

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabVIEW 9

seemingly not able to begin on their design untilthey have information from another group. Whatreally needs to happen in a situation like this, ofcourse, is that both groups need to begin bymaking guesses on what the other group will do.The programming expert realised on his own thathe must begin writing a program for the elevatorbefore he even knew what it looked like, in order tosave time. `I'll just guess that he is just going to useone motor, and use a touch sensor for the buttonthat controls it,' he said, and started to write theprogram.

Other examples of elementary school engineeringTeachers have used the LEGO bricks and our

software in a number of innovative ways. Somesecond grade teachers have built models ofZuckerman's Farm from E. B. White's CharlottesWeb (Fig. 17). Others have taught cartographythough building a town. Some have built vol-canoes and others space stations. First gradershad `slow car' races (whose goes the slowest) andmarketed LEGO snowplows. All of the teachershave found that the studentsÐalmost univer-sallyÐreally enjoy the designing and buildingprocess. The LabVIEW component allows themto animate their product. First graders have madespiders that have flashing eyes and movingpincers, kindergartners programmed a bus todrive through their town, third graders automatedtheir cars. Each time, the students viewed theprogramming as just a tool to make theirconstruction do something. Thus the computerwent from being the conventional focus of thelesson (how many schools have computer timeÐor the students `go to computer'?), to where itshould beÐone of many tools to solve a problem.

In an effort to connect the home and the school,we offered a parents night last year to train parentsin LEGO Engineer. Thirty parents came that nightto build a small town. By the end, some hadbuildings with automatic lights, another had aswing set, and a third had a waste disposalsystem. In all cases, the parents, like the kids, gotexcited about their creations and learned a lot ofengineering principles as their escalator went toofast or the door to the fire station did not raise highenough to allow the truck to pass under.

College engineeringBoth LEGO Engineer and RoboLab have

already become an integral part of the educationof a mechanical engineer at Tufts University. TheLEGO bricks and software provide a cheap andflexible workbench of tools from which thestudents can build something new and differentevery year. Student support is extremely high withstudents often staying late to add another turretonto their car. In particular, we have taken it intothree main areas so far: entry-level engineering,experimentation, and senior design. We have evenused RoboLab and the LEGO bricks as a mecha-nism to improve undergraduate advising (see

reference [3] for details). At Tufts, we have anumber of engineering courses that are designedfor freshman engineers and liberal arts majors.These courses are meant to give the students afeeling for engineering, giving them a reason totake the two years of math and science that areabout to follow [6]. To date we have offered twoLEGO/LabVIEW-based courses for liberal artsstudents and first-year engineers, one with LEGOEngineer and one with RoboLab. The first,entitled `The Way Things Work', introducesengineering to majors and non-majors throughunderstanding how everyday objects work. Build-ing an egg-beater out of LEGO bricks, forinstance, teaches concepts of gearing, stability,and strength in construction. By the end of thesemester, students were building new inventions,which ranged from a clock tower with a workingclock to a gadget that automatically poured sodafrom a soda can. Again, LEGO Engineer allowedthe students to actually make the pouringmechanism work. This class was very popularamong the students as they felt that they got toactually learn some engineering early on in theircollege career.

In the other freshman course, we taughtelementary robotics using RoboLab and theRCX. Here, students competed on a weeklybasis with competitions varying from navigatinga maze to laser tagÐwhere every robot tries tohit other robots with an infrared pulseÐwithoutgetting hit themselves. In the final competition,students had to navigate a maze, find a candle,and snuff it out. Three of the groups succeeded indoing that and submitted their robots to anational fire fighting competition [3]. Throughthe competitions, students learned a number oflessons, with probably the most important beingthat simplicity wins every time. This applied toboth the robot design and the RoboLab codewritten to control the robot. Where some hadprograms that used almost all of the memory ofthe RCX, the winners were usually the oneswhose codes were simple and elegant. A robotdoes not need to be intelligent to navigatea mazeÐit just needs to be determined. Atthis level, all students were using the highest

Fig. 18. CNC milling machine.

B. Erwin et al.10

programming level (Inventor 4) and often pushedthe sensors and the RCX to their limits. Again,student evaluations were unusually positive (4.9/5.0 in their final evaluations).

All mechanical engineering juniors are requiredto take a course in experimentation methods. Thiscourse has used LEGO Engineer for four yearsnow with great success. LEGO Engineer providesa fun and interesting way to getting the students tolearn LabVIEW programming. This courseconventionally begins with students building andprogramming a joystick-controlled car. They racethese cars through mazes and those with the bestcode and the quickest figures win. The competitionpushes students to get a better understanding ofthe programming language. After racing cars, theymove on to learning how sensors work and how toconnect them to the computer. After running anumber of smaller experiments, meant mainly toteach writing and presentation skills, they then endwith a final project. These projects vary from yearto year with last year being an experiment todetermine the force required to pull two LEGObricks apart. They had to design, build, anddocument an experiment that could take thismeasurement repeatably and accurately. Theysucceeded using pneumatic power to pull and apressure transducer to measure the requiredpressure. This course is more fully outlined inreference [2]. This year, the same course wastaught, only with RoboLab and the RCX. Insteadof joystick cars, they built a robot that would drivearound on top of a table without falling off.Instead of pulling two bricks apart, they arebuilding a fully automated TANGTM dispenser.Their program brings the water up to a desiredtemperature, pours a designated weight of TANGcrystals into a paper cup and then adds a certainamount of the warm water to the cup. The finalmixture is then weighed and sent out to theoperator. Through this manufacturing station(a mixture of LEGO bricks and wood), theylearned about measurement uncertainty, statistics,sampling theory and sensor design. In fact, thescale that weighs the final mixture is a strain-gagesystem they made themselves. They also wrotereports on each portion of the process, analyticallymodelled the process, and gave presentations oftheir findings.

Finally, we have also used LEGO Engineer in asenior design project. As previously mentioned,five seniors built a three degrees of freedomcomputer-controlled milling machine. The mill isdesigned to cut boat hulls out of balsa wood

(Fig. 18). By restricting the students to LEGObricks, they were forced to think thoroughlythrough their design: LEGO bricks do notabsorb vibrations as well as cast iron; there areonly certain diameter gears available; and how it isdifficult to get millimetre positioning accuracywith building blocks rather than welded steel. Onthe other hand, the bricks gave them the advantagethat they could produce something that was notjust a paper design in a semester timeframe. Byprototyping their milling machine, they were ableto test out a number of different designs and cleanup many aspects of their final design. Their finaldesign included over $1,000 worth of LEGO bricksand over 15 subroutines in the code.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTUREDIRECTIONS

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab are two pro-gramming environments that extend the capa-bilities of LabVIEW to allow kindergartners andcollege graduate students to program side-by-side.We have used the environment successfully with allages and have found that the graphical format ofLabVIEW allows us to concentrate much more onthe science or engineering being taught and alot less on checking syntax of the programming.The computer becomes another tool rather thanthe central focus of the project. The software andthe hardware have a very low entry level but a veryhigh ceiling. Kindergartners are using the sametools to build rocket ships or cars as graduatestudents who have used the RCX to measureaccelerations on NASA's zero-gravity KC-135, orto measure lift and drag on aircraft in a small windtunnel. The engineering associated with the LEGObricks, from building a town to measuringacceleration, has received almost unanimoussupport from the over 4000 students and 100teachers that have used it.

We are currently creating software that isdesigned specifically for using the RCX inscientific laboratory experiments for middleschool and high school. Future versions ofLEGO Engineer will be incorporating the latestfeatures of LabVIEWÐsuch as the ability to runprograms over the Internet. With help from corpo-rate and government sponsors and local engineersand scientists, we hope to bring these technologicaltools to more students so that the average highschool graduate has a firm understanding ofengineering design and control.

REFERENCES

1. B. Erwin, M. Cyr, J. Osborne, C. Rogers, Middle school engineering with LEGO and LabVIEW,Proc. NIWeek, Austin TX, (1998).

2. M. Cyr, V. Miragila, T. Nocera, C. Rogers, A low-cost, innovative methodology for teachingengineering through experimentation, J. Eng. Educ., 86, 2 (1997).

3. S. McNamara, M. Cyr, C. B. Rogers, B. Bratzel, LEGO bricks sculptures and robotics in education,ASEE Proc., (1999).

LEGO Engineer and RoboLab: Teaching Engineering with LabVIEW 11

4. URL http://www.lego.com/dacta/robolab5. URL http://ldaps.ivv.nasa.gov6. Martha Cyr, C. B. Rogers, Enhancing Education with LEGO bricks and Paperclips, FEDSM98±5137

(1998).

Ben Erwin is Curriculum Coordinator at the Center for Engineering Educational Outreachat Tufts University. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from MIT and an MAT inPhysics Education from Tufts University. He teaches middle school technology educationclasses in Weston, MA. His professional interests are in teaching engineering and design toyoung students, and using systems engineering as a model to engage students in complexdesign projects. His particular LEGO claim-to-fame is the automatic bubble-blowingmachine.

Martha Cyr is the Director of the Center for Engineering Educational Outreach at TuftsUniversity (http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu). She received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineeringfrom Worcester Polytechnic Institute. In addition to running numerous workshops forK-12 teachers and students, she teaches thermodynamics and a class called Children,Technology, and Society, which combines traditional STS curriculum with studentteaching at Tufts.

Chris Rogers is a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University. He received hisPh.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. He teaches numerous coursesthat allow students to learn about engineering through experienceÐfrom building robots tomusical instruments. He also visits his elementary school once a month to play tag at recessand build in different classes. He recently received the Carnegie Massachusetts Professorof the Year. His office is full of LEGO constructions and his laboratory is completelyLabVIEW-driven (even the accounting is a virtual instrument).

B. Erwin et al.12