Click here to load reader
Upload
leduong
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Robotics Technology in Elementary Education: Current Questions and Future Possibilities
Mara Eve StahlCD 145 - Professor Marina Bers
April 3, 2005
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
Abstract:
Education on America has evolved to include many new technologies and teaching styles
along with many new restrictions brought about by state and national standardization. Each of
these variables influences the possibilities for evolution in education. This paper examines the
history of modern technologies such as computers, the internet, and recently robotics, and their
utilization in the classroom setting. After examining the particulars of LEGO robotics and its
software, this paper explores the current usage of LEGO robotics and other technological
alternatives in the classroom through outreach, standard teaching, and at-home supplementation.
Technology at this point and robotics in particular, have demonstrated effectiveness for teaching
a diverse set of subjects and skills, but has yet to be used effectively in most classrooms. It then
studies the issues facing schools and school districts when implementing technology education.
Aside from funding and lack of teacher training, traditional instructionist philosophy and
compartmentalized teaching schedules remains a major barrier to full integration. Finally, it
proposes the possibility for educational reforms through the integration of robotics into the
classroom as the technology brings with it an investment in student involvement in the learning
process through active project-based learning emphasizing exploration and experimentation.
2
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
Robotics Technology in Elementary Education:Current Questions and Future Possibilities
Introduction:
In 1984, Seymour Papert predicted “There won’t be schools in the future… I think that
computers will blow up the school” (Papert, qtd. in Mahler, 40). One can argue whether
computers really have changed school at all let alone reconstructed the entire educational system
as we know it. Now, use of robotics as an educational tool is another step in the evolution of the
education system. As many technologies before it, robotics could be a catalyst for the revolution
and reconstruction of the American curriculum or it could simply be a new option left mostly
ignored and untapped by the school systems for one reason or another.
Robotics offers many benefits to students including hands-on experience, often lacking in
instruction-based classrooms, along with active project-based exploration. It also has the unique
ability to provide a vehicle for concrete representation and visualization of abstract concepts with
which students become acquainted. This idea of concrete representation of abstract concepts
comes from Seymour Papert, and the constructionist philosophy of learning. He cites hands-on
learning as vital to understanding and sees the use of concrete representations as a way to
understand faster and more completely abstract concepts (Papert, 1981). Through something as
concrete as robotics, one can teach once-thought complex ideas to young children in a way they
can understand and build upon later. For example, learning about gears and gear ratios for a
small child introduces fractions, an abstract concept, in a concrete fashion, while for an older
student that information can be explained with more complex equations and discussions of
velocity and force.
3
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
Though robotics carries with it seemingly endless possibilities, the technology works
within a system of limitations. Technocentric thinking leads many to believe that the technology
itself will promise fantastic results simply by being present in the schools. But the technology is
a tool, not an answer. It lives within a system of people who can help or hinder its capacity as a
useful tool by ignoring it completely, using it within the current limited infrastructure, or creating
educational changes that integrate it in many capacities in the classroom. Such limitations are
access and cost. Wealthy suburban school districts with involved parents and informed teachers
can introduce and utilize robotics effectively within their system, but lower-income areas with
budget and staffing constraints lack the access to such wonderful technology. Also, the greater
educational system constraints such as time allocation and classroom setup, and most of all,
teacher training influence the use of robotics and all technologies in schools. It is impossible for
one to teach what one does not know.
There are small steps to move classrooms and schools in the direction of active,
constructionist learning while still holding pieces of the traditional values of education held by
many parents, teachers, administrators, and policy-makers. Still, In order for robotics and all of
its possibilities of technological liberation to occur successfully in classrooms, there would
probably require a complete reconstruction of our current educational system. Educational
reform is a slow process, but a worthwhile one; the rejuvenation of learning as an active lifelong
discipline instead of a passive childhood necessity.
History: technology in the classroom
4
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
The economy, science, and technology are interrelated. A technologically-driven
economy requires a technologically-driven workforce, which in turn influences the education
necessary to prepare such a workforce. The integration of technology in education impacts the
readiness of the future generation.
Teachers have traditionally determined whether or not to integrate technology into their
classroom. Mahler (2003) argues in his thesis that historically, elementary school teachers have
chosen practices that are “resilient, simple, and efficient solutions” (3) in dealing with many
students in a single space for an extended period of time. Teacher-centered instruction focuses
the children’s attention and gives the teacher control over the space, but greatly limits active
learning opportunities.
As new technologies enter their classrooms, the impact on instruction varies. Some
technology is impractical or inappropriate for classroom use, while others such as projectors,
electronic blackboards, and video media, mildly enhance instruction within the teacher-centered
paradigm. Some technology has entered that classroom and been an opportunity for
reconstruction of the classroom frameworks. Mahler (2003) argues that the use of instructional
technology “is more dependent on human and contextual factors” than on the technology itself
(4). The prevailing strategy for technology in the classroom setting has not been to supplement
teacher instruction effectively, but to reinforce traditional teaching methods and provide children
with “equal, if inadequate, number of minutes each day” using the technology, usually computers
(Guthrie, qtd. Mahler, 2003, 21)
The availability of computers and internet in elementary schools has risen dramatically in
the past decade. Since the turn of the century, almost every public elementary school has been
wired to the internet in some way or another, a dramatic increase from only thirty percent a
5
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
decade ago. More important, wired instructional classrooms have increased from three percent
in 1994 to 76 percent in 2001 (Mahler, 2003). Still, only ten percent of classrooms (as of 2001)
have six or more computers in the room, while 46 percent have two to five, and 33 percent have
only one. Eleven percent of classrooms have no computers at all (Mahler, 2003). This severely
limits time and access to computers and therefore software and integrated programs for the
students. For the most part, computer usage in elementary curriculum is restricted to small
groups and scheduled “computer time” where a majority of student work revolves around word
processing, researching, or drill-like activity, for approximately thirty minutes per week (Mahler,
2003). Teachers use the computers and the internet to gather information and ideas for their
curriculum and to fulfill administrative tasks, though teachers in low-minority, low-poverty areas
are much more likely to use the computer for such work than teachers in high-minority, higher-
poverty areas (Mahler, 2003).
Time constraints and traditional classroom settings have begun to expand to incorporate
new ways of learning. Project-oriented, as opposed to instructional, learning is a major
infrastructure shift supported through some areas of technology. In 1987 as an innovative
experiment developed by Robert Tinker and the staff at TERC, National Geographic KidsNet
brought inquiry-based learning to elementary students, allowing them to explore areas such as
acid rain and water quality in their towns and connect with each other and with scientists through
electronic mail (Molnar, 1997). The idea was to activate students, engage them in their
communities, and connect them with major information centers.
As computers and robotics, LEGO® robotics specifically have been developed as an
educational tool, they have carried strongly with it the idea of project-orientated, active
constructionist education. As Papert believes, children are “active builders of their own
6
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
intellectual structures,” needing active exploration in order to gain everything out of their
environment (135). He believes strict instructional learning can inhibit the learning abilities of
children by lacking engagement, personal connection, and meta-cognition. Robotics facilitates
active constructionist learning as the possibilities for “right answers” are much greater than any
worksheet or written test. The robotics programs offer the possibilities of in-depth analysis and
experimentation with many math, science, and technology concepts with the versatility and
portability of LEGO pieces. Through 1999, over 4000 students under the instruction of over 100
teachers have used LEGO Engineer and in the first two years of its inception RoboLab was
shipped to over 1000 schools (Erwin, 1999).
So what is LEGO Robotics? What is RoboLab?
LEGO Robotics has grown and changed recently as it has become more accessible to
students of all ages. LabVIEW, the traditional software used with LEGO computerized brick
sculptures, has been re-created as an instructional software with levels of complexity that stretch
from the most limited programming tasks used by children as young as three to complicated
tasks of college-level engineering students. Throughout the 1990s, with funding by NASA,
Tufts University set out to create engineering educational curricula using LEGO bricks and its
computer interface.
In 1998, Tufts partnered with LEGO and with Texas Instruments to create the RCX, a
LEGO brick with a microprocessor inside (McNamara, 1999). The RCX was a change from the
Control Lab Interface (CLI), which is an extension of the computer and therefore limits the
computer to one experiment at a time. The versatility of the microprocessor allows for students
7
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
to write programs, transfer the program to the RCX, and then take their programmed robot
anywhere. Many programs and experiments may occur simultaneously as the microprocessors
gather information and talk back and forth with the main computer. This feature is useful for
classrooms lacking in computers as some students can build first while others begin with their
program. It also allows for greater flexibility with experiments as robots can be taken home or
outside for data collection and other tasks (McNamara, 1999).
RoboLab is the software used with the RCX and LEGO bricks to create the programmed
robots. RoboLab is a revised version of LabVIEW 5.01 and a library of subroutines (VIs)
powered by LabVIEW. RoboLab was specifically designed for schools and, different from
MindstormsTM software, has a “lower entry and a higher ceiling” (Erwin, 1999). Graphically
based software, it has been translated into many languages and can be used with very young, pre-
reading children.
How is it used? Engineering and Robotics Initiatives in the Classroom:
Chris Rogers, (1999) professor at Tufts University, hopes to see engineering “provide the
link between the science in each grade as well as linking the science to other subjects in any
particular grade” (6) as he and his team provide engineering education outreach throughout the
community. In these programs, elementary school students have used LEGOs and robotics
software to create animals, towns, storybook settings, volcanoes, and space stations (Erwin et al.,
1999). First graders made LEGO snowplows and spiders with flashing eyes; kindergartners have
used LabVIEW and LEGO bricks to create their own town and automated bus to stop at each
house along the road.
8
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
The graphical format of LabVIEW allows for more focus on the engineering and design
instead of programming syntax. In most instances, one of the greatest benefits is that the
computer changes from being a central focus in a lesson (as in computer lab time) to becoming
simply a tool with which one makes their construction work (Erwin et al. 1999). The town
project incorporated cartography, reading and writing skills, while also learning about friction
and design in order to improve the performance of their busses. Younger students focus on
physical construction more than on programming as opposed to older students who commit
much more time to the program. “If the programming basically works, that is good enough”
(Erwin et al., 1999, 8). In fourth grade, students learned about recycling as they designed a
recycling center out of LEGOs along with reading about and discussing recycling. Some
students built a conveyor belt with a sensor to separate blue LEGO pieces from the others for
“recycling.” For that group, the ability to have command over technology, to design and build,
and not simply use technology, was a powerful lesson (Erwin et al., 1999).
In another study, programming was the focus. In a working project by Eric Wang at
University of Nevada, Reno (2001) to use RoboLab to meet science, math, and technology
standards, kindergarteners were given one-on-one instruction and went through all of the pilot
tutorials before making a program of their own for a pre-constructed robot. The tasks completed
were devised so as to range in difficulty from driving in a straight line to sensing the end of a
table to prevent falling off. For this study, the most important skills the children developed were
logic and communication skills. The ability to understand and communicate what exactly the
robot would do appeared to be the best indication of learning (Wang, Wang, 2001).
In Pennsylvania, an outreach project provided kindergarten students with hands-on
electrical engineering experience. Providing experience and knowledge is more important than
9
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
simply presenting information. The researchers argue that little is done for kindergartners in K-
12 outreach programs and that little research focuses on kindergarten engineering curriculum. It
was determined that the attention span of kindergartners is approximately 10 to 15 minutes so
many short experiments to explore current, voltage, batteries, conductors, insulators, and
resistors. Using simple language, without avoiding technical terms, the information was
presented in short activities as the students were introduced to science, engineering, and
technology. The children were engaged, attentive, and asking questions. Students built circuits,
compared foil, paper clips, Play-doh, LEGOs, and other items as conductors and resistors, and
had assessments along the way (Torres, Casey, 2001). There were some logistical issues as the
small children found alligator clips difficult to use, and a third of the students shorted battery
packs with one wire, so safety must be discussed, but the project was an overall success.
Later, after the project had ended, the students had an unexpected chance to revisit their
subject. The school lost power one day and the teacher used the event as an opportunity to talk
about electricity. Many of the students remembered the information they had learned and could
make predictions and ask questions about the current situation based on their knowledge. For
example, when the lights remained on, a child related that it must run on batteries instead of
electricity. This conversation supported the hope that the students had developed a base
knowledge of the subject and could apply the information in other settings and situations (Torres,
Casey, 2001).
Constraints and Limitations:
William F. Atchison, professor at the University of Maryland commented,
10
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
“We should have learned by now [that] the things that are in the graduate
school today appear in the elementary school day after tomorrow. The
programming I taught to graduate students and faculty 25 years ago, Papert wants
to teach to elementary school children today! (1981)”
The rapidly increasing pace of technological advancement put pressure on schools to educate for
the future while working within major structural, socio-cultural, and budgetary constraints.
Atchison’s comment speaks not only to the rapid turnover of information and innovation, but to
the feeling that many adults can be left behind as new technology is introduced and becomes
obsolete in a heartbeat. How does a teacher know which technology is really helpful and
innovative? How can school make the technology work for them for long periods of time? Most
importantly, how can we train teachers to be comfortable with new technology and help them
find ways to integrate that technology effectively into their classrooms?
In the world of Papert and others where MCAS tests and time blocks and funding issues
do not exist, there can be endless possibilities for engineering and robotics education within the
educational setting. In reality, the vision must be compromised over and over again in order to
create a workable solution for teachers, administrators, and parents. In a presentation by Lee
McCanne, he explained the constraints of a public school district with high expectations but
lower than average funding. He is the technology director for the Belmont school district in
Massachusetts and oversees six schools, 3800 students, and 300 staff (personal communication,
March 9, 2005). Some of his greatest concerns are a lack of time and resources for staff
development and support, and effective integration that still allows teachers to address
everything they must cover as directed by the state boards and national requirements. Also,
11
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
technology ages and becomes obsolete, so where does one spend the money to make each dollar
worth it?
The possibilities of robotics education in a school district that lacks such funding can be
extremely difficult. Thus far, Belmont schools have computer labs with LOGO, StarLOGO,
KidSpiration, Inspiration, and many other programs and every classroom is wired, (personal
communication, March 9, 2005) but integration of technology within the schools is a slow
process. Without proper teacher support, including full-time tech support and technology-driven
teacher in-services to familiarize teachers with technology, the utilization for technology as a
teaching tool remains limited. Without training the present, it is impossible to prepare the future.
Professional Development greatly influences teachers’ perceptions of technology and their
comfort and initiative when integrating such technology into their curricula. In 2002, according
to Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, computer expenditures in public schools
surpassed $5.5 billion. While more than two-thirds was spent on hardware and one-sixth on
software, only 14 percent of that funding went toward staff development in order to use the
newly purchased hardware and software (qtd. Mahler, 2003, 58). New teachers do not come into
the classroom prepared to use new technology as it is not often a part of their original training,
and as technology changes, there is not enough time, funding, initiative, to continue grasping and
utilizing new technologies throughout their careers.
Also, having computer labs is a constraint in itself. Many schools separate “computer
time” from the other subjects as a child’s day is compartmentalized from 8:00am until 3:00pm.
The computers within the classroom, if there are any, are for separate individual activities,
unrelated to the traditional classroom work. In order to most effectively utilize technology in the
classroom, the classroom must be changed. The computer cannot be an entity separate from the
12
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
tasks it performs, the information it provides, and the related scholarly areas of the class. This is
support for project-based instruction. Especially in elementary schools where the specific
academic constraints are not nearly as rigid, there is much more time for exploration than may be
available at this time. Bringing computers out of the lab and into the classroom, educating and
engaging parents, and finding ways to make both teachers and students comfortable with
technology could open doors for the development of such programs such as robotics-based
curriculum which can augment or become the base for other areas of learning including math,
science, critical thinking, and writing. Robotics education at its core aims to engage students in
math, science, and technology, but it proves its worth with easy application in any and all other
fields of study.
Alternatives: Teaching Robotics on a budget
One of RoboLab and LEGO’s main objectives is to engage students at a young age in the
discipline of engineering in order to prepare and inspire the next generation of engineers. A
hefty goal, Robotics programs try to engage students in math, science, and technology through
integrated curriculum and explorative project-based learning. All schools carry time constraints
and lack of teacher familiarity, but some schools lack funding for necessities such as books and
paper let alone LEGOs and computer games.
Since many schools cannot afford to have LEGO robotics products and programs in their
schools, there are alternatives which seek to enhance the current education system in similar
ways providing active, child-empowered learning possibilities for students. For example, the
National Geographic KidsNet program provides such opportunities. In 1991, KidsNet units were
13
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
used in more than 6,000 classrooms in 72 countries where over 90% of teachers reported that
KidsNet significantly increased students’ interest in science and contributed to doubling the
classroom time spent on science (Molnar, 1997).
Outreach also provides some fun additions to classroom learning while reaping the
benefits of community involvement and care. Grand Valley State University in Allendale,
Michigan created a three-year project for engineering student outreach to serve fifth and sixth
grade students. A major focus of the fifth grade project is the Pinewood Derby where students
build and race cars with kits provided by the Boy Scouts of America. The total cost for the race
for 76-80 students – including prizes - is less than $600 each year (Adamczyk, Fleischmann,
2003). For the sixth graders, upon request of previous fifth-grade students, there were three
activities including the construction of simple water rockets, and a story contest as students
names a robot in the lab and created an adventure story for it. The outreach project provided
engineering education to often overlooked children in a poverty-stricken area in order to help tap
into the potential for future engineers. The project benefited both the young students and the
engineering undergraduates as each was able to discover engineering through a new lens
(Adamczyk, Fleischmann, 2003).
Because integrating technology in the classroom is expensive and difficult in some areas,
though many wish to try, Kansas State University developed the Robotic Simulator Program
(RSP). This program, similar to LOGO, where students can explore math and science concepts
through programming “turtles” to do virtual tasks, provides students a virtual experimental space
with which to explore concepts. The RSP is a much more rigid program than LOGO or other
programming tools, as it has a structure and goals with specific task challenges for the student to
14
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
complete. It was generated as a tool to “increase neural plasticity and augment thinking skills”
in kindergarten through sixth graders in underprivileged schools (Matson et. al, 2003).
The Kansas State innovators believe that interest in the math and science disciplines is
not enough, but that students must be prepared with logical thinking and problem-solving skills.
They hypothesize that early learning with logical thinking and problem-solving is important and
could be more successful at the elementary school level while neural plasticity is still very
high(Matson et. al, 2003).
The RSP provides structured programming in robotics to students in underprivileged
areas where resources hinder their access to expensive robotics software and hardware. With
Robocup events and MindStorms programs, schools must have the money to purchase hardware
and software, whereas the RSP software can be downloaded free of charge from any location by
anyone who wishes to participate. The goal is to fill the gaps and create opportunities for under
served elementary schools to develop thinking skills and an appreciation for science and
technology (Matson et. al, 2003).
The simulator contains twenty self-directed, interactive lessons which increase in
technical difficulty and utilize a progression of increasing knowledge. The student will build a
virtual robot and then program it using English-language syntax. The robot works within a “play
space” where the student can either manipulate the space or the robot in order to complete tasks.
The program is still relatively new, but it allows for easy feedback from students and schools,
providing information on the effectiveness of the program and relevance of each lesson. The
developers plan to stratify the program to target certain lessons to specific age groups after
evaluating the program as a whole along with the enhancement from two dimensions to a three
dimensional viewing space (Matson et. al, 2003).
15
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
Where do we go from here?
Motivations to use robotics in the classroom can be categorized into two main
philosophies. Robotics in education: robotics is fun and interesting and teachers should convince
their students of this and hopefully along the way, teach them something useful. Or better,
robotics for education: robotics is useful in the educational process and can be used to teach
whatever need to be addressed while using robotics as an educational tool (Malec, 2001). It is
the first philosophy that drives many initiatives for robotics in education, but it is in the second
mindset that education will find its most expansive possibilities.
The call for educational reform echoes through the centuries. If everyone could afford all
of the best books and the best teachers and the best technology, then it still wouldn’t solve the
objectives proposed by the LEGO Robotics and other engineering initiatives. Supporters of
these reforms look to reconstruct how children learn through more active participation, and
reconstruction of the classroom and the school day. Instructionist education is passive and
leaves children without the sense of efficacy with which these researchers would like students to
face future information and challenges. Constructionist philosophy, where the child has free
reign to explore as she wishes and construct knowledge in her own fashion also has its
limitations of matching with reality.
In a world market where adults and societies compete for jobs and lives and identities,
children are required to know certain things in order to be trained for such a future. Still, just
because certain subjects must be addressed does not mean that those subjects must be addressed
individually, or in only a specific manner. In a science and technology-centered society, and in
16
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
educational initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, it has become important to prove things
and to support ideas with scientific research in order to validate them as worthwhile. What
LEGO Robotics and other engineering/technology education provide is a sense of
interdisciplinary study while supporting both active learning and experimental study. With
project-based education, and the decompartmentalization of the school day, all education can be
multi-faceted and inter-related in a much more fluid manner.
Experimentation, regarded so highly in the adult community, could be the way for
students to learn. Simply by building a car and making in go forward, a child can learn to
hypothesize and plan, construct using principles of physics and geometry, communication skills,
logical thinking, and meta-cognition as she reflects on her work and its outcomes. And for
females, where often visual-spatial skills lack due to lack of stimulation through videogames,
blocks, etc., robotics provides a way for them to fill the gap and hopefully strive to become
engineers in more equal numbers to males in the future.
Education reform is necessary and vital to the continuation of our country in the world
stage and effective use of technology tools is a logical step in the right direction.
Engineering/technology education offers new and interesting ways to learn and confront
challenges, and LEGO Robotics brings a hands-on, multi-faceted, and most of all, fun, approach
to traditional classroom material. By encouraging more active participation in education, we can
better teach students the most important lesson of all - not just what to learn, but why we learn
and how to learn.
17
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
References
Adamczyk, B., & Fleischmann, S. (2003). Engineering and elementary school partnerships (or dean
kamen's challenge revisited). [robotics, elementary education].Retrieved March 31, 2005, from the
Googlescholar database.
Atchison, W. (1981). Computer education, past, present, and future. SIGSCE symposium,
Erwin, B., Cyr, M., & Rogers, C. (2000). LEGO engineer and RoboLab: Teaching engineering and
LabVIEW from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education,
15(5), 6-11.
Lewis, T. (2004). A turn to engineering: The continuing struggle of technology education for
legitimization as a school subject. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1)
Mahler, B. (2003). The Magic Formula: Technology and the Teacher in the Public Elementary School
Classroom (Master of Arts ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.
Malec, J. (2001). Some thoughts on robotics for education.
Matson, E., Pauly, R., & DeLoach, S. (2003). Robotic simulators to develop logic and critical thinking
skills in under served k-6 school children. ASEE midwestern section meeting,
McCanne, L. (March 9, 2005). Technology in Schools: Vision Vs. Reality
18
Mara Stahl Robotics in Elementary Education…
McNamara, S., Cyr, M., & Rogers, C. (1999). LEGO brick sculptures and robotics in education.
Molnar, A. (1997). Computers in education: A brief history. Technological Horizons in Education
Online, 24, 63-68.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Torres, K., & Casey, M. (2001). Electrical engineering technology experiences for kindergarten students.
American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition,
Wang, E., & Wang, R. (2001). Using LEGOs and RoboLab (LabVIEW) with elementary school. 31st
ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Reno, NV,
19