Orthographical and Grammatical Conventions -...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Orthographical and Grammatical Conventions -...

Documents

Transcript of Orthographical and Grammatical Conventions -...