![]() |
Abstract |
|
![]() |
1. Introduction Robotics provides children with the opportunity to test the results of abstract design concepts through concrete, hands-on robotic manipulatives (Druin & Hendler, 2000). For many teachers and educators, this requires a conceptual shift away from the idea of learning from technology, often found in traditional computer-assisted instruction, toward a viewpoint of learning with the technology that is consistent with the "Mindtools" approach to problem-solving advocated by Jonassen (2000). This Mindtools approach is well suited to the project-based learning (PBL) environment in which the problem drives the learning (Hung, 2002). In a PBL environment, students often discover they need to learn new knowledge and continuously revise existing knowledge before they can begin solving problems. In the PBL context, rather than trying to assess a student’s performance outcomes using a measurement instrument, it may be more informative to examine the observable intermediary states children produce during their problem-solving process. This type of observational record cannot easily be described in text and still photos, nor does such a medium allow the richness of expression afforded by digital video and audio. In this paper, we introduce the benefits of exploring new technologies for learning in the form of LEGO robotics. Students use the LEGO (Mindstorms for Schools) Team Challenge Kit #9790 (LEGO, 1999a) in conjunction with a programming environment called ROBOLAB. We describe various LEGO robot construction tasks undertaken by middle-school children. We then demonstrate the end products of their work—autonomous robots solving problems. Finally, we demonstrate how teachers and students in a classroom setting can use digital video as a tool for assessment purposes and as an opportunity to share their ideas within a broader based learning community. |
![]() |
![]() |
2. Project-based Learning (PBL) |
|
![]() |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
The overall project question should be made relevant and linked to meaningful real life experiences and engage the student in a complex activity. Furthermore, the complexity of the problem dictates the necessity for students to cooperate and collaborate, where each participant is afforded the opportunity to play a role in a team-like environment. For example, within the context of robotics, we might have various specialties, such as, designer, builder, programmer, and documenter. From a teaching perspective, a number of aspects are important for assessment and evaluation of students' work in a PBL context: (a) students should understand the process of how they got to where they are and where they want to go; i.e., the problem-solving choices they make; (b) students should be able think about the outcomes of their work; (this can done through combination of a written logbook, verbal explanation, or video demonstrations); and, (c) the project guidelines must include some levels of criteria that students can work toward at various points during the PBL process (see the www.qesnrecit.qc.ca/workshops/pbl/assess.htm for examples of PBL rubrics that can be used). |
|
![]() |
3. Engaging the Learners
as Robot Designers in a PBL Environment The PBL environment, resources, and overall guiding project question was introduced to the students:
The PBL resources and overall question are provided as part of the LEGO ROBOLAB Team Challenge kit (LEGO, 1999a; LEGO, 1999d) and associated teacher resources (LEGO, 1999b; LEGO, 1999c); however, these resources were modified to fit the context of the school and classroom environment in which they were used. Given the complexity and open-ended nature of the task, a semi-structured instructional PBL environment was necessary to complete the project within a given time specification (total time 25 hours). Therefore, the PBL environment was configured into three incremental sections: (1) building an Acrobot as a simple introduction to the kit and programming language, (2) exploring the advantages and disadvantages of various chassis designs for speed, power, durability, and maneuverability, and (3) applying skills learned in both chassis design and programming to solve as many levels of the CanDo challenge as possible (there are four levels). Each section allowed the students to gain the necessary knowledge required for the completion of the subsequent section. |
![]() |
![]() |
4. Acrobot |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 2. (a) The RCX and (b) example ROBOLAB program code. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() Figure 3. LEGO Acrobot. |
![]() |
The next two sections describe the major elements of the student’s design and development work. Video is used to record the students’ explanations and help further their understanding of mechanics and the tasks their robots are performing. |
|
![]() |
5. Chassis Designs |
![]() |
![]() |
5.1 Back-up
and Turn Chassis
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
5.2 Hill
Climber Chassis
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
5.3 2-Wheeler
Chassis
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
6. CanDo Team Challenge The student problem-solving approach for the CanDo challenge is highly open-ended; thus, there is a need to provide some degree of structure. Teams were color coded for organizational purposes. The following challenge levels were to be attempted by each team:
The levels were organized hierarchically to reflect an increasing level of difficulty. Video was used to record the individual team’s accomplishments at various levels. Team members were asked by the teacher to explain the design features of their robots and why they made certain choices during their design process. Video segments depicting examples of CanDo challenge work are located on our Web site. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Notice that the icon-based programming code (ROBOLAB) uses a representational approach that often provides one-to-one mapping between the virtual screen object (e.g., motor) and the actual concrete object (e.g., LEGO motor). Such a programming environment appears to enhance the ability of students to understand the relationships between concrete and abstract concepts. Compare the program code in Figure 8 with the program code in Figure 9, written by the same student, to solve the more difficult Level 3 challenge. |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Another example depicting how students were able to use video effectively to articulate their problem-solving process was clearly exhibited by the team’s robot design in Figure 11. The team designed a robot with a removable plow, so their program could be downloaded easily (i.e., update robot control). |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
In summary, the CanDo team challenge was shown to be an effective learning exercise in the context of the PBL environment. The multilevel organization of the challenge provided the necessary task structure while still allowing the students an opportunity to pursue an open-ended individualized approach to problem solving. Students were encouraged to work at their level of ability from the basic understanding in Levels 1 and 2 of the challenge to more complex problem solving required for Levels 3 and 4. All students in the class were challenged at their level of understanding. |
|
![]() |
7. Final Analysis Although students could express their thinking through a variety of sources (audio/video, written logs, physical construction, and computer programming), it was the use of video, as part of the PBL assessment and evaluation process, that appeared to be the most valuable element for both the teacher and students. For students, it provided a feedback mechanism that helped them assess their progress. The use of video also encouraged them to further solidify their learning because of the necessity of having to publicly explain various elements of their problem-solving process. From the teacher’s perspective, the video provides a valuable additional source of information for assessment purposes. The video recordings nicely supplement the reflective logs by allowing the students to further elaborate on their reasoning for pursuing a specific course of action, especially for those students whose verbal skills are stronger than their written skills. This was shown in the sections on chassis construction and during various levels of the CanDo challenge. Furthermore, video clips provide an artifact that can be shared with a larger audience (other classes, parents, community stakeholders). The current project only begins to explore the potential of how robotics and video can be effectively used in a PBL environment. The design of similar instructional projects calls for the development of creative teaching techniques in a student-centered learning context. |
![]() |
![]() |
8. References Druin, A., & Hendler, J. (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hung, D. (2002). Situated cognition and problem-based learning: Implications for learning and instruction with technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, (13(4), 393-414 Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. LEGO (1999a). LEGO MINDSTORMS™ set for Schools # 9790. Billund, Denmark: The LEGO Group. LEGO (1999b). Introductory Activities for LEGO DACTA Set # 9790. Billund, Denmark: The LEGO Group. LEGO (1999c). LEGO DACTA™ Robotics System Teacher Notes and Copymasters for LEGO DACTA™ set #9790. Billund, Denmark: The LEGO Group. LEGO (1999d). Subassembly Constructopedia. In LEGO Group (1999), LEGO MINDSTORMS™ set for Schools # 9790. Billund, Denmark: The LEGO Group. Lui, M., & Hsiao, Y. (2002). Middle school students as multimedia designers: A project-based learning approach. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 311-337 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. In W. G. Secada, (Ed.) Review of Research in Education. (pp. 1–35). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Portsmore, M. (1999). RoboLab: Intuitive robotic programming software to support lifelong learning, Learning Technology Review, Spring/Summer, 26-39. |
![]() |
![]() |
© 2004 Wake Forest University (from Volume 6, Number 1, of The Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning). |
![]() |