Construction Ism
-
Upload
minie-ieie -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
1
Transcript of Construction Ism
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 1/85
Robotics and Teaching: Promoting the Effective Use of Technology in Education
An honors thesis for the Department of Child Development
byDiana DeLuca
Tufts University, 2003
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 2/85
Diana DeLuca
2
Bringing technology into school systems can be beneficial, but is highly dependent onteachers. Without proper education relating to the use and benefits of educational technologies,teachers will not be prepared to implement technology in the classroom. This thesis describesthe design and evaluation of an undergraduate course for pre-service teachers, focusing on theuse of robotics in education. The course included hands on learning, related educational theoryand experience working with children. Enrolled students indicated that after taking this coursethey were more likely to use technology in education in the future and felt less intimidated bytechnology and engineering concepts.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 3/85
Diana DeLuca
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................5
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................7
CONSTRUCTIONISM ...........................................................................................................................................................7POWERFUL IDEAS ..............................................................................................................................................................9THE UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING EXPERIENCE ...........................................................................................................10
PURPOSE...........................................................................................................................................................................13
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................14
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................18
THE ROBOTICS ACADEMY TEAM ....................................................................................................................................19THE LEGO M INDSTORMS KIT AND ROBOLAB S OFTWARE ........................................................................................20THE AFTER SCHOOL ROBOTICS WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................22THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CLASS .................................................................................................................................24
Design Implementation..............................................................................................................................................25 Educational Theory ...................................................................................................................................................26 Classes 1-11 ...............................................................................................................................................................26
Evaluation Measures .................................................................................................................................................35WEBSITE ..........................................................................................................................................................................36
RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................................................................37
PRE-SURVEYS ..................................................................................................................................................................37INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................................................................................................40
Class Structure...........................................................................................................................................................40 In-class challenges.....................................................................................................................................................40 Homework Challenges...............................................................................................................................................41Final Building Challenge ..........................................................................................................................................42
Readings and Discussion...........................................................................................................................................42Observation Requirements ........................................................................................................................................43Curriculum Project ....................................................................................................................................................44
Engineering Guest Speakers .....................................................................................................................................45Technological Comfort Levels and Potential Use in Education..............................................................................45Target Audience.........................................................................................................................................................46
FINAL BUILDING CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................................................47CURRICULUM PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................52SUMMARY OF MAIN RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................55
DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................................................................................56
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................................62
PERSONAL STATEMENT.............................................................................................................................................63
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX A: SYLLABUS.............................................................................................................................................67
APPENDIX B: PRE-SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................72
APPENDIX C: OBSERVATION AND DOCUMENTATION ASSIGNMENTS.....................................................76
APPENDIX D: HOMEWORK CHALLENGES...........................................................................................................77
APPENDIX E: IN-CLASS PRESENTATION ASSIGNMENTS ...............................................................................83
APPENDIX F: CURRICULUM PROJECT..................................................................................................................84
APPENDIX G: FINAL BUILDING CHALLENGE.....................................................................................................85
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 4/85
Diana DeLuca
4
Acknowledgements
Working on this project has been an amazing experience for me and there are so many
people I have to thank for it. I would like to extend my gratitude to each of these individuals.
Laura Hacker, my child development partner within the robotics academy, worked with
me on almost every aspect of our project. I think we made an excellent team and am very glad
that we both chose participate.
Marina Bers, our Child Development and primary advisor met with us weekly throughout
the entire process. She offered us constant guidance, assistance and support that was all
extremely valuable.
Merredith Portsmore of the Tufts CEEO was an amazing help to the project. Not only
did she teach the design portion of Robotics and Education course, she also handled the logistics
behind the Robotics After School Workshop and taught Laura and I how to use ROBOLAB.
Professor Caroline Cao, of the Engineering Psychology department served as a principal
advisor to the robotics academy and one of our thesis committee members. She was a valuable
resource through her knowledge of colonoscopy and the Robotics Academy project.
Professor Steve Morrison of the Computer Science department was another member of
our thesis committee and also a principal robotics academy advisor. At monthly meetings he
provided new ideas and useful insight that helped our project get off the ground.
The robotics academy team members have been wonderful to work with. I consider
myself very fortunate be involved with such an intelligent, fun, and talented group of students.
The Tufts University Center for Children was amazingly helpful in fully funding this
project. They also gave Laura and I several opportunities to share what we learned and hear
about other projects that relate to improving the lives of children.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 5/85
Diana DeLuca
5
Introduction
In the past decade technology has became increasingly more common in most aspects of
everyday life. According to the US Census Bureau, household computer ownership rose by
more than five hundred percent since 1984, with the majority also having internet access
(Census, 2000). Technology is in use everywhere; ATM’s at the bank, the new self-checkout at
the supermarket and the recent increases in the use of the internet for communication, shopping,
banking, research, and much more. With the new trend towards computer automation, people in
the United States will need to be increasingly more computer savvy to function on a day-to-day
basis. Exposing children to technology at a young age will prepare them for the constant use of
technology that they will experience as they get older. Incorporating technology in schools
provides children with skills that will be extremely useful later in life.
The use of technology in public and private schools will also help to bridge the digital
divide that currently exists throughout the world. The digital divide is a term used to describe
the vast differences in the use of technology between varying ethnic and socioeconomic groups
(Cawkell, 2001). Bringing computers, the most common form of school technology, to public
schools will allow children, who may not have access to computers in their homes, to learn and
play with technology. The 2000 US census indicated that only 43 percent of black children and
37 percent of Hispanic children have access to computers in their homes. The comparable
statistic for white children was 77 percent. Children who come from families with higher
income levels are consistently more likely to have access to household computers (Census,
2000). School experiences with computers and other technology will be especially valuable to
those children that are not presented these types of interactions at home. By providing equal
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 6/85
Diana DeLuca
6
access to all children regardless of their ethnic background or socioeconomic status, teachers and
school systems can help close the digital divide that currently exists in America.
Classroom computers can also help those who are socially dissuaded from using
technology. One such population is school age girls. Whether it be social conditioning, lack of
interest or lack of self confidence, young girls are less willing to get involved with technology
than young boys are. This distinction manifests itself in other areas as well. At the college level,
there is a definite disparity between men and women who choose to pursue engineering or
computer science as a field of study. Even in an occupational setting, there are more men than
women in highly technological fields. Giving young girls the opportunity to play and explore on
the computer can help increase their interest in technology related activities (Mclester, 1998).
Not only will classroom technology provide valuable technological experience for
children of varying gender and background, it will also offer a new means of teaching that gets
children involved and excited about learning. When used in a constructionist style, computers
and technology in the classroom can help to encourage children to think actively, test out ideas,
and develop a true love for learning and discovery. Many teachers that use computers and
technology in their classrooms do so in a primarily instructional style. They offer the children
time on the computer playing games or surfing the net with little freedom for true interaction.
These types of interactions may not be controlled or directed by a teacher. In a recent study,
middle and high school students indicated that though they did have internet access in their
classrooms, their teachers were often not able or willing to engage the students in using theinternet (Online teens, 2002). Many students are interested in technology and want to use it in
their classrooms, but they need teachers to provide worthwhile computer activities. To inspire
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 7/85
Diana DeLuca
7
the students, teachers need to learn about methods of teaching technology that allow hands-on
learning, exploration, and discovery.
Using technology in the classroom, and using constructionist-learning theories, relies
heavily on classroom teachers. Without support, education and materials, teachers will not be
prepared to incorporate technology in their classrooms. This thesis explores the necessity and
effectiveness of programs that provide specific technological and educational training for
teachers in an attempt to further the use of technology in classroom settings.
Theoretical Background
Basic theoretical background is necessary in order to fully understand the methods
described in this thesis, and the use of technology in education. This section describes three
main concepts discussed further: Constructionism, Powerful Ideas and the undergraduate
teaching experience.
Constructionism
Technology opens up new windows of possibility in education. It provides a new and
interactive environment for learning. Teachers must learn how to use this opportunity to their
advantage. Students most commonly use computers to surf the web or play quiz games, but
teachers need use computers to challenge students’ thinking. Educational technologies, when
applied effectively, allow students to partake in hands on learning and comprehensive
experimentation. In order to inspire students to learn with technology teachers must apply the
theory of constructionism in their classrooms.
According to the basic constructionist theory, students learn the most when they are given
the opportunity to explore and create knowledge that is of personal interest to them (Papert,
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 8/85
Diana DeLuca
8
1993). Students should be given the chance to work with hands-on projects that they are
interested in, and to explore and test their ideas. This style of learning encourages students to
create tools and environments that sustain projects that are meaningful to them on a personal
level. Each student provides his or her own direction for learning rather than being prompted as
part of the class by their teacher (Ackermann, 2002).
The primary goal of this theory is to allow the children to form knowledge on their own,
that is, with the least amount of instruction from a teacher (Papert, 1993). By providing children
with constructionist tools, such as ROBOLAB and the LEGO Mindstorms Construction Kit, or
LOGO Microworlds software, teachers bring constructionism to their students and classrooms.
These technologies give children the freedom to form ideas, to investigate these ideas, to
construct new ideas, and to learn for the sake of learning. With proper implementation of these
technologies in schools, children will not only be able to enjoy classroom education, but will also
develop valuable thinking and learning skills that will guide them through future endeavors.
Constructionism can be a valuable asset to teachers in any school system. When children
are engaged in what they are doing they are more motivated to learn. Using technology in
classrooms will help students enjoy the learning process. Their attitudes towards learning will be
more positive. The constructionist approach can be particularly valuable to students that may
not have done well in traditional instruction based classrooms. Some students have poor
memorization, have difficulty taking tests or are bored by the level of intellectual stimulation
they receive. These children in particular will benefit specifically from a constructionistapproach. The constructionist method of teaching allows them to choose their own pace, work
on projects they care about, and learn without having to worry about remembering terms or
passing an exam.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 9/85
Diana DeLuca
9
As a method of learning, constructionism can be very helpful to students, but
implementing constructionist philosophies in the classroom can present a challenge for teachers.
With restricted budgets, teachers may have trouble justifying the cost of the technology needed
to equip the entire classroom. Many school systems are already cutting back in other areas and
cannot monetarily support technology. Another problem relates to the rigidity of school
curricula. Though Massachusetts has an engineering and technology related framework, other
states cannot be flexible with class time. Even in Massachusetts there are specific guidelines for
what students should know at a particular age. Many teachers are unwilling to take time away
from other topics to incorporate constructionist theories into education. Finally, teachers that
have not been introduced to the constructionist philosophy may be skeptical of its benefits and
unwilling try something new in their classrooms.
Incorporating constructionism into a classroom, although challenging for teachers will
give children new and worthwhile opportunities for learning.
Powerful Ideas
Allowing children to explore and interact with projects on their own is giving children
opportunities for discovery. In testing out their thoughts and designs, students will develop, on
their own, notions that they have never thought about before. Created by the child, and relating
to a meaningful subject, these notions, or powerful ideas, allow the child to see how and why
something works (Papert, 1980). If a child knows the “hows” and “whys” behind a concept, he
will not only have a better understanding of the information, he will also have the skills to apply
the concept elsewhere. Powerful ideas are particularly meaningful to children because they are
conceived specifically by the child for his own purposes. In this context, because the child
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 10/85
Diana DeLuca
10
developed the idea through his own experimentation, he experiences a connection to the idea,
and a positive outlook on learning (Papert, 1991).
Ideas that are developed by a child are considered powerful when they both are
individually created and have significance in an outside context. The skill behind using
computers and technology in education is encouraging students in the development of ideas that
are valuable and relevant to other domains of knowledge (Resnick, 1996). If a child learns
something on a computer that is only applicable within the context of computers, this particular
piece of knowledge will have little affect. The student needs to use the computer as a tool to
acquire knowledge that is relevant to the outside world. Technological tools that are most
effective for teaching are those that make particular concepts naturally evident, allowing
exploration if these ideas and connection with meaningful topics (Resnick, 1996).
Teachers can encourage a child’s learning and development through powerful ideas by
recognizing the child as a capable thinker. Teachers who consistently assume that a child needs
to be told what to do are not helping that child learn to think for himself. Providing support for
the child, while still promoting individual experimentation is essential in creating an
environment in which powerful ideas will result (Duckworth, 1972). Teachers need to be
provided with education and experience in order to create environments using technology that
have the potential to foster powerful ideas within children.
The Undergraduate Teaching Experience
Very little research has been done into the effectiveness of peer teaching among
specifically undergraduate students, but the general field of peer assisted learning has been
significantly explored. Peer assisted learning, in the broadest sense, encompasses any situation
in which a student is learning from another student close in age. This thesis deals specifically
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 11/85
Diana DeLuca
11
with aspects if peer assisted learning that result when undergraduate students co-teach their
peers. The advantages to peer assisted learning in this case apply to both the students and the
teachers.
There are several major student benefits of peer assisted learning that have been
demonstrated with its use. Learning from peers creates an environment that is often less stressful
than the traditional teacher student setting. Peers can be more approachable than professors and
have greater insight into the difficulties that students may have when encountering the issues for
the first time. Peer assisted learning can help students develop motivation and confidence.
Seeing someone of their own age modeling desirable traits, and successfully understanding the
information provides students with positive encouragement (Topping & Ehly, 1998). These
benefits of peer assisted learning effectively apply to the undergraduate teaching experience as
described in this thesis.
Peer teaching in teams within classrooms can also be beneficial. Having more than one
teacher increases the teacher to student ratio. Both in and out of class, students can benefit from
having more time working specifically with their teachers (Topping & Ehly, 1998). Tara Gray, a
college professor, has co-taught nearly a dozen courses with several of her undergraduate
students. Gray believes that involving students in the teaching process benefits the class,
provides insight into the opinions and thoughts of the students, and helps her keep an open mind
in her teaching style. Her experiences prove that teaching in teams with a professor or mentor
and a student can be an effective style of instruction (Gray & Halbert, 1998).Along with benefits for the students, co-teaching a class can greatly benefit the peer
instructors. In teaching something to someone else, a peer instructor can greatly increase her
new knowledge of the subject and strengthen her existing knowledge (Varven, 1985). Specific
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 12/85
Diana DeLuca
12
to pre-service teachers, a study done in 2000 found that peer mediated instruction was effective
in developing specific positive teaching behaviors (Morgan, Whorton &Willets, 2000). As peer
educators, students are not only helping their peers to learn something new, they are also gaining
valuable knowledge, teaching experience and feedback.
Some of the challenges involved in engaging students to teach their peers include
training, quality and grading problems. Students with little or no teaching experience would
benefit greatly from educational training prior to teaching an academic course. Even with
training, the quality of the instruction could be compromised in allowing a less experienced
person to conduct a classroom (Topping & Ehly, 1998). Peer teaching in some classrooms
involves students evaluating their peers. Complications in grading strategies can arise in these
situations (Morgan et al., 2000). Peer teachers, with little training or experience can sometimes
feel uncomfortable assigning grades to other students. Though each challenge has the potential
to create major problems in peer assisted learning, many of these difficulties can be avoided with
the help of a supportive professor and a structured classroom (Topping & Ehly, 1998).
Overall, peer assisted learning can be a very effective strategy for education. The
methods used in this paper include a structured undergraduate course, team-taught by two
capable undergraduate students and an adult experienced in the subject matter. The course is
also under the supervision of a very supportive and educated professor. This set up was designed
in an attempt to emphasize the positive aspects of peer teaching while minimizing the potential
problems.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 13/85
Diana DeLuca
13
Purpose
Since this thesis was completed as part of a larger initiative, it is important to understand
the purposes of both the greater context and this specific project.
The National Science Foundation funded a project at Tufts University with the purpose of
improving undergraduate education. As part of that project, the Robotics Academy was created.
The Robotics Academy serves as a context in which teams of students work together to reach a
common goal. The grouping of students in multidisciplinary teams will help teach students
effective communication, prepare them for real world settings, and provide them with experience
in other fields of study. Working on a common project, the students will be more motivated and
will learn more effectively than in a typical undergraduate course (Rogers, Bers, Cao &
Morrison, 2002).
The purpose within this specific Robotics Academy Team, was to design, construct,
program, and control a self-propelled robot capable of navigating small, enclosed pathways. The
robot required a camera and visual navigation system that would allow users to see from the
robot’s point of view and move effectively through dark passages. Each group collaborated
within the team and worked on different parts of the tube-crawling robot.
Bringing child development majors into this project was intended to both help the
engineers communicate their ideas, and further the use of technology and robotics in the field of
education. For the child development majors, the purpose of this project was to examine the use
of technology in education from the perspectives of educators and students and to determine the
best way to integrate these concepts into classrooms.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 14/85
Diana DeLuca
14
More specifically, this thesis focused on the educator’s perspective. The purpose in this
area is to determine the best means of educating pre-service teachers about the use of technology
in education.
Research Questions
Incorporating technology in classrooms will be very beneficial in the future. With the
onset of technology, the public needs to be educated as to its use. By bringing technology into
schools systems educators can not only help children in learning their assigned curriculum, but
also provide them with early exposure and valuable experience in the computing world. This
exposure will help prepare the students for future encounters with technologies and remove the
fear, intimidation and frustration that many Americans experience when using technology. In
order to effectively bring technology into classrooms, introducing technology to classroom
teachers must come first.
In the current school system, children have little or no say in the overall teaching methods
of a classroom. The teachers, administrators and government officials make the final decisions
on what goes on in classrooms. To bring technology into this environment it is necessary focus
on those that have the means. In 2000, Massachusetts became the first state to incorporate an
Engineering and Technology standard into their state curriculum frameworks. Teachers have
valuable influence in school systems and classrooms and are now required, in this state, to
include technology in their educational system. Focusing on these teachers, and showing them
the true benefits of classroom technology, can strengthen the effective use of technology in
education and the demand for programs to teach the teachers about these issues.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 15/85
Diana DeLuca
15
Not only do teachers have significant authority over teaching methods in the classroom,
they are also the population most affected by changes in teaching policies.
Adding constructionist teaching technologies, such as ROBOLAB, to a classroom can involve
several changes. New lesson plans may be needed, along with changes in class structure, more
time and effort, and in most cases, a bigger budget. Showing teachers how valuable technology
can be as a teaching tool will ease the transition from mainly instructional computers to a
constructionist technological learning environment.
School systems have recently made attempts to increase the number of computers in
many classrooms across the country (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Adding a
computer to a classroom can create new experiences to the children’s learning process if done in
the right context. Too many computer programs for kids are simply quiz games or question and
answer based. These programs may help children learn their spelling or multiplication tables but
will not teach them to think critically, to make connections or to learn for the sake of learning.
The students need technological programs that interest them, that will inspire them to question
why things happen and how. Through constructionist programs the students can get them
involved in active and passionate learning. Programs like these exist, but to implement them
effectively, a teacher needs training. She needs to see students learning with technology and find
out about the best ways to bring it into her classroom. She needs hands on experience working
with kids and computers and she needs to learn the theory behind educational technology.
Along with training in educational theory, a teacher needs to learn about the technologyitself. Teachers simply cannot successfully teach students something that they do not know
themselves. They must have at least a basic knowledge of the subjects covered in the classroom
in order for the lessons to be worthwhile. Not only must they know the topics, they must also
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 16/85
Diana DeLuca
16
have a means of conveying the information. Imagine a very knowledgeable teacher giving a
science lesson in German, to a group of English speaking students. Though the teacher may be a
very informed and experienced teacher, she is still unsuccessful due to a lack an effective means
of presenting the information. The versatility of the educational software, ROBOLAB, allows
teachers to use it for various topics, but if a teacher is not familiar with the language of
ROBOLAB, he or she will not be able to guide students through the learning process.
Without the means to provide these teachers with both educational theory and familiarity
with technology, classroom use of technology will not be effective. Teachers need this valuable
training and it is important to find the best approach possible for providing it. This thesis
attempts to determine at what point, and by what method, can teachers best learn to use
technology in education.
Due to the fact that teachers are very busy, getting them to take time out of their schedule
to attend programs and seminars pertaining to classroom technology is not an easy challenge.
Daytime is spent in the classroom and evenings are usually filled with meetings, lesson planning,
night classes or other commitments. In addition, teachers may have families to spend time with
and support. With so much going on, teachers are left with little time to involve themselves in
something as new and foreign as classroom technology.
Financial burdens can also create problems in introducing technology to educators.
Running programs costs money, the technology itself can be expensive, and it is often necessary
to pay for internet service, installation, networking and system upkeep. With all of thesefinancial commitments there would be little, if any, money to pay teachers for the extra time
spent learning to use the technology.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 17/85
Diana DeLuca
17
To solve these problems, issues of technology in education should be integrated long
before this point. Teachers cannot keep up with running a classroom and learning to use
technology at the same time. Technology should be introduced to pre-service teachers during
their undergraduate education.
Currently, within their education, pre-service teachers receive little technological
instruction. Tufts University, for example, requires liberal arts students to take two courses in
natural science and two courses in mathematical science. The students have the option of taking
an engineering course to fulfill only one of those requirements. There are several courses, taught
by Marina Bers and offered through the child development department that relate to technology
in education including. These courses include Technologies of the Self , Curricula for Young
Children: Math, Science, Technology and Technological Learning Environments: Math, Science,
Technology . Most of these classes are not required and have fairly low attendance due the lack
of publicity and students' apprehensiveness toward technology. As a result, students in the child
development department at Tufts receive very little engineering and technology background and
are generally not prepared to use technology effectively in classrooms. Pre-service teachers need
education in introductory science and technology concepts and familiarity with computers.
Including technology-based courses in the education of teachers is only worthwhile if
effective. Steps must be taken to determine whether or not these courses will, in fact, help these
students feel more comfortable learning about and teaching with technology. Enrolling child
development students in engineering courses will not effectively introduce engineering andtechnology concepts these students. Though this solution seems to be the most feasible, it will
not be the most effective. Engineering courses can be intimidating to those who have little
background in technology. Many of these courses assume that students have a basic knowledge
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 18/85
Diana DeLuca
18
of engineering that a child development major would not possess. Enrolling these students
without the proper background could leave them confused and frustrated with the material,
having the opposite of the desired effect.
General engineering courses also have little to do with teaching or education. Although
adding science and engineering course requirements may give students a better understanding of
technology, it would not teach them how to apply theses skills in a classroom setting. Pre-service
teachers need courses that will offer them engineering and technology background, at a level that
they are comfortable with, and educational theory regarding issues of technology in schools.
The goal of this project is to create and evaluate a course that uses hands on leaning and
educational theory to teach pre-service teachers basic science and engineering concepts, while
also preparing them to use educational technologies in the future. The Tufts University course
Robotics and Education was designed and implemented especially for this project. It is a child
development course for pre-service teachers to explore technology and engineering while also
learning about issues surrounding technology in the classroom. The class is open also to
engineers who are interested in learning how to apply their skills in an educational setting. The
main focus of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the course and determine if it will
help increase the future use of technology in education. This research involves implementation
and evaluation of the course along with analysis and suggestions for future course offerings.
Methodology
This section describes the context of the project, the educational technology used
throughout the project, and the specific steps taken to create, execute and evaluate the Robotics
and Education course.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 19/85
Diana DeLuca
19
The Robotics Academy Team
The robotics academy team, within the context of this project, consisted of nine Tufts
undergraduate students of varying backgrounds: three mechanical engineers, two electrical
engineer/computer science majors, two human factors engineers and two child development
majors. Each set of students had their own goals and intentions regarding the project.
The required task for the Mechanical engineers was to design and construct a working
prototype of a computerized robot that could successfully navigate a rigid tube configuration.
The real life application of such a robot, in this case, was for colonoscopy and endoscopy
procedures. The mechanical engineers had to deal with several constraints while in the design
process. The robot needed to have all soft and smooth edges to avoid patient injury, while still
working effectively. The prototype they made was on a larger than an actual colonoscope so
they were challenged to use only materials that could be scaled down to a smaller version.
The human factors engineers were given the tasks of designing and testing the control
system for the robot and overseeing the safety of the design. They researched the current
methods of controlling colonoscopes and tested the effectiveness of several controllers in a
comparable setting.
The electrical engineers worked on programming the various systems of movement
within the design. By rewiring the controllers, provided by the human factors engineers, they
were able to provide remote control over the forward, backward and turning motion of the
system.
As the child development majors on the team, Laura Hacker and I had specific goals
involving education. The goals involved using this opportunity to take the robotic and
engineering knowledge gained on the team, and applying it to an educational setting. We
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 20/85
Diana DeLuca
20
addressed the issues involved in bringing technology and robotics into education from the
perspective of both students and teachers, and came up with a project to further the use of
technologies such as robotics in education. The project involved both a robotic after school
program for children, and a Tufts robotics course for pre-service teachers.
With so many students from different backgrounds this project required teamwork,
cooperation and organization. The team met weekly to work on and discuss the progress of the
robot. All members were present at meetings to provide input from each field of study and to
learn about other parts of the project. Each set of students described their progress to the group
and got feedback, ideas and questions. Through this format we were able to gain insight into
other disciplines while learning to work as a functioning team.
In addition to weekly meetings, the team arranged monthly meetings with a set of very
dedicated faculty. These advisors were all members of the related departments and included
Professor Marina Bers of Child Development, Professor Caroline Cao of Human Factors
Engineering, Professor Steve Morrison of Electrical Engineering/ Computer Science and
Professor Chris Rogers of Mechanical Engineering. Meetings with faculty advisors consisted
mainly of progress descriptions from each field with feedback and discussion of future plans.
The LEGO Mindstorms Kit and ROBOLAB Software
This research focused on technology and robotics in education from the perspectives of
both students and teachers; it required a technology that was applicable to both groups.
Although we spent time researching several educational technologies, we chose ROBOLAB,
robotic educational software and the LEGO Mindstorms Construction Kit, for this project
because of their versatility. Both of these products can be applied to many subjects and are
relevant to both students and teachers.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 21/85
Diana DeLuca
21
Figure 1. The RCX, a programmable Figure 2. A LEGO Mindstorms Construction Kitmicrocomputer within a LEGO brick. (www.LEGO.com)
Shown with inputs and outputs connectedwith LEGO wires. ( www.LEGO.com )
The LEGO Mindstorms construction kit was developed through a partnership between
the MIT media lab and the LEGO Company. The main component of the kit is the RCX (Figure
1). The RCX is a battery powered mini computer that is imbedded within a LEGO brick. It can
take information from its environment via inputs such as light and touch sensors. These sensors
are connected to the RCX via LEGO wires (Figure 1). The RCX processes the input it receives
and, based on its programming, controls outputs such as motors or lamps or sounds. Also
included in the LEGO Mindstorms Kits is a vast array of LEGO pieces including wheels, axels,
and gears (see Figure 2). Using these pieces, students can create robotic projects that function
autonomously.
Figure 3. ROBOLAB in pilot level 4. Figure 4. ROBOLAB in inventor level 2.
The RCX programmable brick allows students to store and use programs that they create.
The computer software that is used to program the RCX is called ROBOLAB. ROBOLAB was
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 22/85
Diana DeLuca
22
created as a result of a collaboration between the Tufts University Center for Engineering
Education Outreach, the LEGO Educational Division and National Instruments. The software is
pictorially based and allows students to create and manipulate computer programs for the RCX.
Students construct programs on a computer screen and upload these programs to the RCX via
infrared light. The ROBOLAB software was designed to be appropriate for varying age levels.
Within the program, students can select the level of complexity at which they would like to
work. Pilot levels one through four are designed for younger audiences and have limited
programming power (Figure 3). Inventor levels one through four allow students to work with
more complex programming tasks (Figure 4).
The versatility and depth of the ROBOLAB software and the LEGO Mindstorms
Construction Kit were very appropriate for this project. Both the software and the kits were
designed for implementation in a classroom, and were a successful example of educational
technology.
The After School Robotics Workshop
As part of the child development focus on students, Laura Hacker and I created and
carried out an eight week after school curriculum for 4 th-6 th grade students. Nine boys, ages 9-11
years signed up for the program and eight continued for the full eight weeks. Each of the
students was given a complete LEGO Mindstorms Kit and a computer equipped with
ROBOLAB to use for every session.
The after school program had two basic phases. The first few weeks consisted of a series
of challenges involving building cars and programming them to do various tasks. These
challenges were intended to teach the students basic programming and building skills and to
incorporate various educational themes. There were several challenges each week and the
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 23/85
Diana DeLuca
23
students could move from station to station working on those that were of interest to them. One
such challenge required the students to drive their cars across a United States floor map, stopping
in Kansas for four seconds. The students were given the freedom to solve the problem in any
possible way. Through this experience the students learned basic programming of their cars
while reinforcing their geography skills.
The second phase of the program involved a more constructionist learning task. The
students were asked to choose a project that was of interest to them and create it. They watched
videos and looked at pictures of sample projects to give them ideas. Once they had come up
with a project, they had four weeks to work on it. During this phase, the program was set up
with each student working on his project and the Laura and I providing guidance and assistance
when needed.
Throughout the entire program, the students were provided with help and support, but
were not pushed to do things that did not interest them. When they were stuck, they received
help in the form of questions and encouragement. This form of assistance was to help them to
test their ideas rather than being given them the answers. We hoped to promote in the students
an interest in active learning, problem solving and independent thinking.
The students were evaluated in this program by several means. On the first day, we
asked each student to fill out a questionnaire about his prior experience and feelings towards
technology. At the end of the program we gave them similar survey to gauge any changes in
their views. Throughout the eight weeks the students had the opportunity to comment on theirprojects on videotape. At the end of each session we recorded each boy's individual commentary
on the status of his project, and how he felt about it.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 24/85
Diana DeLuca
24
The main goals of the Robotic After School program were to explore the use of
technology in an educational setting and to evaluate the curriculum that was implemented. In her
thesis, Laura Hacker will address these goals in greater detail along with the results, challenges
and means of improvement (Hacker, 2003).
The Child Development Class
The focus of this specific area of the robotics academy project is on introducing
technology to teachers as an educational tool. The project initially intended to create a program
involving current early childhood, elementary and middle school teachers and providing them
with a familiarity and high level of comfort with technology. Since most elementary school
teachers would not have time to devote to such a program, this idea would have been infeasible
for this project and for actual school systems looking to involve technology. Instead, the target
population was changed from current teachers to pre-service teachers. Many teachers gain
background for teaching through undergraduate education. By increasing the emphasis that is
put on technology in the education of teachers, it may be possible to increase the use of
technology in classrooms.
This project examined the implementation of a full credit course in the Tufts university
department of Child Development. It was the our hope that this course would serve as a pilot for
other courses that involve both technology and education within the Tufts community and for
other universities with education or child development programs. The goals for the course were
to provide students with a basic background in engineering, increase their comfort levels using
technology, and teach them to use computers and robotics in a classroom.
This pilot course, entitled Robotics and Education , was co-taught by Laura Hacker and
myself, and Merredith Portsmore of the Tufts Center for Education and Engineering Outreach
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 25/85
Diana DeLuca
25
(CEEO), and supervised by Professor Marina Bers through the Eliot Pearson Department of
Child Development. The course focused on giving students a workable knowledge of the
ROBOLAB software and LEGO Mindstorms Construction Kit, introducing them to the issues
surrounding technology as an educational tool and to basic science and engineering concepts.
Students were recruited for the course by several means. E-mails describing the course
were sent out to all Tufts Child Development majors. Posters were hung in the Child
Development and Engineering departments as well as other well-trafficked areas of the Tufts
campus. An advertisement was put out in The Tufts Daily , the schools’ widely available campus
newspaper. Also, all professors involved in the Robotics Academy project were asked to
recommend the course to students who might be interested.
The class was designed based on an educational model created to teach pre-service
teachers about the use of robotics in the classroom and the design of technology related
curriculum (Bers et al., 2000). This model consists of two main parts: the design implementation
and the educational theory, described as follows:
Design Implementation
The design portion of the class, created and run by Merredith Portsmore, was based on a
predominantly constructionist philosophy. Each student was given a full LEGO Mindstorms kit
and a copy of ROBOLAB 2.5. Class was structured to allow the students two out of the three
hours of class time each week to work on a design challenge. The topics covered are listed on
the syllabus (Appendix A) and involved basic programming skills, sensors, gears, motion,motors, programming, machine vision and interface design. The theory behind this portion of
the class was to familiarize the students with the ROBOLAB software, demonstrate learning in a
constructionist environment and teach basic engineering concepts. In addition to the in-class
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 26/85
Diana DeLuca
26
challenges, students were given six weekly homework challenges relating to concepts covered in
class. The final project for the design portion was an open-ended building assignment that
allowed the students to come up with any problem or project of interest to them in order to
demonstrate the skills and concepts that they learned during the semester.
Educational Theory
The educational theory covered one hour of each class. This section of class addressed
topics relating to the use of technology in the classroom including, constructionism and powerful
ideas. In addition, two classes were reserved for the Robotics Academy Mechanical Engineers
and Human Factors Engineers to present their work on the tube-crawling robot. Additional
topics included the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and other teaching technologies
besides ROBOLAB. This portion of the class required students to keep up with weekly readings
relating to the topics, and participate in class discussions. The majority of the course readings
were selected from past syllabi of technology related child development courses taught by
Professor Marina Bers. In order to get the students involved in an environment where
technology was used as a teaching tool, each student was required to complete an observation,
documentation, and assisting session in such an environment. For the majority of the class, the
observation requirements were done in the Robotics After School Workshop. Along with these
requirements, the students were also asked to turn in a final curriculum project that consisted of a
four-week curriculum using educational technology to teach a specific subject matter.
Classes 1-11
Class 1: The first day of class began with a basic introduction of Laura, Merredith and I
and an explanation of the research. Each student was asked to fill out a questionnaire describing
his or her background using technology (Appendix B). The questionnaires addressed specific
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 27/85
Diana DeLuca
27
questions about past courses involving technology, any experience they may have had using
technology and their comfort levels with both using and teaching different types of technologies.
Each student was given a copy of the course syllabus detailing the course expectations,
requirements and timeline. After going through the syllabus in detail, we asked the students to
explain their backgrounds and why they were interested in this course.
The design studio for the first class included an introduction to the LEGO Mindstorms
kits and the ROBOLAB software, and an in-class challenge. Students were asked to build a
simple car and program it to drive for a certain amount of time and then stop. By changing the
time allotted and measuring the distance, the students made graphs to predict how far their car
would go based on a given time. They were then asked to program their car to go a randomly
selected distance to see how accurate their predictions were.
Class 2: During class two the topic of discussion was the documentation of children’s
learning. The goals of this class were to introduce the students to the documentation process and
why it is important and effective. The class brainstormed a list of reasons why documentation is
important to the learning process. We discussed each of these reasons briefly and then thought
of ways in which documentation could be carried out in educational settings such as classrooms
or programs. When the discussion ended we handed out assignment sheets for the first
observation period and reviewed the basic rules of observation and paper expectations (Appendix
C).
In the design portion of the class, the students worked with light sensors. After testingtheir homework, cars that had to draw a parallelogram, they were asked to design cars that
followed along a black line on the floor using a light sensor. The students worked on and tested
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 28/85
Diana DeLuca
28
their cars. The homework challenge for the next week was to build a car that would escape from
a box drawn in black tape on the floor (Appendix D).
Class 3: Professor Marina Bers came to class to guest lecture about constructionism. She
led a discussion about a selection from Seymore Papert’s book The Children’s Machine . The
discussion addressed the meaning and theory behind constructionism, why it is the preferred
method of teaching with technology, and how it instills in children a love for learning.
Constructionism is one of the main themes of this course and will be addressed several times
throughout the theory section of the class.
The students got a chance to build their own touch sensor out of wires and foil in the
design studio. A touch sensor is a simple broken circuit. When the button is pushed the circuit
is completed. To demonstrate this phenomenon, the students designed coin detectors. In this
activity, Placing a metal coin between two wired pieces of aluminum foil completed the circuit
and set off a programmed sound confirming the coin’s presence. The students tested their
detectors with wooden buttons as a counterexample. Along with teaching students about
sensors, Merredith explained the engineering design process and how it applies to the creation of
their projects.
The cars for the homework challenge were designed to detect a black piece of tape on the
floor as a wall, then back up and go a different way. The test was to escape from a black tape
box on the floor that only had one exit.
Class 4: This class consisted of an activity based on constructionism and instructionismas teaching methods. The students were split into two groups, one looked at constructionism and
the other instructionism. They were each asked to discuss their topic within their group and
come up with an activity using that means of teaching. They were also asked to consider the
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 29/85
Diana DeLuca
29
positive and negative aspects of their methods when used in actual classrooms. Both sides
explained what they had done for the whole group. This activity served as a jumping off point
for a discussion of constructionism and how technology is currently used in classrooms. The
discussion ended with a consensus that neither complete constructionism or complete
instructionism is effective or realistic in a classroom, but a mix of the two theories would be
most successful. The students drew on their experience with using ROBOLAB in the design
studio to help their opinions.
After the discussion, the students presented their homework: building a bumper car. The
cars had a touch sensor on each side and would reverse direction when hitting a surface directly
in front of them.
In the design studio, the students learned about using gears to design robots. Merredith
went over the differences in gearing up and gearing down and the different ratios involved when
stringing several sets of gears together. She also demonstrated the uses of the worm gear and the
crown gears. The students were given an in-class challenge of designing a gate to move up and
down using the worm gear. Their assignment for the next week was to build a robotic
representation of something in their favorite children’s book using multiple sets of gears.
Class 5: During week 5 the students were able to see an actual piece of robotic
technology designed by the robotics academy. Two of the engineers involved in the robotics
academy project came to class to discuss the tube crawler robot. The presentation was intended
to show a concrete example of the technological design process, and give a better understandingof the project that spawned this research. The engineers discussed their purpose, robotic design,
constraints and their process in completing the robot. The students were encouraged to ask any
questions they may have had during the presentation.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 30/85
Diana DeLuca
30
The design portion of the class began with presentations of the children’s story
challenges. Each student was asked to describe his or her gear system and project on videotape.
The students were able to see what their classmates did for the project and ask questions.
Merredith introduced concepts relating to motion involving converting rotational motion to
linear motion using linkages, cams and gears. The in-class challenge for that week was to build
a machine that would make tapping noises on a table without changing the direction of the
motor. This activity required the students to design a method to convert rotational to linear
motion.
The homework for the following two weeks was to create and program a robotic North
American animal. The robotic animals were required to move in the same way that their real life
counterparts do, that is, the students were not allowed to use rotational motion to make them
move. Merredith showed a video of several other animals made by a previous class to give the
students some ideas.
Class 6: During the theory part of this class, we addressed any remaining questions that
the students had about the tube-crawler. We tried to make the connection between the class and
the robotics academy project more concrete for the students. We explained how we chose to
relate the tube crawler to the after school program through the use of powerful ideas. The
students agreed that without some set of ideas or concepts the use of technologies such as
ROBOLAB in the classroom would be infeasible due to current educational structures. Since
several of the readings assigned so far had related to the ideas of Seymore Papert, two of thestudents read aloud an interview done with Papert that addressed some of the criticism of his
theories. The students were asked to point out ideas brought up in the interview that were
particularly relevant to the class and the issues discussed so far.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 31/85
Diana DeLuca
31
The design studio for this week dealt specifically with motors and their construction. The
students were asked to draw a picture of what they thought the inside of a LEGO motor would
look like. After explaining their notions to the class they were each given materials and
directions and asked to construct a simple motor. Based on the activity, Merredith was able to
give the students a concrete understanding of how motors convert electronic energy into
mechanical energy.
Class 7: The major theme for the theory part of class seven was the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks. For homework that week, each student had selected one subject from
the frameworks and prepared a ten-minute presentation on that topic. We asked them to present
the overall themes of the subject, children’s age group and knowledge requirements and any
other related information (Appendix E). In addition, we asked the students design and present an
activity using ROBOLAB that would be applicable to the subject matter that they selected. They
were given the freedom to choose the grade level and specific topic and but had to explain how
the activity would fulfill the Mass Curriculum Frameworks requirements. The students did their
presentations and answered questions from the class.
The robotic zoo assignment was the homework challenge due during week seven. The
students each displayed their robotic North American animal on videotape. They talked about
how their animal worked, how it resembled the real life version of the animal and what the
easiest and hardest parts of its construction were. Figures 1-5 depict the robotic animal projects
that the students made.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 32/85
Diana DeLuca
32
Figure 5. Walking Frog
Figure 6. Quacking Duck Figure 7: Monkey with moving arms
Figure 8 . Ground hog hole Figure 9 . Ground hog hole (back)The ground hog decided if it Based on a light sensor, it wentwas spring or winter. back in its hole if it saw a shadow.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 33/85
Diana DeLuca
33
The in-class challenge for week seven involved the introduction of ROBOLAB
Investigator. This part of ROBOLAB software allows students to collect data using the sensor
inputs. The students conducted a light scavenger hunt around the room to find the darker and
brighter areas. They worked in pairs and each designed a light reading challenge for the opposite
team. Through these activities they were able to demonstrate how ROBOLAB Inventor can
collect data over time and graph the points visually for analysis.
Class 8: The structure of class eight involved ten minute presentations similar to class
seven. Each student chose an example of an educational technology or organization that uses
educational technology. The students were asked to present their topic, describing the
technology, its use in an educational setting and its benefits and drawbacks. We gave the
students a list of potential educational technologies but they had the freedom to choose their own
(Appendix E). When all the presentations were completed, we assigned the curriculum project.
This final project required the students to design and analyze a curriculum for young children
using ROBOLAB (Appendix F).
Each participating student presented her last homework challenge in class. The final
challenge involved the creation of an electronic musical instrument that played a variety of notes
when manipulated by the user. After the presentations, Merredith assigned the final building
challenge, an assignment that the students would have several weeks to work on. Students were
asked to select a project that would interest them but also include the concepts covered so far in
class (Appendix G).After answering questions about the final building challenge, Merredith introduced the
LEGO camera and the image processing aspects of ROBOLAB. As a demonstration she set up
the camera and took several pictures of LEGO bricks. By changing the image processing
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 34/85
Diana DeLuca
34
settings within ROBOLAB, Merredith was able set the computer to count the number of LEGO
bricks in each image. The in-class challenge was to use the camera and software to create a
LEGO color detector. Through the activities in this class, the students gained a general
knowledge of image processing and the uses and abilities of the LEGO camera.
Class 9: The theory potion of this class addressed the students’ experiences within the
after school program. Each student talked for several minutes about their reactions to the
program and how they felt while observing, documenting and assisting. This particular week,
Merredith brought Rebecca, a visiting teacher from Australia who was studying under a grant in
the United States. Rebecca teaches classes about robotics for middle and high school students.
She uses ROBOLAB and was a valuable addition to the discussion. She described her program
and her experiences working with children in robotics and answered questions for the students
about her use of ROBOLAB.
Merredith demonstrated the Labview software during the design portion of this class
period. She explained how the Labview software was created for engineers rather than children
and thus has more complex features. The software is used to create visual displays or input and
output while running programs. The students were given time in class to create mini projects in
pairs using the Labview software.
Class 10: Class 10 involved a presentation from the Robotics Academy Human factors
engineers. These students gave an introduction to the field of human factors, explaining several
of the basic theories with significant emphasis on interface design. They explained their role inthe robotics academy project and the general importance of human factors. The presentation
provided the students with more insight into engineering related fields and background for that
week’s design activity.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 35/85
Diana DeLuca
35
Each student was given five minutes to talk about and demonstrate their final building
challenges for the rest of the class. These projects included a candy sorter, a LEGO sorter, and a
children’s board game. The students asked questions and commented on each other’s projects.
After demonstrating their projects, the students explored a new aspect of ROBOLAB that
involved interface design. The software guided the user in creating an interface that allowed an
operator to control a remote controlled vehicle by manipulating the computer screen to run
functions. The students tested out the software and provided their feedback to improve the
design.
Class 11: The final class consisted mainly of presentations of the students’ curriculum
projects. Each student was given 15 minutes to present their ideas about their projects. The
presentations were done informally, allowing students and instructors to ask questions or provide
suggestions and feedback. The curriculum projects were varied and covered many aspects of the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and several different age groups.
Evaluation Measures
Pre-Surveys: There were two main means of evaluation for the Robotics and Education
course. The first was a pre-survey questionnaire, mentioned earlier, that we handed out on the
first day of class (Appendix A). The survey contained three main parts. The first part addressed
basic demographics and technological background including majors, year of graduation, type of
computer used, technology or engineering courses taken and technology related child
development courses. The next part addressed students' comfort levels in both using andteaching different aspects of technology. The survey asked that students rate their comfort level
from one to five, using and teaching things like word processing, computerized graphs, basic
programming and website creation. The last part of the survey was free response and addressed
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 36/85
Diana DeLuca
36
the students' confidence levels in learning a new technology, building a robot, and writing simple
programs. This section also included questions about computing and technological experience
and reason for enrollment in the class.
Interviews: I asked each member of the class to do a 30-minute interview during the
second half of the semester. Before each interview I told the student's to be completely honest
with everything they wanted to say. They were all individually reminded that nothing they said
would affect their grade and any personal information would be kept confidential. The
interviews were conducted informally with a basic structure. I mentioned an aspect of the class
and the interviewee would comment and answer any clarification questions. The interviews
were done with standard interview procedures using active listening and non-leading, open
questions (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). The interviews addressed several topics including the
structure of the course, homework and in-class challenges, readings and discussions, observation
requirements, target student population and possible improvements.
Website
Once technology based curriculum has been created, it should be accessible to those that
would like to make use of it. Through this project Laura and I have created robotics curricula
directed towards children. These curricula come from both the after school program and through
the curriculum projects. Also, the Robotics and Education course curriculum is valuable for
those who wish to teach undergraduates about educational technology. As part of this project, we
created a web site in order to make these curricula accessible to teachers. The site can be located
at www.ase.tufts.edu/devtech/roboticsineducation.HOME.HTM. It is linked to the robotics
academy website and will provide information regarding the project and our theses. The site will
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 37/85
Diana DeLuca
37
present links to the various curricula used in this project and our results, so that teachers in the
future will have easy access to the information.
Results
This section described the results of the Robotics and Education course evaluation.
Detailed below are the students' responses to the pre-surveys and interviews and the final
projects for both the design and theory portions of the class.
The final roster of the Child Development course included five Tufts undergraduates.
One was a freshman engineer. Three were juniors all majoring in child development, two being
double majors in general engineering and international relations respectively. The last was a
senior, majoring in biology with a minor in child development. Being self-selected, the
population in the class was not as large or diverse as what was hoped for, but it still served to be
an effective sample.
Pre-Surveys
Four out of the five students in the course participated in the pre-survey and each filled in
all the questions. The survey had three main parts: basic background, comfort levels using and
teaching technology, and several free-response questions. The students took approximately
fifteen minutes in class to provide their answers.
When asked to list math, science and engineering courses, each of the students indicated
taking at least one math and science course. All of the students had taken Calculus 1 and the
science classes included physics, chemistry, biology and geology. None of the liberal arts
students had taken any engineering courses. The one student in the engineering school was also
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 38/85
Diana DeLuca
38
the only student to have taken any technology related child development courses. Each student
indicated that they owned a computer; half of the students used laptops and half desktops but
they all used PCs instead of Macs. Most of the students had had their computers for two to three
years and one was about four years old.
In describing their comfort levels in using certain technologies, the students were asked
to select numbers on a scale of one to five, one being "not at all" and five being "extremely".
The areas that students were most comfortable in were word processing, internet, and e-mail.
Comfort levels with computer graphs, charts and spreadsheets were slightly lower. The students
were the least comfortable with their abilities in basic programming and website design. In the
category of technology in general, the students all ranked their comfort levels between three and
four.
Overall, when asked to rate their comfort levels teaching the same technologies to others,
the students' responses were lower. The strong areas were again in e-mail and internet browsing,
while word processing levels went down. Students were less comfortable teaching programming
and website making, as the highest score in either area did not exceed a three. Comfort levels
teaching others about technology in general also decreased. With the exception of e-mail and
internet browsing the overall differences in the students' comfort levels when using technology
and teaching technology dropped between .75 and one point in each area (Chart 1). These results
show that these students are less comfortable teaching technology than using technology in the
majority of the areas that were addressed in the survey.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 39/85
Diana DeLuca
39
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
G e n e r a
l T e h c n
o l g o y
W o r d P
r o c e s s
i n g I n t e
r n e t
E - m a
i l
G r a p h s
& C h a
r t s
S p r e a d
s h e e t s
B a s i c P
r o g r a m m i n g
W e b s i t e M
a k i n g
A v e r a g e
C o m
f o r t
L e v e l s
Using
Teaching
Chart 1. Shows the students average comfort levels using and teaching various types of technology.
When asked how confident they were about learning a new technology the students
responded positively with one "fairly confident", two "very confident" and one "confident". The
confidence levels for building a robot were all in about the same range with an average of 3.25.
Writing a simple computer program was given an average confidence level of 3.875. Three out
of four of the students had had programming experience before entering this course; two had
taken basic computer classes in high school and one had taken two Tufts computer science
courses.
In describing their overall background in technology and computers, half of the students
explained that most of their knowledge came from using computers for school, work or daily
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 40/85
Diana DeLuca
40
life. The other half indicated that their knowledge came from prior computer classes that they
had taken either in high school or college.
All of the students reported having signed up for this course due to both an interest in the
subject matter and another reason. One student was looking to fulfill a science credit, while
another wanted a stronger background to continue on to graduate work in educational
technologies. The biology major wanted to learn more about using technology to teach other
subjects and the child development major was exposed to the subject through a guest speaker in
another child development class.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted during the second half of the semester, the week after class eight.
Four out of the five enrolled students participated in the interviews and they each lasted
approximately thirty minutes. The interviews addressed a list of topics relating to the class. The
students responses were separated into basic categories and are described below.
Class Structure
Every interviewee commented on the class structure as being a positive thing. They
enjoyed having the class broken up into the design and theory sections. Several of the students
mentioned that the class, though long, was not boring, and that structure helped keep their
attention. They also agreed that the hands-on approach to learning was very effective for the
design portion of the class.
In-class challenges
The majority of those interviewed agreed that the in-class challenges were helpful to their
learning process. “I really like how the LEGO portion of the class is run. Merredith allows us
to experiment and then gently guides us in the right direction.” They felt it worthwhile to have a
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 41/85
Diana DeLuca
41
chance to explore the concepts in class before leaving to try the homework challenges. If
questions or problems arose, Merredith would be there to offer them answers and suggestions.
One of the students felt that, in some cases, she would have preferred to spend more time on
individual experimentation and instead of the group work involved in some of the activities.
Another student noted that she did have some trouble with the in-class activities due to her lack
of experience with LEGOs and the time constraints involved. She mentioned feeling
uncomfortable with the in-class challenges at first but soon getting used to the process and the
time frame.
Homework Challenges
Students' responses to the homework challenges were varied. They all regarded the
challenges as good way to learn the concepts, but described times when they were definitely
frustrated. “It takes a lot of time to figure them out, but I like being able to try something and
test it out. It’s a good learning experience.” Several students indicated that the challenges had
taken them more time and concentration than they had originally anticipated. Regarding the
specific areas of difficulty, one student described problems with the more profound
programming concepts. She had used the ROBOLAB help function, but suggested the use of a
paper manual in addition that would cover the concepts in more detail. Other students had
greater problems with the physical LEGO building and one felt at times that having to spend so
much time on the building aspect was not worthwhile in relation to the class. One of the students
preferred the homework challenges to the in-class challenges due to the extended amount of timeallotted and the ability to get more feedback from others. This student, when approaching a
homework challenge, would focus on the things she learned and then design her project based on
those things, rather than coming up with an idea and then trying to create it. Several of the
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 42/85
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 43/85
Diana DeLuca
43
about their topic. All of the students indicated that they preferred the presentations to the
discussion. The discussions were described as being good but too small. With only five students
in the class it was difficult to maintain an involved discussion. Another point that came up
concerned teaching experience. This student felt that since the course was directly related to
teaching, it would have been worthwhile to get more teaching experience within the class. She
suggested giving each student a topic and a whole section of the class to practice teaching both
educational concepts and ROBOLAB concepts to other students.
Observation Requirements
The students were required to come into the Robotics after School Program for three
sessions: observation, documentation and assisting. At the time of the interview, two students
had completed all three sessions and two had completed only the observation. Everyone
commented on how the experiences observing in the after school program were valuable. The
students liked being able to observe the kids in a realistic environment working with ROBOLAB
and LEGOs. “It was worthwhile to see technology being used in a real life setting. I could see
how the kids actually interact with it.” The students got to see how the class was run, what
worked and what did not work, what the kids liked and did not like, and how involved they were
in their projects. One student explained that she would have liked to have more background
about how much the kids had learned in the program and what they were working on at the point
that she came to observe.
The documentation sessions seemed to serve the same purpose for the students as theobservation. The two students who had done completed the documentation both commented that
they did not get anything new from the experience besides more observation time. They
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 44/85
Diana DeLuca
44
suggested that the second documentation assignment be replaced by either more observation or
assisting.
The two students that had completed the assisting indicated that they liked getting
involved with the kids and learning about their projects, but felt like the kids were not as
comfortable coming to them with questions. They felt, since they did not have the chance to get
to know the kids, that it was strange for them to approach a child and ask about his project or if
he needed help. Two of the interviewed students recommended more time with the children to
get to know them and learn more about the actual teaching process. Another suggested having
the assisting towards the start of the program when the kids needed more ROBOLAB help and
were not already accustomed to specific people in the class.
Curriculum Project
At the time of the interview the students had been assigned the curriculum projects but
had not had a chance to work on them. They were again asked to give their reaction to the
assignment. The students all responded positively to the curriculum project. They thought it
was interesting and good way to apply what they learned. One student mentioned that she liked
the freedom of being able to choose her own project but also felt more comfortable having been
to the after school program to observe the students ability levels. Another was excited about the
curriculum project and thought it should have had a greater focus within the course. She also
suggested that students be allowed to test their curriculums both in the class, geared towards
college level students, and in the after school program, geared toward elementary students. Thisextra teaching opportunity would both give the students more experience in teaching using
technology, and provide them with real feedback on their curriculums.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 45/85
Diana DeLuca
45
Engineering Guest Speakers
At the time of the interview, only the Mechanical engineers had come in to speak to the
class. The students all had similar perceptions of the engineering guest speakers from the
Robotics Academy. They thought it was interesting to see a real life application of robotics and
the engineering design process but overall the presentation was too technical and hard for them
to understand without background information. One suggestion was to provide reading, prior to
the talk, describing the project and defining some of the technical terms. The students also
expressed interest in learning about the Robotics Academy and how it functioned at Tufts.
Technological Comfort Levels and Potential Use in Education
The majority of students enrolled in this course did not come from an engineering
background. Several of them indicated that they were nervous and intimidated about using
technology, upon coming into the class. The three interviewees that expressed these feelings all
described the course changing their opinions of technology. “Now I find technology less
intimidating,” said one student. Another student that described herself as “not a sciencey
person” said she enjoyed doing activities based on engineering concepts like making motors and
touch sensors. She also enjoyed the different perspective on learning that included a solving a
problem any possible way with no right or wrong answers. Yet another student, who also had
little engineering experience, indicated that she found it interesting learning the basics of a
different field. The student with a strong engineering background discussed a change in her
abilities specifically with ROBOLAB. She felt more confident with her skills with usingROBOLAB and teaching ROBOLAB basics to others.
Most students indicated that the experiences provided by this course would increase their
likelihood of using technology in education. One student said, "Students can learn a lot from
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 46/85
Diana DeLuca
46
this approach . . . it helps to inspire their passion and interest and gives them a better grasp on
what they are learning." Another student explained that this course has definitely made her
more likely to use the ROBOLAB software but she would still be hesitant to use any technology
with which she was unfamiliar. She did say, however, that taking this class had made her more
open to leaning about new types of technologies relating to the classroom. There was one
student who indicated that this class had not affected her likelihood of using technology in
education. She explained that upon enrolling for this class she was already intending to pursue
this field and would have used educational technologies even without the experience of this
course, but did find the ROBOLAB instruction helpful.
Target Audience
Several suggestions were made within the interviews about the target group of students
for this course. Two students implied that the course could be beneficial to college students of
all ages in both technological and educational backgrounds. The other two suggested targeting
the underclassmen in both backgrounds for several reasons. This course touches briefly on a lot
of topics that are addressed in detail within the other technology related child development
courses at Tufts. By offering this class to underclassmen, it could serve as an introductory
course for these other courses. Another student explained that this course gave her insight into
an area she was not experienced in. She believed that students who take this course earlier
would have more time to take other classes in related fields and broaden their education to other
subjects. Encouraging engineers to enroll would be appropriate, according to the students, aslong as they were interested in the subject matter. One interviewee expressed concern with
upper level engineers having stronger background in building and programming challenges. She
suggested having separate building challenges for engineers depending on their abilities.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 47/85
Diana DeLuca
47
Final Building Challenges
The final building challenges were assigned to assess the students’ skills with
ROBOLAB, and their knowledge of science and engineering concepts. Students were asked to
create a project that incorporated concepts related to the course and was of interest to them, In
class, the students were each given five minutes to discuss their projects and their design
processes.
The three students that presented their projects all had creative designs and complex
ideas. Each student described her use of the engineering design process in the completion of her
project. The projects were a candy sorter, a LEGO sorter and a children’s board game system. It
was clear that they each had put a lot of effort into both the design and programming aspects of
the projects.
Figure 10 . LEGO Sorter (front view) LEGO’s are Figure 11 . LEGO Sorter (back view) Based onPlaced on the conveyer belt and the light sensor the reading, taken by the light sensor, the brickstakes a reading of them. Are sorted into three different bins.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 48/85
Diana DeLuca
48
Figure 13 . Children’s board game with dice roller Figure 12. Candy sorter that picks up M&M’s andand light up snake. Sorts them in buckets according to color.
The LEGO sorter consisted of a long conveyer belt with a light sensor and several LEGO
bins (Figures 10 and 11). LEGO bricks are dropped on the belt and the sensor takes a light
reading based on the color of the bricks. Each brick continued along the conveyer belt and was
knocked into the corresponding color bin. The student described her process in designing this
robot. Initially she had wanted to use the LEGO camera to sort the bricks by color and size.
Based on what she learned about the ROBOLAB image processing software, she attempted to
create this design. She discovered that because of changes in lighting and the imprecision of the
LEGO camera, her initial idea was infeasible. As a back up plan, she changed her camera to a
light sensor. She also made several design changes in her construction. Initially she had the
sorting arms attached directly to the motors but she quickly realized that she needed to include a
gear system in order to slow them down. In her experiences testing her robot, she realized that it
was not one hundred percent accurate. Programming the RCX to display the value of the light
sensor and adding noises to alert the user about the choice the program was making helped her to
predict the mistakes. She also and added a touch sensor that would immediately stop the
program if it made an incorrect decision.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 49/85
Diana DeLuca
49
The candy sorter worked based on the same principle using a light sensor to determine
the color of the candy (Figure 12). A conveyer belt with seats attached scooped up the candy
pieces. They were dropped on an inclined plane and rolled down to the light sensor. Based on
the reading taken by the sensor, the LEGO arm would spin around, knocking the candy into the
proper bucket. The student gauged the light sensor values for the two candy colors and the Lego
platform. Based on these readings she wrote a program that could determine whether or not
there was a piece of candy in view, and what color the candy was. This student indicated that the
problems she encountered when making her robot mostly involved picking up the candy. At first
her conveyer belt was moving to fast and flinging the candy. She used gears to slow down the
conveyer belt but the sorter could not keep up with the number of candy pieces. To solve this
problem she spaced the conveyer belt attachments so the robot had enough time to sort each
piece of candy before another appeared.
The student who made the children’s board game came equipped with the board, LEGO
men as pieces and a dice roller. At each turn in the game, a player would push a button and the
robot would randomly decide that players fate. There were five basic outcomes. Two of these
outcomes included sounds, good or bad, that indicated a prize or penalty. Sometimes the robot
would roll the dice to determine the number of spaces the player should move. If a player
pushed the button and the snakes eyes lit up then they lost bananas, the game’s currency, but if
the yellow spinner turned on, the player would get a randomly chosen number of bonus bananas.
The initial idea for this project was a dice roller for a game, but the student added the extrafeatures to make it more interactive. The hardest part of creating this project, according to this
student, was putting it together with the limited number of LEGO pieces that she had in her kit.
She described how she got more pieces and was able to add more structures to her project. This
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 50/85
Diana DeLuca
50
student also made use of gears to slow down her dice-rolling arm. She explained that the gearing
system was very important to slow down the arm and give it enough force to rotate and agitate
the die.
The final building challenges were an excellent opportunity for the students to
demonstrate their understanding of the concepts that they had learned throughout the class. Each
student used complex building and programming ideas within her project that effectively
displayed her understanding of and comfort with these concepts. Though working on these
projects, and the homework challenges, the students were able to develop a firm understanding
of many science and engineering concepts that they may not have been exposed to in other
classes. Table 1 shows a list of the science and engineering concepts that the students used both
in their final building challenges and throughout the semester. The concepts were defined in this
table based on to a collaborative effort between the Robotics Academy child development majors
and mechanical engineers. Also included are the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks
standards for each of these concepts. The Mass Frameworks application of each of these
concepts is very relevant to pre-service teachers. Having strong understanding of science and
engineering subject matter is beneficial for any pre-service teacher, especially those in the
Massachusetts school systems with the extra technology and engineering requirements.
Table 1. Concepts demonstrated by the students within various projects, their engineering definitions and theirapplications to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. This table was created through a collaboration betweenDiana DeLuca, Laura Hacker and the Robotics Academy Mechanical Engineers.
Science andEngineeringPowerfulIdeas
EngineeringDefinition
Aspects of Projectsthat Displayed eachConcept
Massachusettscurriculum frameworksapplication: Science andTechnology/EngineeringSections
Lever A straight platformwith one fixed point,the fulcrum. Force can
• Sorting arms in thecandy and LEGOsorters
• Properties of Mattersection of PhysicalSciences, Grades 6-8
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 51/85
Diana DeLuca
51
be exerted on one endof the lever to move anobject on the othermore easily.
• Gates used in thegate in-classchallenge
• Simple machines inTechnology/EngineeringSection, Grades 3-5
Inclined Plane An angles surface used
to move objects up anddown with less energythan lifting
• Dice roller box•
Candy sorter
• Motion of Objects
section of PhysicalSciences, Grades 6-8• Simple machines in
Technology/EngineeringSection, Grades 3-5
Wheel andAxel
An axel is a rod that isplaced at the center of awheel in order to makeit turn; it require lessforce to move objectssupported by the wheel
and axel
• Conveyer belts inthe LEGO andcandy sorters
• Any challengesthat involvedwheels or gears
• Motion of Objectssection of PhysicalSciences, Grades 6-8
• Simple machines inTechnology/EngineeringSection, Grades 3-5
Screw An inclined plane thatcontinuously rapsaround itself in order tolower or raise things, orto hold things together
• Worm gear usedin gate challengeand Robotic duck
• Simple machines inTechnology/EngineeringSection, Grades 3-5
Friction A force that createsresistance when twosurfaces come incontact try to moveagainst each other
• Any challenges orprojects thatinvolve movementon a surface
• Motion of Objectssection of PhysicalSciences, Grades 6-8
• Identify and explainfriction in
Technology/Engineeringsection, Grades 6-8EnergyTransformation
When a certain form of energy changes into adifferent form.• Electrical to
Mechanical• Potential to Kinetic
• All activitiesusing motorsconvert electricalto mechanical
• Candy sorterconverts potentialto kinetic
• Forms of Energy sectionof Physical Sciences,Grades 3-5
Tension A force that tends tostretch or elongate and
object
• Conveyer belts inthe candy and
LEGO sortersMotors Electric current running
through coiled wire in amagnetic field thatcreates physicalmovement
• Create your ownmotor activity
• Motors used in allprojects
• Electromagnetism,stationary and movingcharge particles,Physics, Grades 9-10
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 52/85
Diana DeLuca
52
Programming A way of using code togive instructions to asystem so that it carriesout operations in themanner and order in
which you tell it
• Every project andactivity that hadbeen programmed
• Using symbols tocommunicate a messageinTechnology/Engineeringsection, Grades 6-8
Roboticautonomy vs.remotelyoperated
The difference betweenan object that canoperate itself by eitherreading programmedinstructions or byorganizing input that itcollects and an objectthat requires input froma source other thanitself in order to
operate
• Every project andactivity that hadbeen programmed
• Using symbols tocommunicate a messageinTechnology/Engineeringsection, Grades 6-8
StructuralAnalysis
The process of assessing the structureof an object anddeveloping structuralchanges that wouldmake the object moreefficient
• Used in thephysical buildingof all the projects
• Engineering DesignProcess of Technology/Engineering section, Grades PreK-10
Curriculum Projects
The curriculum projects were assigned in order to gauge the level that students could
understand and apply their knowledge of technology related educational theory. The projects
required that students create a technology based curriculum for a selected age group and setting.
The students were asked to select a topic that was interesting to them and design lesson plans
incorporating ROBOLAB as an educational tool. These projects displayed the students’
understanding of the topics covered in the theory portion of the course. The subjects that the
students chose to base their curriculums on were high school engineering and technology, middle
school science, third and fourth grade English and language arts and third grade history and
social science.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 53/85
Diana DeLuca
53
The student interested in high school engineering and technology designed a program that
would take place in four class periods. The overall theme of the curriculum involved the design
of data collecting space exploration robots. Within the program, students would participate in
discussions about project goals, design strategies, constraints or other topics, and then work in
groups to create the robots using ROBOLAB and the LEGO Construction Kits. Each week the
students would deal with a specific part of the design including drive systems, control systems,
and data collection methods. During the final week the students would test their creations in a
simulated setting.
Another project dealt with younger children in a middle school science setting. This
student had the idea of integrating the biology and physics strands of the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks. She mentioned that, in her experience, these subjects had been split up
into separate yearlong classes. She believed that a middle school program using ROBOLAB and
the LEGO kits could address prominent issues in each of these topics simultaneously. This
student planned on using worksheets at the beginning of each session to introduce the children to
the topics. She would then give them activities that incorporated these concepts using
ROBOLAB. One example was asking the students to create a robot that could explore the
human body using a LEGO camera. Students would drive their robots over a map of the body
and identify specific organs or the path of food through the digestive system. By creating
activities that allowed students to explore science related concepts while also working with
computers this student wanted to get middle school kids more excited about learning.The third project covered the English and language arts aspects of the Frameworks. She
based her curriculum on a book that is typically read in third or fourth grade. The book
chronicles the life of a family moving west across early America and settling in the prairies. The
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 54/85
Diana DeLuca
54
activities based on this book included using ROBOLAB and the LEGO kits to build things that
settlers might need, for example, a covered wagon. In this curriculum, the students work in
groups and discuss the types of things the settlers would need to bring in the wagon, how the
wagons were built, or how they crossed rivers. They would design and build the wagons to best
suit the needs of the settlers. To test their robots the students could drive across a map of the
United States, stopping in different areas along the way. The goal of this curriculum was to
provide a context for learning about reading and history through recreating events within the
time period of the story.
The last project, though focusing on the history and social science framework, touched on
multiple disciplines. It was based on the cities and towns section of the third grade curriculum.
This student planned a curriculum that involved children working together to build a LEGO
town. As a class, the children would choose a town and time period and decide on the main
elements of a typical town. They would break into small groups and each build some aspect of
the town, for example the fire station, school or post office, using ROBOLAB and the LEGO
kits. Students could program their buildings to function in ways that are similar to their real life
counterparts. At the end of each session, the groups would share their ideas with the whole class.
When finished, the class would bring their town buildings together on a large piece of paper and
draw the roads, parks and other areas. The student that designed this curriculum stressed the
versatility of this project and described various activities within the project that were applicable
to subjects such as art, English, history and technology.Overall, the students’ came up with interesting and innovative ideas concerning the use of
technology in classrooms while applying what they had learned throughout the semester. The
curriculum projects successfully incorporated many of the theories that were discussed within the
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 55/85
Diana DeLuca
55
course. Each of the projects displayed aspects of constructionism and powerful ideas while
respecting the constraints of a typical classroom and adhering to the Massachusetts Curriculum
Frameworks.
Summary of Main Results
• Most students had little or no engineering experience prior to taking this course; None of
the liberal arts students had ever taken an engineering course.
• The students enjoyed the hands-on learning experience.
• Within the theory portion of the class, students prefer the structure that involves
researching and presenting rather than reading and discussing.
• Participating in the Robotics After School Workshop was worthwhile for the students in
that they could see a real life example of what they were learning and could get
experience working with kids in a technology based program. Many of the students
suggested more time involving direct experience with kids.
• Each of the interviewed students said they had gained knowledge in this course that
would make them more likely to use technology in education in the future.
• The majority of the students indicated that they feel more comfortable with basic
engineering concepts after taking this course.
• Through their final building challenges, the students showed a strong understanding of
basic science and engineering concepts.
•
The curriculum projects displayed understanding for the theories and topics discussed in
the course how they relate to the use of robotics in educational settings.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 56/85
Diana DeLuca
56
Discussion
The evaluations of Tufts child development course Robotics and Education revealed
several areas within the design and execution of the class that could be considered in greater
detail. These areas involved the students in the class, the methods of teaching, both the design
and theory portions of the course, and the focus of the course itself. This section identifies and
describes these areas in greater detail and offers specific suggestions for future redesign of the
course.
One aspect of the course that lends itself to further analysis is the population of that
enrolled. Within this class, there were three liberal arts students, interested in child development,
one engineer who was particularly interested in educational technology, and one engineer who
wanted to fulfill a requirement. Only one of the enrolled students was a male, creating a
predominantly female class. Definite differences exist in the way boys and girls react to
technology. Due to gender stereotyping and differing levels of experience, boys tend to be more
confident in their technological abilities (Sadker, 1999). Differences in gender may have caused
bias in the sample. These students were also a self selected group, introducing another area for
bias. Based on the fact that they enrolled in the class, each student showed a minimal interest in
technology, and an apparent willingness to learn about robotics. These particular students may
have had an easier time using technology than students who might not have willingly signed up
for a course involving robotics. Also, within this population, though there were differing
backgrounds, there was not sufficient number or variation of students to provide real quantitative
data. The results of this experiment are solely based on the qualitative evaluations conducted. A
larger, less biased sample would provide more valid results.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 57/85
Diana DeLuca
57
In order to obtain a larger group of students for the course, the department of child
development could explore both its publicity efforts and its core requirements. Increasing the
advertising of courses that involve technology and education will help to get more students
enrolled in these courses. Flyering, e-mailing and advertising to students in both child
development and engineering are all viable options used to publicize this course. Increasing
advertising in these and other areas would help to get students interested and involved in this
type of course. Another option to boost enrollment is to require child development students to
take technological courses. All students are greatly influenced by requirements when selecting
their courses. Many undergraduates, especially those that are double majoring or engineers, have
very little time to take classes that are not required. A technological requirement for liberal arts
students would have a powerful impact on the number of students taking courses related to
technology. This change would be especially meaningful within the population of child
development majors, who may not be likely to take these courses otherwise.
In encouraging both child development majors and engineering students to take the
Robotics and Education course, questions arise as to how to gear the class effectively for the
differing populations. Within this study, the engineering student, being a freshman, did not have
a noticeable advantage over other students in the class in terms of the engineering concepts. He
did, however, have less of a child development background than all of the other students. In the
event that higher level engineers joined the class, there would have been a disparity between the
abilities of the students. Giving the same building and programming challenge to a fourth yearmechanical engineer and a second year child development student who has never taken and
engineering course would be unfair. The child development student would most likely spend
much more time on the project and find it more difficult than the engineer. Likewise, giving
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 58/85
Diana DeLuca
58
engineering students reading assignments based on abstract concepts in child development would
also cause problems.
Correcting this situation raises several issues. A possible solution would be to assign
different building challenges to different groups within the class. Doing this, however, would
require fairly splitting the class into these groups. Who determines which students get the less
challenging assignments and which get the more difficult ones? Would engineers automatically
get placed in the more advanced group? What about students who have taken classes in both
areas? These are difficult questions that lead to the abandonment of the separate building
challenge idea.
Another solution that Merredith Portsmore came up with is to have two separate classes
that run parallel to each other and overlap. One could be focused on engineers or computer
science majors without an education background, while the other directed towards child
development majors with less engineering experience. Students could choose which section to
enroll in based on their comfort and understanding of technology. The engineers would be given
extra background information needed to understand child development concepts and the CD
majors would be given extra engineering support. The classes would overlap to discuss
educational theory and technological classroom experiences.
During an evaluation interview, the idea was brought up to offer this course to only
underclassmen as an introductory course to the field of technology in education. This solution
would help to regulate the abilities of students within the class. Based on the underclassmenengineer in this pilot study, lower level engineers are not significantly more advanced than the
child development students. Offering this course only to underclassmen will also give students
the opportunity to take more classes in related subjects if they are interested. Too many
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 59/85
Diana DeLuca
59
upperclassmen do not have time to take classes in subjects that they only recently discovered.
Gearing this class toward underclassmen will give those that are interested the chance to enroll in
other developmental technology related courses, increasing overall participation in this program.
Several specific improvements for the class may be effective in the future. The theory
portion of the course had three basic structures. For each class, the students would either read
and discuss, research and present, or listen to guest speakers. During the interviews, each
student was asked about their person preference in order to determine the most effective means
of teaching.
The three guest speakers were Professor Marina Bers, addressing constructionism, the
mechanical engineers, presenting the Robotics Academy tube crawler, and the human factors
engineers, describing human factors and their role in the Robotics Academy project. The
students agreed that Professor Bers’ presentation was very helpful in her introduction of one of
the main topics relating to the class. The other two presenters provided the students with new
insight into engineering fields. In improving this class, it would be beneficial to include
background reading and appropriate introductions for the specific areas addressed by the
engineers. During the mechanical engineering presentation the students were not as well
prepared and did not understand everything that the engineers discussed. Having read
background material for the human factors presentation, the students had a better understanding
of the topics and were able to get more out of this discussion. The students all agreed that they
liked having the presenters come to class. It provided them with a better understanding of constructionism and a wider engineering background.
When asked about reading and discussion, and research presentations, the students all
indicated that they preferred to do research and then present. This method was used for topics
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 60/85
Diana DeLuca
60
that were too broad to cover all in one class. For example, the Massachusetts Curriculum
Frameworks would have been impossible for the students to read in one week. Instead each
student read a section and presented his or her research. The read and discussion classes
consisted of all the students reading the same article and discussing it in class with prompts and
activities provided by instructors. These discussions were very often not as involved. The class
size was so small that it was difficult to get a good discussion going. Several times the students
seemed to agree on specific issues thus providing little controversy for debate. In the future,
using the research and present structure may be more effective. This method is not limited to
dividing and assigning all topics in pieces. Giving each student a whole topic and an entire class
period to present it would also be an effective option. Not only will this type of structure
promote understanding of the material, it would also give students hands on experience leading a
classroom. This experience is valuable to both pre-service teachers, to prepare them for the
future, and engineers, to help them learn the best methods of conveying their ideas.
The students in the class also stressed the value of hands on experience teaching,
observing and working with children using LEGO robotics. Some of the students expressed
concern with the curriculum projects in that they were not familiar with the abilities of children
at certain ages. It is difficult to design a curriculum for children when the exact capabilities of
the children are not known. In designing this course, it was intended for the students to gain this
experience observing, documenting and assisting the robotics after school workshop. In the
interviews, some of the students felt that they needed more experience both in the workshop andin other settings were children are using LEGO robotics. They would have been more
comfortable designing the curriculum and more confident in their teaching abilities if they had
had seen more technology in use in classrooms or other programs.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 61/85
Diana DeLuca
61
Students need to have the option within the course to get involved in more programs and
get more experience. The CEEO is works with several school systems that currently use
ROBOLAB in an educational setting. Having the students observe and even help out at these
programs would provide them with more experience in varying age groups. Another possibility
is placing each student, for the length of the semester, in a specific school or program that uses
ROBOLAB. In this situation the students would have time to get used to the class, get to know
the students, and really see how the software is used. Several students commented that, at times,
the kids in the workshop were not quite comfortable asking a new person for help. A situation
that provided students with constant interaction with children would promote a real working
relationship between the students and the children. Student would have a more active role in the
child’s progress and more effective first hand experience with the children and their levels of
understanding. Brining more experienced educators to visit the course would also help to give
students a better idea of what kids are capable of and what kinds of projects they might do with
ROBOLAB. During class eight a visiting teacher from Australia sat in on the class. She
provided a lot of details into her program, the kinds of activities she introduced and what her
students could do with ROBOLAB. Her added experience really helped the discussion that day
and provided our students with solid examples of what real kids can do with ROBOLAB.
Within the course overall the goals for the students were very general. They consisted of
providing a basic background in engineering, more comfort with technology and willingness to
use computers and robotics in a classroom. Within the design of the course, there were notspecific goals for what the students should know and when. Having a direct focus for the course
and a more detailed plan for how far along the students should be at any moment would have
provided more direction within the course.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 62/85
Diana DeLuca
62
A plan such as this was almost impossible to create before actually conducting the
course. Since this was a pilot course there were many unknowns such as the number of students,
their skill levels, how fast they would learn or how much background they would have. Carrying
out the entire course provided needed information to better focus the course on the initial goals.
Splitting the course into three units within the educational theory may have helped to focus the
students on each specific topic. Issues such as constructionism, powerful ideas and the Mass
curriculum frameworks would be covered in the first unit. The second unit would deal with
general engineering background and involve several presentations from different types of
engineers. The third unit would cover educational and classroom experience. In this unit
students would discuss their experiences observing and working with kids in different settings
and have guests come in to talk about teaching classes or running programs using ROBOLAB.
With a more structured set up, this course may be more successful reaching the initial goals set
for the students.
In addition to a more specific structure within the course, it would be beneficial to
consider the connections between the design and the theory portions of the class. In the pilot, the
two areas were taught by different people, and had few direct connections. With the exception of
class ten, students would focus on one topic during the theory portion and then a different topic
during the design portion. Although none of the students commented on this fact when asked
about the structure of the class, it may have helped to solidify the concepts if there had been
more interaction between the two aspects of the course.
Conclusion
Courses that provide pre-service teachers with engineering and technological concepts
are uncommon but effective. The students in this pilot course indicated that they would be more
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 63/85
Diana DeLuca
63
likely to use technology in education after completing this class. They enjoyed working directly
with children and technology. The design portion of the course not only taught them to use
ROBOLAB software and the LEGO Mindstorms Construction Kits, but also provided them with
an effective background in engineering concepts. The majority of the students expressed a
greater understanding of basic engineering principles and an increased comfort level with
technology. Presentations of their designs and projects allowed the students to learn from their
classmates and receive feedback on their own ideas. The theory portion of the course introduced
the issues surrounding the use of educational technologies in the classroom. The students gained
hands-on experience working with children through course requirements. Each of the students
viewed his or her participation in the robotics after school program as a valuable opportunity to
observe the use of educational technology. The curriculum projects demonstrated the students’
understanding of constructionism and the use of robotics in education. With the suggested
improvements, this course would be a very positive edition to any education or engineering
curriculum. Overall, the goals of this project were successfully achieved.
Personal Statement
My experiences working on this project with the robotics academy this past year have
been unlike any of my prior academic endeavors. I feel that these experiences have not only
prepared me for my future, but also helped to define my interests in the field of engineering
education. The project was designed such that as a child development major, I could define my
own problem in a particular area of interest, yet still have the support of the Robotics Academy
Team. This freedom was at first very daunting, but as I worked with Laura to create a project
that was of interest to us, I became more and more comfortable with it. I am now intensely
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 64/85
Diana DeLuca
64
grateful that I got to define my specific part of the project as it has helped me to be excited and
inspired by all aspects of what I have done this year. Without the interest that I have in this
project, I am sure that the experience would have been much less rewarding.
Working as a group with the members of the Robotics Academy team has been not only
a learning experience, but also a lot of fun. Everyone on the team was great to work with an
always willing to answer any questions I might have had, being unfamiliar with many of the
advanced engineering concepts. Weekly meetings helped to keep everyone in the project in
touch and gave us the opportunity to address any concerns we had about the project. Throughout
the whole year I felt a strong network of support through working with this exceptional group of
people.
Not only were the students great to work with, the faculty members involved in the
project provided constant support for what we were doing. Monthly meetings with both the team
and faculty allowed us to present our progress and get comments, feedback and suggestions from
an experienced and concerned group of professors who always seemed to care about the project
as much as we did. Weekly meetings with my primary advisor, Marina Bers, were extremely
helpful. She provided Laura and I with answers to all our questions, constant support and
guidance, and help writing our theses. The close relationships that the faculty advisors kept with
the group were unlike any I had had with professors in the past.
Personally, I felt that working closely with students and faculty members from various
departments on a full year project has been more beneficial to me than a typical college course.The hands on learning and the wonderful experiences I have gained through this project could
never be replicated in a typical classroom.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 65/85
Diana DeLuca
65
References
Ackermann, E. (2002) Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference?Retrieved April, 9 2003 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/
Bers, M.U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002) Teachers as designers:integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in childhood education , 123-145.
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining computer-centered systems. SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Cawkell, T. (2001) Sociotechnology: the digital devide. Journal of Information Science , vol. 27,55-66.
Duckworth, E. (1972) The having of wonderful ideas. Harvard educational review , vol. 42(2),
217-231. Retrieved Sept 23, 2002 fromwww.sonoma.edu/users/c/cochran/edu480/duckworth.html
Gray, T. & Halbert, S. (1998) Team teach with a student: New approach to collaborativeteaching. College teaching , 150-161.
Hacker, L. (2003). Robotics in Education: ROBOLAB and robotic technology as tools forlearning science and engineering .
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks . Massachusetts Department of Education. RetrievedMar 23, 2003 at www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html .
McLester, S (1998) Girls and technology: what’s the story? Technology and learning , vol. 19(3),18-20.
Morgan, R.L., Whorton, J.E. & Willets, J. (2000) Use of peer mediation to develop instructionalbehavior in pre-service teachers. College student journal , vol. 34, 146.
National center for education statistics (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2001. Washington D.C. Retrieved Mar 23, 2003 atnces.ed.gov/pubs2002/internet/4.asp.
Online teens say their schools don’t use the internet well. (2002) Pew internet & American life .
Retrieved March 23, 2003 from http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=48 .Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine . New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). What’s the big idea: Towards a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal ,vol. 39(3-4).
Papert, S. (1980) Mindsotrms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas . New York: BasicBooks .
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 66/85
Diana DeLuca
66
Resnick, M. (1996). Piano’s not stereo’s: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions ,vol. 3 (6). Retrieved from Match 23 fromhttp://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/pianos/pianos.html.
Rogers, C., Bers, M., Cao, C. & Morrison, S (2002). Multi-threaded instruction: Forming multi-
disciplinary research groups to improve undergraduate education. NSF grant proposal EEC-0212046.
Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: still knocking on the classroom door. Education leadership ,vol. 56(7), 22-26.
Topping, K. & Ehly, S. (Ed.) (1998). Peer-assisted learning . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Inc.
US Census Bureau (2001). Home computers and internet use in the United States: August 2000 .Washington D.C. Retrieved Mar 23, 2003 from
http://www.census.gov/populations/www/socdemo/computer/html .
Varven, J. (1985) The pc student as a teacher. PC magazine , vol. 4, 219-223.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 67/85
Diana DeLuca
67
Appendix A: Syllabus
CD 143: Robotics and Education
Block 5, Mondays 1:30-4:30 Spring 2003
Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development
Co-Instructors:Merredith Portsmore
Diana [email protected]
781-367-3381
Laura Hacker [email protected]
781-874-1280
Supervising Professor:Marina Bers
Course Description
An introduction to the fundamentals of robotics and engineering and their use and benefit in
educational settings. Students will engage in design challenges to learn the basics about the
construction of robots and the programming of their behaviors. They will be using the LEGO
ROBOLAB construction set to explore engineering principles. In
Conjunction with their design and building projects, students will examine research that relates
to constructionist learning. Students will have opportunities to work with children. As a final
project, students will create curricula or an exhibit related to a fundamental topic in the area of
technology and engineering. No previous engineering, technology or computational experience
needed.
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 68/85
Diana DeLuca
68
Course Requirements
Readings And DiscussionsAll students are expected to do weekly readings, and to participate in discussions of the readings
in class. Students will be given copies of all readings at least one week prior to their due date.
Design ChallengesStudents will work individually and in teams on weekly ROBOLAB Challenges both in and outof class. There will be six design challenges. Your five highest scores will be counted towardsyour grade.
Observation RequirementsStudents will be asked to observe, assist and document classrooms or programs in whichtechnology is being used as a means of education.For each of these observations students must hand in a response paper describing their
experiences.Final Building ChallengeStudents will select to construct a project of their choice that demonstrates the skills they havelearned during the semester. The project will be graded on design, difficulty andimplementation.
Curriculum Project This project requires students to create a technology-based curriculum for future teachers. Thecurriculum must include background information, lesson plans, activities, worksheets, and awrite-up explaining the significance of the technology. During the last week of class theseprojects will be presented and put on the web. Students will be given the opportunity to test theircurriculum in a 4-7 th grade environment.
Grading
Readings and Discussions 10%
Design Challenges (5 highest out of 6) 25%
Observation Requirements 25%
Final Building Challenge 20%
Curriculum Project 20%
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 69/85
Diana DeLuca
69
Tentative Schedule
Class 1. – Getting Started
Introduction to Engineering, LEGOs andROBOLAB
-the Engineering-pieces, names, techniques-A Simple Car-In-class challenge: Going theDistance
Homework Challenge 1: The Box –Program you car to draw a parallelogram
Class 2 – More Basic ProgrammingSharing of ChallengeMore Programming & Sensors
-Light Sensors-Inventor-In-class challenges: Drive ToThe Line, Line Following
Homework Challenge 2: Velociraptors:Find the escape from a Box
Class 3 – Sensors & A/DSharing of Challenge
Sensors-How do Sensors Work? A/DInventorIn-class challenge: Build yourown touch sensor
Homework Challenge 3: Bumper Car
Course expectations – Jan 23
Course overview and Expectations
Pre - Survey
Documentation– Jan 27Reading Due: Helm, J. Beneke, S. &Steinheimer, K (1998) "Chapter1: TheValue of Documentation" (pp.13-44);"Chapter 2:Windows on Learning: Aframework for decision Making" (25-32); Chapter 3: The DocumentationWeb: Proving a Map for Documentation(pp33-38) In Windows on Learning:Documenting Young Children's Work.NY: Teachers College Press.
Constructionism – Feb 3
Guest Lecturer: Professor Marina Bers
Reading Due: Papert, S (1993) TheChildren's Machine: Re-thinking schoolin the age of the computer (Chapter7)NJ: Basic Books
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 70/85
Diana DeLuca
70
Class 4 - GearsSharing of Challenge
Motion-Why use gears?
-Gearing Up and Gearing Down-In-class challenge: GateInventor-Task Splits, Music
Homework Challenge 4: Build amechanism or representation of something from your favorite children’sbook.
Class 5 – Other types of Motion
More Motion4 bar LinkagesCams
Homework Challenge 5: RoboticAnimals (2 weeks)
Class 6 - Motors and PID
Motors and PIDIn-class challenge: Build your
own motor
Homework Challenge 5: RoboticAnimals (keep working on)
Class 7 – Advanced Algorithms andProgramming
Robotic Zoo Exhibition
Advanced ROBOLAB programming
Containers (Variables)EventsStop Tasks
Homework Challenge 6: ElectronicMusical Instument
Powerful Ideas – Feb 10
Reading Due: Duckworth, E. (1972).The Having of Wonderful Ideas.Harvard Educational Review, vol. 42,
no. 2, pp. 217-231.
Innovators: New Bridge Partners (1997).NEA today online.http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9710/seyweb.html
Robot Presentation – Feb 19 (Wed)
Robotics academy engineers present anddiscuss tube crawler robot.
Discussion – Feb 24Discuss powerful ideas behind the tubecrawler robot
Reading Due: Papert, S. (1991). What’sthe big idea: Towards a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, vol.39, no. 3-4.
Massachusetts Frameworks– Mar 3
Reading Due: selected portions of theMass Curriculum Frameworkshttp://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 71/85
Diana DeLuca
71
Class 8 – Machine Vision
Camera & Image Processing-threshold-color and location
-In-class challenge: ColorDetector
Class 9 – More Machine Vision
Camera & Image Processing-invert-blob counting-In-class challenge: DiceThrower
Class 10-Interface Design
What is Human FactorsIn-class challenge::DesigROBOLAB Cockpit
Final Building Challenge Due
Class 11 – Apr 7No in-class meeting
Class 12 – Apr 14Curriculum Project Presentations
Class 13 – Apr 21No in-class meeting due to holidays
Types of Technology used in theClassroom– Mar 10
Assignment Due: Research a classroomtechnology and prepare a presentation.
Discussion– Mar 24
Discuss experiences observing andhelping kids using technology forlearning.
Human Factors Presentation – Mar 31
Robotics Academy Human Factorsengineers present and discuss their rolein the tube crawler project
Reading Due: Selected human factorsreadings TBA
Final Curriculum Projects Due
Class 14 - Apr 28
No in-class meeting
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 72/85
Diana DeLuca
72
Appendix B: Pre-Survey
CD 143: Robotics and EducationPre-Survey
Name:
Graduate or Undergraduate:
Year of Graduation
Major(s):Minor:
Math, Science or Engineering Courses you have taken (if you are a non-major in thesubject)
Have you taken any other CD courses that discussed technology at all? If so pleasedescribe.
Do you own a computer?
What kind?
Laptop or Desktop?
PC or Mac?
When did you buy it?
-within the last year
-within the past 2-3 years?
-more than 3 years ago?
If you do not own a computer, do you have access to one at school, work, etc?
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 73/85
Diana DeLuca
73
On a scale of 1 – 5, how comfortable are you with using the following technologies.
1= not at all 2= somewhat 3=moderately 4=very 5=extremely
Word Processing
1 2 3 4 5
Internet browsing and Navigating
1 2 3 4 5
Using E-mail
1 2 3 4 5
Making computer Graphs and Charts
1 2 3 4 5
Using Spreadsheets
1 2 3 4 5
Basic Programming
1 2 3 4 5
Making a website
1 2 3 4 5
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 74/85
Diana DeLuca
74
On a scale of 1 – 5, how comfortable are you with Teaching the following technologiesto others
1= not at all 2= somewhat 3=moderately 4=very 5=extremely
Word Processing
1 2 3 4 5
Internet browsing and Navigating
1 2 3 4 5
Using E-mail
1 2 3 4 5
Making computer Graphs and Charts
1 2 3 4 5
Using Spreadsheets
1 2 3 4 5
Basic Programming
1 2 3 4 5
Making a website
1 2 3 4 5
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 75/85
Diana DeLuca
75
How confident are you that you can learn a new technology?
Have you every programmed before?
How confident are you that you can build a robot? (1 – not confident) 5 – very confident)
How confident are you that you can write a simple program (scale of 1-5)?
Describe your computer/technology experience.
Why did you enroll in this course and what do you expect to get out of it?
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 76/85
Diana DeLuca
76
Appendix C: Observation and Documentation Assignments
Observation Assignment
This assignment requires you to spend approximately one hour observing the use
of technology in a n educational setting. During the observation, record as much aspossible about what you see happening but do not interact with the students. You may
choose to focus on one or two students or the entire class. Please hand in a write-up of
your observation including the following:
-A brief description of the setting and the technology
-A description of what you saw including specific scenarios, quotes, etc.
-An analysis of the effectiveness of technology as a learning tool, based on what
you saw
Documentation Assignment
In order to complete this assignment, you must spend approximately one hour
documenting the learning process of students using technology in a classroom or other
program. Your videotape should be representative of what went on that day in the
program. Avoid bias in what you are recording, for example, do not record only the
successes or failures but a combination of everything. The result should be an overall
view of the classroom without focus on specific children. A digital video camera and a
tape will be provided for you if you choose to document the CEEO after school program.
You must turn in the tape either in class or directly after documentation.
Below is a list of the topics we discussed in class about documentation. Please
keep these in mind when you are participating in the documentation process.
Why document? How?
-Reproduction -Videotape / Pictures
-Improvements -Webbing
-Communication between parents and teachers -Journals-Accountability -Group class projects / working
Displaying knowledge together
-Getting to know students -Display
-Challenge teachers
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 77/85
Diana DeLuca
77
Appendix D: Homework Challenges
Challenge # 1 Parallelogram (20 possible points)
Due: Jan 27th – Build a robot that can draw a four sided figure on a sheet of paper
Setup : A blank piece of paper will be taped to the floor. You will haveapproximately 15 minutes to test your robot. You will be able to try your
robot twice – best run counts for your grade. You will need to attach awriting implement of your choice (pen, pencil, marker etc..) to your RCX.
Rules :• Only use LEGO pieces in your kit (none from your childhood collection
etc..)• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply• You may use tape, paper clips, or rubber bands to help you attach your
writing implement. Nothing that will damage the RCX or LEGOS(permanent glues etc…)
If you … You will get ___ points
Have a robot that draws aparallelogram (at least 2 equal sides)
20
Have a robot that draws a closed foursided figure
19
Have a robot that draws 4 distinctlines
16
Have a Robot that draws something 14Have a built non functioning robot 5
Don’t Have a Robot 0Up to 1 extra point for:+.5 for Cool Features+ .5 for Aesthetics
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 78/85
Diana DeLuca
78
Challenge # 2 Velociraptor (20 possible points)
Due: Feb 3 rd – Build a robot that can find a randomly placed “escape” froma black tape box on light tile.
Setup : A “box” made of black electrical tape will be laid down on theworkshop floor. One section (approximately the width of the RCX) will be
removed. Your robot will have to demonstrate that it can detect the“broken” wall and escape from the box.
Rules :• Only use pieces in Team Challenge Kit (9790)• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply
Competition : Fastest average time (from 2 trials with different escapes)wins. You can place your robot the first time. Chris or Merredith will placeit the second time.
If you … You will get ___ points
Have a Robot that places in the Top5
20
Have a Robot that can escape fromthe box
19
Robot that stays inside the box 15Robot that stops on black piece of
tape
10
Have a built non functioning robot 5
Don’t Have a Robot 0Up to 1 extra point for:+.5 for Cool Features+ .5 for Aesthetics
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 79/85
Diana DeLuca
79
Challenge # 3 Touch Sensor (20 possible points)
Due: Feb 10 th – Build1) a robot that avoids obstacles using the LEGO touch sensorOR2) design your own backpack alarm system using the LEGO touchsensor or any homemade sensor
Rules :• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply
If you … You will get ___ pointsA robot device that performs well90%-100% of the time
20
A robot device that performs well50% of the time
18
A robot/device you can trigger byhand
12
Have a built non functioning robot 5
Don’t Have a Robot 0
Up to 1 extra point for:+.5 for Cool Features+ .5 for Aesthetics
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 80/85
Diana DeLuca
80
Challenge # 4 Your Favorite Children’s Story (20 possible points)
Due: Feb 19 th – Build a mechanized device inspired by your favoritechildren’s story (a machine or device from the story, a representation of aplace or scene etc…)
Rules :• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply• It MUST use gears in two ways
o Gear Upo Gear Downo Change Directiono Prevent Slipping
• It MUST have some kind of sensor input (only runs in the “day” time, atouch sensor to activate a portion of the device
If you … You will get ___ points
A device that performs well 90%-100% of the time
18
A device that performs well 50% of
the time
16
A device you can trigger by hand 12Have a built non functioning device 5
Don’t Have a Device 0
Points Added+.5-1 for Cool Features
+ .5-1 for Aesthetics+.5-1 for Technical Difficulty
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 81/85
Diana DeLuca
81
Challenge # 5 Robotic Zoo (20 possible points)
Due: March 3 rd – Build a mechanical representation of an animal fromNorth America to be placed in the Kids International Museum Experience ‘s(KIME) robotic zoo (http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu/kime)
Rules :• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply• It should move as much like the actual animal as possible (no wheels)• It may use other materials (felt, paper, pipe cleaners etc….)
If you … You will get ___ points
An animal that incorporates somekind of sensor
20
A working animal with no wheels 18A partially working animal(collapses, falls etc..)
16
Have a built non functioning animal 5
Don’t Have a Device 0
Points Added+.5-1 for Cool Features
+ .5-1 for Aesthetics+.5-1 for Technical Difficulty
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 82/85
Diana DeLuca
82
Challenge # 6 Electronic Instruments (20 possible points)
Due: March 10th – Use the RCX to build an electronic instrument.
Setup : Your instrument needs to have an interface that allows the user toplay a minimum of 7 notes. You should be prepared to
-play all 7 (or more ) of your notes-play a short song (Mary Had a Little Lamb, Row, Row, Row YourBoat, Happy Birthday etc…)-teach someone else to play your instrument
Rules :• Use any pieces YOU have access to• You may use other materials (paper, markers etc…) or equipment
(flashlight)• You must program in ROBOLAB (no hacking the RCX to accept LISP),
but no other restrictions apply
Competition :If you … You will get ___ points
Team up with another group tocreate an instrument that uses 2RCXs to play at least 20 notes AND
perform a song .
22
Have an instrument that plays at least7 notes AND Team up with anothergroup to perform a song (withmultiple parts or harmonies)
21
Have an instrument that plays morethan 10 notes.
20
Have an instrument that plays 7notes.
19
Have an instrument that plays lessthan 7 notes
14
Have a built non functioninginstrument
5
Don’t Have an Instrument 0Up to 1 extra point for:
+.5 for Cool Features , +.5 for Aesthetics
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 83/85
Diana DeLuca
83
Appendix E: In-Class Presentation Assignments
Mass Curriculum Frameworks AssignmentChoose one section of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks: English and LanguageArts, Mathematics, Science, Technology and Engineering, Arts, Foreign Languages,
History and Social Science, or Health.
Skim over your section looking at charts, basic themes, and major headings. Next weekin class you will be asked to do a 10 minute presentation of your section. Thepresentation will include 2 parts:
Part 1 – An overview of what is contained in your specific section. Explain what a childis expected to know by why age, what major strands are involved, etc.
Part 2 – Choose a grade level and area of interest from your section and develop anactivity using ROBOLAB to teach students about that subject. Describe your activity and
explain how it will help to fulfill your section of the curriculum frameworks. (Indesigning the activity you can assume that the students have a basic knowledge of ROBOLAB)
Educational Technologies AssignmentPlease choose an example of an educational technology and prepare a 10 minutepresentation for next week’s class. You may select one from the list below or find one onyour own. Your presentation should cover the following areas:
ß Backgroundß Explanation of the technologyß Description of its use in the educational settingß
Benefits or drawbacksß - The Computer Clubhouse
web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/Clubhouse/Clubhouse.htmwww2.edc.org/CCT/publications_report_summary.asp?numPubId=79www.computerclubhouse.org/index.htm
- Logohttp://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/
- Leap Frog and The Leap Frog Schoolhousewww.leapfrog.com/www.leapfrogschoolhouse.com/home/index.asp
- Robix Robot Construction Setwww.robix.com- MaMaMedia
www.MaMaMedia.com- AOL at school
http://school.aol.com- Others
www.iste.org/resources/tech-integration/software.cfm
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 84/85
Diana DeLuca
84
Appendix F: Curriculum Project
Curriculum ProjectCD 143-MB
This project requires you to create and discuss a curriculum using ROBOLAB. You willbe asked to present your project ideas in class on April 14 th and the written project willdue via e-mail on April 21 st.
You Project should include the following areas:Setting - You may choose to focus on a classroom or after school setting, but the
curriculum should cover approximately 8 hours of class time divided into 2hour segments. You can decide what materials, how many computers andhow many LEGO kits will be available. Please select an age group to focuson and assume that the students will have a basic knowledge of ROBOLAB.
Lesson Plans – Please turn in 4 lesson plans (one for each 2 hour session) thatdescribe the goal for that day and the planned activities. Please be specificincluding details such as whether they work in pairs or on their own, how youwould divide them up etc. Include any worksheets or handouts that youwould give to the students to complete the lesson, and any other relevantmaterials that you may have.
Theme - Please choose an overall theme for the program. Your theme could be fromthe Mass Curriculum Frameworks or any other area of interest. Each of thelesson plans should be some way related to the theme.
Discussion – Please hand in a discussion of your curriculum addressing the followingquestions:o How does your curriculum use constructionism and instructionism?o How would you document your curriculum?o How would you assess and evaluate the learning experience?o Would you curriculum be effective in a classroom setting?o How does it fulfill Mass Curriculum Frameworks requirements?o What are some of the powerful ideas involved and how do they enhance
the learning experience?o What would be some of the challenges involved in carrying out your
curriculum?o How do you think the use of technology would enhance the students’
educational experience?
8/3/2019 Construction Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-ism 85/85
Diana DeLuca
Appendix G: Final Building Challenge
Final Building Challenge (100 points)
Due in class on March 31 st
The purpose of the Final Building Challenge is to illustrate what you have learned aboutdesign, building, and programming. Your project should be a challenge to you in termsof building and programming.
You will need to give a 5 minute presentation on your project on March 31 st which shouldinclude:
-how your project works-how your went through the design process-choice or compromises you made
-what you learned from building it-what you wish you had learned before hand
Ideas/Suggestions for Projects-A LEGO Sorter (by size or color – using a light sensor or camera)-A Titanic ROV-An automated dice thrower-An RCX piano-A Music box-A LEGO Alarm Clock-An alarm system that takes pictures of the burglar
You should talk to me about your project or e-mail ( [email protected] )your project description no later than 3/24 (I would recommend doing it before springbreak) and we will decide what the maximum number of points in each category yourproject is eligible for.
Building Difficulty (0-20 points)
Programming Difficulty (0-20 points)