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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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,



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.



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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





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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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


Screw An inclined plane thatcontinuously rapsaround itself in order tolower or raise things, orto hold things together

• Worm gear usedin gate challengeand Robotic duck


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



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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 .



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.



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

[email protected]

Diana [email protected]

781-367-3381

Laura Hacker [email protected]

781-874-1280

Supervising Professor:Marina Bers

[email protected]

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.



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%



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



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



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



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?



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



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



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?



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



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



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.


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



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),


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



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…)


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


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



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)


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….)


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



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),


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



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



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?



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)

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	minie-ieie
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Construction Ism

Documents