In a small suburban private school a dozen middle school students are busy working with Legos and computers. This class is a Lego robotics elective, open to all middle school students. Most of them had only used Lego brick, and none of them had used worked with robotics. The students worked with the Lego Mindstorm system twice a week for about 8 weeks prior to these videos. The first four weeks the students followed the tutorials included with Mindstorms. For the next four weeks the students imagined a challenge for their robot, then built and programmed the robots to complete that challenge.
Here are videos of three student teams talking about the robots they are working on. The student in these videos are in the process of programming and testing. (Videos shown with parental permission.)
Hopefully it is clear that these students are enjoying their work with Lego robotics, and are pleased with what they've been able to accomplish in a short time. The class is project-based, with very little time devoted to lectures. Students are encouraged to teach and learn from each other. The class is open to all middle school students in the school, so the students in the class have a range of aptitudes for creating and programming robots. They have all succeeded in making good progress in their understanding of Lego Robotics. At the same time many of the kids have learned what kind of cooperation is needed to build a robot as a team.
The designers of the Mindstorms system believed that "design activities [such as Lego robotics] have the greatest educational value when students are given the freedom to create things that are meaningful to themselves (or others around them." (Resnick and Ocko, 1998)
While most kids older than about 10 can be taught to build Lego Robots, the younger student do have a steeper learning curve. It helps to have good small motor skills and a basic understanding of gears, axles, motors, and the forces that can act upon a small moving object. Often the student on a team with better hand-eye coordination will be in charge of making the robot, and the other team member will help with provide construction suggestions. The great thing about Legos is that even when a robot falls apart, it is very easy to rebuild. Over time, most students seem to intuitively grasp what is needed to make their robots go and not fall apart. There seems to be a basic understanding of the physics involved as well, and they certainly need to learn how to cooperate.
Programming the robot is a mix of higher-order and concrete thinking. The students need to learn how the robot's behavior in the real world relates to the symbols they see on the screen (when using the programming software). Part of the construction involves wiring motors and sensors to the RCX, and it's not unusual for students to become puzzled as to why their motors aren't running, or are running backwards after they are sure the program is right. Although the programming environment they use has limited capabilities, they are able to create fairly complex sets of instructions for the robots. This involves taking the activities they want the robot to perform and logically breaking them down into tasks the robot can 'understand' and execute.
Mindstorms provides the students with more than some construction and programming skills. They are engaged in, and in charge of what they are learning. The robot and programming environment provides very specific and immediate feedback, so right away the student know the results of their actions.
1. What are the potential applications for teaching and learning?
The immediate and obvious application for learning with Lego robotics in the areas of engineering and math - even for the youngest learners. Gears of different sizes combine to drive the robot at different speeds. Poorly constructed robots fall apart. While the programming required is very simplistic it still teaches the learners about computer logic. Robots are typically built by teams so the students gain experience in working with others. The construction of Lego robots almost requires a project-based learning environment, which is different from the typical classroom activities of most students.
According to Papert (1980), much of the learning that takes place in a Lego robotics class is transferable across all subject areas. He believes that computers can fundamentally change the way the children are taught, and therefore how they learn. Papert uses the example of speech acquisition; children do not learn to speak by taking a class, they learn it by being immersed in a world of speaking. He feels the most important thing we can teach children is how to acquire knowledge - to help them learn Math and English they way they learned to speak (Papert 1993). Lego robotics helps students make a connection between the knowledge they construct in their heads and the 'knowledge' they hold in their hands, in the form of a robot (Papert 1980). Papert believes that computers can become sandboxes where children learn through solving problems that are important to them, and because the knowledge they gain has meaning to them, they will retain, use and build on that knowledge.
2. What supports and obstacles exist with regard to the use of this innovation in teaching and learning?
The primary obstacle starting a Lego robotics class is probably the availability of resources. School systems typically have fewer teachers, space and money than they would like to implement the programs they feel are important. Swings in the size of the student population and the current emphasis on standardized testing puts further limitations on the ability of a school to offer an elective in Lego robotics. After overcoming those challenges, a school would need to find a willing teacher with appropriate skills and the money to pay for the teacher's time and the Lego Robotic Invention System kits. Each robot construction team should have access to a computer, which would also need to be purchased if none were available. Like many electives, there typically has to be a champion within the school who advocates for funding and running the course.
A further obstacle to the incorporation of Lego robotics into classrooms is the fundamental change that an instructor may need to make in the way they teach. Papert (1993) calls his recommended teaching method "constructionism", which is his enhancement to "constructivism". He describes constructivism as focusing on the need for learners to construct mental models of the knowledge they are acquiring before they can truly understand what they are learning. Papert's Constructionism holds that the creation of the model in the head can be facilitated by a model in the hand, and that connection can be abstracted and used for other types of learning that don't involve physical models. "Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do best by finding . . . for themselves the specific knowlege they need . . ." (Papert, 1980). Teachers used to a more traditional methodology may find it challenging to teach in ways that make the most of Lego robotics.
Teachers also need to think differently about how they use technology in their teaching. The Lego robotics system was designed so that instead of learning from technology, students with technology (Carbonaro et. al. 2004). Jonassen also advocates for the idea of using computers for problem solving, and approach he calls Mindtools (Jonassen 2006). Lego robotics is less about acquiring skills than exploring how learning and problem solving happens.
At the very least a Lego instructor will need to learn to give minimal instructions and lectures. They will have to believe that there are not 'right' and 'wrong' answers to solving problems with Lego robots, only different choices. They'll need to step back from their role as expert to allow students to first consult each other for solutions, only coming to the teacher when they've exhausted other resources. Further, once students develop a basic understanding of how build and program Lego robots, the teacher needs to encourage them to design their own experiments and challenges.
There are also many potential supports for Lego robotics. Two commercial concerns are very interested in promoting Lego usage in schools: The LEGO Group, manufacturer of the Robotics Invention Systems (RIS) (www.lego.com) and Pitsco, Inc. (www.pitsco.com) who sells the Lego products to educational markets. Many school have already, or are in the process of acquiring computers for student use. For a relatively small additional amount they can also purchase Lego RIS kits, providing another potential use (e.g., after school) for the investment in computers. Lego robotics has been available to schools for a number of years so there is a considerable body of research on their efficacy in the classroom (see the annotated bibliography/references ).
". . . students do not learn from technology, they learn from thinking" (Jonassen, 2006, xiii)
3. How might use of this technology alter/affect the student teacher relationship?
As described in #2 above, the teacher takes a more subordinate role in a Lego class than the traditional lecture-style instruction. The students have relatively more responsibility for directing their own activities and for their learning overall. The teacher becomes more of a coach and has less of a direct impact on the students activities and learning.
4. How might use of this technology impact the school or other learning institution as an organization?
If the techniques recommended by Papert in #2 above were to be adopted by an entire school then "schools as we know them today would have no place in the future" (1980). While that paradigm shift is unlikely, a vibrant, effective Lego robotics class could cause some educators to reconsider how they practice.
There is also potential to increase the disparity between technological "haves" and "have-nots". (See #7 below)
5. What ethical issues might be associated with this innovation?
Other than the potential for creating a divide between those who benefit from working with Lego robotics and those who don't (see #7) there are no ethical issues.
6. Could this technology narrow or widen the gap in inequity between students and/or society in general?
Students who successfully participate in a Lego robotics class will acquire new technical skills (robot building and programming) and may also have learned more about the way they acquire knowledge and solve problems.
7. What new skills and knowledge would teachers need to use this innovation? How can teachers best develop the skills to employ effectively these technology skills?
The skills needed are described in #2 above. There are many Lego teacher workshops run by Pittsco (www.pitsco.com) and the CEEO center at Tufts University (www.ceeo.tufts.edu)
8. Will this technology make the 20th century classroom irrelevant or obsolete?
See #4 and #2 above. While adoption of the learning theory behind Lego robotics could result in the obsolescence of the 20th century school, that degree of change is unlikely in the near future.
9. How will this technology change educational practice?
The changes implicit in the theories behind Lego robotics could cause educators to reconsider their models of how students learn and therefore should be taught. See #2 above.
10. What is the best way to provoke the introduction of this technology into the educational system?
See #2 above.
11. How can we assess the effectiveness of this technology for teaching and learning purposes?
Due to the project-based nature of Lego robotics, assessment is more challenging that traditional classroom subjects. Carbonaro et. al. (2004) suggest that rather than assessing performance at the end of a Lego construction project, it may be more effective to "examine the observable intermediary states children produce during their problem-solving process." They suggest that since it is difficult to capture these states in text or with still pictures, video recording should be used to capture the students' progress. The use of video provides a richer representation of the stages in the project. and provides students who find written reflections challenging an alternative method of communicating.
The robots produced are also a tangible work-product that can be assessed. The process of creating and animating the robot is often more valuable to the learner than the robot itself. Students felt that having to explain their creations, including what worked, didn't work, and why, was an extremely important part of the learning process (Carbonaro et. al. 2004).
Click here to go to a summary of a on line discussion which took place as a part of a graduate class on Emergent Technology.