There was a neat little conference today, organized by LEGO’s Education division. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to include robotics in my math and science classes, but since I haven’t had the time to delve into it, I was wondering if the LEGO Robotics sets would be an easy way to get started. It turns out that they have a lot of lesson plans and curricula available that are geared for kids all the way from elementary to high school, so I’m seriously considering giving it a try.
Pedagogically, there are a lot of good reasons to integrate robotics into our classes, particularly as the cornerstone of a project-based-learning curriculum.
- The act of building robots increases engagement in learning. Just like assembling Ikea furniture makes people like it better, when students build something the accomplishment means more to them.
- Working on projects builds grit, because no good project can succeed without some obstacles that need to be overcome. Success comes through perseverance. Good projects build character.
- The process of building robots provides a sequence of potential “figure it out” moments because of the all steps that go into it, especially when students get ambitious about their projects. And students learn a whole lot more when they discover things on their own.
- Projects don’t instill the same stress to perform as do tests. Students learn that learning is a process where you use your strengths and supplement your weaknesses to achieve a goal. They learn that their worth is more than the value of an exam.
- Projects promote creativity, not kill it like a lot of traditional education.
In terms of the curriculum, Physics and Math applications are the most obvious: think about combining electronics and simple machines, and moving robots around the room for geometry. A number of the presenters, Matthew Collier and Don Mugan for example, advocate for using it across the curriculum. Mugan calls it transdisciplinary education, where the engineering project is central to all the subjects (in English class students do research and write reports about their projects).
I’ve always favored this type of learning (Somewhat in the Air is a great example), but one has to watch out to make sure that you’re covering all the required topics for a particular subject. Going into one thing in depth usually means you have to sacrifice, for the moment at least, some width. The more you can get free of the strictures of traditional schooling the better, because then you don’t have to make sure you hit all the topics on the physics curriculum in the seemingly short year that you officially teach physics.
The key rules about implementation that I gleaned from presentations and conversations with teachers who use the LEGO robotics are that:
- Journaling is essential. Students are going to learn a lot more if they have to plan out what they want to do, and how to do it, in a journal instead of just using trial-and-error playing with the robots.
- Promote peer-teaching. I advocate peer teaching every chance I get; teaching is the best way to learn something yourself.
- 2 kids per kit. I heard this over and over again. There are ways of making larger groups work, but none are ideal.
A Plan of Action
So I’m going to try to start with the MINDSTORM educational kit, but this requires getting the standard programming software separately. One alternative would be to go with the retail kit, which is the same price and has the software (although I don’t know if anything else is missing).
I think, however, I’ll try to get the more advanced LabVIEW software that seems to be used usually for the high school projects that use the more sophisticated TETRIX parts but the same microcontroller brick as the MINDSTORM sets. LabVIEW might be a little trickier to learn, but it’s based on the program used by engineers on the job. Middle and high students should be able to handle it. But we’ll see.
Since LabVIEW is more powerful, it should ease the transition when I do upgrade to the TETRIX robots.
The one potential problem that came up, that actually affects both software packages, is that they work great for linear learners, but students with a more random access memory will likely have a harder time.
At any rate, not I have to find a MINDSTORM set to play with. Since I’m cheap I’ll start by asking around the school. Rumor has it that there was once a robotics club, so maybe someone has a set sitting around that I can burrow. We’ll see.
Thanks for the compliment. Just an observation: I’ve found that about 2/3 of Montessori kids aren’t enamored by the Mindstorm kit. They don’t understand exactly what they are doing but the programing is too simplistic for them. They intuit that programing should be more complicated. I’ve been frustrated when I’ve tried to implement it in the classroom. I’ve had much more success when pairing the kids with college robotics groups. They learned metal fabrication, electrical wiring, coding, etc. It seemed to have a broader appeal. All that said. I never tried the high school level Lego materials.
Just an observation: I’ve found that about 2/3 of Montessori kids aren’t enamored by the Mindstorm kit. They don’t understand exactly what they are doing but the programing is too simplistic for them. They intuit that programing should be more complicated. I’ve been frustrated when I’ve tried to implement it in the classroom. I’ve had much more success when pairing the kids with college robotics groups.
Interesting point. I know I’ve not been too enamored by the Mindstorm’s visual interface, but I thought that might be largely because I’m a bit set in my ways when it comes to programming. The LabVIEW software is supposed to be more explicit — you have to make all the connections yourself — but I have not tried it myself.
Similarly, I like the high school, TETRIX materials more because they’re so much more flexible, and you can do so much more, but the basic kit is more than twice as much.
Thanks for the comment.
Wow that would be quite an investment. Let me know if you don’t find the Mindstorm one. We have one set we bought for the boys. They turned their noses up at it.