Myint Swe Khine Editor

Robotics in STEM
Education
Redesigning the Learning Experience
Robotics in STEM Education
Myint Swe Khine
Editor

Robotics in STEM Education

Redesigning the Learning Experience

123
Editor
Myint Swe Khine
Emirates College for Advanced Education
Abu Dhabi
United Arab Emirates

and

Curtin University
Bentley
Australia

ISBN 978-3-319-57785-2 ISBN 978-3-319-57786-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017940226

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Part I Robotics Curriculum and Schools

1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Amy Eguchi
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum
in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Christina Chalmers and Rod Nason
3 Combatting the War Against Machines: An Innovative
Hands-on Approach to Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Jacqui Chetty
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Raymond K. Sheh, Amy Eguchi, Haldun Komsuoglu
and Adam Jacoff

Part II Robotics and STEM Education

5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti and Newton Spolaôr
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for
STEM+C Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
ChanJin Chung, Christopher Cartwright and Joe DeRose
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation
Workforce Needs in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Aleksandr Sergeyev
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Francis Tuluri

v
vi Contents

Part III Robotics, Creativity and STEAM Education

9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity:
Design and Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Florence R. Sullivan
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots: Integrating
Robotics and the Arts to Teach Foundational STEAM
Concepts to Young Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Amanda Sullivan, Amanda Strawhacker and Marina Umaschi Bers
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
 Part I
Robotics Curriculum and Schools
Chapter 1
Bringing Robotics in Classrooms

Amy Eguchi

Abstract Learning with educational robotics provides students, who usually are
the consumers of technology, with opportunities to stop, question, and think deeply
about technology. When designing, constructing, programming, and documenting
the development of autonomous robots or robotics projects, students not only learn
how technology works, but they also apply the skills and content knowledge
learned in school in a meaningful and exciting way. Educational robotics is rich
with opportunities to integrate not only STEM but also many other disciplines,
including literacy, social studies, dance, music, and art, while giving students the
opportunity to find ways to work together to foster collaboration skills, express
themselves using the technological tool, problem-solve, and think critically and
innovatively. Educational robotics is a learning tool that enhances students’
learning experience through hands-on mind-on learning. Most importantly, edu-
cational robotics provides a fun and exciting learning environment because of its
hands-on nature and the integration of technology. The engaging learning envi-
ronment motivates students to learn whatever skills and knowledge needed for them
to accomplish their goals in order to complete the projects of their interest. For
school-age children, most robotics activities have mainly been part of informal
education, such as after school programs and summer camps (Benitti in Computers
& Education, 58:978–988, 2012; Eguchi 2007b; Sklar and Eguchi in Proceedings
of RoboCup-2004: Robot Soccer World Cup VIII, 2004), even though it has the
potential to make learning more effective in formal education. It is very difficult for
teachers to include robotics in regular curriculum because of the heavy focus on
standardized testing and pressure to cover academic standards set by the govern-
ment and/or their States. This chapter aims to promote robotics in classroom by
connecting robotics learning with various STEM curriculum standards.

Keywords Educational robotics Constructionism Maker movement in education



Technological literacy Innovation literacy

A. Eguchi (&)
Bloomfield College, Bloomfield, NJ, USA
e-mail: amy_eguchi@bloomfield.edu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 3

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_1
4 A. Eguchi

1.1 Introduction—Need for Change in Education

The speed of change in our society has been accelerating since the birth of the
Internet. New technological tools are being introduced into our daily life more
rapidly than ever before. Roughly twenty years ago, the cellular phone entered our
lives just as the Internet started to connect personal computers. Now, the intro-
duction of new iProducts and/or new smartphone products, such as Galaxy, occurs
almost every six months. Creative project crowd-funding platforms, connected
through the Internet, such as Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com), Indiegogo
(https://www.indiegogo.com/), and Quirky (https://www.quirky.com), are also
contributing to the accelerated birth of innovative and creative technological tools
by providing essential funding directly from potential and/or interested consumers.
Among these various technological advancements, the speed of the changes that
robotics technology has created has been drastically increasing in recent years.
News headlines from major news sources, including the New York Times, CNN,
Wall Street Journal, and BBC, frequently featuring various robotic innovations, are
a strong indication of such phenomenon. On March 10, 2004, the US Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the first DARPA Grand
Challenge held in a California desert, which was introduced as “a first-of-its-kind
race to foster the development of self-driving ground vehicles”
([email protected] 2014). Its goal was to develop cars autonomously
navigated a 142-mile course. The first DARPA Grand Challenge was followed by
the second Grand Challenge in 2005, and the Urban Challenge in 2007, where
autonomous cars navigated a complex course in a staged city environment. About a
decade later, in 2014, Tesla, an American automaker, has already rolled out their
first semiautonomous driving system, AutoPilot, in the market. In 2016, Tesla
introduced all of their cars to be built with the necessary hardware for full self-
driving capability.
On June 5, 2014, Softbank Mobile, a Japanese company, in collaboration with
Aldebaran Robotics, a French company, unveiled Pepper, the world’s first personal
humanoid robot in Japan. Costing less than US$2000, Pepper is able to assist
humans by reading and responding to human emotions (SoftBank Mobile Corp. and
Aldebaran Robotics SAS 2014). Prior to Pepper, NAO, an autonomous and pro-
grammable humanoid robot developed by Aldebaran Robotics, has been used in
various educational settings including RoboCup Soccer league for the development
of algorithms for humanoid soccer since 2007, and for the research of children with
Autism. Pepper has been developed to be “social companion for humans”
(Middlehurst 2015, para. 5). The latest model is reported to have the ability to learn
responses from a specific human using cloud technology-based AI (Tanabe 2015).
Governmental agencies from around the world have also invested in the
development of robotics technologies. The DARPA funded the DARPA Robotics
Challenge (DRC), which held between December 2013 to June 2015, ended with
the DRC Finals. The DRC was “a competition of robot systems and software teams
vying to develop robots capable of assisting humans in responding to natural and
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 5

man-made disasters” (DARPA, n.a., para. 1). Its aim was to accelerate advanced
research and development in robotics hardware and software that will enable future
robots, in collaboration with humans, to perform the most hazardous activities in
disaster zones, thus reducing casualties and saving lives. In February 2015,
Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has released its New Robot
Strategy which outlines a plan to host the World Robot Summit in 2020, in the year
when Tokyo Olympic is held (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, n.a.). This
is part of the Japanese Economic Revitalization plan. In February 2016, the
Executive Committee and the Advisory Board were formed to start the discussion
and the planning for the World Robot Summit. The New Robot Strategy explains
the goal of the World Robot Summit as a way to accelerate the research and
development of robots and their introduction and diffusion into Japanese society. It
aims to solve real issues in various areas, such as medical and health care,
infrastructure inspection, agriculture, forestry and fisheries industry, manufacturing
industry, service industry, and entertainment industry, use robotics technology as
part of the competition, and demonstrate to society how robots can positively
contribute to society. Furthermore, it aims to promote robots among people by
introducing them through various games, and promoting various ways of living life
with robots. The New Robot Strategy views the World Robot Summit as a driving
force of the robot revolution, in which the infusion of robots will change the way
people live every day.
The world and its economy are changing at such a rapid pace that it is impossible
to predict what the economy will look like even at the end of next week (Robinson
2010). Despite all the drastic changes taking place in the world, public education
has maintained almost the same system since its establishment in the middle of the
nineteenth century (Robinson 2010). Although the requirements for an effective
workforce have changed at the same speed as technological advancements, the
majority of schools are continuing what was done in the past with little hope that
they can adequately prepare students for the future (Robinson 2010). Some even
state that if we could have teachers from the nineteenth-century time travel to our
schools, they would have no problem teaching our students (Blikstien 2013).
Because current public education places a heavy emphasis on memorization, our
schools and curriculum are astonishingly similar to those in the nineteenth century
(Blikstien 2013).
Long before the disconnect between the societal needs and what schooling
provides students became an issue, Paulo Freire introduced his new view of edu-
cation, leading to the development of the critical pedagogy approach. In his book,
“Pedagogy of Oppressed,” Freire points out that educational practice expects
teachers to be narrators of facts and required students “to memorize mechanically
the narrated content” (Freire 1994). In his view, students are turned into containers
to be filled by the teacher. When using this banking approach to education (Freire
1994), students are required to receive, memorize, and repeat knowledge and/or
facts that are provided by their teachers. Freire argues, “[t]he teacher talks about
6 A. Eguchi

reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else

he expounds on a topic completely alien to the existential experience of the stu-
dents” (Freire 1994, p. 52). Freire warns:
…it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transfor-
mation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. For apart from inquiry apart
from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through
invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry,
human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other. (p. 53)

As society and economy changes, especially when changes in industries and

workforce happen, “a new set of skills and intellectual activities become crucial for
work, conviviality, and citizenship—often democratizing tasks and skills previ-
ously only accessible to experts” (Blikstien 2013, p. 1). Since, in previous era, the
speed of the change was rather slower, the need for a new set of skills and intel-
lectual activities did not happen as quick as it is now, maybe in every few centuries
or so. This made it possible for public school system to successfully provide what
society required. However, the recent acceleration of the change in society is
forcefully requiring a new set of skills, intellectual activities, and ways of thinking
to successful citizen while schooling has not made the transition to meet the needs.
In current society, more and more creativity and innovation are required.
Yamakami (2012) emphasizes that recent technological advancement accelerated
the speed of current innovation, drastically faster than in the past, and “as the speed
of innovation has changed, the quantitative changes in speed have brought about
qualitative changes in innovation” (p. 557). There is an urgent need for a radical
and effective educational reform to keep up with societal changes. However, with
the extensive focus on assessments through State mandate standardized testing, a
concern is raised that more and more teachers are forced to teach to the test with
more focus on memorization of facts. Even in the mid-1990s, similar concern as
Freire was raised again (Grabinger and Dunlap 1995; Grabinger et al. 1997).
Grabinger, Dunlap, and Duffield emphasized the importance of learning to think
critically, to analyze and synthesize information in order to solve interdisciplinary
problems, and to work collaboratively and productively with others in groups are
important skills for participating effectively in society, and simply knowing some
facts in a single domain and/or how to use tools are not enough for individuals to
stay effective and competitive in increasingly complex society (Grabinger et al.
1997). Grabinger and Dunlap observed teachers in conventional classrooms and
concluded that they used examples and problems that were simplified and decon-
textualized, leading to inadequate understanding of the acquired knowledge and an
inability to effectively apply the knowledge to real situations. Students are often
presented knowledge in conjunction with problems and examples that are not rel-
evant to them and their needs and have no connection to their real life. The
problems that students are asked to solve make them wonder, “Why do I need to
know this?” (Grabinger and Dunlap 1995, p. 7). Because their learning is decon-
textualized and they cannot make connection between their learning and their life,
student learning becomes an exercise of memorization of the facts transferred from
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 7

their teachers. Moreover, they are not taught to acquire skills essential for effective
thinking and reasoning (Grabinger and Dunlap 1995).
The US Government also highlights the need for fostering the contextualized
knowledge and skills necessary to solve complex problems that we face every day
among our youth (U.S. Department of Education 2015).
In a world that’s becoming increasingly complex, where success is driven not
only by what you know, but also by what you can do with what you know, it is more
important than ever for our youth to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to
solve tough problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and make sense of information.
These are the types of skills that students learn by studying science, technology,
engineering, and math—subjects collectively known as STEM (para. 2).
The government has raised the issue of the need for change in how we approach
teaching as well, with a special focus recommended to be placed on STEM edu-
cation. In 2011, President Obama stated:
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can
predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come
from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to
an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone else – is
spark the creativity and imagination of our people. (The White House 2011, para. 1)

The need for a STEM educated workforce is highlighted in the report titled
“Strategy for American Innovation (SAI)—Securing Our Economic Growth and
Prosperity” and “Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education: 5 Year Strategic Plan.” Moreover, it is recognized that the need
for STEM knowledge and skills will continue to grow in the future (Tanenbaum
2016). The reports emphasize that it is essential that the country focuses on STEM
education, with the aim to improve K-12 education, enhance US students’
engagement in STEM disciplines, and graduate every student from high school
ready for college and career, by inspiring and preparing more students, including
girls and underrepresented groups, to excel in STEM field (National Economic
Council, Council of Economic Advisers and Office of Science and Technology
Policy 2011). The future economy and core employments will be driven primarily
by innovation largely derived from advances in science and engineering
(Committee on Highly Successful Schools for Programs for K-12 STEM Education
Board on Science and Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
2011). However, the evidence shows that current education does not prepare a
sufficiently large enough and well-equipped STEM workforce. For example, access
to the full range of math and science courses that students need in order to pursue
careers in STEM fields, such as Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology,
chemistry, and physics, is very limited in public schools. Although it is reported
that more Asian-Americans and white students are likely to pursue STEM than
other students of color, only 81% of Asian-American and 71% of white high school
students attend high schools with a full range of math and science courses (U.S.
Department of Education 2015). Furthermore, STEM literacy is necessary not only
for those who pursue career in STEM fields but also for the general public.
8 A. Eguchi

Our current education system does not cultivate a culture of STEM, nor does it
foster the development of a STEM literate public (U.S. Department of Education
2015). All students, no matter their race, zip code, or socioeconomic status, should
be provided with the opportunity to be college-ready with STEM fluency. “STEM
2026” report also emphasizes the inequities in access, participation, and success in
STEM subjects (U.S. Department of Education and Office of Innovation and
Improvement 2016). They report the existence of persistent inequities between
races, genders, socioeconomic groups, and among students with disabilities,
thereby keeping the educational and poverty gaps wide and preventing us from
fulfilling the needs of our technologically driven society. It is stated that effective
STEM education accessible to and inclusive of all students is increasingly impor-
tant so that our youth are equipped with “a new set of core knowledge and skills to
solve difficult problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and make sense of infor-
mation they receive from varied print and, increasingly, digital media” and prepared
to become “a workforce where success results not just from what one knows, but
what one is able to do with that knowledge” (U.S. Department of Education and
Office of Innovation and Improvement 2016, p. i).
Similar issues exist in other countries. For example, the European Commission
identified the STEM skill gap in participating countries (Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and The European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2011; Directorate-General
for Research and Innovation 2015; Innovation Union 2015). It was pointed out that
there are very few female students interested in science and pursue advanced level
courses, even though innovation is required in both STEM and non-STEM related
fields as well as in various aspects of our life (Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2011). It was reported that
one-third of the member countries had implemented awareness programs aiming to
attract female students to STEM fields and research (Directorate-General for
Research and Innovation 2015).
The skills to innovate cannot be cultivated through current educational practice
focusing heavily on the memorization of knowledge without providing opportu-
nities for students to transfer them into practice. There are urgent calls for inno-
vative educational approaches worldwide that can foster skills for innovators
including critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, inventiveness, collaboration
and teamwork, and communication skills through transdisciplinary, learner-cen-
tered, collaborative, and project-based learning. This chapter explains how educa-
tional robotics as a learning tool can create an effective learning environment to
foster the learning of STEM and skills for innovators. In addition, it aims to make
learning with robotics more accessible to students in every classroom by providing
resources and making connection between learning with robotics and different
learning standards.
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 9

1.2 Robotics in Education

Educational robotics or robotics in education is the phrase widely used to describe

the use of robotics as a learning tool in the classroom. Popular interest in robotics
has increased at astonishing rate not only in general society but even more so in the
educational community in last several years (Benitti 2012). At the same time,
robotics technology, once accessible only to experts and robotics scientists, has
been more and more accessible for teachers and students of any age (Cruz-Martin
et al. 2012; Mataric 2004), accelerated by the development of robotics components
and tools suitable for school-age children (Eguchi and Almeida 2013). Large
offerings of robotics materials prompted their rapid dissemination across all K-12
grades, mainly in robotics extracurricular activities (Benitti 2012; Eguchi 2007b;
Sklar and Eguchi 2004). Even much younger students than in previous years now
participate in educational robotics activities. Pre-K to kindergarten students now use
robotics tools, such as KIBO by KinderLab Robotics (http://kinderlabrobotics.com),
Dash and Dot by Wonder Workshop (https://www.makewonder.com), and BeeBot
by Terrapin Software (https://www.bee-bot.us).
One of the most accessible robotics kits suitable for elementary to middle school
students, LEGO Mindstorms (http://www.mindstorms.lego.com/), has been in the
market for almost two decades. LEGO Mindstorms EV3, which came out in the
summer of 2012, has more sophisticated controller and sensors than its precedent,
NXT, and costs about $400. Many third-party sensors students can add on to the
Mindstorms controllers, making the kit more robust and attractive to users.
A German-based company, Fischertechnik (http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/),
manufactures the ROBO set with similar features to the LEGO Mindstorms kit.
Robotis (http://www.en.robotis.com), a Korean-based robotic company that pro-
duces DARwIn-OP, a humanoid robot, also makes educational robotics kits for
school-age children. Their OLLO is for younger students (elementary school), and
BIOLOID is for older students (upper elementary, middle school to high school).
Daisen (http://daisen-netstore.com), a Japanese electronics company, has several
robotic kits including the e-Gadget series that can be expanded with more robust
sensors and motors.
The cost of the robotics kits has been one of the factors in the past that prevented the
implementation of robotics in classroom. However, the price of robotics components
has become more affordable in recent years. Arduino (https://www.arduino.cc) and
Raspberry Pi (https://www.raspberrypi.org) are easy to use controller boards/micro-
computers for middle to high school students. Arduino UNO Rev 3, one of Arduino
series, costs $25. Raspberry Pi Foundation introduced Raspberry Pi ZERO at the end
of 2015 for $5. Its latest version, Raspberry Pi 3, is $35. The rapid development of
affordable controller boards and microcomputers is making handmade robotics/
robotics maker activities more accessible for school-aged children (Fig. 1.1). These
are just a few examples out of a very long list of robotics kits and components that are
available for educators and students.
10 A. Eguchi

Fig. 1.1 Humanoid

performance robot created
with various controllers,
motors, and sensors
(© The RoboCup Federation.
Used with permission)

1.2.1 Foundation of Robotics in Education

Educational robotics has its roots in constructionism theory. The theory of con-
structionism became reality through Logo, a computer programming language for
children, which in turn became the foundation for the development of the
Programmable Brick for the LEGO Mindstorms (Martin et al. 2000).
Constructionism theory was developed by Saymour Papert, a student of Jean Piaget.
Papert built on to Piaget’s constructivist theory to develop his constructionist theory.
Constructivism theory highlights that:
Knowledge is not a commodity to be transmitted. Nor is it information to be delivered from
one end, encoded, stored and reapplied at the other end. Instead, knowledge is experience,
in the sense that it is actively constructed and reconstructed through direct interaction with
the environment. (Ackermann 1996, p. 27)

Children continuously construct new knowledge through their active interaction

with the world while they try to make sense of it. A simple or direct instruction of
facts or knowledge does not stick with children since knowledge is not constructed
by them. It is suggested that children’s knowledge construction needs to be sup-
ported by the manipulation of artifacts—object to think with. Piaget explains
that learning involves constructing new knowledge out of prior knowledge
by manipulating artifacts and observing their behavior (Piaget 1929, 1954).
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 11

To enhance children’s learning, it is crucial to provide them opportunities where

they can “engage in hands-on explorations that fuel the constructive process”
(Ackermann 2001, pp. 1–2). In addition, since children construct knowledge
through their interactions with the world—their own experience contributes to their
understanding of the world—they develop a good reason to hold onto their views
and understanding. Piaget points out that children rarely let go of their view of the
world even when adults tell them that their view is wrong. Instead of providing the
right knowledge, we should encourage them to continue to explore, express, and
exchange their views (Ackermann 2004). What educational robotics can provide is
the electronic manipulative or tool to explore, think, and interact with for children.
While the focus of constructivism is epistemology—theory of knowledge—
constructionism focuses on learning. Papert explains:
Constructionism – the N word as opposed to the V word – shares constructivism’s con-
notation of learning as “building knowledge structures” irrespective of the circumstances of
the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where
the leaner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle
on the beach or a theory of the universe. (Papert and Harel 1991)

The focus of constructivism is on the construction of knowledge in one’s head.

Whereas, constructionism focuses more on “the role of constructions in the world as
a support for those in the head” (Bers 2008, p. 13), which is supported by physical
or concrete construction in the real world. It is also highlighted that what differ-
entiate constructionist learning from constructivism learning is its focus on
“learning by constructing knowledge through the act of making something share-
able” (Martinez and Stager 2013, p. 21). With constructionist learning, the object to
think with is built or made, and what is physically constructed can be publicly
shared—shown, discussed, examined, and admired by children. Children continu-
ing this process of knowledge construction with physical artifacts will provide more
learning experience that will be built upon, revising or reconstructing previously
constructed knowledge (Papert 1993). Papert believes that the externalization of
one’s inner feelings and ideas contributes to the knowledge construction
(Ackermann 2004). By expressing and sharing ideas in some tangible form, chil-
dren shape and sharpen their ideas further. What educational robotics provides is a
manipulative that a child can, not only think with, but also make her abstract idea
and understanding of her world in her head real.
Educational robotics is a learning tool that allows or rather encourages children’s
exploration of their ideas using a technically and computationally enhanced tan-
gible object. Papert emphasizes the importance of children’s construction of
knowledge through a tangible object by exploring their ideas. Eleanor Duckworth,
another student of Piaget, echoes Papert’s constructionist theory with her pedagogy
of critical exploration. The critical exploration encourages children to actively and
reflectively engage in a subject with their wonderful ideas which they developed
through inquiry, and explore their ideas further through encountering complex
materials and/or confusions, and trying out multiple possibilities, leading to the
construction of new knowledge (Cavicchi et al. 2009). It denies direct teaching by
12 A. Eguchi

adults or experts. Instead of providing answers or even implying that there is a

correct answer, it emphasizes that teachers facilitate the personal process of
learning. Duckworth states that the having of wonderful ideas is the essence of
intellectual development (Duckworth 2006). Critical exploration considers learners
as explores, like the ones in history, to face the areas of unknown, take risks,
experience unexpected discoveries, through their journey of learning (Cavicchi
et al. 2009). In addition, it considers a teacher as an explorer whose focus is on
understanding of the individual child’s experience of the exploration of his won-
derful ideas and the process of the knowledge construction. Duckworth explains
Piaget’s basic idea of assimilation as a process:
that a person takes any experience into her own previous understanding (schemes, struc-
tures); that we cannot assume that an experience whose meaning seems clear to us will have
the same meaning to someone else. (Duckworth 2006, p. 158)

She emphasizes that a teacher must be determined to understand the meaning

that any particular experience holds for her students (Duckworth 2005). Critical
exploration suggests that children should be encouraged to think about, reflect on,
and share their experience, while teachers should try to understand their thinking
and understanding of the experience. Duckworth points out that critical exploration
happens in two ways—“exploration of the subject matter by the child (the subject or
the learner) and exploration of the child’s thinking by adult (the researcher or the
teacher)” (Duckworth 2005, p. 259).
Robots naturally spark children’s interests and curiosity. As a learning tool,
educational robotics excites children to explore their ideas through their inquiries
and try out their hypotheses. It provides children with multiple ways to explore their
wonderful ideas, find new discoveries, and build their knowledge through real-
world experiences while using a technologically and computationally enhanced
tool. The instantaneous feedback it provides, when children’s ideas are tested on a
robotic tool, can challenge and inspire them to explore their ideas further. In the
following section, we will examine educational robotics and its role in the context
of maker movement in education.

1.2.2 Educational Robotics in the Context of Maker

Movement in Education

Making has been part of our culture since the beginning of human existence. Mark
Hatch, the CEO of TechShop, explains:
Making is fundamental to what it means to be human. We must make, create, and express
ourselves to feel whole. There is something unique about making physical things. Things we
make are like little pieces of us and seem to embody portions of our soul. (Hatch 2014, p. 11)
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 13

He argues that there is something about physical making that provides us with
more personal fulfillment than virtual making. It is “its tangibility; you can touch it
and sometimes smell and taste it” that give us satisfaction (p. 12).
The maker movement has gained increasing attention not only from the media
and public, but also from the US Government. President Obama declared the first-
ever White House Maker Faire to be hosted in June 2014, annually thereafter in
June during the National Week of Making, and launched the Nation of Makers
initiative (Kalil and Miller 2014). President Obama stated in 2015:
Makers and builders and doers—of all ages and backgrounds—have pushed our country
forward, developing creative solutions to important challenges and proving that ordinary
Americans are capable of achieving the extraordinary when they have access to the
resources they need. During National Week of Making, we celebrate the tinkerers and
dreamers whose talent and drive have brought new ideas to life, and we recommit to
cultivating the next generation of problem solvers. (Kalil and Miller 2014, para. 3)

Original Maker Faire was launched in Bay Area in 2005. Now, there are two
flagship events—Maker Faire Bay Area and World Maker Faire New York—in
addition to the National Maker Faire and mini Maker Faires organized nationally
and worldwide. The maker movement has been created organically by makers,
builders, and doers from around the world. The maker movement is becoming a
driving force, in combination with creative makers and innovative technologies,
including lower priced and accessible microcontrollers and personal 3D printers, to
accelerate the innovation in manufacturing, engineering, industrial design, medi-
cine, hardware and software technologies, and education (Maker Faire, n.a.).
Although making refers to any form of physical making or building, the making in
the maker movement refers to the ones enhanced with digital and technological
tools, including robotics.
In Maker Movement Manifesto, Hatch explains that there are nine ideas that
characterize the maker movement: make, share, give, learn, tool up (make tools of
making including the digital and technological tools accessible), play, participate,
support, and change (Hatch 2014). Maker movement is also considered to have its
foundation in constructionism (Martinez and Stager 2013) since it provides
opportunities for learning by making. Through making activities, people problem-
solve and construct new knowledge.
Incorporating the maker movement into education has the potential to transform
current teaching practices. Bringing maker movement discussions to education will
provide us with a venue for rethinking the definition of learner, a learner and a
learning environment (Halverson and Sheridan 2014), and how to help our students
learn. Making activities can potentially provide a series of activities that can help
improve children’s construction and reconstruction of knowledge, and empower
them to actively engage in their learning. Moreover, it has a potential to change our
STEM learning through the process of technologically and digitally enhanced
making. Making can be organized with a set of activities designed with a various set
of learning goals, enabling teachers to provide a transdisciplinary approach of
learning. Since it is rooted in constructionism, maker activities focusing on the
14 A. Eguchi

learning process engage the intersection of STEM learning, involving computer

science, design, art, and engineering (Halverson and Sheridan 2014). Moreover,
digital making can provide students with opportunities to make real powerful and
wonderful ideas and use expressive tools (Blikstien 2013). Similar to robotics
technologies, digital fabrication technology has become more and more accessible
in recent years, which made it possible for the maker movement to enter class-
rooms, which in turn has made “the intellectual activities enabled by the new
technology become more valued and important in classroom” (Blikstien 2013, p. 2).
Robotics in education is a pioneer of the maker movement in education since it
has been in practice long before the maker movement emerged. Educational
robotics has enhanced existing learning activities with a powerful technologically
empowered medium (Blikstien 2013). The programmable brick or controller,
connected with motors and various sensors, adds “computational behaviors to
familiar materials—craft, LEGOs, wheels” (pp. 6–7). It provides children a new
way of expressing their wonderful and powerful ideas with physical artifacts with
technologically fueled everyday materials. Through the process and experience
children have working with technologically enhanced artifacts, children construct
and reconstruct their knowledge. The emergency of digital fabrication tools
accessible to non-experts including children has powered up the capacity and
quality of work that children can engage in. The digital fabrication has added
another form of expression and realization of children’s wonderful and powerful
ideas to educational robotics (Figs. 1.2 and 1.3).
Advocates of the maker movement in education strongly suggest that it is
important to make the maker learning opportunities accessible to all students,
including females and underprivileged (Blikstien 2013; Halverson and Sheridan
2014; Martinez and Stager 2013) because it has a potential to attract students who
are traditionally disengaged from technologically enhanced making activities.
Lessons in educational robotics tend to start with building a robotics car. This is a
great way of learning programming with motors and sensors. However, not
everyone is attracted and/or interested in building a car (Rusk et al. 2008). This
approach tends to attract tech-savvy boys. But girls may feel intimidated or shy

Fig. 1.2 Robotics creation

(© The RoboCup Federation.
Used with permission)
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 15

Fig. 1.3 Soccer robots

and performance robots
(© The RoboCup Federation.
Used with permission)

away from robotics activities just because it is a car-based robotics. Technologically

enhanced maker activities that use everyday materials such as craft materials,
fabrics, and various construction materials can lower the bar for those who think
robotics is only for tech-savvy boys to jump in.
To make technologically enhanced maker education accessible to all learners, it
is important to make sure that the materials and tools are accessible to all children.
Recent development of cutting-edge technological tools, both software and hard-
ware, has provided opportunities for children to engage in various technologically
enhanced making activities such as “advanced scientific exploration, create inter-
active textiles, build simulations and games, program videogames, design virtual
robotics system, create sophisticated 3D worlds and games though programming,
build new types of cybernetics creatures, explore environmental science and geo-
graphical information systems,” (Blikstien 2013, p. 5) and build robotics inven-
tions. Although such developments have contributed to the popularity of maker
movement and digital fabrication, there still is a divide in the population of potential
users between the haves and have-nots. It is crucial to bring maker education into
all classrooms so that everyone has a chance to learn from maker activities.
Halverson and Sheridan point out that the maker movement reaches out to both
formal and informal education and can potentially bring equity in education
(Halverson and Sheridan 2014). We need to democratize the making in education
for all. Halverson and Sheridan (Halverson and Sheridan 2014) emphasize:
the great promise of the maker movement in education is to democratize access to the
discourses of power that accompany becoming a producer of artifacts, especially when
those artifacts use twenty-first-century technologies. (p. 500)

Technologically enhanced making in education can provide students with

powerful tool for empowerment by enabling them with skills and knowledge
important for their future as well as for making changes in society. To successfully
bring maker education, especially educational robotics, into formal educational
settings, teachers and educators interested need to be informed what students are
learning through maker activities and what works. Because of this reason, it is
16 A. Eguchi

important to identify the student learning outcomes through robotics making

activities and how to make it work in formal classrooms. In the following section,
various skills and learning outcomes that making with robotics can bring to
classroom will be discussed.

1.3 Learning with Educational Robotics—Skills

and Student Learning

Educational robotics is an effective tool for facilitating students’ STEM learning.

Studies show that learning with robots provides opportunities for students to obtain
both content knowledge in physics, biology, geography, mathematics, science,
electronics, and mechanical engineering, and acquiring critical academic skills,
such as writing, reading, research, creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, deci-
sion-making, problem-solving, and communication skills, and design and compu-
tational thinking skills (Dimitris et al. 2009; Atmatzidou and Demetriadis 2012;
Benitti 2012; Carbonaro et al. 2004; Eguchi 2014, 2016; Elkind 2008; Kolberg and
Orlev 2001; Miller et al. 2008; Nourbakhsh et al. 2004; Oppliger 2002; Sklar and
Eguchi 2004; Sklar et al. 2002, 2003).
Making with robotics is effective because it creates a fun and engaging hands-on
learning environment for students. Unlike a traditional classroom setting where
students listen to teacher’s instruction in a more disciplined and structured way,
making with robotics necessitates that students engage in manipulating, assembling,
and reassembling materials while going through the design learning process and
problem-solving program errors through trial and error. The learning approaches
that enhance learning through making with robotics are project-based, problem-
based, learning by design, student-centered, and constructionist learning approaches
where the focus is on the process of learning, rather than the final product.
When working on making with robotics activities, it is highly recommended that
students work in small groups (Eguchi 2012, 2015; Eguchi and Uribe 2012). By
working in groups, students obtain skills needed for effective collaboration. The
students are excited and motivated to share their ideas, engage in collaborative
decision-making, provide constructive criticism, and acquire communication skills
(Eguchi 2007a, c; Miller et al. 2008). Group work provides students the opportunity
to explore and solve real-world problems with their peers. Working on a team-based
and project-based robotics project helps students with low esteem to improve their
technology capacity, teamwork skills, and communication skills (Miller et al.
2008).
Moreover, students working in groups on robotics making projects learn subject
knowledge and the skills necessary for them to successfully complete a project
while exploring real-world problems and challenges. As students tackle real-world
problems, develop solutions, and demonstrate their learning by physically testing
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 17

their solutions with their robotics creation, they are actively engaged in a kind of
learning that results in deeper subject knowledge acquisition (Edutopia, n.a.).
Making with robotics makes possible a transdisciplinary learning environment
where students can come across various concepts in STEM and other disciplines in
a contextualizing fashion. With contextualized learning while making robotics,
abstract concepts, such as friction and momentum, become visible and concrete for
students to grasp as they try out their ideas with their robotics invention (Blikstien
2013) (Fig. 1.4).
There are new literacies, including mathematics, engineering, science (Blikstien
2013) as well as technological and innovation literacies, considered to be crucial for
students to gain fluency in the twenty-first-century skills necessary for becoming
effective citizens of the future. Learning these new literacies is supported by making
with robotics. Technological and innovation literacies will be further introduced
below, followed by various student learning outcomes supported by making with
educational robotics activities.

1.3.1 Technological Literacy

As various technological tools have become more and more advanced and acces-
sible to non-experts including children, the intellectual activities and learning
through these activities have become more valued by society and becoming
increasingly acknowledged by the education community (Blikstien 2013). At the
same time, technological skills, such as typing, have become less valued and
technological fluency has become more valued. For example, desired computer
skills have become computational fluency or literacy (diSessa cited in Blikstien
2013), and a broader understanding of technological fluency has been expanded to
include engineering knowledge and the process of engineering design (National
Research Council cited in Blikstien 2013). Computational thinking is also an
important part of technological literacy. Blikstien explains that technological

Fig. 1.4 Students

collaborating on
programming a soccer robot
(© The RoboCup Federation.
Used with permission)
18 A. Eguchi

literacy is a “general set of skills and intellectual dispositions for all citizens,” while
technological competence means “in-depth knowledge that professional engineers
and scientists need to know to perform their work” (p. 3). Being fluent in tech-
nology is now desirable for everyone in society. Technologically enhanced making
with robotics contributes to the development of technological fluency among
students.

1.3.2 Innovation Literacy

Innovation literacy, another set of crucial skills that our children need to acquire,
has been introduced and supported in several publications from various fields (i.e.,
Erdogan et al. 2013; Gelb and Caldicott 2007; Yamakami 2012). Erdogan et al.
(2013) urge educators to consider innovation to be a necessary focus of student
learning of twenty-first-century skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2008),
requiring the development of new learning environments that foster innovation. It is
suggested that students learn innovation through contextualized transdisciplinary
approaches since innovation requires a range of skills and knowledge for bringing
innovative ideas into reality (Govindarajan cited in Gelb and Caldicott 2007).
Erdogan et al. (2013) describe innovation literacy as an interdisciplinary literacy
involving reading, math, and science literacies, and social skills such as collabo-
ration and originality. Innovation literacy is a set of skills that enables people to
understand and use information, such as texts and graphs, and to make logically and
scientifically supported decisions on how to develop innovative outcomes and/or
solutions (Erdogan et al. 2013). OECD (2015) supports this view of innovation
literacy. Innovation literacy includes both domain-specific skills and knowledge
and broader competencies such as creativity, critical thinking, collaboration/team-
work, and communication skills. The Conference Board of Canada addresses the
skills for innovation including creativity, problem-solving, continuous improve-
ment (persistence) skills, risk assessment and risk-taking skills, and relationship—
building and communication skills (The Conference Board of Canada, n.a.).
Making with robotics fosters various innovation literacy skills including subject-
related literacy and academic skills such as engineering design including continu-
ous improvement skills, computational thinking, creativity, problem-solving,
communication and collaboration skills, and creativity, as explained in the previous
sections.

1.3.3 Student Learning with Educational Robotics

Educational robotics is a learning tool that fosters various skills and knowledge
essential for every student to take part in creating the future innovations that society
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 19

needs. This skill set and knowledge will also enable students to turn their imagi-
nation and innovation into reality as well as find a new way of self-expression
(Alimisis 2013). However, for school-age children, most making with robotics
activities has been part of informal education (Alimisis 2013; Benitti 2012;
Blikstien 2013; Eguchi 2007b; Sklar and Eguchi 2004). There are several factors
preventing teachers from bringing robotics into their classroom. Robotics or
engineering is not a core curriculum strand in most schools. There have been
enthusiastic and creative teachers who have developed ideas for ways to connect
learning through robotics making with traditional subject matter learning outcomes
and standards. It is difficult to fit making with robotics into existing school cur-
riculum which defines learning by subject areas, disconnected from each other.
Although it is clear that contextualized transdisciplinary approaches create optimal
learning opportunities for technological and innovative literacies as well as
meaningful knowledge acquisition, current curriculum and classroom practice do
not embrace the potential making with robotics can bring into classroom. When
trying to bring making with robotics into formal education, it becomes crucial to
address the student learning outcomes that align with curriculum standards.
There are several pioneer teachers who aligned and addressed making with
robotics activities with student learning outcomes (i.e., Bratzel 2007, 2009, 2014;
Kee 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016). Their efforts have helped some of the early adaptors
to bring making with robotics into classroom. More efforts to connect making with
robotics activities with various learning standards set by governmental agencies
have been made by various robotics competitions. They have responded to edu-
cators’ needs to align activities with student learning outcomes so that more
teachers will be able to adopt robotics making in their curriculum. For example,
VEX and VEX robotics Autodesk’s one-semester robotics curriculum for 9–12
grades, which is aligned with four curriculum standards—ITEEA standards for
Technological Literacy, Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and
English, Next Generation Science Standards (VEX EDR, n.a.). FIRST Robotics
Competition also provides its FIRST Robotics Competition Standard Alignment
Map aligning their activities with four curriculum standards—Common Core State
Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, Next Generation Science Standards,
and 21st Century Learning Skills (FIRST Robotics Competition 2016).
RoboCupJunior Australia, an Australian division of RoboCup Junior, prepared
curriculum map to address Australian Curriculum—Technologies set by ACARA
(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (Moreton et al.
2014).
In the following section, we will focus on some of the US Government mandated
standards and describe how making with robotics activities can support students as
they work to achieve their learning goals.
20 A. Eguchi

1.3.3.1 Mathematics with Educational Robotics

Since educational robotics is a tool used to promote STEM learning through hands-
on activities, mathematics is one of the subject areas addressed through the making
with robotics activities. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics presents
eight Mathematics Practical Standards that teachers of all levels should aim to
develop in their students:
• MP1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
• MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively
• MP3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
• MP4: Model with mathematics
• MP5: Use appropriate tools strategically
• MP6: Attend to precision
• MP7: Look for and make sense of structure
• MP8: Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010).
Making with robotics activities addresses all eight Mathematics Practice
Standards. While engaged in making with robotics activities, students develop skills
to dissect, understand, and analyze problems that they encounter, then develop, test,
and improve solutions using data collected and mathematical formulas (MP1). By
solving a variety of problems that they encounter while working on robotics making
—designing, building, and programming their robotics creations, students develop
the skill to think, understand, and solve problems abstractly and quantitatively
(MP2). Since making with robotics uses the project-based approach whereby a
small group of students work together on their robotics creation, students will
develop communication and collaboration skills including constructing viable
arguments and critiquing the reasoning of others in constructive ways (MP3). In the
process of making, students create different solutions for their construction models
and codes using various mathematical tools (i.e., graphs, charts, and tables) for
decision-making to improve their robotics creation (MP4). Students engaged in
making with robotics activities learn to select the appropriate tool needed to solve
problems that they encounter. For example, students examine the problem that they
have to solve, evaluate possible solutions, and select the correct sensor for the best
solution that they choose (MP5). Since students work on their robotics creation as a
group, good communication is a key to success. Students develop skills to com-
municate precisely to each other. Through their robotics work, students learn to use
academic language to precisely communicate their ideas with details (MP6). While
building and programming their robotics creations, students learn to recognize and
use structures and patterns (MP7). Students engaged on robotics making activities
go through a reiterated process as they solve the problems and challenges that they
face. Throughout the process, they learn to look for and express regularity in
repeated reasoning (MP8). Through the robotics making activities, students
encounter a variety of occasions when they apply mathematical concepts,
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 21

such as the concepts of number and operations, measurement and data, geometry,
ratios and proportional relationships, expressions, and equations. Making with
robotics not only provides students opportunities to learn mathematical concepts
but also applies their learning to a real-world situation.

1.3.3.2 English Language Arts with Educational Robotics

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) emphasize the
importance of the College and Career Readiness Anchor (CCRA) Standards as they
form the backbone of the ELA/literacy standards. Student learning through making
with robotics activities addresses some of the CCRA standards, which are listed below:
• CCRA/R1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make
logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or
speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text
• CCRA/R4: Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including
determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how
specific word choices shape meaning or tone
• CCRA/R7: Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and
media, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words
• CCRA/W1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive
topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence
• CCRA/W2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey com-
plex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection,
organization, and analysis of content
• CCRA/W4: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development,
organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience
• CCRA/W5: Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising,
editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach
• CCRA/W6: Using technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish
writing and to interact and collaborate with others
• CCRA/W7: Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based
on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under
investigation
• CCRA/W8: Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources,
assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information
while avoiding plagiarism
• CCRA/W9: Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support
analysis, reflection, and research
• CCRA/W10: Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research,
reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two)
for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences
22 A. Eguchi

• CCRA/SL1: Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations

and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and
expressing their own clearly and persuasively
• CCRA/SL2: Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and
formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally
• CCRA/SL3: Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence
and rhetoric
• CCRA/SL4: Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that
listeners can follow the line of reasoning, and the organization, development,
and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience
• CCRA/SL5: Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to
express information and enhance understanding of presentations
• CCRA/SL6: Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks,
demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate
• CCRA/L1: Demonstrate command of the conventions of Standard English
grammar and usage when writing or speaking
• CCRA/L2: Demonstrate command of the conventions of Standard English
capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing
• CCRA/L4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning
words and phrases by using context clues, analyzing meaningful word parts, and
consulting general and specialized reference materials, as appropriate
• CCRA/L5: Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relation-
ships, and nuances in word meanings
• CCRA/L6: Acquire and use accurately a range of general academic and domain-
specific words and phrases sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and lis-
tening at the college and career readiness level; demonstrate independence in
gathering vocabulary knowledge when encountering an unknown term impor-
tant to comprehension or expression
Making with robotics activities addresses the Common Core Standards for ELA
—Science and Technical Subjects for grade level. Although educational robotics is
a tool to promote STEM learning, the project-based approach requires students to
engage in various reading and writing tasks. When students work on a project of
their choice, students conduct research on the topic of their project, read and
analyze materials, come up with a solution, and write it up. They use various media
including digital media from the Internet for their research. Since it is a collabo-
rative group work, students learn to communicate effectively to each other. They
learn to evaluate, analyze, and understand each other’s point of view, reasoning,
and use of evidence. Throughout the process of making, students are required to
keep reflective journals or log books, in which they record their learning journey
including their problem-solving strategies, data that they collected and their analysis
of the data, summary of their group discussion, problems that they faced and how
they plan to solve it, mistakes they made and how to avoid it next time, and their
feelings. In addition, students work on presenting their robotics creation to the
public—classmates, teachers, families, and school and beyond. To prepare for the
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 23

presentations, students work on evaluating and summarizing their making process

using various writings that they have done through the process, synthesizing their
own writing, various sources, and data used during the making process, into the
final form of presentation. Students use any tools to create their presentation
including digital media tools, visual display, and/or craft materials.

1.3.3.3 Engineering Design (Engineering Literacy)

with Educational Robotics

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasizes engineering design

practices as a skill set that is an integral part of science education, which all citizens
should learn (Next Generation Science Standard 2013). NGSS places engineering
design as the same level as scientific inquiry when teaching science disciplines in
K-12 education. It considers engineering and science as instrumental in creating
solutions to the major challenges we face. The key to the engineering design is the
iterative cycle of the design process when used to solve problems. There are three
core components in engineering design set by NGSS:
(a) Defining and delimiting engineering problems involves stating the problem to
be solved as clearly as possible in terms of criteria for success, and constrains or
limits.
(b) Designing solutions to engineering problems begins with generating a number
of different possible solutions, then evaluating potential solutions to see which
ones best meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
(c) Optimizing the design solution involves a process in which solutions are sys-
tematically tested and refined and the final design is improved by trading off
less important features for those that are more important (p. 2).
The three components do not always follow in order. Since the engineering
design process is an iterative cycle, a problem can be redefined or new solutions can
be generated to replace an idea that does not work at any stage of the cycle.
Engineering design process is one of the important skills that students obtain
through the learning by design with robotics making. Students use trial and error
strategy during the engineering design process to refine and recreate their solutions
to the problems that they face. Students could redesign, reconstruct, and reprogram
their robotics creations as many times as needed to come up with a satisfied final
design and solution.

1.3.3.4 Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics

Computational thinking has gained great attention in the field of education in recent
years, especially after the Hour of Code was launched in December 2013 in the
USA and England implemented its computing education in 2014. In a seminal
24 A. Eguchi

article on computational thinking by Jeannette Wing in 2006, Wing predicted that

computational thinking would be a fundamental skill used by everyone in the world
by the middle of twenty-first century (Wing 2006). Computational thinking has its
focuses on the process of abstraction. Wing’s view of computational thinking is as
follows:
[i]nformally, computational thinking describes the mental activity in formulating a problem
to admit a computational solution. The solution can be carried out by a human or machine,
or more generally, by combinations of humans and machines. (Wing 2010, para. 1)

Wing’s term of computational thinking is broadly described as the design and

analysis of problems and their solutions.
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer
Science Teachers Association (CSTA) share the common understanding that
computational thinking should be integral part of education for school-age children.
SITE and CSTA highlight that “computational thinkers are the creators, designers,
and developers of the technology tools and systems that are now contributing to
major advances in almost every field of human understanding and endeavor”
(Computer Science Teachers Association and International Society for Technology
in Education 2011, p. 7). There is a greater pressure in society to educate more
computational thinkers than ever before. Although computational thinking is not
one of the standards required by government except for a couple of countries, like
England, it is important to consider including it as part of student learning through
making with robotics. ISTE and CSTA collaborated to develop the following
operational definition of computational thinking for primary and secondary
education:
Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving process that includes (but is
not limited to) the following characteristics:
• Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools
to help solve them
• Logically organizing and analyzing data
• Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations
• Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking (a series of ordered steps)
• Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of
achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources
• Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide variety of
problems
These skills are supported and enhanced by a number of dispositions or attitudes
that are essential dimensions of CT. These dispositions or attitudes include the
following:
• Confidence in dealing with complexity
• Persistence in working with difficult problems
• Tolerance for ambiguity
• The ability to deal with open-ended problems
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 25

• The ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or
solution (Computer Science Teachers Association and International Society for
Technology in Education 2011, p. 13)
Since computing is part of making with robotics, it provides the right environ-
ment in which students obtain computational thinking skills. For example, students
demonstrate their abstraction and algorithmic thinking through the algorithm they
create since an algorithm is an abstraction of a process, broken down in ordered
steps. Such steps are created with sensor inputs, carry out the series of ordered
steps, and produce outputs to accomplish the targeted goal. Students who can create
effective algorithms for their problems develop the skill to formulate the steps in a
way to effectively use the robotic tool. This requires the skills to identify, analyze,
and implement the solution with the most effective and efficient steps. Experienced
programmers can create effective but simple solutions. Those abilities need to be
supported by the right dispositions, including persistence, tolerance, an ability to
communicate and work effectively with others, and an ability to deal with open-
ended problems. Such dispositions can be obtained from their participation in
making with robotics activities and the learning process. Through maker activities
with robotics, students gain the confidence needed to deal with complexity. Quite
often, students encounter complex problems while making with robotics, which
help students to develop the confidence to persist.

1.4 Conclusion

The speed change introduced into society, especially with technological domains,
has been accelerating since the birth of the Internet. This means that a different set
of skills, such as creativity and innovation, are required for the workforce to
effectively continue to invent and innovate. The problem that we are facing is that
our public education has not kept pace with the work force needs of our rapidly
changing society. A new wave of innovation in education, such as educational
robotics, maker movement, and digital fabrication, has the potential to bring about
the necessary changes in formal education. Although educational robotics, maker
movement, and digital fabrication are not new in its use by informal education in
recent years, it is important to bring these approaches and tools into formal edu-
cational classroom settings so that such learning experiences are accessible to all
students, not only those who are privileged or boys.
One way of lowering the barrier for teachers and educators is connecting such
learning activities with existing learning standards. However, simply bringing
making with robotics activities into classrooms does not automatically bring
desirable learning outcomes. Since making with robotics has its base in construc-
tionist learning, teachers have to create a constructionist learning environment
where the focus is on learners’ exploration of their ideas using technological tools.
In other words, students become the agent to program the computer and robots
26 A. Eguchi

rather than just a consumer of technology (Blikstien 2013). By doing so, students
acquire “a sense of mastery over a piece of the most modern and powerful tech-
nology” (Papert 1993, p. 5). The technology provides a powerful tool for students
to build “their own intellectual structures” (Papert 1993, p. 7). With learner-cen-
tered approaches, teachers have to refrain from traditional ways of teaching and
become facilitators of students’ learning. It is also necessary for students to change
from passive learners to active learners. Since the core activities are making,
the students’ learning should naturally shift from learning by listening to learning
by doing.
Teacher as a facilitator of students’ learning requires various skills in teachers.
One of the skills is the ability to scaffold students’ learning by asking the right
questions to bring students’ own inquiries out. With making with robotics, there is
generally no one right way to solve a challenge. Not having one right answer but
multiple ways of tackling a problem is an experience with which many teachers are
not familiar. Not having one correct answer tends to make both teachers and
students uncomfortable. However, many times, students learn the most from dis-
cussions and teacher’s penetrating questions (Rogers and Portsmore 2004). It is
crucial for teachers to provide learning opportunities that are open for students’
ideas and let students create and design technological making projects. However,
young students may get stuck or lost in their own ideas (Bers 2008). It is important
that teachers scaffold the process of making with guiding and provoking questions.
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn suggest that scaffolding can provide students
opportunities to “engage in complex tasks that would otherwise be beyond their
current abilities” (Han and Bhattacharya 2001; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007, p. 100).
Scaffolding, includes providing coaching, modeling, guiding, task structuring,
pushes students to think deeply, and supports them to become effective information
seekers and problem-solvers, as well as expert at finding help and necessary
resources for themselves (Bers 2008; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007).
Making with robotics activities needs to have broader perspectives in order to be
inclusive and responds to various student interests. If teachers use conventional
educational robotics approaches such as using robotics car, they can reach only the
children talented in science, math, and technology, and fewer girls than boys.
Studies have shown that the way educational robotics is introduced into the edu-
cational settings is often unnecessarily narrow in its focus (Rusk et al. 2008). Rusk,
Resnick, Berg, and Pezalla-Granlund suggest robotics making activities be
designed to use a theme-based approach rather than challenge-focused approach, a
transdisciplinary approach in order to connect various subject areas, especially
art and engineering—STREAM (STEM with Robotics and Arts), or a storytelling/
narrative approach as a new way of self-expression. An end of unit exhibition
provides an opportunity for students to share their robotic creations (Rusk et al.
2008). By widening unit outcomes, teachers can engage and encourage a wider
diversity of student participation. Creating inclusive learning environments using
making with robotics activities will attract students who may not self-identify as
strong in mathematics and/or science, as well as girls who think robotics is only for
boys.
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 27

By bringing learning through making with robotics into every classroom, edu-
cators have the potential to provide all students with the opportunity to learn the
skills and knowledge that they need to become effective members of the workforce
and future innovators and creators. Making with robotics provides transdisciplinary
learning environments in which students can encounter a range of STEM concepts
as well as concepts from other subject areas including English, arts, and history in
contextualized fashion. It also fosters the learning of various new literacies
including technological and innovation literacies. Making with robotics can provide
non-traditional learning environment that sparks students’ interests and imagina-
tion. It can inspire all students’ curiosity, enthusiasm for learning, and build self-
confidence (Rogers and Portsmore 2004). Making with robotics has the possibility
to become a game-changer in education, turning traditional education into a new
form of innovative learning experience for all students.

References

Ackermann, E. K. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In Y.

Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in
a digital world (pp. 25–37). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ackermann, E. K. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, paper’s constructionism: What’s the
difference? pp. 1–11. Retrieved from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.
Piaget_Papert.pdf
Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In M. Tokoro &
L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and flow in
collaborative learning environments (pp. 15–37). Washington, DC: IOS Press.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
& Teaching Education, 6(1), 63–71.
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis
(Ed.), Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. Athens,
Greece: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Evaluating the role of collaboration scripts as group
guiding tools in activities of educational robotics. Paper presented at the 2012 12th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Rome, Italy.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 58, 978–988.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Blikstien, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making in education”: The democratization of
invention. In J. W. H. C. Buching (Ed.), FabLabs: Of makers and inventors. Bielefeld,
Germany: Transcript Publishers.
Bratzel, B. (2007). Physics by design: RoboLab activities for the NXT and RCX. Knoxville, TN:
College House Enterprises LLC.
Bratzel, B. (2009). Physics by design with NXT Mindstorms. Knoxville, TN: College House
Enterprises LLC.
Bratzel, B. (2014). STEM by design: Teaching with LEGO Mindstorms EV3. Knoxville, TN:
College House Enterprises LLC.
28 A. Eguchi

Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Chambers, J. (2004). Using LEGO robotics in a project-based learning
environment. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer Enhanced Learning,
6(1).
Cavicchi, E., Chiu, S.-M., & McDonnell, F. (2009). Introductory paper on critical explorations in
teaching art, science, and teacher education. The New Educator, 5, 189–204.
Committee on Highly Successful Schools for Programs for K-12 STEM Education Board on
Science, E. a. B. o. T. a. A., & Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
(2011). Successful K-12 STEM education—Identifying effective approaches in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Standard for mathematical practice. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, & The European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. (2011). Europe 2020
flagship initiative innovation union SEC (2010) 1161. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Computer Science Teachers Association, & International Society for Technology in Education.
(2011). Computational thinking leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-
documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Cruz-Martin, A., Fernandez-Madrigal, J. A., Galindo, C., Gonzalez-Jimenez, J., & Stockmans-
Daou, C. (2012). A LEGO Mindstorms NXT approach for teaching at data acquisition, control
systems engineering and real-time systems undergraduate courses. Computers & Education,
59, 974–988.
DARPA. (n.a.). DARPA robotics challenge finals 2015: Overview—What is the DARPA robotics
challenge (DRC)? Retrieved from http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/overview
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2015). State of the Innovation Union 2015.
Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.
Duckworth, E. (2005). Critical exploration in the classroom. The New Educator, 1(4), 257–272.
Duckworth, E. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas: and other essays on teaching and learning
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Edutopia. (n.a., 2008, February 28). Project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.
org/project-based-learning
Eguchi, A. (2007a, March). Educational robotics for elementary school classroom. Paper
presented at the Society for Information Technology and Education (SITE), San Antonio, TX.
Eguchi, A. (2007b). Educational robotics for elementary school classroom. In Proceedings of the
Society for Information Technology and Education (SITE), pp. 2542–2549.
Eguchi, A. (2007c). Educational robotics for undergraduate freshmen. In Proceedings of the
World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications,
pp. 1792–1797.
Eguchi, A. (2012). Student learning experience through CoSpace educational robotics. In
Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference.
Eguchi, A. (2014). Why robotics in education? Robotics as a learning tool for educational
revolution. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference.
Eguchi, A. (2015). Educational robotics as a learning tool for promoting rich environments for
active learning (REALs). In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational
technology integration and active learning (pp. 19–47). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference (IGI Global).
Eguchi, A. (2016). Computational thinking with educational robotics. In Proceedings of the
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
Eguchi, A., & Almeida, L. (2013). RoboCupJunior: Promoting STEM education with robotics
competition. In Proceedings of the Robotics in Education.
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 29

Eguchi, A., & Uribe, L. (2012). Educational robotics meets inquiry-based learning. In L. Lennex &
K. F. Nettleton (Eds.), Cases on inquiry through technology in math and science: Systemic
approaches. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
Elkind, D. (2008). Forward. In M. U. Bers (Ed.), Block to robots (pp. xi–xiv). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Erdogan, N., Corlu, M. S., & Capraro, R. (2013). Defining innovation literacy: Do robotics
programs help students develop innovation literacy skills? International Online Journal of
Educational Sciences, 5(1), 1–9.
FIRST Robotics Competition. (2016). Standard alignment map. Retrieved from http://www.
firstinspires.org/resource-library/frc/standard-alignment-map
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gelb, M., & Caldicott, S. M. (2007). Innovate like Edison: The success system of America’s
greatest inventor. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Grabinger, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition.
Research in Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34.
Grabinger, S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A. (1997). Rich environment for active learning, in
action: Problem-based learning. Research in Learning Technology, 5(2), 5–17. doi:10.1080/
0968776970050202.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based
learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology.
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto—Rules for innovation in the new world of
crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).
Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Innovation Union. (2015). Promoting excellence in education and skills development. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=action-points
Kalil, T., & Miller, J. (2014, February 3). Announcing the first white house maker faire. Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/03/announcing-first-white-house-maker-faire
Kee, D. (2011). Classroom activities for the busy teacher: NXT (2nd ed.). CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform.
Kee, D. (2013). Classroom activities for the busy teacher: EV3. CreateSpace Independent
Publishing Platform.
Kee, D. (2015). Classroom activities for the busy teacher: VEX IQ with Modkit for VEX.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Kee, D. (2016). Classroom activities for the busy teacher: VEX IQ with ROBOTC Graphical.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Kolberg, E., & Orlev, N. (2001). Robotics learning as a tool for integrating science-technology
curriculum in K-12 schools. Paper presented at the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, Reno, NV.
Maker Faire. (n.a.). The maker movement. Retrieved from http://makerfaire.com/maker-movement/
Martin, F., Mikhak, B., Resnick, M., Silverman, B., & Berg, R. (2000). To Mindstorms and
beyond: Evolution of a construction kit for magical machines. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.),
Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning (pp. 9–33). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the
classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Mataric, M. J. (2004). Robotics education for all ages. Paper presented at the American
Association for Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and
Robotics Education. http://robotics.usc.edu/*maja/publications/aaaissymp04-edu.pdf
30 A. Eguchi

Middlehurst, C. (2015, November 2). ‘Human’ robot Pepper proves popular again and sells out in
less than a minute in Japan. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
worldnews/asia/japan/11969300/Human-robot-Pepper-proves-popular-again-and-sells-out-in-
less-than-a-minute-in-Japan.html
Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Sigwart, R. (2008). Robots for education. In B. Siciliano & O.
Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1283–1301). New York, NY: Springer New
York, LLC.
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. (n.a.). The executive committee and the advisory board
for the international robot competition meeting (1st) related documents. Retrieved from http://
www.meti.go.jp/committee/kenkyukai/seizou/robot_competition/001_haifu.html
Moreton, B., Elias, G., Bowler, S., Tardiani, G., & Kee, D. (2014). ACARA Link. Retrieved from
http://www.robocupjunior.org.au/acara
National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, & Office of Science and Technology
Policy. (2011). Strategy for American innovation—Securing our economic growth and
prosperity. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/
InnovationStrategy.pdf
Next Generation Science Standard. (2013). Appendix I—Engineering design in the NGSS.
Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/AppendixI-Engineering.Design.
in.NGSS-FINAL_V2.pdf
Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., & Wilkinson, K. (2004). Formal measures of
learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. Paper presented at the 2004 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics & Automation, New Orleans, LA.
OECD. (2015). OECD innovation strategy 2015—An agenda for policy action. Retrieved from
Paris, France: http://www.oecd.org/sti/OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdf
Oppliger, D. (2002, November). Using FIRST LEGO league to enhance engineering education
and to increase the pool of future engineering students (work in progress). Paper presented at
the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA.
[email protected]. (2014, March 13). The DARPA grand challenge: Ten years later—
Autonomous vehicle challenge led to new technologies and invigorated the prize challenge
model of promoting innovation. Retrieved from http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2014-03-13
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms—Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st Century skills, education & competitiveness guide
—A resource and policy guide. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_
century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Robinson, K. (2010). Changing education paradigms. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/
ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM
Education, 5(3&4), 17–28.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics:
Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1),
59–69.
Sklar, E., & Eguchi, A. (2004). RoboCupJunior—Four years later. In Proceedings of RoboCup-
2004: Robot Soccer World Cup VIII.
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2002). Examining the team robotics through RoboCupJunior.
In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Japan Society for Educational Technology.
Sklar, E., Eguchi, A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Scientific challenge award: RoboCupJunior—
Learning with educational robotics. AI Magazine, 24(2), 43–46.
SoftBank Mobile Corp., & Aldebaran Robotics SAS. (2014). SoftBank mobile and Aldebaran
Unveil “Pepper”—the world’s first personal robot that reads emotions. Retrieved from http://
www.softbank.jp/en/corp/group/sbm/news/press/2014/20140605_01/
1 Bringing Robotics in Classrooms 31

Tanabe, K. (2015, June 23). Second generation Pepper for household use came out with a totally
different “character” (Japanese). Toyo Keizai. Retrieved from http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/
74275
Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/resource/stem-2026
The Conference Board of Canada. (n.a.). Innovation skills profile 2.0.
The White House. (2011). Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/
economy/innovation
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Science, technology, engineering and math: Education for
global leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem
U.S. Department of Education, & Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016). STEM 2026: A
vision for innovation in STEM education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Innovation and Improvement.
VEX EDR. (n.a.). Standards matching & accreditation. Retrieved from http://curriculum.
vexrobotics.com/teacher-materials/standards-matching-and-accreditation
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.
edu/*CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Yamakami, T. (2012). Innovation literacy: Implications from a shift toward dynamic multidis-
ciplinary engineering. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Information
Science and Digital Content Technology (ICIDT), Jeju Island, Korea.
Chapter 2
Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics
Curriculum in Schools

Christina Chalmers and Rod Nason

Abstract This chapter presents a systems thinking approach for the conceptual-
ization, design, and implementation of robotics curriculum to scaffold students’
learning of important Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
concepts and processes. This approach perceives the curriculum as a system of
integrated elements and allows for the investigation of the interdependencies
amongst the elements and the dynamics of the curriculum as a whole. Through this
approach, we believe that students can be provided with robotics curriculum units
that facilitate the learning of STEM “Big Ideas” of and about STEM. A STEM “Big
Idea” is central to the understanding and application of STEM across a wide range
of fields, one that links numerous STEM discipline understandings. Robotics is a
rich context in which students can establish deep knowledge and robust under-
standing of STEM “Big Ideas”. Curriculum units based on this systems thinking
approach can do much to ensure that students engaged in robotics activities focus
not only on the completion of robotics tasks but also on the social construction of
integrated networks of authentic STEM knowledge centred around “Big Ideas” of
and about STEM.

Keywords Robotics
STEM
Systems thinking
Curriculum

2.1 Introduction

In the process of designing and programming robots, students can learn many
important Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) concepts
and processes (Cejka et al. 2006). Unfortunately, this potential for advancing the
learning of STEM through robotics is far from being realized. The challenge is to
maintain student interest whilst not missing STEM “teaching moments” that allow

C. Chalmers (&)
R. Nason

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 33

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_2
34 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

students to go beyond trial-and-error strategies, behaviours that lead to weak

solutions and limited learning (Barak and Zadok 2009).
To address this issue, we are proposing a systems thinking approach for the
design and implementation of curriculum units with robotics. A systems thinking
approach to curriculum focuses on the core areas of planning, design, implemen-
tation, and assessment and examines how these areas are aligned and connected to
support students’ success in learning (Jasparro 1998). Through this approach, we
believe that students can be provided curriculum units to facilitate the learning of
important STEM concepts and processes.
We begin by first discussing conceptions of and about STEM knowledge. This is
because conceptions of and about STEM knowledge influence decisions teachers
make about organizing learning experiences, teaching methodologies, and modes of
assessment (Bencze et al. 2006). This viewpoint is borne out by a review of
educational robotics literature from the last fifteen years. In most exemplary
robotics units, there usually is an overt focus on the creation, testing, and
advancement of knowledge of and about robots and the units are usually under-
pinned by systems thinking conceptions of and about STEM knowledge.
Exemplary units are defined as units where the focus was on “doing with under-
standing”; that is, the focus of the units went beyond the mere completion of
robotics task(s) and extended to the social construction of knowledge of and about
STEM. This is characterized in most cases by an emphasis on STEM “Big Ideas”.
A “Big Idea” is a statement of an idea that is central to the understanding and
application of STEM across a wide range of fields, one that links numerous
understandings into coherent wholes (Charles 2005). By encompassing and con-
necting concepts, “Big Ideas” of STEM can provide an organizing structure for
content knowledge about robotics (Silk 2011) and form a basis for facilitating the
meaningful learning of STEM knowledge. A sample of STEM concepts is pre-
sented in Table 2.1 that have applications within the contexts of robotics activities.
The connection of concepts and ideas can help to establish strong conceptual links
within and between the STEM disciplines (c.f., Charles 2005; Harlen 2010).
Focusing on “Big Ideas” can facilitate the meaningful learning of STEM
knowledge in robotics contexts by helping students connect concepts and showing
students how STEM knowledge can provide them with ways of thinking about and
making sense of the world (Harlen 2010; Lesh and Doerr 2003). For example,
Proportional Reasoning is central to how the Motion of the robot can be controlled
through Programming, as the relationships between the construction of the robot,
the values used to program the robot, and the movement of the robot are often
proportional in nature (Silk 2011). Thus, the exploration of proportional reasoning
within the context of robotics can enable students to better understand the appli-
cation of proportional reasoning in their everyday worlds. Furthermore, the
exploration of “Big Ideas” can enable students to progress beyond trial-and-error
problem-solving strategies in robotics and many other STEM learning activities.
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 35

Table 2.1 A sample of STEM understandings within the context of robotics

Ideas of STEM Ideas about STEM
Science Energy (Rockland et al. 2010), Inquiry (Rockland et al. 2010;
Force (Cejka et al. 2006; Chambers Sullivan 2008; Williams et al. 2007)
et al. 2007; Rockland et al. 2010) Process (Sullivan 2008)
Motion (Chambers et al. 2007;
Williams et al. 2007)
Technology Design (Sullivan 2008) Computational thinking (Berland and
Programming (Cejka et al. 2006; Wilensky 2015; Bers et al. 2014;
Silk 2011; Sullivan and Heffernan Sullivan and Heffernan 2016),
2016) Systems thinking (Berland and
Systems (Grubbs 2013; Sullivan Wilensky 2015)
2008)
Engineering Structures (Cejka et al. 2006) Design process (Bers and Portsmore
Simple machines (Gears, Levers, 2005; Cejka et al. 2006; Grubbs
Pulleys) (Cejka et al. 2006; 2013; Rockland et al. 2010)
Chambers et al. 2008; Williams et al.
2007)
Mathematics Proportional reasoning (Silk et al. Problem-solving (Chalmers 2013;
2010) Norton et al. 2007; Sullivan and
Ratio (Silk 2011) Heffernan 2016)
Distance, Measurement (Grubbs
2013)

Therefore, we are proposing that curriculum units with robotics should be based
on a systems thinking viewpoint about STEM knowledge and focus on the con-
struction of “Big Ideas” of and about STEM. The implementation of curriculum
units with robotics centred on “Big Ideas” can do much to ensure that students
engaged in robotics activities not only focus on the satisfactory completion of
robots but also on construction of authentic knowledge of and about STEM. This
clearly has implications not only for aims and objectives but also for other key
elements in the process of developing curriculum units with robotics such as
follows:
• Framing robotics learning activities;
• Integrating robotics learning activities into STEM curriculum units;
• Selection and utilization of thinking tools; and
• Design and implementation of assessment.
Each of these four elements will now be discussed in turn during the following
sections of this chapter. We conclude this chapter by integrating these elements into
a systems framework to facilitate the design of curriculum units with robotics to
scaffold the learning of STEM “Big Ideas”.
36 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

2.2 Framing Robotics Learning Activities

A review of the literature from the fields of model-eliciting activities (MEAs),

learning-from-design, educational robotics, and knowledge-building indicates that
how STEM learning activities are framed influences whether or not they facilitate
the construction of STEM “Big Ideas”. Therefore, in this section, a system of six
principles for framing robotics learning activities to facilitate the construction of
STEM “Big Ideas” is presented (see Fig. 2.1).
1. Foregrounding Principle: A robotics learning activity should focus on targeted
STEM concepts that are repeatedly foregrounded during the course of the
activity.
This principle has its genesis in findings from the Robots Algebra Project (Silk
et al. 2010), the Programmable Bricks Project (Rusk et al. 2008), Tufts
University’s Center for Engineering Education and Outreach research (Rogers
2012; Wendell and Rogers 2013), and research conducted by the
Robotics@QUT program (Chalmers 2013). A clear outcome from this research
is that the content of robotics activities needs to be targeted and precise. This can
be achieved by repeatedly “foregrounding” the targeted “Big Idea(s)” during the
course of an activity (Silk et al. 2010) and by highlighting particular ideas and
concepts in the natural course of working on a project (Rusk et al. 2008).
2. Sustained Knowledge-building Principle: A robotics learning activity should be
meaningful and relevant to students and motivate students to make sense of the
situation based on the extension of their personal knowledge and experiences.

Fig. 2.1 System of principles

for framing robotics learning
activities
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 37

This principle was derived from educational robotics research (e.g. Bers 2008;
Bers et al. 2014; Rusk et al. 2008) and MEAs research (e.g. Lesh and Doerr
2003; Hamilton et al. 2008; Yildirim et al. 2010). Different students are attracted
to different types of robotics activities (Bers 2008). This clearly implies that
teachers need to not only carefully select contexts that can stimulate the interest
and involvement of a diverse student population; they also should consider
thinking beyond traditional technological approaches when engaged in the
process of framing a robotics activity (Rusk et al. 2008). Non-technological
approaches such as the social narrative approach (Hamner et al. 2008), the arts
and engineering approach (Rusk et al. 2008), the literature and robotics
approach (Bers 2008), and the robotics and emotional competency approach
(Bers et al. 2014) where robotics becomes a tool rather than the focus of the
activity can provide the means for broadening active participation by students
with non-technological interests. Motivating active participation in an activity is
a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustained knowledge-building.
MEAs research has found that to establish and maintain knowledge-building
engagement, STEM learning activities also need to motivate students to make
sense of the problem context by extending on their personal knowledge and
experiences (Hamilton et al. 2008; Yildirim et al. 2010).
3. Diverse Ideas/Multiple Perspectives Principle: A robotics learning activity
should put students in situations where diverse ideas and/or alternative per-
spectives can emerge and be juxtaposed.
Research findings from the fields of MEAs (e.g. Lesh et al. 2003) and
knowledge-building communities (e.g. Scardamalia 2002) clearly indicate that
the development of “Big Ideas” is facilitated if a diversity of ideas and/or mul-
tiple perspectives are brought to a problem. MEA research has found that closely
juxtaposing multiple perspectives helps students overcome conceptual egocen-
trism and centring that are especially apparent when unstable conceptual systems
are used to make sense of experiences (Lesh et al. 2003). The juxtaposing of
different perspectives can help shift focus to the big picture and encourage stu-
dents to generalize patterns and relationships. Therefore, integrating multiple
perspectives encourages students to think more deeply about their experiences.
This principle can be enacted by the following:
• Formation of teams consisting of members with different technical capa-
bilities, different cognitive styles, or different prior experiences (Lesh et al.
2003; Scardamalia 2002);
• Encouraging members of teams to play different roles such as manager,
monitor, recorder, data gatherer, or tool operator (Chalmers 2009; Lesh et al.
2003);
• Having students serve as editorial boards that assess strengths and weak-
nesses of other teams’ proposals or by introducing the role of a client (Lesh
et al. 2003);
38 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

• Utilization of reflection tools to think about group functioning, about roles

played by different individuals, and about ideas and strategies that were and
were not productive (Chalmers and Nason 2005; Lesh et al. 2003).
4. Model Construction Principle: A robotics learning activity should create the
need for problem resolution via the construction/modification of a model that is
powerful (in the specific situation), sharable (with others), easily modified, and
reusable (in other situations).
Research from the field of MEAs (e.g. Lesh and Doerr 2003; Hamilton et al.
2008; Yildirim et al. 2010) and from the Robots Algebra Project (Silk 2011; Silk
et al. 2010) has found that requiring students to construct and/or modify a model
that is capable of being used by others in similar situations, and robust enough to
be used as a tool in other STEM learning can significantly increase the proba-
bility that the construction/advancement of “Big Ideas” of and about STEM will
occur. In robotics activities, a model could be a generalizable procedure for
designing/constructing a robot, a flowchart, a “how-to” toolkit, a set of rules
and/or specifications, a prediction model, a judging scheme, a method, an index,
or a metaphor for seeing or interpreting things (Silk et al. 2010).
5. Model Explanation Principle: A robotics learning activity should require stu-
dents to explicitly reveal how they generated a model.
Findings from MEAs, learning-from-design, and educational robotics research
indicate that construction of “Big Ideas” of and about STEM is facilitated if
learning activities are thought-revealing in nature (Hamilton et al. 2008; Sadler
et al. 2000; Silk et al. 2010; Yildirim et al. 2010). That is, they require students
to reveal not only their models but also the thoughts underlying the development
of their models. According to Sadler et al. (2000), students’ thought-revealing
explanations elicited by the framing of the learning activity should be formative,
capturing all attempts and trials. This enables students to examine their progress,
assess the evolution of the model, and reflect about the model (Yildirim et al.
2010). With MEAs, model explanation typically involves students writing
memo(s) to a client describing their model and documenting how it was
developed (Lesh and Doerr 2003). Engineering design research journals and
diaries have also been successfully utilized by learning-from-design studies (e.g.
Wendell and Kolodner 2014), and in educational robotics research (e.g. Bers
et al. 2014; Hamner et al. 2008), to generate thought-revealing explanations by
students.
6. Multiple Iterations Principle: A robotics leaning activity should require students
to plan and make multiple iterations to not only to their robotic design but also
iterative refinements in understanding of STEM concepts and processes.
Taking the time to plan can improve both design product and learning outcomes
(Fortus et al. 2004). Unfortunately, students often do not engage in the planning
phase of the design process (Rogers and Wallace 2000; Welch 1999). MEA
researchers such as Hamilton et al. (2008) have found that this can be addressed
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 39

by requiring students to present their initial plans (and iterative revisions of

these plans) in their reports to clients. This dilemma also can be addressed by
constraining the time and resources available for a learning activity; if students
are given too much time and too many materials, they often resort to
trial-and-error methods rather than advance planning to complete many design
problems (Wendell and Kolodner 2014). Ensuring that the artefacts (i.e. robots)
to be designed are relatively easy to build and/or modify has been found to
facilitate multiple iterations and testings of ideas (Sadler et al. 2000).
Research from the field of learning-from-design indicates that designing a
working artefact involves iterative design. Iterative design of an artefact affords
opportunities for students to incrementally construct, evaluate, discuss, and revise
both the models they are designing and their conceptions (Puntambekar and
Kolodner 2005). Iterative design also enables students to learn from their failures as
well as their successes (Sadler et al. 2000). However, this iterative process can lead
to significant student frustration and discouragement if students do not shift from
the typical trial-and-error design process (Bers et al. 2002) and use STEM “Big
Ideas” to predict what their robot will do and to choose the best solution (Silk
2011).

2.2.1 Application of the System of Principles

Robotics activities are engaging, however, how the activities are framed influences
whether or not they facilitate the construction of STEM “Big Ideas”. As is indicated
in Fig. 2.1, the six principles should be conceptualized not as a sequential list but as
a system of interrelated principles that are implemented iteratively in cycles with
multiple feedback loops. When implemented as a system, the six principles can be
utilized to guide not only the design of new robotics activities but also the evalu-
ation and modification of existing robotics activities to ensure that they facilitate the
learning of “Big Ideas” of and about STEM. The principles can help develop
curriculum units that focus attention on the “Big Ideas”, promote active inquiry, and
support students reflecting on the learning process.

2.3 Integrating Robotics Learning Activities into STEM

Curriculum Units

Isolated problem-solving activities such as robotic design tasks are seldom enough
by themselves to ensure the learning of STEM “Big Ideas” (Chambers et al. 2008;
Silk 2011). Sequences of structurally related STEM learning activities conducted
over a number of class periods in conjunction with discussions and explorations
focusing on structural similarities amongst the related activities also are needed
40 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

Fig. 2.2 System of modules

for developing sequences of
structurally related STEM
learning activities

(Lesh et al. 2003). Therefore, in this section a system of five modules for devel-
oping sequences of structurally related STEM learning activities in curriculum units
with robotics is presented (see Fig. 2.2). The system is derived from an analysis and
synthesis of research on the design of structurally related activities from the fields of
MEAs, learning-from-design, and educational robotics.

2.3.1 Preliminary Activity

The Preliminary Activities familiarize students with the context of a robotics

construction task. Familiarizing students with the context of a task can be achieved
by providing students with background information via short articles, webpages,
and video clips accompanied by questions that:
• Familiarize students with the context of the robotics design problem so that their
solutions are based on extensions of students’ real life knowledge and experi-
ences; and
• Build up “minimum prerequisites” for students to begin working on the robotics
design problem (Lesh and Doerr 2003; Silk 2011).

2.3.2 Robot Design Activity

During the course of each class period when the students are engaged in the process
of designing and constructing a robot, teachers can do much to facilitate a culture of
metacognition and knowledge-building by asking students questions that require
them to:
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 41

• Predict outcomes—This can help students to understand what kinds of infor-

mation they might need to successfully complete the robotic design task
(Darling-Hammond et al. 2008; Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005); and
• Monitor what they are doing—For example, “What are you working on now?”,
“Why are you working on it?”, and “How does it help you?” (Darling-
Hammond et al. 2008; Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005).
At the end of each class period during the course of a Robot Design Activity, the
knowledge-building aspects of the activity can be further enhanced by the uti-
lization of Pin-up Sessions, Presentations and Discussions, and Reflection and
Debriefing Activities.
In Pin-up Sessions, students periodically present their design ideas and sketches
by creating a poster, pinning it to the wall, and then explaining to the class their
intentions and how they plan to achieve them (Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005).
The primary goals here are to encourage students to think through their ideas deeply
and make their reasoning clear. According to Puntambekar and Kolodner, hearing
the ideas of others provides grist for students to learn what makes for good justi-
fications. They also argue that Pin-up Sessions give an entire class a chance to
consider additional alternatives besides the ones they had considered in their small
groups. Additionally, Pin-up Sessions may give groups that are experiencing dif-
ficulties a chance to come up to the level of the rest of the class.
Presentations and Discussions are whole-class activities in which students make
formal presentations about what they have created and how they created it. The
primary goals here are for students to explain their work, see other students’
alternative approaches and outcomes, discuss strengths and weaknesses, and
identify directions for improvement for their own work and the work of others.
Puntambekar and Kolodner (2005) suggest that Presentations and Discussions
should occur between iterations of the design process to provide students with
opportunities for talking about STEM ideas and seeing how others are applying
them. Because they enable students to engage in discourse about ideas, critique in a
constructive way, and revise work after receiving feedback, Presentations and
Discussions can do much to facilitate the development of metacognitive thinking
skills such as reflecting on and regulating learning (Bers et al. 2002;
Darling-Hammond et al. 2008). Lesh et al. (2003) have found that having teams of
students produce executive summaries is a most effective means for facilitating
knowledge-building Presentations and Discussions and the development of
metacognitive thinking. Other means suggested by Lesh et al. (2003) for facilitating
knowledge-building Presentations and Discussions and the development of
metacognitive thinking include multimedia presentations and having teams of
students play the role of clients who give feedback to other teams about the
strengths and limitations of their models.
Reflection and Debriefing Activities’ primary goal is to help students assume a
reflective and strategic stance towards learning (Darling-Hammond et al. 2008)
and adopt an “increasingly productive personae for learning and problem solving
(Lesh et al. 2003, p. 50)”. This process can be much facilitated by the utilization of
42 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

reflection tools that focus not only on solutions, but also on group dynamics and the
roles that individual students played during different stages of the solution process
(Chalmers 2009).
In order to ensure that student teams do not “give up” when experiencing
frustration and/or failure, they should be provided with adequate “self-help”
resources such as “just-in-time” “how-to” toolkits (Lesh and Doerr 2003). Examples
of such toolkits that could be utilized in Robot Design Activities are online tuto-
rials, simple building and programming instructions, tutorials, video tutorials, and
manuals.

2.3.3 “Big Idea” Exploration Activity

The primary goal here is to form a cognitive link between robotics and non-robotics
contexts of the “Big Idea(s)” foregrounded in the robotics tasks. Research in the
field of robotics in schools (e.g. Chambers et al. 2008) suggests that providing
students with physical experiences such as designing robots is not enough by itself
for students to develop understandings of STEM “Big Ideas”. As Lesh et al. (2003)
point out, to help students go beyond thinking with a “Big Idea” and also think
about it, several structurally similar embodiments are needed. Students also need to
focus on similarities and differences as the relevant “Big Idea(s)” function in dif-
ferent contexts. Thus, students must go beyond investigating individual ideas to
investigate structure-related relationships amongst several alternative embodiments
—perhaps by making translations or predictions from one context to another.

2.3.4 Robot Adaptation Activity

The primary goal here are to have students deal with robotics problem(s) similar to
but more complex than those addressed in a Robot Design Activity and whilst in the
process have them adapt and/or extend the “Big Idea(s)” developed and refined in
the Robot Design and/or the “Big Idea” Exploration Activities. A good example of
a Robot Adaptation Activity is provided by the Robot Synchronized Dancing
Activity created by Silk (2011). In this activity, students were required to create a
“how-to” toolkit to coordinate the physical features, program parameters, and robot
movements of many different existing robots so that they can “dance in sync” with
each other.
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 43

2.3.5 Synthesizing Discussion

Synthesizing Discussions are conducted during the concluding phase of a sequence

of learning activities (Lesh et al. 2003). These discussions provide closure and have
students go beyond thinking with the foregrounded “Big Idea(s)” and advance
towards making the “Big Idea(s)” explicit knowledge objects of thought that serve
in the further advancement of knowledge. Knowledge-building and MEA research
indicate that this process can be facilitated by whole-class teacher-led activities that
focus on structural similarities and differences between the different embodiments
of the “Big Idea(s)” explored during the course of the sequence of learning
activities.

2.3.6 Application of the System of Modules

Because they are conceptualized as a system, the modules can be sequenced in

different ways to facilitate the:
• Introduction of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics;
• Application and Extension of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics; and
• Introduction, Application, and Extension of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics.
Thus, the sequence in which the modules are applied to structure a curriculum unit
with robotics can be varied to meet the needs/preferences of teachers/researchers.
For example, if a teacher/researcher wanted to introduce the STEM ideas of rota-
tional speed and torque through robotics, the unit could begin with a Preliminary
Activity where students are presented with a real-world situation establishing the
need for the development of a set of specifications (i.e. a model) for the design of a
rescue vehicle capable of travelling across flat surfaces quickly, but also able to
negotiate steep hills. During the process of developing and refining the model
during the Robot Design Activity, the teams of students could investigate what gear
trains yield the best compromise between rotational speed and torque and develop
key science/engineering ideas such as follows:
• Gearing down will slow down your robot but will supply more power for
climbing; and
• Gearing up will speed up your robot but will supply less power for climbing.
In order to extend the understandings of rotational speed and torque developed
during the course of the Robot Design Activity, these understandings could be
further developed in non-robotics contexts such as bicycle gears during the course
of the “Big Idea” Exploration Activity. They also could be extended in the
Synthesizing Discussions where the notion that gears work on the principle of
mechanical advantage can be explored and generalized across different contexts.
44 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

Fig. 2.3 Introduction of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics

Fig. 2.4 Introduction, Application, and Extension of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics

One application of the system of modules for structuring learning activities is

encapsulated in Fig. 2.3. In this structuring of the modules, “Big Idea(s)” are
introduced in the context of robotics design tasks. The “Big Idea(s)” foregrounded
in the robotic learning activity are further explored and extended during the course
of the “Big Idea” Exploration Activity and Synthesizing Discussions.
The application of the system of modules encapsulated in Fig. 2.4 is similar in
most respects to that encapsulated in Fig. 2.3. The major difference is the inclusion
of the Robot Adaptation Activity where students deal with robotics problem(s)
similar to but more complex than those addressed in a Robot Design Activity.
Other different ways for utilizing the system of modules to apply and extend
“Big Idea(s)” through robotics are illustrated in Fig. 2.5. In this structuring, the
initial preliminary or “Big Idea(s)” activities are explored first and then students are
required to extrapolate and apply their understandings of STEM “Big Idea(s)”
foregrounded in these activities to scaffold the design, construction, and program-
ming of their robot during Robot Design and/or Robot Adaptation Activities.
As was noted earlier, the sequence in which the modules for developing
sequences are utilized to structure a curriculum unit with robotics with a focus on
STEM “Big Idea(s)” Exploration can be varied to meet the needs/preferences of
teachers (and researchers). However, whilst in the process of framing robotic
learning activities and integrating them into a sequence of structurally related
STEM learning activities, teachers (and researchers) also need to concurrently
consider how thinking tools can be utilized during the course of the curriculum unit
with robotics to further scaffold the learning of STEM “Big Ideas”.
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 45

Fig. 2.5 Application and Extension of “Big Idea(s)” through robotics

2.4 Selection and Utilization of Thinking Tools

Thinking tools have important roles in supporting the learning of “Big Ideas” of and
about STEM during the course of design activities (Kokotovich 2008; Puntambekar
and Kolodner 2005). Therefore, decisions about what thinking tools can be utilized
and how they should be utilized during the course of a curriculum unit with robotics
need much thought. To facilitate this process, in this section we present a system for
the selection and utilization of thinking tools (see Fig. 2.6).
46 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

Fig. 2.6 System for selection

and utilization of thinking
tools

Table 2.2 Macro- and micro-level thinking tools

Micro-Level Tools Macro-Level Tool: Design Process
Define Explore Plan/ Create/ Test/ Share
Problem Ideas Design Implemen Improv Solution
t e
External Concept maps
representati
on tools Flow charts

Tables and
graphs
Construction
diagrams/
plans
Different Improvement
perspectives triggers
tools Six thinking
hats
Memos to
clients
Reflection Task-work
tools
Team-work

Research literature from the fields of learning-from-design and educational

robotics indicates that both macro- and micro-level thinking tools are needed to
facilitate learning. Thus, our proposed system consists of three types of
micro-thinking tools (external representation tools, different perspective tools, and
reflection tools) integrated into the operation of a macro-level tool (see Table 2.2).
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 47

2.4.1 Macro-level Thinking Tools

A macro-level thinking tool (e.g. the Engineering Design Process) provides stu-
dents with a global framework to guide them through the major steps of the design
process whilst also enabling them to go back when necessary to earlier steps to
make modifications or changes to a design (Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005). The
ultimate goal of these macro-level tools is to help students to create the best design
possible by improving it over and over again. These tools are not linear but cyclical
in nature. This means that each of the steps in these tools may be repeated as many
times as needed, making improvements along the way. For example, after testing a
design and finding a problem, the macro-level tools allow you to go back to an
earlier step to make a modification or change to a design.

2.4.2 Micro-level Thinking Tools

Within the design process, micro-level tools usually have three main roles:
• Generating external representations;
• Looking at a design problem from different perspectives; and
• Promoting reflection.

2.4.3 External Representation Tools

External representation tools (such as those listed in Table 2.2) facilitate the con-
struction of external representations that help learners to collect, organize, absorb,
and understand information, advance knowledge (Caviglioli et al. 2002), and make
sense of messy situations inherent within many design tasks (Fathulla and Basden
2007). During the early steps of the design process, external representations
mediated by these tools help learners to structure and map the salient issues,
thoughts, and ideas relevant to a design problem (Kokotovich 2008). The con-
struction of the external representations during the early steps of the design process
also helps students to think logically about the problem and define it in a more
holistic way, rather than just jumping in and relying on trial-and-error strategies
(Kokotovich 2008; Norton et al. 2007). This places students in a position to develop
more considered responses to the design problem.
The external representations mediated by these tools also enable learners to
identify and externalize their models of understanding (Caviglioli et al. 2002) and
make their thinking visible during the middle and later phases of the design process
(Lane 2013). By making their thinking visible, learners are able to further analyse
their understanding of a design problem and add to, adapt, and change particular
48 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

aspects of their model of understanding (Caviglioli et al. 2002). As Lane (2013)

points out, the rigour of creating an external representation such as a diagram,
iterating it through several revisions and of clearly specifying the purposes and
assumptions behind it is enough to change an individual’s thinking about a design
problem just as writing text helps organize and present one’s thoughts to others.
Thus, these tools have the potential to facilitate learning throughout the whole
design process. This places students in a position to develop more considered
responses to the design problem. The external representation generated by these
tools can play important roles in facilitating planning how-to approach a design
problem, monitoring progress towards the solution to the problem, and evaluating
progress towards the completion of the task (Norton et al. 2007).
These thinking tools can also facilitate the advancement of learning and
understanding at the group level during all steps of the design process (Lane 2013).
The creation of external representations during early steps of the design process
enables each learner to share his/her thinking or understanding of a design problem
with other students and mediate the development of shared knowledge and
understanding about the problem. In order to develop a shared understanding and
knowledge of a problem, group members must first negotiate a shared external
representation or model of the problem (Chalmers 2009; Fiore and Schooler 2004).
Shared external representations facilitate the process of articulating students’
thinking and allow group members to formulate an accurate shared understanding
(Cannon-Bowers and Salas 2001).
During the middle and later steps of the design process, a shared external rep-
resentation can provide a focus for discussion and contribute to the collective
manipulation, reconstruction, and reinterpretation of information and ideas (Lane
2013). The collective manipulation, reconstruction, and reinterpretation of infor-
mation and ideas mediated by iterative modifications of shared external represen-
tations scaffold the advancement of understanding and knowledge by the group
(Scardamalia 2002).

2.4.4 Different Perspective Tools

When teams of students engaged in design tasks seem entrenched in a particularly

unproductive mindset (e.g. focusing on trial-and-error strategies) and/or are con-
fronted by impasses (e.g. finding that the artefact they are creating does not work as
well as expected), they more often than not are not utilizing metacognitive thinking
and systematically reasoning about what they could do to move forward
(Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005). This can be addressed by the utilization of
thinking tools such as Improvement Triggers (Eberle 1997) that enable students to
look at the design problem from different perspectives. Improvement Triggers are a
list of SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use,
Eliminate, Reverse) questions that can help students look at their work from dif-
ferent viewpoints. These questions can focus on robot design/construction issues
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 49

(e.g. Adapt: What ideas could we use to adapt or readjust to improve our robots?
What other ideas could we use for inspiration for our robots?) and/or the rela-
tionships between STEM “Big Ideas” and robotics (e.g. Eliminate: How could we
streamline or simplify our models? What elements of our models could we
remove?). Other tools that can be used for this purpose are: Six Thinking Hats (de
Bono 1985) and Memos to Clients (Lesh and Clarke 2000).

2.4.5 Reflection Tools

Reflection tools have important roles in promoting reflection about task-work and
team-work prior, during and after the completion of design problem activities
(Chalmers 2009; Hamilton et al. 2008). Reflection tools help students recall and
then record significant aspects about what they have done and thus enable students
to: (a) relate new knowledge to their prior understanding, (b) mindfully abstract
knowledge, and (c) understand how their learning and problem-solving strategies
might be reapplied (Hmelo-Silver 2004).
Many external representation and different perspective tools can be utilized to
promote reflection about task-work. Reflection about task-work also can be facil-
itated by sets of reflection questions that students are required to answer following a
robotic activity. These questions can be the focus of the class discussions that
follow the activity (Hamilton et al. 2008). A review of the literature (e.g. Hamilton
et al. 2008; Lesh et al. 2003; Silk 2011) indicates that reflection questions should
focus not only on robot design and construction but also on relationships between
the robotics activity and STEM concepts and processes.
Research literature from the fields of MEAs (e.g. Hamilton et al. 2008), col-
laborative learning (e.g. Barron 2000), cooperative learning (e.g. Johnson and
Johnson 2004), and team-work (Beatty and Barker 2004) indicates that reflection on
team-work can also be facilitated by tools that attune students to:
• Individual roles (e.g. How did your individual roles change during the course of
the design process and why?);
• Organization of group-work (e.g. How did you organize your group-work?
What strategies did your group use to develop new ideas, interpretations or
hunches?);
• Monitoring and improvement of team-work (e.g. How were good ideas shared
within your group? What are two things your group is doing well and one thing
that needs to improve? How did you monitor the effectiveness of your
group-work? What could you do to improve the effectiveness of your group?);
• Problems encountered and how they were resolved (e.g. What problems did you
encounter in working as a group and how did you resolve them?); and
• Planning for the future (e.g. If you were to embark on a second, similar task as a
group, what would be different about the way you go about working, and why?).
50 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

2.4.6 Application of the System of Thinking Tools

A review of the literature indicates that for optimal impact on student learning,
thinking tools need to operate in a synergic manner to:
• Help students recognize what step of the design process they are in and to record
ideas and knowledge relevant to that step;
• Provide prompts and explanations to help students decide how-to move forward
during each step of the design process;
• Provide guidance for students both in carrying out design activities and
reflecting on them in order to learn from them; and
• Encourage students to think about and articulate what they have done and why
without diverting too much of their time from the raison d’etre of a curriculum
unit, the construction of robotic artefacts and STEM “Big Idea” knowledge
artefacts (Bers et al. 2002; Lesh and Clarke 2000; Puntambekar and Kolodner
2005).
The clear implication of this is that the number of micro-level tools subsumed
within the operation of the macro-level tool needs to be limited. However, this is
not necessarily a problem; each micro-level tool can be utilized more than once
during the design process (see Table 2.2). Indeed if maximum impact is desired,
then each selected micro-level tool should be utilized more than once during the
course of the curriculum unit (Lesh and Clarke 2000; Puntambekar and Kolodner
2005). Therefore, limiting the number of micro-level tools utilized within a cur-
riculum unit with robotics probably has positive rather than adverse effects on
student learning, especially if each of the selected micro-level tools is utilized in
multiple steps of the design process.

2.5 Design and Implementation of Assessment

Because assessment sends a clear message to students about what is worth learning,
how it should be learned, and how well we expect them to perform it is imperative
that assessment be philosophically consistent with the pedagogical framework
implicit in the learning activities. This system is consistent with the constructionist
framework (Papert 1980) implicit in previous sections of this article. The system is
derived from an analysis and synthesis of the literature from the fields model-
eliciting activities, learning-from-design, educational robotics, and assessment
theory. Therefore, in this section we present a system for the design and imple-
mentation of assessment in curriculum units with robotics (see Fig. 2.7). Focussing
on both summative and formative assessment this system of gives teachers
opportunities to assess the learning process as well as the end product.
As is indicated in Table 2.3, our system has four categories of artefacts. The four
categories identified address both formative and summative assessment. Category A
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 51

Fig. 2.7 System for the

design and implementation of
assessment

Table 2.3 Assessment artefacts

Category Purpose Assessment Artefacts
A. Collect Collection of work selected to document Portfoliosa
progress within a given task Engineering design notebooksa
Robot design journalsa
B. Present Presentation of prototype(s), description Presentationsa
of design solution and process, and Demonstrationsa
description of rationale for arriving at
Reports/Memos
their solution
Poster sessionsa
Video journalsa
Exhibitionsa
C. Representation of students’ Representations produced with
Represent understanding of STEM Representation Generating Toolsa
concepts/processes (see Table 2.2)
D. Demonstration of students’ Observationsa
Demonstrate understanding of STEM Interviewsa
concepts/processes and robotics product
Exams
(s) and processes
Reflective essays
Robot challenge
a
Change over time in the level of sophistication and complexity assessed

artefacts operate at the macro-level throughout the course of a curriculum unit and
consist of a collection of student’s work selected to document progress within a
given task. Category A collections integrate data derived from Category B and C
assessment artefacts. Category B artefacts consist of presentations of prototypes,
descriptions of design solution and process, and justification of how students
arrived at a solution. Category C artefacts focus on the representation of students’
understanding of STEM concepts/processes. Finally, Category D artefacts
demonstrate students’ understanding of STEM concepts/processes and their
52 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

robotics product(s) and processes. The data derived from Category D assessment
artefacts complement data derived from Category A-C artefacts.

2.5.1 Application of the System for the Design

and Implementation of Assessment

The selection and administration of the artefacts are directed by assessment rubrics.
These rubrics define the criteria for assessment, the qualities that will be assessed,
and levels of performance (c.f., Brookhart 2013). It is important that the selected
artefacts and the rubrics utilized for summative assessment focus on assessment
about learning and during formative assessment focus on assessment for learning
(Black et al. 2008; Caitlin 2012). Through assessment for learning, teachers can
ascertain students’ knowledge, perceptions, and misconceptions and use this infor-
mation to diagnose students’ needs, provide them with constructive feedback, and
plan interventions to support students to operate at the edge of their competence.
Caitlin (2012) identified three essential elements of assessment for learning:
Learning Intentions and Success Criteria, Quality Interactions and Feedback, and
Peer Assessment. Together, these elements can provide students with prompts they
can use to improve their quality of work, helping them feel in control of their learning
(Stiggins et al. 2007), shaping, and improving their competence by short-circuiting
the randomness and inefficiency of trial-and-error learning (Sadler 1989).
Learning Intentions are not learning aims or objectives but instead a student
perspective; it also is about what students will learn, not what they will do (Caitlin,
2012). Caitlin suggests that where possible, the Success Criteria in curriculum units
with robotics should focus on demonstration and process explanation. Teachers
should establish Learning Intentions and Success Criteria by negotiation and stu-
dents should record these on a pin-up board. Making them visible acts as a refer-
ence point throughout the activity helps keep students on task.
Quality Interactions and Feedback generally come in the form of teacher
comments and/or guiding questions that encourage students to express and share
ideas. Quality Feedback has to “strike a balance between students recognising what
is good about their work, as well as what is necessary to improve” (Caitlin 2012,
p. 7).
Peer Assessment can also assist students monitoring their learning and they can
use the feedback from this monitoring to make adaptations and adjustments to what
they understand (Earl 2003). The focus on student reflection is powerful in building
metacognition and an ability to plan for future learning goal.
Whilst formative assessment needs to be consistent with the constructionist
pedagogical framework underlying the learning activities (Wiggins and McTighe
2005). Summative assessment should also focus on determining to what extent the
instructional/learning goals of the unit have been met (Stiggins et al. 2007).
Adapting and applying the artefacts utilized in formative assessment for use in the
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 53

summative assessment at the end of a curriculum unit can facilitate this. This
integrates assessment into the teaching/learning process and encourages the active
involvement of students in their learning (Earl 2003).

2.6 A Systems Framework to Facilitate the Design

of Curriculum Units with Robotics

In this section, the four systems presented in the previous sections are integrated
into a systems framework to facilitate the design of curriculum units with robotics
that scaffold the learning of important STEM “Big Ideas” (see Fig. 2.8). At the core
of this framework are STEM “Big Ideas”.
There are many equally appropriate potential pathways in which the framework
could be applied to facilitate the process of designing a curriculum unit with
robotics. For example, the framework could enable teachers/researchers to begin the
process by designing in order: the robotics learning activities, the sequence of
structurally related STEM learning activities, the thinking tools, and finally the
assessment artefacts and their associated rubrics. On the other hand, teachers/

Fig. 2.8 Systems framework to facilitate the design of curriculum units with robotics
54 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

researchers also could utilize the framework to engage in “backward design”

(Wiggins and McTighe 2005) and first work on the development of the assessment
artefacts and their associated rubrics and have the assessment serve as a guide for
directing the design of appropriate learning and thinking tools.
However, whatever pathway is utilized, it is important to note that the frame-
work requires that teachers/researchers to conceptualize that:
1. The design of a curriculum unit with robotics is an iterative process (i.e. each
element of the framework is revisited on multiple occasions during the design of
the curriculum unit); and
2. STEM “Big Idea(s)” are at the core of the framework: therefore, constant
recourse to them needs to be made during the design of a curriculum unit with
robotics.

2.7 Concluding Remarks

This chapter has presented a systems framework to facilitate the design and
implementation of curriculum units with robotics that scaffold not only the suc-
cessful completion of robotics design tasks but also the construction of “Big Idea
(s)” of and about STEM. We believe that our framework has implications for both
practice and research. It provides teachers with both micro- and macro-means for
improving the quality of teaching/learning of STEM in units with robotics. For
example, at the micro-level the system for framing robotics activities provides
teachers with the means to evaluate and improve the quality of robotics learning
activities. At the macro-level, the overall framework enables teachers to integrate
the planning and implementation of assessment and thinking tools within their
units. At the same time, the framework also provides researchers with a number of
possibilities for further research. For example, it offers researchers and teachers
with a framework to engage in multi-tiered design experiments (Lesh et al. 2008)
that could investigate the interactive development of knowledge by students and
teachers involved in curriculum units with robotics.

References

Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology,
and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3),
289–307.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
Beatty, C., & Barker, S. (2004). Building smart teams: A roadmap to high performance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 55

Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led
science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3),
400–419.
Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for
supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 24(5), 628–647.
Bers, M., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering
students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 14(1), 59–73.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and
tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72,
145–157.
Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers:
Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood
Education Annual, 1, 123–145, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Bers, M. (2008). Engineers and storytellers: Using robotic manipulatives to develop technological
fluency in early childhood. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
science and technology in early childhood education (pp. 105–125). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., & Marshall, B. (2008). Working inside the black box: Assessment
for learning in the classroom. London: GL Assessment.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment. Alexandria, VA:
Assn/Supervision & Curric. Dev.
Caitlin, D. (2012). Maximising the effectiveness of educational robotics through the use of
assessment for learning methodologies. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop
Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics: Integrating robotics within school curriculum.
Riva del Garda, Italy.
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 195–202.
Caviglioli, O., Harris, I., & Tindall, B. (2002). Thinking skills and Eye Q: Visual tools for raising
intelligence. Stafford: Network Educational Press Ltd.
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate
math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.
Chalmers, C. (2009). Primary students’ group metacognitive processes in a computer supported
collaborative learning environment. Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29819/
Chalmers, C. (2013). Learning with FIRST LEGO League. In Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education (SITE) Conference (25–29 March, 2013) (pp. 5118–5124). New
Orleans, Louisiana: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. (2005). Group metacognition in a computer-supported collaborative
learning environment. In Looi, C., Jonassen, D. H., & Ikeda, M. (Eds.), Towards Sustainable
and Scalable Educational Innovations Informed by the Learning Sciences: Sharing Good
Practices of Research, Experimentation and Innovation (pp. 35–41). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of
mechanical advantage through the use of Lego robotic technology. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 24(4), 387–401.
Chambers, J., Carbonaro, M., & Rex, M. (2007). Scaffolding knowledge construction through
robotic technology: A middle school case study. Electronic Journal for the Integration of
Technology in Education, 6, 55–70.
Charles, R. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle
school mathematics. Journal of Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24.
56 C. Chalmers and R. Nason

Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Cheung, M., & Martin, D. (2008). Session 9: Thinking about
thinking—Metacognition. In The Learning Classroom: Theory into Practice (pp. 157–172).
Pal Alto, CA: Stanford University School of Education. http://www.learner.org/courses/
learningclassroom/
de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats: An essential approach to business management. New York:
Little, Brown and Co.
Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximise student
learning. Thousand Oaks: CA, Corwin Press.
Eberle, B. (1997). Scamper worksheet. USA: Prufrock Press. http://bmgi.org/toolstemplates/
scamper-worksheet
Fathulla, K., & Basden, A. (2007). What is a diagram? In Proceedings of IV07: The 11th
International Conference on Information Visualisation (4–6 July 2007), Zurich, Switzerland.
IEEE Society Press. www.graphicslink.co.uk/IV07/
Fiore, S., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Process mapping and shared cognition: Teamwork and the
development of shared problem models. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition:
Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 133–152). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004).
Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10),
1081–1110.
Grubbs, M. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build stem skills. Technology
and Engineering Teacher, 72(6), 12–16.
Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Brilleslyper, M. (2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as
a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics education research.
Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2), 1–25.
Hamner, E., Lauwers, T., Bernstein, D., Nourbakhsh, I., & DiSalvo, C. (2008). Robot diaries:
Broadening participation in the science pipeline through social technical exploration. In
Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Using AI to Motivate Greater Participation in
Computer Science, Palo Alto, CA. www.cs.cmu.edu/*illah/PAPERS/aaaiss08rd.pdf
Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield, Herts:
Association of Science Teachers.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Jasparro, R. J. (1998). Applying systems thinking to curriculum evaluation. National Association
of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(598), 80–86. http://gateway.library.qut.
edu.au/login?, http://search.proquest.com/docview/216028552?accountid=13380du
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (Eds.) (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group
responsibility and individual accountability. Newberry Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: An empirical study of
non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, 29(1), 49–69.
Lane, A. (2013). A review of diagramming in systems practice and how technologies have
supported the teaching and learning of diagramming for systems thinking in practice. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 26(4), 319–329.
Lesh, R., & Clarke, D. (2000). Formulating operational definitions of desired outcomes of
instruction in mathematics and science education. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.),
Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 113–149). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003). Model development
sequences. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling
perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 35–54). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
2 Systems Thinking Approach to Robotics Curriculum in Schools 57

Lesh, R. A., Kelly, A. E., & Yoon, C. (2008). Multi-tiered design experiments in mathematics,
science and technology education. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of
design research methods in education (pp. 131–148). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Norton, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2007). Problem solving in a middle school robotics
design classroom. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 261–277.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping
students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H.
(2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1),
53–64.
Rogers, C. B. (2012). Engineering in kindergarten: How schools are changing. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations and Research, 13(4), 4–9.
Rogers, G., & Wallace, J. (2000). The wheels on the bus: Children designing in an early years
classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 127–136.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics:
Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1),
59–69.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18(2), 145–165.
Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle
classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299–327.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.
Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Silk, E. M. (2011). Resources for learning robots: Environments and framings connecting math in
robotics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh. http://www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu/content/
educators/research/files/SilkEliM2011.pdf
Silk, E. M., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Designing technology activities that
teach mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 69(4), 21–27.
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2007). Classroom assessment for student
learning: Doing it right-using it well. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Sullivan, F. R. (2008) Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and
systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives
for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2),
105–128
Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.
Wendell, K. B., & Kolodner, J. L. (2014). Learning disciplinary ideas and practices through
engineering design. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering
research education (pp. 243–265). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wendell, B. K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content
performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education,
102(4), 513–540.
Wiggins, G. B., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Heatherton, Vic:
Hawker Brownlow Education.
Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content
knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.
Yildirim, T. P., Shuman, L., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2010). Model-eliciting activities: Assessing
engineering student problem solving and skill integration processes. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 26(4), 831–845.
Chapter 3
Combatting the War Against Machines:
An Innovative Hands-on Approach
to Coding

Jacqui Chetty

Abstract The twenty-first century has been an era of technological advances that
has surpassed previous decades. This is largely due to the level of innovation in the
fields of artificial intelligence, robotics and automation. However, learners are often
reluctant to choose computer programming (coding) as a subject due to its per-
ceived difficulty. Nevertheless, it is also well known that learners who are intro-
duced to computer programming at a young age become the computer science
university graduates of tomorrow. Learners’ hesitancy towards computer pro-
gramming is due to the complex, abstract nature of the discipline. To this end,
innovative tools are proving useful for learners to overcome such barriers. This
chapter provides effective strategies to teach the fundamental concepts of computer
programming using robotics, specifically Lego Mindstorms robots. The approach
taken is hands-on, student-centred and visual. Learners develop coding solutions
through designing and coding real-world problems, visually correcting their
imprecisions. This chapter includes learning activities and practical examples from
case studies. The inequality of women in the workplace, especially women in IT, is
also addressed. A discussion around effective approaches to teaching girls’ coding
is included as research indicates that girls’ learning requirements for coding are
different to those of boys.

Keywords Lego Mindstorms robotics Innovative tools Computer programming



Learner-centred learning Authentic learning

3.1 Introduction

Learners enrolled for a computer programming module for the first time often find it
challenging to understand the fundamental concepts surrounding the discipline.
Equally, educators find it difficult to teach such learners. Research indicates that

J. Chetty (&)
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 59

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_3
60 J. Chetty

traditional pedagogical approaches do not lend themselves towards a positive

experience for both learner and educator (Lister 2011). Given that pedagogical
approaches are a powerful determinant as to whether a learner will be successful in
a programming module, it is worthwhile investigating the variety of pedagogies and
related tools available, to determine whether there is an approach that could ade-
quately scaffold learners studying such modules. Research indicates that using
games as a pedagogical tool to teach learners, the art of algorithmic
problem-solving as well as programming has successfully been implemented to
scaffold learners (Badger 2009).
The idea of using games to teaching fundamental computer programming con-
cepts is not new (Lawhead et al. 2002). Using games as a learning tool is advocated
as games have the potential to positively contribute to successful learning (Piteira
and Haddad 2011). Lego Mindstorms robots is one such game that provides an
innovative teaching tool for building learners’ computer programming skills.
Amongst others, the game provides two necessary elements for learning, namely
understanding and motivation (Piteira and Haddad 2011). It provides a platform for
learners to build, reinforce and practice fundamental computer programming con-
cepts, while adding an element of fun. Lego Mindstorms scaffolds learners’ learning
because it uses action instead of explanation; accommodates a variety of learning
styles and skills; reinforces mastery skills; provides an opportunity to practice; and
affords an interactive, decision-making context.
Lego Mindstorms robots may prove to be an effective teaching tool to scaffold
learners as it assists them with refining the art of computational thinking and
enables the learning around the design of complex algorithms. The scaffolding
becomes an instrument for educators to ‘bridge’ learners who are navigating a new
discipline, as they clasp frantically to fragile knowledge in their minds. Structured
scaffolding that is maintained for a reasonable period of time allows the fragile
knowledge to solidify and become entrenched into the mind of the learner.
This chapter provides an overview of Lego Mindstorms robots as a tool that can
be used to teach or reinforce fundamental computer programming concepts.
Guidelines regarding teaching, managing and assessing such lessons are also
deliberated. Gender similarities and differences when learning computer program-
ming are also highlighted so that educators are aware of how to ensure that both
genders receive appropriate teaching and learning.

3.2 Difficulties Faced by Learners Learning a Computer

Programming Language

The skills expected for computer programming are complex, and learners worldwide
find it very difficult to solve problems (Mead et al. 2006; Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development-OECD 2004). The problem arises as learners need
to articulate a problem into a programming solution (Garner et al. 2005; Lahtinen
et al. 2005) by combining syntax and semantics into a valid program
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 61

(Winslow 1996) through the construction of mechanisms and explanations (Soloway

1986). In order to achieve this, learners need to be able to apply fundamental
computer programming concepts (Garner 2005; Robins et al. 2003) and understand
abstract concepts (Lahtinen et al. 2005). When learners are faced with trying to
absorb and understand too many new concepts at one time, their working memory
may become overloaded. Their overloaded working memories make it very difficult
for them to understand the concepts taught to them. The idea of working memory
and load capacity is also known as cognitive load theory (Mason et al. 2015).

3.3 Cognitive Load

Humans are limited to a working memory capacity that is strictly bounded and
relatively small (Mason et al. 2015). This means that due to our limited working
memory capacity, our memories can become overloaded and our cognitive per-
formance can decline. This is particularly true when novice learners are faced with
the fundamentals associated with computer programming concepts as these con-
cepts are fraught with abstract ideas or higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Such
concepts are often layered, one on top of the other, before a learner is able to design
and construct computer programs. Given that such learners are new to the discipline
(novices), their cognitive load increases exponentially, often exceeding their critical
threshold level of cognitive capacity (Mason et al. 2015).
It is therefore not unexpected for research to indicate that the results linked to
computer programming modules aimed at novices more often than not have a par-
ticularly high failure rate. When such learners are presented with a subject, such as
computer programming, they struggle as their cognitive load is pushed to capacity.
These learners often cannot adapt as they are expected to learn concepts that require
abstract reasoning, also known as computational thinking (Bower and Falkner 2015).

3.4 Computational Thinking

Computational thinking (CT) can be defined as the ability of a learner to develop

problem-solving strategies and techniques that assist in the design and use of
algorithms and models (Falkner et al. 2015). According to Lister (2011), such
thinking needs time to develop. In fact, most learners possess limited CT in the
early stages of their lives, but such skills should develop and mature, given that
learners are educated and receive formal training (Lister 2011). However, many
learners’ computational thinking is not developed, and when they are confronted
with a discipline such as programming, they are unable to think in a computational
manner. Lego Mindstorms robots provides an excellent opportunity to develop CT
through the use of problem-solving. Lego Mindstorms and problem-solving are
tantamount providing a rich environment that can develop programming skills.
62 J. Chetty

3.5 Problem-solving

Teaching computer programming using a problem-solving approach has become

popular over the last decade (Falkner and Palmer 2009; Guillory 2011; Levy and
Iturbide 2011; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development-OECD
2004). The idea is that if a student learns how to solve one type of problem using a
problem-solving approach, that student should be able to solve other problems of a
similar nature, regardless of programming languages (Pears et al. 2009; Winslow
1996). Problem-solving provides an opportunity for students to construct programs
using English-like lines of instructions as English is a language that is familiar to
them. Expressing algorithmic instruction becomes easier as students are learning on
the ‘fringes’ of what they know. The language is the known and the
problem-solving (algorithmically) is the unknown. Lego Mindstorms instructions
are English-like, enticing learners to create instructions that are relevant and
applicable to the problem at hand.

3.6 Pedagogies Aimed at Computer Programming

Pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning can follow many paths, as there is
an abundance of educational paradigms and theories available to teachers and
educators alike. Some examples of such paradigms relate to behaviourism, cogni-
tivism and humanism (Knowledgebase 2012). However, social constructivism is a
philosophy that is well suited to learning computer programming.

3.7 Social Constructivism and Computer Programming

Social constructivism is a philosophy and a learning theory that has established

itself in the last decade (Karagiorgi and Symeou 2005). It is a didactic approach that
provides an opportunity for learning to take place in a social, interactive and col-
laborative manner. Central to this approach is that teaching and learning is an active
process of constructing knowledge in a social setting, where students learn col-
laboratively. The idea is that during the classroom experience, new knowledge is
constructed in a social setting. The new knowledge is based on students’ past
experiences and the hypotheses of the environment in which they learn. An
essential aspect concerns how knowledge is being shaped through the use of
symbolic tools, such as language (Kozulin and Gindis 2003). The intention is that
students develop skills, such as reasoning, problem-solving, the development of
higher mental processes and metacognition (Kozulin and Gindis 2003).
Computer programming is a discipline that requires critical thinking, teamwork
and the development of software solutions (active process of constructing software
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 63

solutions). Social constructivism could prove to be an ideal pedagogical approach

in this context. Scholars, such as Vygotsky, Piaget and Bruner, believed learning to
be an active contextualised process that requires social negotiation (Bruner 1960;
Corney et al. 2012; Vygotsky 1978). The process of developing software solutions
emulates the philosophies surrounding social constructivism (Chetty 2016).
Parallels can be drawn between social constructivism and computer program-
ming. Computer programming solutions are often developed through a process of
discussion. A team of individuals, in collaboration with one another, are required to
solve problems and find solutions (Farrell 2010). For example, a computer program
is designed and developed using a formal computer programming language, such as
C#. The design and the development of the program is a process that requires
analogical reasoning, critical thinking, problem-solving and social negotiation. This
process often takes place in collaboration with team members, where the design and
the development of a program to be constructed requires team members to discuss
and negotiate designs, workload, workflow and optimal solutions.
Although social constructivism is an underlying paradigm that can form a
foundation for teaching, authentic learning is a platform that can transform the
theoretical constructs of social constructivism into practice.

3.8 Authentic Learning Shaping the Design

Bruner stated that there is a real difference between learning about a domain (such
as computer programming) and learning to be a computer programmer (Bruner
1960). While facts and knowledge can be taught, these only take on meaning and
relevance when students discover the benefits of actively participating during
learning as opposed to passively listening in classes (Lombardi 2007). When stu-
dents actively participate in learning, they learn to ‘do’, they collaborate with others
and they form communities of practice.
Herrington’s Authentic Learning Framework, which comprises nine elements
(Herrington and Parker 2013), is an excellent example of how authentic learning
can be incorporated into the classroom. Although the framework consists of many
elements, this chapter considers two elements that can be included when teaching
Lego Mindstorms robots (although others could also be included).

3.9 Authentic Context

An authentic context is a physical environment that reflects or mimics the way in

which the constructed knowledge is to be used and produced in the real world
(Herrington 2006). Some scholars believe that it is the only context in which
learning becomes meaningful. These scholars were the pioneers responsible for
developing an authentic learning model that bridged the gap between theoretical
64 J. Chetty

learning in the classroom and real-life application in the work environment

(Herrington 2006). The learning environment can be described as one in which the
design of the classroom setting preserves the complexity of the real-life setting.
Furthermore, such a setting provides purpose and motivation for learners. It also
provides an environment where educators and learners alike can discuss and explain
ideas within the context of the real-life situation, making no attempts to fragment or
simplify the environment (Herrington 2013a).
Given the notion of what an authentic context is, what would constitute a typical
real-world setting for a computer programmer? In order to illustrate the setting, it is
important to describe the activities and habits of a computer programmer during any
given day so that the setting can reflect this. Computer programmers work on an
individual basis as well as within a team. In both of these situations, their goal is to
solve problems and develop application software solutions (Career One Stop 2008).
Therefore, the workspace environment should reflect this. The working space may
consist of a personal space that allows programmers a certain amount of privacy,
free from interruption (Barker 2012). In this space, they critically analyse, have time
to think creatively and develop programming solutions. The need will arise for
them to work collaboratively, and a communal space will then be required. This
space should allow them to communicate effectively with one another. Whiteboards
and other essentials should be available so that they can discuss and visualise
solutions in order to find an optimal solution. The idea is to provide an environment
for learners to ‘to be programmers’ by building Lego Mindstorms solutions like
they would be in the real world.

3.10 Authentic Task

Researchers and experts worldwide agree that an authentic learning activity rep-
resents a problem that has real-world relevance, is ill-defined and needs to be
completed over a period of time (Brannock et al. 2013; Herrington 2006, 2013b;
Lombardi 2007). Real-world relevance is concerned with problems that match the
real-world tasks of professionals in practice. Such problems are normally ‘messy’ or
ill-defined. Ill-defined problems are problems that when described to students are
open to interpretation, as opposed to problems that are developed step-by-step.
Instead of being highly prescriptive, ill-defined problems provide an opportunity for
learners to identify the steps needed to complete the activity (Herrington et al.
2006). As ill-defined problems are more complex, learners need a longer period of
time to complete such activities. The longer time period also allows learners to
reflect on the choices that they are making regarding the solution, and this enhances
their metacognitive skills (Lombardi 2007).
Authentic learning activities provide an opportunity for learners to construct new
knowledge instead of reproducing existing knowledge. In order to achieve this,
learners are provided with multiple sources from which they can draw information,
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 65

examine the problem from many angles, distinguish relevant information from
irrelevant information and formulate a product (Lombardi 2007). For example,
learners can be asked to develop software solutions, given a real-world problem.
These tasks should be completed in collaboration, where learners are given the
opportunity to discuss problems, ideas and solutions, thus learning from one
another, before completing the task. Authentic tasks can easily be incorporated into
a Lego Mindstorms environment providing endless imaginative projects.

3.11 LEGO Mindstorms Robots: A Tool to Scaffold

Learning

Lego Mindstorms robots have become a popular pedagogical tool to teach and learn
introductory computer programming concepts (Lawhead et al. 2002; Lui et al.
2010). The emphasis is on the word ‘tool’, where robots create a rich environment
that provides a platform for novices as well as experienced educators to implement
a laboratory experience for learners to learn programming skills in an interesting,
unique and challenging manner. In effect, Stein (1998) challenges the computer
science teaching community to move from the premise that computation is calcu-
lation to the notion of computation is interaction. Robots would be a natural way to
explore such a concept.
Lego Mindstorms robots form part of Lego education and can be bought through
a representative responsible for retailing such toys. The Mindstorms consists of
building components, a programmable brick, active sensors and motors. There is
software for which both graphical user interface (GUI) and command line interfaces
are available. The robots, together with their associated interfaces, provide an
opportunity for educators to transform classrooms into rich laboratory or software
studios, where learners can experience learner-centred learning, collaborative
learning and peer-to-peer programming experimentation (Yamazaki et al. 2015).
This environment provides an opportunity for learners to ‘put their programming
skills to the test’ as what they program comes to life through the Lego Mindstorms
robot. They can visually understand ‘what works’, ‘what does not work’ and ‘why’.
Figure 3.1 shows a robot that is about to perform a task.
Lego Mindstorms robots provides an opportunity for learners to understand
fundamental computer programming concepts that are, by their very nature, abstract
(deRaadt 2008). These concepts are not analogies with the real world (Piteira and
Haddad 2011). However, the Lego Mindstorms programming hides the abstract
complexity by providing a fun, click and drag, prompting interface to assist with
such analogies.
Introducing Lego Mindstorms robots provides a unique opportunity to transform
a classroom environment that can create a degree of motivation in which (Piteira
and Haddad 2011):
66 J. Chetty

Fig. 3.1 EV3 Lego Mindstorms robot

(a) Learners are given an opportunity to ‘grapple’ with real-world problems;

(b) The Lego Mindstorms robot becomes a learning tool that can scaffold learners;
(c) Fragile knowledge of abstract programming concepts can be reinforced; and
(d) Learners are given an opportunity to experiment, explore and enjoy
programming.

3.12 The Motivation Factor

Research indicates that emotions, such as hope, anger, relief, anxiety and boredom,
are significantly related to motivation, learning strategies, cognitive resources,
self-regulation, and academic achievement, as well as personality and classroom
antecedents (Pekrun et al. 2002). According to Jenkins, motivation in particular is a
crucial component related to learners’ success. Although motivation is difficult to
quantify, Jenkins has identified expectancy and value as two factors, which when
multiplied can predict learners’ motivation (Jenkins 2001). Expectancy is related to
the extent to which learners feel that they are able to succeed. Value is related to
what they expect to gain. For example, confident learners who feel that they are able
to succeed will attach a value or goal related to high marks. They will most likely
score high in the area of motivation as motivation ¼ expectancy  value (Jenkins
2001).
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 67

A motivated learner would therefore experience emotions related to hope,

enjoyment and pride, whereas an unmotivated learner would experience emotions
related to anger, frustration, anxiety and boredom. Lego Mindstorms robots pro-
vides an opportunity for learners to experiment and explore. The idea of learning
through play is an effective tool to create personal motivation and satisfaction of
learning (Piteira and Haddad 2011).

3.13 A Hands-on Approach to Teaching Lego

Mindstorms Robotics

Lego Mindstorms robots can be purchased as Lego Mindstorms NXT or the newest
version, namely Lego Mindstorms EV3 (lego.com). The EV3 has step-by-step
instructions to build a variety of robots, as well as all the components needed to
execute a variety of programs so that the robot can perform actions. Figure 3.2
shows some of the components that make up the EV3 robot.
The EV3 brick has a LINUX operating system, memory, ports, USB adaptors
and a power supply. There are ports A to D and ports 1 to 4. Each port is an
entry/exit point where cables are attached and link to the motors and other sensors.
The brick provides the necessary hardware and software for learners to write
executable programs. Once learners have built the robot using the Lego pieces, the
programmable brick and other components, learners can start writing and executing
programs.

Fig. 3.2 Lego Mindstorms EV3 kit

68 J. Chetty

The programs can be written using the EV3 brick interface or a software
application can be downloaded for free (EV3 software). The EV3 software has a
powerful interface, as shown in Fig. 3.3, and makes use of a click and drag
approach to developing programs. The commands, shown in Fig. 3.3, are grouped
by colours, for example green depicts action. All the commands are visible, and
learners are not left guessing as to how a program can be built.
The software makes use of a click and drag approach, where learners locate a
command and drag it onto the palette. Each command clicks into place, similar to
that of puzzle pieces, as shown in Fig. 3.4. Figure 3.4 depicts a robot moving
forward at a certain speed over a period of time. The robot then stops once that time
period ceases to exist.

Fig. 3.3 EV3 software interface

Fig. 3.4 Lego Mindstorms code depicting a loop

3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 69

The following section provides curriculum guidance to educators that choose to

include Lego Mindstorms robotics as part of the classroom learning. The learning
discussed next consists of planning, managing and assessing Lego Mindstorms
robot’s curriculum.

3.14 Planning Lego Mindstorms Lessons

All planning, regarding of subject content, follows a particular pattern (Simmons

and Hawkins 2015). For example, lesson plans are developed for a single lesson,
collected lesson plans for a number of weeks and long-term plans. This chapter
focuses on a single lesson as well as a combination of lessons for a number of
weeks as Lego Mindstorms robots is generally taught over a period of a few weeks.

3.14.1 Lesson Plans

A lesson plan is a planning tool that contains all the information as well as the
decisions that need to be considered before teaching (Simmons and Hawkins 2015).
It consists of learning aims and learning objectives that constitute that lesson. The
lesson plan provides the overall context for a lesson as well as activities, outputs
and assessment criteria for those outputs. A Lego Mindstorms robots lesson plan
should consist of a similar structure.
Lego Mindstorms robots provides a hands-on approach to learning and this
means that even the best planned lessons can collapse. This is due to a number of
reasons but one reason may be due to the use of technology as the focus of
instruction. Many of us have experienced technology failing just as teaching is
about to commence, even when many practice rounds have been put in place. For
example, a cable can break down or a learner downloads a program but then
executes the incorrect program. Teaching programming using innovative tools does
increase the risk of lessons failing to achieve the desired outputs, and this can cause
much stress to the educator. However, it is important to remember that learners and
educators alike learn best when lessons do not go according to plan. A learner that
spends a period of time problem-solving why a program does not execute is
unlikely to make the same mistake again. An educator that encounters a cable
problem more than ten times quickly learns how to solve that particular problem.
I have experienced a few common errors that can occur.
Practical Tips
• The EV3 firmware is incompatible with the software application. This is easily
rectified by downloading the correct version of firmware;
70 J. Chetty

• Cables used to download programs from the software application to the EV3
brick can malfunction;
• A learner programs a robot to move in a straight line; however, the robot turns in
circles. This is normally due to a cable (connected to a sensor on the robot) that
is touching a wheel of the robot; and
• The learner has downloaded a program but executes the incorrect program from
the EV3 brick. This can be rectified by ensuring that learners name their pro-
grams properly.

3.14.2 Planning to Plan

Prior to the development of a lesson plan, it is very important to consider the

number of learners in a group as this affects classroom layout, as well as the seating
plan. In most instances, it is advisable for learners to work in groups due to, firstly,
the expense of the Lego Mindstorms robots. Secondly, Lego Mindstorms robots
provides an opportunity for learners to work collaboratively, which is generally
appreciated as an excellent approach to learning.
Practical Tip
• A group of two learners is optimal as a group that consists of any more than two
learners often means that the other learners in the team do not get to participate
—there are not enough tasks for everyone.

3.15 Lego Mindstorms Lesson Plans

3.15.1 Lesson Plan #1

The first lesson plan is relatively straightforward as learners are expected to build
the Lego Mindstorms robot. Table 3.1 provides an example of the first lesson plan.
Practical Tips
• The batteries are normally inside the EV3 brick but check;
• Put the EV3 brick on charge while building the robot;
• It may be difficult to establish a timeline for building the robot. It may take from
one to two hours; and
• Make sure that the cables are attached to the correct ports/components (i.e.
sensors and motors).
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 71

Table 3.1 Lesson plan #1

Time Learner activity Teacher activity Learning
outcome
1 to Provide an opportunity for Welcome the class and provide The completion
2h learners to build the robot in an introductory talk about of the robot to a
groups where they can discuss building the robot satisfactory level
and collaborate on their design Point out the different
The building of Lego components that are needed to
Mindstorms robots offers build the robot
learners the opportunity to create Offer learners the opportunity to
their unique bot—ready to be deviate from the set models by
programmed and controlled in designing and building their
the manner that suits them own unique bot
Learners that feel more
comfortable with step-by-step,
Lego-type instructions can build
their bot by choosing a design
where the instructions for the
building are already given to
them
Provide them an opportunity to
deviate from their model to
include a few components of
their own

3.15.2 Lesson Plan #2

The second lesson plan involves an explanation of the software application inter-
face, also known as the Programming Canvas. There are a variety of instructions or
commands, each grouped and located in a Programming Palette (divided into cat-
egories by colour).
The palettes are listed as follows:

Action blocks Flow blocks Sensor blocks Data blocks

□ Medium □ Start □ Brick buttons □ Variable
motor □ Wait □ Colour sensor □ Constant
□ Large □ Loop □ Infrared □ Array
motor sensor operations
□ Move □ Switch □ Motor rotation □ Logic
operations
steering □ Loop □ Timer □ Math
interrupt
□ Move tank □ Touch sensor □ Round
□ Display □ Compare
□ Sound □ Range
□ Brick status □ Text
light □ Random
72 J. Chetty

Table 3.2 Lesson plan #2

Time Learner activity Teacher activity Learning outcome
1–2 h The learners will Point out the different Learners are expected to
familiarise themselves palettes that will be be able to differentiate
with the various palettes required by learners to between the categories
that form part of the develop a set of of Programming Palettes
interface instructions Learners should be able
Learners must remember Assist learners in to name a few blocks
the different palettes, understanding the from the Action blocks
such as Action and Flow. different categories of category
Ask learners to make a blocks and why they are
chart so that they can grouped accordingly
categorise the palettes,
together with their
commands. The chart
can be created in such a
way that it can be used in
a later lesson (colour
sensor). The robot can
detect a colour and
sound out the palette,
such as Action and Flow
(see lesson 4#)
15 min Learners create their first Perform the activity with Learners are expected to
program by clicking and the learners and remind have put the two
dragging the Move Tank learners where to find the commands together
command to the right of Move Tank command
the Start command Show learners how to
Learners must make sure correctly click the
that the two commands commands in place to
fit together like puzzle form a program
pieces Explain to learners that a
program is a set of
step-by-step instructions
performed in sequence

There are two more blocks, namely the Advanced blocks and the My blocks,
each consisting of a number of commands. Table 3.2 provides an example of the
lesson plan.
Practical Tips
• Get learners to ask each other which palette holds which blocks;
• Point out to learners the difference between the medium and large motors;
• Make sure that learners understand the difference between move steering and
move tank;
• Let learners measure the length when the tank moves forward for x—seconds,
degrees and rotations; and
• Point out to learners that the Flow blocks/Wait command can be used to create
instructions for sensors instead of the Sensor blocks.
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 73

3.15.3 Lesson Plan #3

Lesson plan #3 is a continuation of lesson plan #2 and therefore can be completed

as part of the same session. This lesson plan consists of learning about the hardware
associated with the robot and how learners can examine the hardware using the
Programming Canvas. The hardware is directly linked to the programming com-
mands, such as moving the wheels or instructing the robot to pick up colour. It is
therefore important that learners understand how the hardware, cables and ports
operate as well as connect with one another.
Figure 3.5 displays information about the EV3 brick. EV3 is the name of the
brick, although this can be altered. Learners enjoy developing unique names for
their EV3 brick. The brick information tab displays information about the brick,
such as the battery level, firmware version and how much memory has been used.
The Port view tab shows which sensors and motors are attached to the brick,
indicated in Fig. 3.6.
The Available Bricks tab connects the brick to the EV3 software. The download
button allows transfer of the program from the computer to the EV3 brick.

Fig. 3.5 Hardware page tabs on the left and the download/run buttons on the right

Fig. 3.6 Port view

74 J. Chetty

Table 3.3 Lesson plan #3

Time Learner activity Teacher activity Learning outcome
30 min Learners observe the Point out each port Learners are expected to
various ports, plugging associated with a sensor feel comfortable with
in the different sensors and ensure that learners the various ports
Provide opportunities for understand the link Learners should be able
learners to collaborate between the robot and to identify which port is
and discuss with one the port view connected to which
another what the different Provide a small problem sensor
ports do for learners to solve to Learners are expected to
Allow them to trace the provide an opportunity be able to download and
cable leaving an exit for learners to download run a program
point and entering and run a program developed in the
another port software application
Learners download and window
run a program, observing
the activity at the port
view

This option only allows for a download and does not run the program. The
Download and Run option downloads the program and runs the program imme-
diately. The Run Selected will download and run only the blocks that have been
selected. This option is useful when fixing problems in a program (Griffin 2014).
Table 3.3 provides a lesson plan.
Practical Tips
• Get learners to ask each other which palette holds which blocks—refer them to
their charts that they have developed.

3.15.4 Lesson Plan #4

From lesson #4 onwards, the focus of the classroom learning is to provide an

understanding of the fundamental concepts associated with computer programming,
using Lego Mindstorms robots. These fundamentals1 are as follows (the completed
ones depends on the curriculum):
• Variables;
• Memory;
• Single-line step-by-step statements;
• Selection statement (if … else …);
• Repetition (looping);
• Arrays;
• Methods (functions procedures);

1
An explanation around the fundamental concepts of programming for non-programmers
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 75

Table 3.4 Lesson plan #4

Time Learner activity Teacher activity Learning outcome
Time varies for each Learners must Provide an Learners are
programming discuss, in a group, understanding to expected to
concept taught. On the programming learners around the understand each
average, each concept being programming programming
concept should take taught, by concept taught, for concept learnt by
about 90 min to providing examples example variables developing practical
teach of how that concept Provide much solutions that include
is useful or can be opportunity for the programming
used as part of a learners to practice concept
software solution the programming
concepts being
taught
Introduce
real-world problems
where learners can
work in pairs to
solve the problem

• Objects; and
• Classes.
Each lesson plan following on from lesson #4 imprints a similar pattern or
structure, the only difference being is the computer programming concept taught.
Therefore, the layout for lesson #4 can be seen as a template, Table 3.4, that can be
used for further lessons (i.e. lesson #5, lesson #6 and so on).
Practical Tips
• Spend a fair amount of time on each programming concept as learners often
‘think’ they understand until they have to solve a problem that they have never
been exposed to before;
• Each of the programming concepts makes use of a variety of palettes. Other than
the common Action blocks, the Flow blocks are prominent combined with the
Sensor blocks; and
• The Colour sensor, Touch sensor and Infrared sensor are particularly useful for
learning about selection (If…/else…) as well as repetition (For… loop/While…
loop).

3.16 Managing Lessons

Classroom management can be one of the biggest sources of uncertainty and

anxiety for educators and learners alike (Simmons and Hawkins 2015). Even the
best planned lesson objectives can be diluted when the act of learning as well as the
behaviour of a group of learners is unpredictable. The focus of managing lessons
aimed at Lego Mindstorms robots probably falls into two main categories, namely
managing the classroom environment and managing the planned lesson.
76 J. Chetty

3.16.1 Managing the Classroom Environment

Experience suggests that it often becomes tricky to manage the behaviour of

learners in the classroom as learners find the experience of building, as well as the
development of solutions extremely exciting. The classroom experience is a very
physical one, where learners move around, solve problems in pairs and are expe-
riencing the joy of learning by doing. The robot moves around, makes sounds,
bumps into objects and other robots, and this provides much entertainment amongst
learners. It becomes rather difficult to bring calm to the classroom environment,
especially when you need learners to take their seats so that a concept can be
discussed or reflected upon. The noise levels within the classroom can be very high.
In order for the classroom environment to remain a positive one, it is important
that the educator discusses with learners how learning will take place. Some points
of discussion can be:
• Focus learners’ attention—for example, educators can come to an agreement
with learners that when a funny word, such as ‘beetle juice’, is uttered by the
educator the learners respond with ‘glug, glug, glug’ and they all take their seats.
• Take turns—for example, educators can, when a pair is grouped, also be
known as pair programming (Preston 2005), by allocating one learner as being
the driver (typing in the code) and the other learner as being the navigator
(observe/correct the driver). With each activity, the driver and the navigator are
swopped around. Proper roles may reduce arguing about whose turn it is.
• Listen and participate in class discussion—for example, educators can ask a
pair to demonstrate their programming solution and discuss the manner in which
the solution was developed. Other pairs can rate the solution being
demonstrated.
• Length of time allocated to lessons—educators must be aware that although
learners are very engaged and the time allocated to participate within a lesson
seems to go quickly, learners do tire and small breaks are necessary. It is easy to
forget about providing a break when learners and the educator are very absorbed
within an activity.

3.16.2 Managing the Planned Lesson

The adage ‘failing to plan is planning to fail’ cannot be more true, especially within
a teaching and learning environment. It is very important, and maybe more so when
making use of physical objects within a lesson plan, to be vigilant about planning.
Carefully crafted learning objectives, writing lesson plans, developing problems for
learners to solve and presentations regarding some part of the curriculum provide a
structure to educators and communicate confidence and experience to learners.
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 77

• Learning objectives—other than developing objectives regarding the pro-

gramming environment for Lego Mindstorms robots, the learning objectives
should reflect fundamental programming concepts, linked to the educators’
curriculum. There are a variety of books, such as The Art of Lego Mindstorms
EV3 Programming and The Lego Mindstorms EV3 Discovery book, to name a
few, that are very helpful.
• Lesson plans—these can follow the structure as seen above in Tables 3.2, 3.3
and 3.4.
• Problems for learners to complete—there is such a wide variety of problems
that can be presented to learners. Regardless of the type of problem, real-world
problems can provide an opportunity for learners to develop solutions within
their world context. For example, ask learners to develop a solution where the
robot behaves like an alarm. When an ‘intruder’ moves within 100 m of the
robot, an alarm bell is activated.

3.17 Assessment

The use of assessment for an ICT subject has traditionally been poor although it is
improving (Simmons and Hawkins 2015). Unless the ICT subject was receiving
specialist ICT teaching, there is often little proof of assessment. Projects are nor-
mally completed by learners, and educators may allocate marks in an arbitrary
manner, along with feedback, either verbal or written.
However, all assessment should provide a measure of performance against a
target standard. Bloom sought to move away from assessing in such a way that
learners were compared with one another, and instead compared to a set of
objective criteria. Within the computing discipline, such assessment is more often
than not a practical one. This can very much be aligned to Bloom’s way of
assessing as no two programming solutions may be the same. Learners think dif-
ferently about a problem and often develop different ways of solving a problem.
Assessment should, of course, be aligned to learning outcomes. However, the
type of assessment can be formative or summative assessment. For computing
solutions, both types of assessment are useful. Whereby formative assessment
provides an opportunity for both educator and learner to discuss what needs to be
done to solve a problem as well as how to achieve a desired outcome, summative
assessment relies on tests and examinations. For example, learners discussing their
programming solutions with other students provide a wonderful learning opportu-
nity as solutions always vary. Learners have opportunities to teach and learn from
one another.
Formative assessment can be accomplished by the programming pair being
asked to develop a solution. Once the solution is developed, the pair demonstrates
the end result. The educator can then ask questions from each individual within the
pair to verify that each learner did participate in the learning and that learning did
take place for both learners.
78 J. Chetty

Summative assessment can be difficult to realise as no two programming solu-

tions are the same. The idea of a rubric that provides generic criteria, from which
marks can be allocated, may be considered as useful. However, within this struc-
ture, the educator must provide leeway for out-of-the-box lateral thinking and
unique solutions that some learners are bound to produce.

3.18 Reflection upon Lessons

While the manner in which learning takes place is important, it is equally important
for learners to plan, manage and reflect on their learning (Laskey and Hetzel 2010),
also known as metacognition. The term metacognition was originally associated
with scholars such as Flavell, Zabrucky and Brown (Bransford et al. 2000).
Metacognition encompasses learners consciously and actively understanding their
cognitive aptitude and the ability to apply strategies to control cognitive thought
processes. Such internal thought patterns extend into learners’ daily lives where
cognitive tasks are planned, regulated, coordinated and monitored. Learners with
good metacognitive skills therefore have the potential to perform better in an
academic environment (Schraw and Dennison 1994).
Within a Lego Mindstorms robot classroom, environment metacognition can be
accomplished in many ways. For example, learners can be asked to discuss what
they learnt within their pairs, within a group or with an educator. One way of doing
this is to include the reflective thinking as part of a fun activity. The use of a Koosh
ball shown in Fig. 3.7 can be an effective object to encourage reflective thinking.
The educator throws or passes the Koosh ball to a learner, and the learner describes
something about their classroom learning experience. The Koosh ball is then passed
along to another learner and so on. Each learner is provided with an opportunity to
reflect, and nobody within the group is to comment or criticise. From experience,
learners find this type of activity enjoyable.

Fig. 3.7 Koosh ball often

used for therapy
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 79

3.19 Teaching Lego Mindstorms to Both Genders

The teaching and learning of programming has always been a subject of much
attention, due to the difficulties that learners encounter when learning this discipline.
Over the decades, much research has been conducted so that researchers can better
understand the ways in which learners learn to program. Exploration regarding
gender and whether this influences learning is also an area that has been researched
(Burnett et al. 2010; Carter and Jenkins 1999, 2001). Although there are many factors
that influence learning to program, research indicates that gender is a significant
factor in determining the way in which students approach learning to program (Funke
et al. 2015). This section provides insight into teaching different genders and how to
provide a teaching and learning environment that best suits each gender.

3.19.1 Gender Differences in Computer Science

In almost all western countries, women are severely underrepresented in the dis-
cipline of computer science. Only 20% of an intake within any given department is
female (Funke et al. 2015). Given these statistics what can be learnt so that edu-
cators are aware of the situation and provide an environment that encourages female
learners to enrol for programming courses.
Female learners tend to be less confident and they underestimate their ability
(Carter and Jenkins 1999; Funke et al. 2015). Consequently, female learners often
have weaker marks, only do what is required of them and they are less fascinated,
adopting a pragmatic approach to programming. However, they are also more
enthusiastic to seek assistance and readily attend extra tutorials, preferring smaller
groups over larger ones. Interestingly, female learners are more consistent, and
when confronted with a problem admit that there is a problem before the problem
becomes a larger one. Another aspect that affects the learning process is emotions
(Chetty and van der Westhuizen 2013). Research indicates that happiness has a
positive effect on learning, and anxiety negatively influences the learning process;
and the motivation of female learners (Funke et al. 2015). Communication is very
important to female learners. Denner et al. show that girls benefit from collaboration
where they work together as a pair, one being the driver and the other the navigator.
Male learners are more confident as they depict the typical role model of the
male computer scientist. They seem to have more hands-on experience, try and test
things out (scientific curiosity), and have more interest probably due to the gaming
industry. The result is that male learners often produce better marks. However, male
learners are often less structured and often do not admit when there is a problem
until the problem at hand is almost insurmountable (Carter and Jenkins 1999).
Additionally, they do not readily attend extra tutorials.
80 J. Chetty

3.20 Teaching Lego Mindstorms Robots to Both Genders

Both genders can benefit from learning programming using Lego Mindstorms
robots. Table 3.5 provides some practical ideas of how Lego Mindstorms robots
can be used to encourage both genders to enjoy the process of learning to program.
Female programmers dominated the industry in the 1960s up to the 1980s, when
a decline of female programmers began. This is unfortunate as female programmers
are greatly required in this industry due to their unique abilities that yield excellent

Table 3.5 Learning for both genders using Lego Mindstorms robots
Both genders learning programming using Lego Mindstorms robots
Lego Female learners Male learners
Mindstorms
robots learning
Scientific Needs encouragement and can be Do not need much encouragement as
curiosity through the use of real-world they are naturally curious about
problems that are meaningful to robots
them. Provide examples of female
programmers, such as the first
programmer was a female
Solving smaller Easily solve smaller problems so this Benefit from solving smaller
problems may be a way of retaining interest in problems due to their inability of
robots admitting when a program has a
‘bug’ until the problem is very large.
Encourage male learners to solve
small problems in this manner
Student-centred Communication is naturally good so Male learners may need to be
learning / encourage female learners to discuss encouraged to discuss learning.
Collaborative programming problems and Provide an environment where they
learning solutions as part of a group can discuss in pairs or small groups
discussion. This may build up an problems and solutions related to
excitement and happiness around their learning. Be goal-oriented and
programming, boosting confidence specific
Small group Any group learning is suitable for Male learners may need
learning female learners. Provide them with encouragement and structure, such
an opportunity to discuss their as providing a driver and a navigator
feelings about solving a problem or when solving a problem
working on a solution
Real-world Provide practical problems as they Provide practical problems as they
problems relate to their world, each group of relate to their world, each group of
students having a different world students having a different world
perspective perspective
Reflection As female learners communicate and Male learners may require
share well, reflection may be an encouragement. Provide a structure
opportunity to enhance their whereby you ask them to reflect on
confidence. For example, allow them an aspect and prevent open-ended
to share the successes they have questions
experienced
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 81

programmers. Skills such as attention to detail, meticulousness and an ability to

determine and correct ‘bugs’ within programs quickly, are just a few that come to
mind.

3.21 Conclusion

Learners face many difficulties and challenges when presented with programming
concepts. However, many of these challenges can be addressed when educators
investigate and understand the ways in which learners learn programming best.
Although not a silver bullet, good teaching enables learners and provides an
environment that encourages learning.
Lego Mindstorms robots may be an effective tool in which the fundamental
concepts related to programming can be presented to learners. Mindstorms provides
an opportunity to encourage innovative learning styles, such as student-centred
collaborative learning. These styles of learning are often successful with learners.
Furthermore, Lego Mindstorms robots provides the much needed scaffolding
required when teaching programming by presenting difficult programming concepts
in a visual, step-by-step way that learners may find easier to grasp. The fun inter-
active manner in which learning occurs means that students learn from one another.
This chapter provides an overview of how teaching and learning can be
accomplished through the use of Lego Mindstorms robots. These robots provide a
wonderful opportunity for educators to include much needed scaffolding for an
otherwise very difficult discipline such as programming.

References

Badger, M. (2009). Scratch 1.4 Learn to program while creating interactive stories, games, and
multimedia projects using Scratch Beginner’s Guide. Birmingham, Mumbai: PACKT.
Barker, E. (2012). What do the best programmers have in common? Retrieved from http://www.
bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/what-do-the-best-computer-programmers-have-in/
Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service
teachers, and research opportunities. Paper presented at the Australasian Computer Education
(ACE) Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Brannock, E., Lutz, R., & Napier, N. (2013). Integrating authentic learning into a software
development course: An experience report. Paper presented at the SIGITE’13, Orlando,
Florida, USA.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school: Expanded Edition. Committee on Learning Research and Educational
Practice (Ed.) Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853.html
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burnett, M., Fleming, S., Iqbal, S., Venolia, G., Rajaram, V., Farooq, U., et al. (2010). Gender
differences and programming environments: Across programming populations. Paper
presented at the ESEM ’10, Italy.
82 J. Chetty

Career One Stop. (2008). A day in the life—Computer programmer. Retrieved from http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_HdHSpDEg
Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999). Gender and programming: What’s going on? Paper presented at
the ITiCSE’99, Poland.
Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (2001, September). Gender differences in programming? Paper presented
at the ITcSCE, Canterbury, UK.
Chetty, J. (2016). An emerging pedagogy for teaching computer programming: Attending to the
learning needs of under-prepared students in university-level courses (Ph.D. Education
Information Systems), University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Chetty, J., & van der Westhuizen, D. (2013). “I hate programming” and other oscillating
emotions experienced by novice students learning computer programming. Paper presented at
the EdMedia’13, Canada.
Corney, M., Teague, D., Ahadi, A., & Lister, R. (2012). Some empirical results for Neo-Piagetian
reasoning in novice programmers and the relationship to code explanation questions. Paper
presented at the Australasian Computing Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
deRaadt, M. (2008). Teaching programming strategies explicitly to novice programmers. (Doctor
of Philosophy), University of Southern Queensland.
Falkner, K., & Palmer, E. (2009). Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory
computing classes. Paper presented at the SIGCSE’09, Tennessee, USA.
Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. J. G. (2015). Teaching computational thinking in K-6:
The CSER digital technologies MOOC. Paper presented at the Australasian Computer
Education (ACE) Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Farrell, J. (2010). JavaTM programming (5 edn). Course Technology, Cengage Learning.
Funke, A., Berges, M., Muhling, A., Hubwieser, P. (2015). Gender differences in programming:
research results and teachers’ perception. Paper presented at the Koli Calling ‘15, Finland.
Garner, S., Haden, P., Robins, A. (2005). My program is correct but it doesn’t run: A preliminary
investigation of novice programmers’ problems. Paper presented at the Australasian
Computing Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia.
Griffin, T. (2014). The Art of Lego Mindstorms EV3 Programming.
Guillory, B. A. (2011). Teaching through problem solving. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.
net/bbieniemy/teaching-through-problem-solving1
Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic
learning environments and tasks. Paper presented at the AACE.
Herrington, J. (2013a). Authentic contexts set the scene. Retrieved from http://authenticlearning.
info/AuthenticLearning/Authentic_Context.html
Herrington, J. (2013b). Its the task that matters most. Retrieved from http://authenticlearning.info/
AuthenticLearning/Authentic_Task.html
Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607–615.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among
learner, task and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 15. doi:10.1080/01587910600789639
Jenkins. (2001). Teaching programming—A journey from teacher to motivator. Paper presented at
the 2nd Annual LTSN-ICS Conference, London.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design:
Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 11.
Knowledgebase, L. T. (2012). Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved from http://www.learning-
theories.com/
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (Ed.) (2003). Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context. Cambridge.
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice
programmers. Paper presented at the ITiCSE ‘05, Monte de Caparica, Portugal.
Laskey, M. L., & Hetzel, C. J. (2010). Self-regulated Learning, metacognition and soft skills: The
21st century learner. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511589.pdf
3 Combatting the War Against Machines … 83

Lawhead, P. B., Bland, C. G., Barnes, D. J., Duncan, M. E., Goldweber, M., Hollingsworth, R. G.,
et al. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO Mindstorms
Robots. Paper presented at the ITiCSE-WSR.
Levy, R. B., & Iturbide, J. A. V. (2011). A problem solving teaching guide based on a procedure
intertwined with a teaching model. Paper presented at the ITiCSE’11, Darmstadt, Germany.
Lister, R. (2011). Concrete and other Neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice
programmer. Paper presented at the Australasian Computer Education Conference, Perth,
Australia.
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf
Lui, A. K., Ng, S.C., Cheung, H.Y., & Gurung, P. (2010). Facilitating independent learning with
Lego Mindstorms Robots. acmInroads, 1(4), 5.
Mason, R., Cooper, G., Simon, & Wilks, B. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to select an
environment for teaching mobile apps development. Paper presented at the Australasian
Computer Education (ACE), Sydney, Australia.
Mead, J., Gray, S., Hamer, J., James, R., Sorva, J., St. Clair, C., et al. (2006). A cognitive approach
to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition. Paper presented at the
ITiCSE’06, Bologna, Italy.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development-OECD. (2004). Problem solving for
tomorrow’s world—First measures of cross-curricular competencies from PISA 2003.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/12/34009000.pdf
Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., … Paterson, J. (2009).
A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. Paper presented at the
ITiCSE-WGR’07.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’
self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Educational Psychologist, 37(2). doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Piteira, M., & Haddad, S. R. (2011). Innovate in your program computer class: An approach
based on a serious game. Paper presented at the OSDOC’11, Lisbon, Portugal.
Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: A review of the
research. Paper presented at the CCSC: Central Plains Conference.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review
and discussion. Computer Science Educational Journal, 13, 137–172.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 16.
Simmons, C., & Hawkins, C. (2015). Teaching computing. London: Sage.
Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations.
Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 9.
Stein, L. (1998). What we’ve swept under the rug: Radically rethinking CS1. Computer Science
Education, 8(2), 118–129.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—A psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin,
28(3), 6.
Yamazaki, S., Sakamoto, K., Honda, K., Washizaki, H., & Fukazawa, Y. (2015). Comparative
study on programmable robots as programming educational tools. Paper presented at the
Australasian Computer Education (ACE) Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Chapter 4
The Open Academic Robot Kit

Raymond K. Sheh, Amy Eguchi, Haldun Komsuoglu

and Adam Jacoff

Abstract The Open Academic Robot Kit (OARKit) lowers the barrier of entry into
robotics research. A community-driven initiative, it was developed in the context of
the RoboCupRescue Robot League competition to advance the state of research in
response robotics. All mechanical parts are 3D printable, available off the shelf and/
or, ideally, drawn from a set of common parts. All designs, instructions and source
code are available online in easily editable form under an open-source licence.
These principles allow the OARKit robots to become powerful tools to encourage
collaboration across regions, generations and areas of expertise. The principles that
govern this initiative can be applied broadly to other robotics applications that
require interdisciplinary skills in order to build complete, useful, interesting
research implementations.

Keywords Robotics
Operating system
STEM
Interface
3D printing

4.1 Introduction

The Open Academic Robot Kit (OARKit) aims to bring interesting research-level
robots into the undergraduate and high school classroom. Those wishing to enter
into the field of robotics research often face three challenges. These are especially

R.K. Sheh (&)

Curtin University, Perth, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Eguchi
Bloomfield College, Bloomfield, USA
H. Komsuoglu
Robolit LLC, Philadelphia, USA
A. Jacoff
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 85

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_4
86 R.K. Sheh et al.

true for researchers in smaller or non-specialist university departments, under-

graduates, secondary schools, hobbyists and smaller companies. The challenges are
as follows:
• Building their first complete, working robot system.
• Obtaining relevant, first-hand information about the open problems and existing
solutions in the field.
• Finding a community in which to demonstrate and compare their developments.
Over the past decade, we have been developing a variety of initiatives that aim to
lower the barrier of entering into response robotics research in particular, and the
field of robotics in general. These initiatives include the RoboCupRescue Robot
League (RRL) (Sheh et al. 2012) competition and the Response Robotics Summer
Schools (and related education events).
Response robots, as used by bomb squads, hazardous material-handling per-
sonnel, search and rescue teams and the military, allow responders to address
hazardous situations while staying at a safe distance. This domain poses challenges
in mechanical design, electronics, communications, computer science, automation,
artificial intelligence, human–system interaction, reliability and systems architecture
that are common to many other fields of robotics. Examples of response robots
appear in Fig. 4.1.
In this chapter, we will discuss the OARKit, which seeks solutions to the first
challenge, and two interrelated initiatives that extend our past work in this field and
together seek to address these three challenges.

4.2 Closing the Loop on a Working Robot

There are many successful groups around the world performing research into
advanced robotics. Many more groups that wish to undertake research in robotics
will lack expertise in one or more crucial areas of robotics, such as mechanical
engineering, electronic engineering or computer science. Without the requisite
expertise at their disposal, designing and building a custom robot of a sufficient
level of complexity to perform robotics research can be very challenging and time-
consuming.
For groups that lack one or more of these areas of expertise, closing the loop on
their first complete and working robot system with which to undertake interesting
research often required making a compromise. For example, they could build a
simpler robot from scratch, adapt an off-the-shelf kit or using a construction kit.
Making solutions a sufficiently good fit to the requirements under these circum-
stances can, in some applications, be very challenging or impossible. For example,
construction kit robots are often limited in the possible form of structures that can
be created, especially when compactness is important. They can also be difficult to
share and to leverage the work of others.
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 87

Fig. 4.1 Examples of response robots

More recently, high-quality, low-cost rapid prototyping equipment, such as 3D

printers and laser cutters, have become readily available. Parts such as microcon-
trollers, single-board computers, cameras and other components for the maker,
hobbyist and radio-controlled model communities, which have traditionally been
hard to obtain, are now easily available. We discuss how we leverage these
developments in the OARKit (www.oarkit.org), with the aim of making it easier to
close the loop on robot systems that can form the basis of interesting robotics
research. The two initial robot designs of the OARKit appear in Fig. 4.2.
88 R.K. Sheh et al.

Fig. 4.2 Emu Mini 2 and the Excessively Complex Six-Wheeled Robot, the first two robot
designs in the Open Academic Robot Kit

4.3 Competitions as a Venue for Demonstrating and

Comparing Developments

Competitions are a powerful mechanism by which researchers, and especially

student researchers, can evaluate the performance of their work. Properly organised
competitions also educate researchers on topics such as systems integration, relia-
bility, standardised tests of robot capabilities and statistical significance. For over a
decade, we have been conducting competitions such as the RRL that explicitly aim
to further research into improving the capabilities of response robots with the
aforementioned topics in mind. Figure 4.3 shows the arena in which the RRL is
held.
In recent times, other groups have also seen the value of competitions and placed
their own spin on the topic. Examples include the Defence Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) Robotics Challenge (DRC), the For Inspiration and
Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) Robotics Challenge (FRC) and
the euRathlon (and preceding European Land Robotics Trials). In conjunction with
the recent advances in rapid prototyping and components outlined above, research
competitions in this field have become even more accessible. The unique charac-
teristics of the RRL as a driver for research, and the development of a new com-
petition, the RoboCupRescue Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition will be
introduced in this chapter.
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 89

Fig. 4.3 The RRL arena. This is a test course for response robots of various shapes and sizes and
is built based on a 1.2-m grid. An early version of the Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition
arena is visible embedded on the left

4.4 Disseminating the Challenges and Solutions in the Field

With the advent of the Internet and the many and varied ways of disseminating
information, it might seem strange to assert that finding out about the challenges
and solutions in this field would be difficult. However, being able to physically
interact with hardware and discuss challenges and implementations first-hand
provides advantages in finding and developing the right questions to answer. For
over a decade, we have run teaching camps and summer schools that bring both the
research and end-user communities together. These events are designed to com-
plement other channels such as online resources, conferences and competitions. In
this paper, we will also discuss our recent work in bringing together not just
researchers, but also responders, industry representatives and members of the maker
community to further catalyse work in this field.

4.5 Background

There are many different initiatives that seek to use competitions in order to
advance research and development into robotics. Robot competitions, especially in
the response robotics arena, are becoming very popular. High-profile examples
range from the RoboCupJunior and FIRST competitions at the primary and
90 R.K. Sheh et al.

secondary school levels, the RoboCupRescue Robot League and the Japan Rescue
Robotics Contest, to the recent and ongoing DARPA Robotics Challenge and the
Robot Summit 2020.
An important distinction that we make in these competitions is in the types of
challenges that are set by each competition. Educational competitions, such as
RoboCupJunior and FIRST, aim to encourage participants, typically younger stu-
dents in primary and secondary school, to pursue STEM subjects (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). While they may contain a research
component, they tackle abstract or simulated tasks and generate solutions which do
not necessarily solve open, real-world problems directly.
In contrast, competitions at the more senior levels, such as the RoboCupRescue
Robot League and the DARPA Robotics Challenge, tend to address challenges that
more closely resemble real-world problems for which there are no known or well-
implemented solutions. The strength of such an approach is that teams who do well
in the competition have also developed technologies that advance the state-of-the-
art in capabilities that can be readily deployed. The RoboCupRescue Robot League
and the DARPA Robotics Challenge in particular leverage the work of the US
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—US National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)—ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing
and Materials) Standard Test Methods for Response Robots project (Jacoff et al.
2014). These test methods, developed in close collaboration with the responder
community, reflect elemental decompositions of the capabilities required to answer
their operational challenges. This is similar to the basic fitness and skills tests that
are decompositions of capabilities required to play games such as soccer and
basketball and are used by coaches to shortlist new players.
By constructing competitions around test methods, these research-oriented
competitions can direct research towards areas where the currently available solu-
tions are lacking. However, such research is often difficult and resource intensive.
This has traditionally only been within the reach of graduate research and higher
level undergraduate students at suitably well-resourced institutions. We are lever-
aging new resources and initiatives in order to allow those with more limited
resources, such as secondary school students, early undergraduate students and
hobbyists to also access and contribute to such interesting competitions.
Part of this involves providing wider access to the resources required to
undertake robotics development and research. Many different initiatives exist in this
area, especially with the advent of less expensive 3D printers, robotics kits and
electronics for the hobbyist and maker communities.
Lego Mindstorms has been a tremendous catalyst for community development
and sharing of robot designs and capabilities, especially among hobbyists and at the
primary and secondary school levels. However, flexibility in creating larger, more
durable robots is limited. The ability to teach more advanced concepts in design and
to disseminate more generally reusable modules is also limited due to the small
number of basic components that must be connected together in fairly standard
ways.
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 91

Another example is ArduPilot (ardupilot.com), an add-on controller for mobile

platforms that has become particularly popular among the aerial robotics commu-
nity. It provides researchers an access to microcontroller or control engineering
expertise to integrate working aerial robots at low cost and with flexibility. The
Yale OpenHand (Ma et al. 2013), a design for a low-cost hand-type gripper, is
backed by a project that seeks to use the open-source community to foster a col-
lection of different designs and variations. Other initiatives, which enable such
projects, include the ubiquitous Arduino (arduino.cc) platform and the RepRap
(reprap.org) 3D printer, which spawned the majority of the low-cost 3D printers
now on the market. Some of particularly powerful characteristics of these initiatives
are that the designs that are truly open source, the existence of a vibrant community
that allows participants with different levels and types of expertise to share their
capabilities, and the relevant licences that encourage commercial entities to
reproduce and sell instances of these projects to help bring these developments to a
wider audience.

4.6 The Open Academic Robot Kit

Open-source software is a tremendous enabler in robotics research. It allows people

around the world to share and build on each other’s developments, even if they
have never otherwise met, simply by finding software modules that have been
published online. They can download and produce fully working software systems
much more easily than they could on their own and make modifications and
improvements in their area of expertise. Associated usage guides and community-
produced documentation allow even newcomers to close the loop on systems and
get them working well enough to make contributions in their area of expertise.
These can, then, be contributed back to the community. Examples include OpenCV
(opencv.org) and the Robot Operating System (ROS) (ros.org).
The OARKit is a community-developed, open-source family of robot designs
that aim to replicate this principle for robot hardware. These designs provide
researchers and students with working systems that they can improve on, rather
than having to reinvent the wheel by developing fully integrated robot systems by
themselves.
All of the designs have the following properties that allow anyone, anywhere in
the world, to recreate the robot using only the information available on the design’s
Web page, oarkit.org.
• All non-electronic, non-fastener components are 3D printable, using a sub-
$1000 USD printer. The reference designs were printed on a Solidoodle 3
printer, purchased in 2012 for approximately $800 USD.
• All electronic components are readily available off the shelf or via online stores
anywhere in the world. Most should be available from a variety of
92 R.K. Sheh et al.

manufacturers. Some critical parts, such as control boards or smart servos, are
not themselves already released under an open licence and only available from
one manufacturer. The designs of the OARKit should be easily modifiable to
suit a alternative parts from different manufacturers. For example, the reference
design uses Dynamixel smart servos but may be easily replaced with HerkuleX
smart servos.
• All fasteners are standard M2 or M3 bolts, nuts and washers (or 1/16″ and 1/8″
US equivalents).
• All designs, instructions and source code required for basic demonstration of
capabilities are available online, in easily editable form, under an open-source
licence (GNU General Public License or Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike). This recommendation deliberately allows for their commercial
reproduction as long as improvements are contributed back to the community.
These robot designs help researchers and students, especially those with limited
mechanical and electronic engineering resources, to construct interesting robots that
are a good fit for their requirements. In the past, it would have been necessary for
such researchers to adapt off-the-shelf kits, enlist the assistance of mechanical
engineering resources or make use of construction kits. Such options often suffer
from high cost, long lead times, problematic availability of spare parts, compro-
mised suitability for their specific task or poor reliability, especially where adap-
tations are designed by those inexperienced in mechanical engineering.
Several high school teams have already made use of the Emu Mini 2 design as
shown in Fig. 4.2 and developed their own versions. Some of these, which
appeared at the 2016 RoboCupRescue Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition
World Championships in Leipzig, Germany, are shown in Fig. 4.4.
Recent developments in low-cost 3D printing make it possible to produce highly
complex parts without needing access to a traditional machine shop. The rapid
increase in the availability of low-cost, high-quality and easy to use smart servos,
control boards, battery systems, sensors and communications modules also largely
eliminates the requirement for expertise in more traditional electronic and lower
level control engineering, for students whose interests lie in other aspects of the
robotics challenge.
Precision, strength and maximum size of printable components on such low-cost
printers will tend to limit the size of robots to the 10-cm–1-m scale with weights up
to a few kilograms. We have constructed several reference robot designs that adhere
to these principles and can be constructed with a low-cost 3D printer, basic sol-
dering iron and basic hand tools (cutters, pliers, screwdrivers and simple hand drill).
The reference designs, shown in Fig. 4.2, are not intended to be the best designs, or
even particularly good designs, for any particular purpose. Instead, they are
intended to provide starting points that demonstrate the types of robots that may be
designed and built using such tools, and that can be easily replicated and extended.
For further details please see (Sheh et al. 2014b).
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 93

Fig. 4.4 Several of the robots that high school teams have developed, based on the Emu Mini 2
robot shown in Fig. 4.2

4.7 The RoboCupRescue Rapidly Manufactured Robot

Competition

Managed properly, robot competitions can be a powerful tool for advancing

research. Teams can be highly motivated to solve relevant challenges, extend their
capabilities and integrate working systems. Of course, the competition challenges
must be properly structured in order to achieve these aims. For over 10 years, we
have been running the RoboCupRescue Robot League (Sheh et al. 2012), a research
competition aimed at undergraduate research students, Ph.D. students and early
career researchers.
This competition has met with considerable success among the research com-
munity, in its goals of using the DHS-NIST-ASTM International Standard Test
Methods for Response Robots to communicate and disseminate the real-world
challenges and capabilities. One high-profile example is the Quince robot
94 R.K. Sheh et al.

(Nagatani et al. 2011), which was refined over several years of participation in the
RoboCupRescue Robot League and proved to be vital in responding to the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant incident.
“The test methods and RoboCupRescue contributed significantly in the process of
development of Quince. I can say that Quince would not existed if there were no test
methods and no RoboCupRescue. This means we would have had no way of surveil-
lance of 2nd–5th floor of Unit 2 and other units of Fukushima-Daiichi than suicide
workers. The cool shutdown would have been much late or impossible in this case.
In addition, we could make appropriate advice to METI (Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry), TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) and related com-
panies on the basis of our experience of testing various robots at Disaster City,
RoboCupRescue arenas and the NIST standard test field. Various NIST test
methods were really valuable. Not only the step field and others for mobility, but
also wireless, sensing, human interface, etc., were also valuable.”—Professor
Satoshi Tadokoro, President, International Rescue System Institute.
While this competition is valuable in promoting and advancing research, the
barriers for entry in terms of skills and resources are quite considerable. In an effort
to reduce these barriers and to bridge the gap between the RoboCupRescue Robot
League (which starts at the final year of undergraduate studies) and the top 10% of
teams in the RoboCupJunior Rescue competition (which ends at secondary school),
we have developed the RoboCupRescue Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition
(comp.oarkit.org). This is a competition that forms part of, and encapsulates the
same challenges that are used in, the RoboCupRescue Robot League competition,
at a level that is accessible to high school students.
The existing RoboCupRescue Robot League is held in an arena through which
robots must traverse, build maps, find simulated victims and perform other tasks.
This is shown in Fig. 4.3. Test method apparatuses, such as the terrains and
inspection targets, are placed throughout the arena. The robots must overcome these
test method apparatuses in order to traverse the arena and reach the victims and
tasks. This scale, with a minimum guaranteed clearance of 1.2 m (the 1.2-m scale),
limits robots to a maximum practical width of around 70 cm. This represents the
practical scale of robots that can traverse environments that are built to be
wheelchair accessible, such as commercial buildings.
Many of the challenges in real response scenarios involve environments that are
significantly smaller than this. For example, service passages, ventilation ducting
and even occupied dwellings may necessitate robots that can fit through gaps of
30 cm or smaller. Building robots at this smaller scale can introduce additional
challenges. However, it can also be easier to work with robots to tackle some new
problems at this scale. Robots are often easier to build and handle, cheaper, safer
and more forgiving of engineering deficiencies. Their low cost also makes them
more suited for deployment as “disposable” robots, which responders are more
willing to use in riskier situations knowing that they may not return. The OARKit is
intended to operate at this scale.
Hosting the infrastructure to develop and run this competition is also signifi-
cantly easier at this smaller scale. Instead of teams requiring a dedicated test room
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 95

for development and the competition requiring a space approximately the size of a
small house, a test arena for the Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition can be
set up in as little as 3 m2. A viable competition arena can be constructed in as little
as 6 m2 using similar techniques to the existing RoboCupJunior Rescue arenas. The
current Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition arena, as deployed at the 2016
International Championships in Leipzig, Germany, is shown in Fig. 4.5.
In combination with the OARKit, the Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition
aims to allow teams of secondary school and undergraduate students to participate
in solving the same challenges that the RoboCupRescue Robot League teams do,
but at this smaller scale. Some of the challenges are shown in Fig. 4.5. The upper
section of the figure shows four challenges laid out separately and are, from left to
right:
• Crossing ramps.
• Rotating ramps.
• Continuous ramps.
• Raised ramps.

Fig. 4.5 Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition arena as configured for the preliminary
rounds (top) and the finals (bottom)
96 R.K. Sheh et al.

Each of these challenges tests the ability of the robots to traverse different types
of rough terrain in a repeatable fashion. Additional challenges exist for capabilities
such as manipulation, inspection and precision control.
The same ramps and terrains as exist in the wider RoboCupRescue Robot
League competition are scaled down. The same perception and manipulation
challenges, and the goals of reaching victims, observing objects of interest and
mapping the environment using teleoperated, semi-autonomous and autonomous
robots, that exist in the RoboCupRescue Robot League, are maintained. Indeed,
from the perspective of the RoboCupRescue Robot League, the Rapidly
Manufactured Robot Competition serves as an extension of the existing confined
space arena, which simulates the challenges present in a pancake structure collapse
(where successive floors have collapsed and produced a 3D labyrinth of passage-
ways through which robots must traverse).
Initial challenges that can be tackled in the Rapidly Manufactured Robot
Competition, by students at this level, include:
• Locomotion for small rough terrain robots.
• Camera placement and directed perception for confined space robots.
• Visual display of video and other information on hand-held devices.
• Manipulation and delivery of objects from small robot platforms.
• Sensors for mapping, information recording and situational awareness on small,
low-cost robots.
The Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition arena has been demonstrated at
several venues including:
• The RoboCupRescue Robot League World Championships in 2014, 2015 and
2016, most recently held in Leipzig, Germany.
• The 2014 Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)—Robotics and
Automation Society (RAS) Response Robotics Summer School and Workshop
in Perth, Western Australia.
• The 2015 and 2016 RoboCup Junior Western Australia competitions held in
Perth.
• The 2016 and 2017 RoboCup Junior North America competition held in New
York, USA.
• The 2016 Manufacturing day “Gears on the Gridiron” event held in Maryland,
USA.
The first demonstration of the Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition was
run during the 2015 RoboCupRescue Robot League World Championships in
Hefei, China, with teams consisting of both secondary school and undergraduate
students. The first full competition was held at the 2016 RoboCupRescue Robot
League World Championships in Leipzig, Germany, with five teams from
Australia, Japan and the USA. Some of their robots appear in Fig. 4.4.
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 97

4.8 Summer Schools, Workshops and Camps

While these competitions are a tremendous way to motivate students and

researchers to focus their research on the topics of great need, it can be quite
difficult for them to actually collaborate and learn from each other during the
competition itself. This is especially the case for top teams, who devote their efforts
to performing well in the competition and, even with the best intentions, have
limited time to disseminate their developments. Many teams will publish their
developments as research papers. However, as most researchers have experienced,
it can be very difficult to reproduce a result in a paper, especially if the hardware is
dissimilar.
Since 2004, we have conducted teaching camps and summer schools in col-
laboration with the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society (IEEE-RAS) Safety,
Security and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) technical committee, the RoboCupRescue
Robot League and the DHS-NIST-ASTM International Standard Test Methods for
Response Robots project. These events are an avenue through which teams, old and
new, share their developments in person. Best-in-class teams from the
RoboCupRescue Robot League competition, who have achieved excellence in
specific capabilities, join with experts from the wider SSRR community in an event
that is half traditional technical sessions and half practical hands-on experimenta-
tion. Attendees, who usually range from undergraduate research students to grad-
uate research students and early career researchers, are encouraged to bring their
own robots. During the practical sessions, presenters assist them in implementing
these capabilities on their own robots. The events are usually coordinated so that
attendees eat together and sleep at the same hotel, maximising the time that can be
spent discussing and networking.
In recent years, we have experimented with this format to good effect. In 2012,
with the support of the IEEE-RAS Members Activity Board’s Technical Education
Program, we ran the international 2012 IEEE-RAS Safety, Security and Rescue
Robotics Summer School in Alanya, Turkey (Sheh and Komsuoglu 2012). For the
first time, responders participated in the event alongside the attendees, listening to
the lectures and joining in the practicals. For this event, the responders included a
bomb squad commander from the USA and leaders from the fire and rescue
communities in the USA and Turkey. This innovation proved to be crucial,
allowing attendees to fully appreciate the challenges faced by responders in the field
and the ways in which their technologies might be used. Such opportunities are
ordinarily difficult to come by for most researchers. After all, interested researchers
are unlikely to find success in engaging leaders of the responder community by
showing up to their local fire or police station. Similarly, responders are likely to
have only marginally greater success showing up to the local university research
office in the hope of engaging suitable representatives of the international research
community.
Providing an environment in which responders and researchers could get to
know each other in both a professional as well as a social context was also valuable.
98 R.K. Sheh et al.

It provided a strong motivator for the academic attendees, who came to understand
that their developments can potentially save the lives of people who they now
regard as friends. The responders also benefit from the event, as they gain a deeper
insight into new and upcoming capabilities and contacts among the research
community who share their concerns and can help to answer their questions about
new capabilities. This allows them to be better informed as they guide the standard
test method development process, work with industry and government, and make
recommendations for future procurements of robots.
This concept was expanded in 2013 where, for the first time, such an academic
event was co-located with a responder event. The 2013 Response Robotics Summer
School (Sheh et al. 2014a) was run jointly with the 2013 Bomb Response
Technology Seminar. Co-located at the Maylands Police Complex just outside
Perth, Western Australia, and run in collaboration with the Western Australia Police
Bomb Response Unit (WAPol BRU), these academic and responder events were
unique in that half of the sessions were shared between the two events. Half of these
shared sessions were presentations by bomb squad leaders on the challenges and
latest capabilities available to the responder. Half were presentations by leaders in
the academic robotics community on the latest concepts and developments in rel-
evant technologies. These presentations were followed by joint discussion periods
that allowed both groups to better understand each other’s challenges and capa-
bilities. These discussion periods also provided a fruitful avenue through which to
develop new research ideas that could be immediately applicable.
The 2013 event concluded with two practical demonstrations. First, response
robots were tested in standard and prototypical test apparatuses for mobile
manipulation that were developed in the DHS-NIST-ASTM International Standard
Test Methods for Response Robots project. The test methods were modified for
embedding into operational scenarios as part of the “Test Methods in a Suitcase”
project and placed throughout a WAPol BRU training facility. Second, academic
attendees observed a training deployment of robots to a suspected clandestine drug
laboratory. This included driving the robots into the suspected laboratory, collecting
samples and taking X-rays of suspicious objects. Senior WAPol BRU personnel
were on hand to provide commentary on the events and discuss possible ways in
which new and upcoming capabilities in the research community could be adapted,
further developed and deployed. Topics that showed promise as a result of these
discussions included 3D mapping, human–robot and human–system interfaces,
assistive autonomy and alternative and resilient radio communications.
In 2014, once again with the support of the IEEE-RAS Members Activity Board
Technical Education Program, we ran the 2014 IEEE-RAS Response Robotics
Summer School and Workshop (RRSS+W), also in Perth. This event took the
summer school in a somewhat different direction, to engage the secondary educa-
tion and maker hobbyist communities. It is important to lower the barrier of entry to
research in interesting robotic problems and recent developments in resources for
building these robots, such as the OARKit, make it easier than ever to do so. By
bringing these resources to the secondary education and hobbyist communities, we
aim to catalyse further development in these fields. After all, some of the gadgets
4 The Open Academic Robot Kit 99

and widgets that responders find useful, such as novel tool mounts, devices to make
entering doors easier and so on, are developed not by traditional manufacturers or
by academics but rather by hobbyists and mechanically inclined individuals in
workshops and sheds from all around the world.
This event featured the same 50–50 practical development and lecture split as
previous events. Best-in-class teams from the RoboCupRescue Robot League,
including award-winning teams from Australia, Thailand and Japan, joined with
researchers from the USA, Germany and Austria and local responders from the
WAPol BRU to disseminate the challenges and best-in-class solutions to the
response robotics problem. Talks ranged from challenges in the kinematics of
compliant manipulators, recognising large-scale patterns in data and planning for
robot learning, to business issues facing robotics start-ups and practical experiences
with deploying automation technologies in harsh environments. Demonstrations
included novel techniques for mobility with compliant sub-tracks through to a new
test method for robot mobility based specifically on the wooden debris, often faced
by responders in earthquakes in Japan as shown in Fig. 4.6.
In order to engage the wider maker community and provide the resources for the
academic attendees to better explore outside their field, the practical sessions of the
summer school and workshop were held at a hackerspace, the Perth Artifactory near
Perth in Western Australia (see Fig. 4.6). Attendees included academics at the
secondary and tertiary levels from nine countries, and members of the maker
community. They participated in the practicals and technical sessions to identify
avenues through which initiatives such as the OARKit and the RoboCupRescue
Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition can be used to further encourage sec-
ondary school students to pursue science and engineering. The collaboration with
this core group of educators will continue with the aim of developing curriculum
that bridges the gap between secondary education, undergraduate science and
engineering and graduate research. Since this gap has been identified as a focus area
by the IEEE-RAS, the developments from this effort will contribute to the wider
IEEE-RAS activities in this area through initiatives such as the IEEE-RAS planned
pre-college outreach site.

Fig. 4.6 Attendees of the 2014 Response Robotics Summer School and Workshop (left) and one
of the robots attempting the novel movable debris test method (right). Both photographs taken at
the Perth Artifactory in Western Australia
100 R.K. Sheh et al.

4.9 Future Directions

These three interlinked initiatives of the Open Academic Robot Kit, the Rapidly
Manufactured Robot Competition and the teaching camps and summer schools, all
stem from a solid history. The events held in past decade provide support for the
development of technologies required for response robotics and pave the way for
future developments in this field. Several groups are currently working to repro-
duce, improve and extend the designs of the OARKit, including applications in
advanced mobility, sensing and manipulation.
In addition, we are working with a core group of secondary school teachers to
further develop curriculum in a variety of fields in STEM to encourage students’
interests and learning in these fields. There are many possibilities for the design and
control of robots at this scale that have been only superficially explored. The OARKit
and the Rapidly Manufactured Robot Competition provide the tools and arena with
which students, including secondary school level, could make novel contributions.
The ultimate goal is to allow all who can contribute to this vital field—educators,
researchers, manufacturers, responders, makers and government—to better work
together to advance the state of response robotics and beyond.

References

Jacoff, A., Messina, E., Huang, H.-M., Virts, A., Downs, A., & Norcross, R., et al. (2014). Guide
for evaluating, purchasing, and training with response robots using DHS-NIST-ASTM
international standard test methods. www.nist.gov/el/isd/ks/upload/DHS_NIST_ASTM_
Robot_Test_Methods-2.pdf
Ma, R. R., Odhner, L. U., Dollar, A. M. (2013). A modular, open-source 3D Printed
underactuated hand. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA), Karlsrue, Germany.
Nagatani, K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Tadokoro, S., Nishimura, T., & Yoshida, T., et al.
(2011). Redesign of rescue mobile robot Quince: Toward emergency response to the nuclear
accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on March 2011. In Proceedings of the
IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kyoto, Japan.
Sheh, R., Collidge, B., Lazarescu, M., Komsuoglu, H., & Jacoff, A. (2014a, September). The
response robotics summer school 2013: Bringing responders and researchers together to
advance response robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sheh, R., Jacoff, A., Virts, A.-M., Kimura, T., Pellenz, J., & Schwertfeger, S., et al. (2012, July).
Advancing the state of urban search and rescue robotics through the RoboCupRescue robot
league competition. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Field and Service
Robotics (FSR). Matsushima, Miyagi, Japan.
Sheh, R., & Komsuoglu, H. (2012, December). The 2012 IEEE robotics and automation society
(RAS) safety, security, and rescue robotics (SSRR) summer school. IEEE Robotics and
Automation Magazine.
Sheh, R., Komsuoglu, H., & Jacoff, A. (2014b, November). The Open Academic Robot Kit:
Lowering the barrier of entry for research into response robotics. In Proceedings of the 12th
IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics. Lake Toya,
Hokkaido, Japan.
 Part II
Robotics and STEM Education
Chapter 5
How Have Robots Supported STEM
Teaching?

Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti and Newton Spolaôr

Abstract Context: Robotics has assisted teachers to combine technology and

engineering topics to concretize science and mathematics concepts in real-world
applications. As a result, benefits in different concepts and skills, as well as positive
long-term effects, have been observed. Objective: This work aims to identify state-
of-the-art robotics applications to support STEM teaching. To do so, we intend to
answer six research questions: (1) What concepts are considered and how are they
explored? (2) What skills are expected to be developed? (3) How is educational
robotics associated with school curriculum? (4) What types of robots are used? (5)
What age groups/educational levels are considered? (6) How is educational robotics
evaluated? Method: We carried out a systematic literature review to identify, assess,
and synthesize relevant papers published from 2013. A protocol developed by us
guided the review conduction and enhanced its repeatability with reduced subjec-
tivity. Results: 60 publications able to answer the research questions were sum-
marized. We found that: (1) several STEM concepts have been explored in all
educational levels; (2) educational robotics is still frequently associated with
teamwork and problem-solving development, extracurricular activities, and LEGO
robots; (3) only 25% of the 60 papers quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated
learning. Conclusion: Robots support for STEM education has been successful in
different scenarios. The inherent flexibility, coupled with the experiences reported
by a significant piece of the literature, can inspire new applications of educational
robotics.

Keywords LEGO robots
Technology
Review
Methodology
Concepts

Programming

F.B.V. Benitti (&)

Department of Informatics and Statistics, Federal University of Santa Catarina.
Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
N. Spolaôr
Laboratory of Bioinformatics, Western Paraná State University,
Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 103

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_5
104 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

5.1 Introduction

New technological tools are introduced in our life very rapidly. “New iProducts are
introduced into the market almost every six months. When watching the Jetsons
television program in the 1960s and 1980s, very few people believed that a
humanoid robot, such as Rosie, could become a reality in their lifetime. However,
robotics in education for school age children has been in existence since the late
1900s” (Eguchi 2014, p. 27).
Robotics, with its multi-disciplinary nature, provides constructive learning
environments that are suitable for a better understanding of scientific and non-
scientific subjects and it has a significant role on learning Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects (Khanlari 2013). Robotics can be
especially effective in teaching STEM, as it enables real-world applications of the
concepts of engineering and technology and helps to remove the abstractness of
science and mathematics. In fact, various robotics activities led to improvements in
science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics learning (Kim et al. 2015).
Robots have the potential to be the next effective add-on to traditional education.
The tangibility of robots and the excitements they bring into the classroom envi-
ronment are considered conducive for learning (Karim et al. 2015). However, the
actual contribution of robots in STEM education is not obvious. This brings us to
the title of this chapter: How have robots supported STEM teaching?
Although several authors propose to explore the subject (Sect. 5.2), we did not
find a recent and systematic study in order to identify state-of-the-art robotics
applications to support STEM teaching. Therefore, we carried out a systematic
review to find relevant papers published from 2013 to answer six research
questions:
1. What concepts are considered and how are they explored?;
2. What skills are expected to be developed?;
3. How is educational robotics associated with school curriculum?;
4. What types of robots are used?;
5. What age groups/educational levels are considered?; and
6. How is educational robotics evaluated?
To do so, we followed the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) protocol indi-
cated in Sect. 5.3. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 discuss the results and describe the con-
clusions, respectively.

5.2 Background

Our students are digital natives who have grown up using technology. Home
computers have been in existence since before they were born—Eguchi (2014)
shared that some students thought “B.C.” means “before computer”! The world is
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 105

rapidly changing and educational programs have to adapt to the changes. Thus, this
section presents some review studies focused on robotics use as an educational tool.
Potkonjak et al. (2016) claim that the problems that still constrain the full
realization of distance education in Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) lie
in the fact that these sciences inevitably require laboratory exercises as part of the
skill acquisition process. Thus, the authors summarize the state of the art in virtual
laboratories in the fields of STE. Two different points of view to the resolution have
appeared. One is to try developing a physical (real) laboratory with distance access,
while the other aims to develop a fully software-based virtual laboratory. They
argue for the latter option. That paper intends to support wider application of virtual
laboratories, and the criteria followed from one crucial requirement, which is
operating a virtual laboratory for a student must feel like they are working with real
authentic devices in a real authentic space. The authors present a list with 20 virtual
laboratory projects classified as follows:
• Two (2) projects in field of the general initiatives which have a wider focus and
try to provide a framework for both virtual and remote-access-physical facilities.
• Two (2) projects in field of science-physics.
• Two (2) projects in field of process technology.
• Five (5) projects in field of engineering—non robotic.
• Nine (9) projects in field of robotics.
Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) present a systematic review of research related to
the use of robotics construction kits (RCKs) in P-12 learning in the STEM disci-
plines for typically developing children. The purpose of this review is to answer the
question: “How do robotic construction kits function as computational manipula-
tives in P-12 STEM education?” The synthesis of the literature has resulted in four
key insights. First, RCKs have a unique double application: They may be used for
direct instruction in robotics (first-order uses) or as analogical tools for learning in
other domains (second-order uses). Second, RCKs make possible additional routes
to learning through the provision of immediate feedback and the dual modes of
unique representation to RCKs. Third, RCKs support a computational thinking
learning progression beginning with a lower anchor of sequencing and finishing
with a high anchor of systems thinking. And fourth, RCKs support evolving
problem-solving abilities along a continuum, ranging from trial and error to
heuristic methods associated with robotics study. Furthermore, their synthesis
provides insight into the second-order (analogical) uses of RCKs as computational
manipulatives in the disciplines of physics and biology.
Can robots in classroom reshape K-12 STEM education and foster new ways of
learning? To sketch an answer, Karim et al. (2015) review (no systematic review),
side-by-side, existing literature on robot-based learning activities featuring mathe-
matics and physics (see Table 5.1) and existing robot platforms and toolkits suited
for classroom environment (36 robots/toolkits were identified). The survey suggests
that the use of robots in classroom has indeed moved from purely technology to
education, to encompass new didactic fields.
106 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Table 5.1 Summary of the topics covered in educational robotics featuring mathematics and
physics (Karim et al. 2015)
Mathematics Physics
Geometric primitives Distance, time, and velocity
Counting Constant speed, acceleration, and deceleration
Multiplication Work and energy
Decimals Force, gravity, and friction
Fractions and ratios Doppler effect
Coordinate system Fundamentals of electricity
Recognition of quantities Weight scale and moment computation
Problems with operator
Graph construction and interpretation
Angles

Toh et al. (2016) carried out a systematic review to examine the use of robots in
early childhood and lower level education. This paper synthesizes the findings of
research studies carried out in the last ten years and looks at the influence of robots on
children and education. Four major factors are examined—the type of studies con-
ducted, the influence of robots on children’s behavior and development, the per-
ception of stakeholders (parents, children and educators) on educational robots, and
finally, the reaction of children on robot design or appearance. The authors point that:
• Robots influence on children’s skills development could be grouped into four
major categories: cognitive, conceptual, language, and social (collaborative)
skills.
• Aside from the main users (children), parents and educators have to be on-board
as well in order to increase the chances of success of this kind of programs. Lack
of parental support would confine educational robots to applications only inside
the classroom.
• Design is usually the last consideration when incorporating robots into an
application. However, as studies showed, design could make a difference on
robot perception and hence, how the children would interact with it.
Unfortunately, little work has been done on this question.
Mubin et al. (2013) present a review on the field of robots in education (post-
2000). The aspects reviewed include domain of the learning activity, location of the
activity, the role of the robot, types of robots, and types of robotic behavior. The
overview shows that robots are primarily used to provide language, science, or
technology education and that a robot can take on the role of a tutor, tool, or peer in
the learning activity.
Benitti (2012) reviews published scientific literature (until January 2010) on the
use of robotics in schools, in order to answer the questions:
1. What topics (subjects) are taught through robotics in schools?;
2. How is student learning evaluated?; and
3. Is robotics an effective tool for teaching? What do the studies show?
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 107

The papers reviewed suggest that educational robotics usually acts as an element
that enhances learning. However, this is not always the case, as there are studies
that have reported situations in which there was no improvement in learning. Thus,
Benitti (2012) indicates some factors considered important for an effective use of
educational robotics, summarized in what follows:
• The role of the teacher—the teacher plays an important role in stimulating pupils
in their school work and giving them positive attitudes, because the teacher has
considerable influence over the way in which these tools are received by the
pupils.
• There are needs to have a larger space for the pupils to work.
• The working groups should not be too big (maximum 2–3 pupils/Kit).
• The task given to the pupils must be both relevant and realistic to solve.
• Short lessons, tutorials, and debriefings embedded in the problem-solving
activities could help students to make the connection between experience and
scientific concepts.
• It is important to provide an opportunity for students to explore the robotics kit
before requiring them to work on a design challenge.
• Middle-school students, in particular, seem to need relatively specific guidance
on how the robotics activities relate to science and engineering.
• The structure of the robotics environment combined with specific pedagogical
approaches foster the thinking and science process skills.

5.3 The Systematic Review Process

A SLR (often referred to as a systematic review) is a way of identifying, evaluating,

and interpreting all available studies relevant to a particular research question, or
topic area. There are many reasons for undertaking a SLR. The most common
reasons are (Kitchenham and Charters 2007):
1. To summarize the existence of evidence concerning a treatment or technology.
2. To identify any gaps in current research in order to suggest areas for further
investigation.
3. To provide a background in order to appropriately positioning new research
activities.
In this work, we applied this systematic approach to provide an overview about
recent research in educational robotics, which can assist in the foundation of new
researches.
In order to perform this review, we followed a defined process for conducting
systematic reviews based on Kitchenham and Charters (2007), covering the stages
and activities indicated in Fig. 5.1.
108 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Stage 2:
Stage 1: Planning Conducting the Stage 3: Reporting
the review review the review
Activity 1.1: Activity 2.1: Activity 3.1:
Identification of the Identification of Communicating the
need for a review research results
Activity 1.2: Activity 2.2: Selection
Development of a of primary studies
review protocol Activity 2.3: Study
quality assessment
Activity 2.4: Data
extraction and
monitoring
Activity 2.5: Data
synthesis

Fig. 5.1 Systematic review process: stages and activities

5.3.1 Planning the Review (Stage 1)

Initially, we have performed a search to identify the existence of systematic reviews

involving robotics in STEM teaching. The main studies involving review in this
issue are listed in Sect. 5.2. We then observed that they do not have a compre-
hensive and current review on the subject. Thus, we proposed to continue and
expand the study carried out by Benitti (2012).
Within the context of this paper, we carried out a systematic literature review in
order to examine the state of research in educational robotics, based on the fol-
lowing research questions:
1. What concepts are considered and how are they explored?;
2. What skills are expected to be developed?;
3. How is educational robotics associated with school curriculum?;
4. What types of robots are used?;
5. What age groups/educational levels are considered?; and
6. How is educational robotics evaluated?
To perform the SLR, the databases in which the search should be performed
were defined. They were selected based on popularity on previous reviews in
education and related areas: ACM, EBSCO, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct,
Scopus, Springer Link, Web of Science, and Wiley Interscience. Searches were
restricted to peer-reviewed articles or conference papers, written in English, and
published between 2013 and 2016 (research over the last four years). The search
string used was “robotics AND stem.”
The selection criteria were used to evaluate each of the studies recovered from
the search sources. Thus, the Inclusion Criterion (IC) applied to include relevant
studies in our systematic review was:
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 109

• IC1: The primary study presents a description of robotics applications to support

STEM teaching.
Moreover, the Exclusion Criteria (EC) were used to exclude studies that do not
contribute to answer the research questions. In particular, the exclusion criteria
considered in our SLR were:
• EC1: The publication does not consider robots application to support the
development of STEM concepts or skills.
• EC2: The publication does not evaluate educational robotics in an elementary-,
middle-, and high-school context.
• EC3: Duplicated publications by the same authors (Similar title, abstract, results,
or text). In this case, only one is kept.
• EC4: Publications composed of only one page (abstract papers), posters, pre-
sentations, proceedings, program of scientific events, and tutorial slides.
• EC5: Publications hosted in Web pages which are not accessed through the
account of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, the Western Paraná State
University, or the University of São Paulo.
• EC6: Publications written in a language different than English.
The second author independently extracted the data—Table 5.2. Conflicts found
during this process were resolved by discussion between the authors.

5.3.2 Conducting the Review (Stage 2)

The systematic review was conducted in April 2016 by executing the protocol. The
process observed the steps shown in Fig. 5.2, from which 60 out of the 538 pieces
of work were selected. The conduction of the studies was done in three steps:
Identification of candidate studies: pieces of work were collected by applying the
search string in the databases selected. Table 5.3 outlines the specific search
strings used for each source considered.
Selection of relevant studies: using a search string does not guarantee that all the
material that was collected is relevant to the research context. Thus, after the
identification of publications obtained through the search engines, the studies were
analyzed according to the criteria established for exclusion.
Information extraction and synthesis: after setting the final list of relevant publi-
cations, the necessary information related to the research objective was extracted
from them.
A quality strategy enables one to assess the selected studies in terms of
methodological criteria. In Table 5.4, the 8 quality criteria considered by us are
mentioned. Note that criteria QC3a, QC4a, and QC5a are designed specifically for
selected publications that quantitatively assess learning based on robots, while
110 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Table 5.2 Data extracted from each primary study selected

Group Information item
Group 1. Publication identification IE1. Publication ID
IE2. Publication title
IE3. Year of publication
IE4. Authors’ name
IE5. Students’ age group/educational level
IE6. Publication objective
IE7. Publication source
IE8. URL
Group 2. Activities reported in the IE9. Duration of the educational robotics activities
publication IE10. Motivation to use educational robotics
IE11. Robot used
IE12. Robot price
IE13. Knowledge areas/subjects taught through
robotics
IE14. Skills taught through robotics
IE15. Teachers’ or tutors’ training to deal with robots
IE16. Learning theory used
IE17. Educational robotics association with curriculum
Group 3. Evaluation described in IE18. Assessment approach (quantitative, qualitative,
the publication or both)
IE19. Sample size
IE20. Reliability/validity analysis conducted during
quantitative analysis
IE21. Short description of the quantitative study
IE22. Statistical test used
IE23. Study type (non-experimental, quasi-
experimental, or experimental)
IE24. Sample design/target selection conducted
IE25. Sample composition and coverage
IE26. Data collection procedure

QC3b, QC4b, and QC5b do the same for pieces of work regarding qualitative
evaluations.
One can consider two approaches to deal with the assessment results: (1) sup-
porting the synthesis of the selected publications or (2) specifying more detailed
selection criteria. In this work, the first approach was adopted.
Based on the information items extracted and on the quality criteria applied, we
conducted a synthesis to answer the research questions.
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 111

Fig. 5.2 Process of selecting primary studies

5.3.3 Reporting the Review (Stage 3)

Information extracted from each one of the 60 selected pieces of work (Fig. 5.2) is
published in a spreadsheet publicly available (https://goo.gl/AJcIyv). By assessing
the methodological quality of these publications, it was possible to find 13 papers
that accomplishes at least 3 quality criteria (Nugent et al. 2016; Sullivan and Bers
2016; Christensen et al. 2015; Kaloti-Hallak et al. 2015a, b; McKay et al. 2015;
Modekurty et al. 2014; Yuen et al. 2014; Abaid et al. 2013; Flannery and Bers
2013; Nag et al. 2013; Sullivan and Bers 2013; Kazakoff et al. 2013).
Section 4 focuses on these highlighted papers and on the synthesis conducted by
us to answer the research questions.

5.4 Results and Discussion

In what follows, the research questions are answered according to findings from the
60 papers selected by the systematic review. Table 5.5 specifies an identifier for
each of these publications. Additional information regarding the papers is available
in the supplementary material (https://goo.gl/AJcIyv).
112 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Table 5.3 Digital libraries and associated search strings

Database Search string
ACM recordAbstract:(+robotics +STEM),
Digital Library published between the years 2013 and 2016
EBSCO title (robotics AND stem)
(Teacher reference center) OR subject terms (robotics AND stem) OR
abstract (robotics AND stem),
published between the years 2013 and 2016
peer-reviewed only
ERIC abstract:(robotics AND stem) pubyear: 2016-2013
IEEE Xplore ((“Abstract”:robotics) AND “Abstract”:STEM),
published between the years 2013 and 2016
Science Direct pub-date 2012 and
TITLE-ABSTR-KEY(robotic)
and TITLE-ABSTR-KEY(stem).
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ( robotics AND stem ) AND
(LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR
LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015) OR
LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2014) OR
LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2013)) AND
(EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”)
OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE , “ed”) OR
EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “no”) OR
EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “sh”)) AND
(LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENGI”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “CENG”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR
LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “DECI”) OR
LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “MULT”) OR
LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “PSYC”))
Springer Link (robotic AND stem),
within Education & Language Social Sciences,
published between the years 2013 and 2016
(robotic AND stem),
within Education & Language Computer Science,
published between the years 2013 and 2016
Web of Science (robotics AND stem),
years: 2013–2016 and type: article
Wiley Interscience (robotics AND stem) in Article Titles OR
(robotics AND stem) in Abstract
OR (robotics AND stem) in Keywords
between the years 2013 and 2016
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 113

Table 5.4 Criteria used to access the methodological quality of selected publications
ID Quality criterion
QC1 Have the teachers or the mentors been trained to use educational robotics?
QC2 Is educational robotics application based on any learning theory?
QC3a Is there a comparison or control group? (Greenhalgh 2000)
QC4a Does the quantitative assessment described in the publication involve a statistical
analysis of significance? (Crombie 1996)
QC5a Is any reliability or validity analysis carried out during the quantitative analysis?
QC3b How well defined are the sample design/target selection of cases/documents?
(Petticrew and Roberts 2005)
QC4b How well is the eventual sample composition and coverage described? (Petticrew and
Roberts 2005)
QC5b How well was qualitative data collection carried out? (Petticrew and Roberts 2005)

5.4.1 What Concepts Are Considered

and How Are They Explored?

We tried to pull of the selected studies which contents were the focus of learning
through robotics. After, we classify the content in STEM areas. This was an
arduous task, since few publications clearly explain the contents that were
addressed. For this reason, some contents are very specific and other contents were
described more generally (such as robotics). Tables 5.6 and 5.7 indicate subjects
considered in the 60 publications collected from the literature.
By focusing on the 13 papers highlighted on the previous quality assessment
(Sect. 5.3), one can find examples of how the concepts are explored. Nugent et al.
(2016), for example, report positive results achieved by a comprehensive program
for the youth conducted on informal (out of school) learning environments, such as
robotics camps, clubs, and competitions. This program requires from students
science, engineering, mathematics, and robotics concepts by including in each
activity:
• Introductory material related to the focused concept and skills.
• A guided primary exercise with step-by-step instructions.
• An exercise that asks the youth to either research applications of the concepts or
to record their efforts.
• A team exercise based on robots.
• A challenge that asks the youth to work as a team to solve a given problem with
little facilitator guidance.
Their program is associated with a curriculum that consists of nearly 40 h of
instruction, in which each task typically needing one to four hours to be completed.
Samples of tasks cover such skills such as writing simple programs, programming
the movement of robot motors, and the navigation based on sensors. Most of the
robotics tasks are accomplished by pairs of students, while more advanced chal-
lenges are solved by groups of three or four students.
114 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Table 5.5 Identifiers of the 60 papers selected by the systematic review

Identifier Paper citation Identifier Paper citation
#1 Abaid et al. (2013) #31 Laut et al. (2015)
#2 Akiva et al. (2015) #32 Liu et al. (2013)
#3 Ayar (2015) #33 Martin et al. (2013)
#4 Barger and Boyette (2015) #34 McKay et al. (2015)
#5 Brown and Howard (2014) #35 McKay et al. (2013)
#6 Bussi and Baccaglini-Frank (2015) #36 Modekurty et al. (2014)
#7 Cateté et al. (2014) #37 Montironi et al. (2015)
#8 Chen et al. (2015) #38 Nag et al. (2013)
#9 Christensen et al. (2015) #39 Nemiro et al. (2015)
#10 Chung et al. (2014b) #40 Nugent et al. (2016)
#11 Chung (2014) #41 Phamduy et al. (2015)
#12 Chung et al. (2014a) #42 Pinzon and Huerta (2014)
#13 de Cristóforis et al. (2013) #43 Prayaga et al. (2013)
#14 Deken et al. (2013) #44 Qidwai et al. (2013)
#15 Eguchi (2016) #45 Rao (2015)
#16 Erickson-Ludwig (2015) #46 Rubenstein et al. (2015)
#17 Flannery and Bers (2013) #47 Sahin et al. (2014)
#18 Galley et al. (2015) #48 Sala et al. (2014)
#19 Garcia et al. (2014) #49 Saleiro et al. (2013)
#20 Gucwa and Cheng (2014) #50 Sallee and Peek (2014)
#21 Hamner and Cross (2013) #51 Senaratne et al. (2014)
#22 He et al. (2015) #52 Suescun-Florez et al. (2013)
#23 He et al. (2014) #53 Sullivan and Bers (2013)
#24 Jackson (2013) #54 Sullivan and Bers (2016)
#25 Jeon et al. (2016) #55 Talley et al. (2013)
#26 Kaloti-Hallak et al. (2015a) #56 Tewolde and Kwon (2014)
#27 Kaloti-Hallak et al. (2015b) #57 Tuluri (2015)
#28 Karp and Maloney (2013) #58 Ucgul and Cagiltay (2014)
#29 Kazakoff et al. (2013) #59 van Delden and Yang (2014)
#30 Larkins et al. (2013) #60 Yuen et al. (2014)

The reported results suggest that the program promotes gain in knowledge in
some areas, such as engineering and robotics. This finding, based on non-experi-
mental and quasi-experimental studies, may reflect the lack of an engineering course
in middle-school and the unique abilities required to program a robot.
Sullivan and Bers (2016) assess an 8-week robotics curriculum that supports
teaching foundational robotics for children from prekindergarten to second-grade
classes. The program consists of the following lessons, which guide children to
explore basic robots parts, sensors, and robot navigation.
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 115

Table 5.6 Subjects and related topics explored in the selected papers: science and technology
Science Technology
Hypothesis formulation (#13) Robotics (#1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 27, 31,
Astronomy (#42) 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 58, 60)
– Terraforming (#30) Art platforms (#54)
– Space exploration (#30) Computer aided engineering (#48)
– Satellite control (#38) Computer science (#7)
Body resistance (#57) – Cyber security (#18)
Buoyancy (#34, 35) – Input-output (#26)
Ecology – Interfacing with sensors (#26)
– Recycling (#29, 49) Energy monitoring (#9)
– Resource reuse (#49) Excel and matlab (#48)
– Natural environment (#1, Gear (#10, 34, 35, 37, 40)
31)
– Biodiversity (#31) Navigation (#44)
– Marine pollution (#41) Programming (#2, 3, 6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33,
34,
Electrical conductivity (#57) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 55,58, 59, 60)
Inquiry (#40) – Visual programming (#29, 51, 53)
Investigation (#28) – Control flow (#53, 54)
Marine science (#1, 31) – Programming logic (#12, 54)
Materials science (#48) – Java programming (#12)
Newton’s law of cooling – Programming action sequencing (#54)
(#57)
Photonics and lasers (#48) – Smart phone programming (#56)
Physics concepts (#43) – Algorithmic thinking (#32)
Thermal science (#48) – General programming (#32)
Sensors (#4, 10, 13, 18, 30, 40, 44, 46, 53, 54, 58, 60)
Telemetry (#38)
Sturdy building (#54)

• What is a robot and what is programming?;

• What is a sound sensor?;
• What are repeat loops?;
• What are distance and light sensors?;
• What are conditional statements?; and
• Final project.
First, the children explored the basic parts of a robot and had the first contact
with a programming environment based on wooden blocks with barcodes. After
constructing the robot, organizing the blocks, and using an embedded scanner, the
students read the barcodes associate with commands to program the robot to dance.
In the next lessons, the children made programs to allow the robot to interact with
116 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Table 5.7 Subjects and related topics explored in the selected papers: engineering, mathematics,
and others
Engineering Mathematics Others
Advanced manufacturing (#48) Algebra (#4, 20) “Me and My Community”
(#54)
Caudal fin building (#1, 31) Fractions (#40) Theater and Poetry (#21)
Computer engineering (#48) Functions (#10) Arts (#25)
Design (#4, 18, 30, 37, 38, 44, Geometric progress Music (#12)
55) (#12)
Electrical engineering (#48) Geometry (#6, 10, 37) Boat structure and navigation
(#8)
Electromagnets (#59) Math education (#5)
Electronics (#3, 16, 18) Ratios (#40)
Engineering design (#21, 40) Reasoning (#49)
Engineering design process Sequencing (#29)
(#34)
Fluid power system (#19) System of equations
(#10)
Geotechnics (#52) Math education (#5)
Hydraulics (#19)
Industrial robotic principles
(#59)
Manufacturing (#3, 4)
Mecatronics (#31)
Mechanics (#4, 24, 30, 37, 58)
Mechanics of materials (#48)
Mobile robotics (#56)
Pneumatics (#19)
Solar energy use (#55)
Some basic engineering (#59)
Robot modeling (#47)

humans by the sound sensor and with the environment with the other sensors.
Finally, the pupils made floor maps and programmed the robots to navigate on it.
As part of the study assessment, the children were asked to help the researcher
identify different parts of the robot and their functions. As a result, it was noted that
the students had a good understanding of the functions of each robot part. In
addition, no significant difference was found among the classes, indicating that all
children were able to master the robotics concepts similarly, regardless of what
grade they were in.
It should be emphasized that each classroom moved at a pace that was com-
fortable for it. Thus, although all classes conducted robotics and programming
activities during 8 weeks, not all grades followed all topics. In particular,
prekindergarten children focused on the initial lessons, while the remaining classes
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 117

were able to spend time experimenting with the different sensors and programming
constructs.
McKay et al. (2015) use WaterBotics, a challenge-based curriculum, to stimulate
k-12 students to develop physical science concepts, such as buoyancy and stability.
These concepts are explored in underwater robots, demanding a complexity level
not found in many land-based robotics programs. To do so, a series of four chal-
lenges (missions) is managed to gradually lead to the production of a fully func-
tional robot.
Rescue a drowning swimmer represented by ping pong balls by programming a
single motor to follow a straight trajectory.
Clean a pollution spill (scattered balls) by programming two motors to enable
steering and 2D movement.
Disable underwater mines by using a third motor to dive to the bottom of the pool
in a 3D movement to achieve inverted plastic cups.
Collect objects (balls) from an imaginary sunken ship and deposit them in bins by
using a fourth motor to grab and release the objects.
In particular, the youth focus on a group of robot capabilities in each mission,
planning, designing, building, testing, and iteratively improving a robot. This
allows students to benefit from knowledge and experience gained in previous
missions. Although the method evaluation did not show significant improvement in
concept learning, students felt they had learned and their teachers agreed.
Flannery and Bers (2013) consider the CHERP programming language to sup-
port children to explore powerful ideas from technology-based domains that are
often and unnecessarily reserved for older children or adults. In particular, their
study is conducted as part of the TangibleK project, a program intended to detail
what kindergarteners can understand about the robots programming concept. As
part of the study, the participants are exposed to programming concepts and
challenges, while the reasoning of each child is categorized into different devel-
opmental levels. In particular, the students attended a session for preassessments
and introduction to the technologies. Afterward, they participated in three sessions
in which they built a robot vehicle, learned new programming concepts, attempted a
challenge to program the robot to dance, and reflected on their work.
By analyzing the programming achievement, the authors expect that children in
different stages of cognitive development would benefit from learning goals,
activities, and scaffolding designed specifically for their characteristics.
It should be emphasized that educational robotics supported the exploration of
different concepts in other papers found by the systematic review, as illustrated by
Akiva et al. (2015), Ayar (2015), Barger and Boyette (2015), Erickson-Ludwig
(2015), McKay et al. (2015), Montironi et al. (2015), Rubenstein et al. (2015),
Brown and Howard (2014), Chung et al. (2014b), Garcia et al. (2014), Laut et al.
(2015), Karp and Maloney (2013), Larkins et al. (2013), Liu et al. (2013), Martin
et al. (2013), Suescun-Florez et al. (2013)—Tables 5.6 and 5.7.
118 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

5.4.2 What Skills Are Expected to Be Developed?

The most usual skills found in the 60 reviewed papers are related to the following:
Teamwork and
Problem solving.
In addition, some selected publications report experiences on competition,
mathematical skills, communication, brainstorming, presentation, creative thinking,
critical thinking, strategy making, and leadership.
Nag et al. (2013) introduce the use of collaborative games as a bridge between
space-based engineering and STEM and computer science education. To develop
the teamwork, strategy-making, leadership, and communication skills, the authors
assume as a tenet that collaboration and competition are not mutually exclusive. In
particular, the potential to establish social interaction in some games is noted as an
issue to support collaboration, even in a competition environment. As part of the
evaluation of the learning quality, it was recorded that the k-12 participants found
their leadership, teamwork, and strategy-making skills the most improved. For the
leadership skill, this finding was similar to the one reported by the students’
mentors.
Although Kazakoff et al. (2013) applied the CHERP programming language for
children, their focus was on developing sequencing. This important mathematical
skill for early childhood is a component of planning and involves putting objects or
actions in the correct order (Zelazo et al. 1997). As a result of using robots in this
context, it was found a significant increase in terms of sequencing scores for both
prekindergarten and kindergarten students.

5.4.3 How Is Educational Robotics Associated with School

Curriculum?

Figure 5.3 summarizes how educational robotics is associated with school cur-
riculum. In particular, three categories are considered:
Curricular: papers using robots according to a curriculum in a school.
Extracurricular: robots applications unrelated to a school curriculum.
Hybrid: publications that either combine out-of-school or afterschool activities
with a robotics curriculum, or report in-school and out-of-school activities
grounded on a curriculum.
The systematic review results suggest that most of the selected papers fall into
the extracurricular or hybrid categories. In what follows, a few of the 13 publica-
tions highlighted in the previous assessment are considered.
Sullivan and Bers (2013) follow the TangibleK robotics program, which consists
of six lessons regarding topics related to robotics, physics, and programming.
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 119

Fig. 5.3 Types of association

between educational robotics
and a curriculum

In particular, the lessons include introduction to a design process, robotics kits and
control flow in a program and sensors. Furthermore, the curriculum is designed for
a minimum of 20 h of classroom work and is implemented with the support of the
CHERP language and the LEGO Mindstorms robot. The authors report an evalu-
ation of TangibleK in 3 kindergarten classrooms, such that 53 students were
exposed to the experience. It should be emphasized that the program was also
considered in other publications, as exemplified in Flannery and Bers (2013),
Kazakoff et al. (2013).
McKay et al. (2015) exemplify the hybrid category. In particular, the
WaterBotics curriculum was carried out in in-school and out-of-school environ-
ments. This program includes science lessons embedded within missions with
“achievements” that teams can earn. In this sense, the program is an alternative to
competition-driven curricula, making it attractive to youth who may not yet have
established STEM identities, interest, and self-confidence. Moreover, WaterBotics
focus on a few instructional design principles:
Design-based activities support science learning.
Robotics learning represents a powerful learning opportunity for diverse youth.
Science content learning is scaffolded through mastery of a series of increasingly
complex design challenges.
Abaid et al. (2013) illustrate the extracurricular category with an outreach
experience in the New York Aquarium. It was designed to ignite K-12 students’
interest in STEM and attract them toward engineering careers. As an educational
tool, the authors considered a robotic fish easy to control by young participants. To
act as a bridge between the knowledge of elementary- and middle-school students
and the authors, two high-school students were selected and trained. In this sce-
nario, a student exposed to the experience typically participated in the following
route:
Observing different fish species.
Making of caudal fins.
Mounting a fin on the robot and controlling its swimming.
Attending to a high-school students’ talk.
Observing robot pieces.
Answering a survey about the experience.
120 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

5.4.4 What Types of Robots Are Used?

The most usual robots found in the group of 60 chosen papers correspond to:
LEGO robotic kits (25 papers).
VEX robots (3 papers).
Robotic fish (3 papers).
LEGO robots consists in the most popular choice, as indicated in 25 out of the
60 papers. The potential to include varied sensors and the support for a few tra-
ditional programming languages are some reasons that explain this popularity. They
are used to support the development of different concepts and skills, as illustrated
by Nugent et al. (2016), Kaloti-Hallak et al. (2015a, b), McKay et al. (2015), Yuen
et al. (2014), Flannery and Bers (2013), Kazakoff et al. (2013), Sullivan and Bers
(2013).
VEX robots, in turn, are selected for educational robotics in He et al. (2014,
2015), Liu et al. (2013). These machines can be combined with remote control
devices and microcontrollers associated with an environment that supports visual
programming. Benefits for VEX users include robustness against shocks and good
availability of sensors.
As shown in the literature, robotic fish is also considered in a few papers (Laut
et al. 2015; Phamduy et al. 2015; Abaid et al. 2013). This bioinspired robot contains
an artificial flapping tail that approximates the locomotion of some animal species
and can be managed remotely by an interface similar to a video game controller.
The authors indicate that the entire system costs under US$100 on a limited pro-
duction basis.
The following robot models are employed by only one or two publications: Kiwi
(Sullivan and Bers 2016), Linkbot (Montironi et al. 2015; Modekurty et al. 2014),
Aerobot (Rubenstein et al. 2015), Hummingbird (Akiva et al. 2015), Proteus (Ayar
2015), Bee-bot (Bussi and Baccaglini-Frank 2015), a boat robot (Chen et al. 2015),
Darwin-OP (Brown and Howard 2014), SIFEB (Senaratne et al. 2014), Khepera (de
Cristóforis et al. 2013) and Infante (Saleiro et al. 2013). One also can find alter-
natives in the literature, such the use of virtual robots (Gucwa and Cheng 2014;
Martin et al. 2013) or telerobotics (Prayaga et al. 2013). The latter idea is partic-
ularly attracting when the cost per student must be reduced, while the participants
are still able to control real robots by a Web interface.

5.4.5 What Age Groups/Educational Levels Are

Considered?

It was found in the selected papers the use of robots to support teaching in different
educational levels. Table 5.8 associates each level with the corresponding publi-
cations, which in turn are indicated by the identifiers specified in Table 5.5.
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 121

Christensen et al. (2015) evaluate their program with three groups of

participants:
Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World (MSOSW).
Communication, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (CSTEM)
program.
Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science (TAMS) program.
The MSOSW project involved participants from 8 US states. Supervised by
teachers, they monitor energy use in specific places and study natural environment
topics. The CSTEM afterschool program, in turn, engages middle-school students
in multi-age groups to solve challenges by industry professionals and learning
activities regarding geoscience, creative writing, sculpture, film, and photography.
Finally, the TAMS residential program is designed for high-school juniors and
seniors who are high achievers and interested in mathematics and science.
Sullivan and Bers (2016) report learning outcomes achieved in a US public
school that serves children in prekindergarten through 3rd grade. A similar school
type was found in Kazakoff et al. (2013). It should be emphasized that some authors
also used alternative terms to refer to the considered educational levels, such as K-4,
K-8, and K-12 (Yuen et al. 2014; Nag et al. 2013; Suescun-Florez et al. 2013).

5.4.6 How Is Educational Robotics Evaluated?

The following types of learning assessment were identified in the 60 papers:

quantitative, qualitative, or both. Figure 5.4 indicates the frequency of each type in
the group of publications.

Table 5.8 Educational levels Learning theories References

found in the selected papers
Authentic learning #39
Cognition-based theories #17, 30
Collaborative learning #22, 47, 60
Constructivist/constructionism #13, 16, 29, 53, 58
Elaboration theory #58
Embodied theory #33
Experiential learning #2, 4, 40, 50
Interactive learning #25
Meaningful learning #26
Problem-based learning #19, 34
Project-based learning #8, 36, 52
Self-determination theory #3, 27
Semiotic mediation #6
122 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

As can be seen, quantitative assessments are the most common choice (55%).
McKay et al. (2015) illustrate this category by taking surveys and students’
achievements for further analysis. In particular, surveys intended to capture stu-
dents’ interest, enjoyment, and learning, while the achievements attempted to
identify learning outcomes in physics. They also conducted the Mann-Whitney
U test to find whether differences in specific results were significant. As an alter-
native to surveys, Yuen et al. (2014) applied a group observation form to capture
information related to students’ observable behaviors and interactions that occur in
collaboration during robotics projects.
Qualitative evaluations are found in 20% of the 60 references. To collect data
from children, Ucgul and Cagiltay (2014) considered multiple strategies, such as
semi-structured interviews, participant-observation, field notes, and surveys. In
addition, they applied intercoder agreement (Creswell 2007), triangulation (Merriam
2009), and other approaches to ensure the trustworthiness of the study. Nemiro et al.
(2015) also verified intercoder agreement in their evaluation in elementary schools.
Both quantitative and qualitative assessments were identified in some publica-
tions. Abaid et al. (2013), for example, apply surveys with open-ended questions
and with questions answered according to a Likert scale to participants of an
outreach program associated with a US aquarium. Modekurty et al. (2014) and
Kaloti-Hallak et al. (2015a) also illustrate this hybrid category.
Besides the assessment type, the research design was collected from the 60
pieces of work. Although the non-experimental setting is predominant (53 out of
60), there are a few illustrations of quasi-experimental settings. Nugent et al.
(2016), for example, compared outcomes found in robotics summer camp with the
ones achieved by control group composed of students identified by some educa-
tional service units as youth with interest in technology and robotics. The experi-
ment showed that the camp intervention led to a learning improvement,
supplementing the non-experimental setting results.

Fig. 5.4 Type of assessment

conducted in a selected paper
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 123

5.4.7 Other Findings

Besides the issues reported previously, we also collected additional information

from the 60 references selected in April 2016. The publication year was one of the
findings. As Fig. 5.5 shows, a regular number of relevant papers have been pub-
lished. In addition, it is expected that the number of pieces of work from 2016
increases as the year goes by.
Another finding from the systematic review is that 26 educational robotics
applications are clearly grounded in learning theories. Table 5.9 shows 27 study
identifiers, as Ucgul and Cagiltay (2014) consider two theories in their work. The
learning theory issue can be relevant, as represents a link between practice and
theory in teaching supported by robots. Figure 5.6 shows that, from the theories
used in more than 2 papers, the constructivist/constructionism theory (Papert 1980;
Piaget and Inhelder 1967) is the most frequent one (5 occurrences), while experi-
ential learning comes next (4 occurrences).

Fig. 5.5 Number of pieces of

work published per year

Table 5.9 Learning theories Learning theories References

used in the literature
Authentic learning #39
Cognition-based theories #17, 30
Collaborative learning #22, 47, 60
Constructivist/constructionism #13, 16, 29, 53, 58
Elaboration theory #58
Embodied theory #33
Experiential learning #2, 4, 40, 50
Interactive learning #25
Meaningful learning #26
Problem-based learning #19, 34
Project-based learning #8, 36, 52
Self-determination theory #3, 27
Semiotic mediation #6
124 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Fig. 5.6 Learning theory

most used in the selected
references

5.5 Conclusions and Perspectives

The present systematic review about robotics in STEM teaching was performed
through the elaboration of a predefined protocol review that allowed us to identify
and select our primary studies. From the 538 pieces of work initially identified, 60
studies were selected. Based on the synthesis conducted as part of the systematic
review, we have observed that:
• By extracting information from 60 relevant publications, we noted that a large
number of STEM concepts were considered in the literature. Although tech-
nology and engineering are more frequently associated with robots, science and
mathematics also benefit from these powerful machines. These findings indicate
the flexibility of robots as a supporting tool for learning. It also can inspire new
applications of educational robotics on the same concepts or in related ones.
Besides briefly describing a few highlighted examples of how these concepts
were explored in classrooms, robotics camps, and competitions, the current
review reports information on this topic for all the 60 references by using a
spreadsheet (https://goo.gl/AJcIyv).
• The mostly observed skills remain the same as reported in previous studies:
teamwork and problem solving. We also can highlight the possibility of
exploring the engineering design process, illustrated by papers such as McKay
et al. (2015). When defining the problem, planning solutions, making a model,
testing the model, and reflecting and redesigning robots, students not only learn
how technology works, but they also apply the skills and content knowledge
learned in a meaningful way.
• The use of robotics as a predominantly extracurricular activity remains. It was
not aim of this study to understand why—however, it can be a good topic for
future research. Some hypotheses that can be considered are as follows:
– The schools do not have infrastructure to meet the amount of regular
students.
– Teachers have no knowledge to incorporate robotics into their practice.
– It is not feasible due to the number of students and the need for follow-up.
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 125

– Lack of methodological support.

– Schools are not convinced that the result will be positive.
Anyway, we need to understand the context, the needs, and then propose
solutions that integrate more robotics in the practice of the classroom.
• Karim et al. (2015) identified 36 robots/toolkits suitable for use in the classroom.
However, as noted in Benitti (2012) and Karim et al. (2015), LEGO robots still
consists in the most popular choice.
• We found robotics research at all educational levels. This is good news.
However, kindergarten and prekindergarten concentrate the smallest number of
studies. We believe that there is much to research at this level.
• “Each primary type of qualitative data contributes unique and valuable per-
spectives about student learning to the outcomes-based assessment process.
When used in combination, a more complete or holistic picture of student
learning is created” (Bresciani et al. 2009, p. 61). Similarly, we believe that the
evaluation of research involving the application of robotics should include
quantitative and qualitative analysis. At this point, only 25% of the considered
studies used both approaches. Moreover, we highlight the need for more
experimental studies in this area, once non-experimental settings are predomi-
nant. We agree with Karim et al. (2015) and believe that it is necessary to
standardize evaluation techniques used to quantify robot-based learning. In
addition, statistical analysis, surveys, and interviews could be merged to provide
more complete findings.
It should be emphasized that this study was based on 60 articles located by using
specific search criteria in 9 bibliographic databases. Other criteria and databases
would, perhaps, have yielded more studies. The study should, therefore, be con-
sidered an attempt to explore the potential of educational robotics in STEM area,
rather than a complete overview.

References

Abaid, N., Kopman, V., & Porfiri, M. (2013). An attraction toward engineering careers: The story
of a Brooklyn outreach program for KuFFFD12 students. IEEE Robotics Automation
Magazine, 20(2), 31–39. doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2184672
Akiva, T., Povis, K. T., & Martinez, A. (2015). Bringing in the tech: using outside expertise to
enhance technology learning in youth programs. Afterschool Matters, 22, 45–53.
Ayar M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in
engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 15(6), 1655–1675. doi:10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134
Barger, M., & Boyette, M. A. (2015). Do k-12 robotics activities lead to engineering and
technology career choices? In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
and Exposition (pp. 1–9). doi:10.18260/p.23895
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 58, 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
126 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

Bresciani, M., Gardner, M., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Assessment methods in the book:
Demonstrating student success, a practical guide to outcomes-based assessment of learning
and development in student affairs. United States: Stylus Publishing, LLC, Sterling
Brown, L. N., & Howard, A. M. (2014). The positive effects of verbal encouragement in
mathematics education using a social robot. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference
(pp. 1–5). doi:10.1109/ISECon.2014.6891009
Bussi, M. G. B., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015). Geometry in early years: Sowing seeds for a
mathematical definition of squares and rectangles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 391–
405. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0636-5
Cateté, V., Wassell, K., & Barnes, T. (2014). Use and development of entertainment technologies
in after school STEM program. In ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(pp. 163–168). doi:10.1145/2538862.2538952
Chen, Y. K., Chang, C. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2015). The instructional design of integrative STEM
curriculum: A pilot study in a robotics summer camp. In: International Conference on
Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 871–875).
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM
engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 898–909. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-
9572-6
Chung, C. J. C. J. (2014). Integrated STEAM education through global robotics art festival
(GRAF). In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 1–6). doi:10.1109/ISECon.
2014.6891011
Chung, C. J. C. J., Cartwright, C., & Chung, C. (2014a). Robot music camp 2013: An experiment
to promote STEM and computer science. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference
(pp. 1–7). doi:10.1109/ISECon.2014.6891012
Chung, C. J. C. J., Cartwright, C., & Cole, M. (2014b). Assessing the impact of an autonomous
robotics competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM education, 15(2), 24–34.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fivetraditions.
Thousand Oaks, United States: Sage.
de Cristóforis, P., Pedre, S., Nitsche, M. A., Fischer, T., Pessacg, F., & Pietro, C. D. (2013). A
behavior-based approach for educational robotics activities. IEEE Transactions on Education,
56, 61–66.
Crombie, I. K. (1996). The pocket guide to appraisal. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books.
Deken, B., Koch, D., & Dudley, J. (2013). Establishing a robotics competition in an underserved
region: Initial impacts on interest in technology and engineering. Journal of Technology,
Management & Applied Engineering, 29(3), 1–9.
van Delden, S., & Yang, K. P. (2014). Robotics summer camps as a recruiting tool: A case study.
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(5), 14–22.
Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. In International
Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & International Conference Robotics in
Education (pp. 27–34).
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupjunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and
technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
75, 692–699. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013
Erickson-Ludwig, A. (2015). A college lead informal learning engineering education program for
school aged youth. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 83–87). doi:10.1109/
ISECon.2015.7119951
Flannery, L. P., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Let’s dance the “robot hokey-pokey!”: Children’s
programming approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 81–101.
Galley, D., Martin, G. S., Stone, J. C., Hunt, B., Laswell, J., Mortensen, L., et al. (2015). A view
from the high school/two year college partnership interface: Our best practices employed in
engineering and technology education. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–27)
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 127

Garcia, J. M., Kuleshov, Y. A., & Lumkes, J. H. (2014). Using fluid power workshops to increase
STEM interest in k-12 students. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–12).
Greenhalgh, T. (2000). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. London,
United Kingdom: BMJ Books.
Gucwa, K. J., & Cheng, H. H. (2014). Robosim for integrated computing and STEM education. In
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–17).
Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2013). Arts & Bots: Techniques for distributing a steam robotics program
through k-12 classrooms. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 1–5). doi:10.
1109/ISECon.2013.6525207
He, S., Maldonado J, Uquillas A, & Cetoute T. (2014) Teaching k-12 students robotics
programming in collaboration with the robotics club. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education
Conference (pp. 1–6).
He, S., Zubarriain, J., & Kumia, N. (2015). Integrating robotics education in pre-college
engineering program. In IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 183–188).
Jackson, J. (2013). An engineering mentor’s take on: “first” robotics. Tech Directions, 72, 13–15.
Jeon, M., FakhrHosseini, M., Barnes, J., Duford, Z., Zhang, R., & Ryan, J., et al. (2016) Making
live theatre with multiple robots as actors bringing robots to rural schools to promote steam
education for underserved students. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction (HRI) (pp. 445–446). doi:10.1109/HRI.2016.7451798
Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. M. (2015a). The effectiveness of robotics
competitions on students’ learning of computer science. Olympiads in Informatics, 89–112.
Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari M. M. (2015b). Students’ attitudes and motivation
during robotics activities. In Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
(pp. 102–110). doi:10.1145/2818314.2818317
Karim, M., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape k-12 STEM
education? In International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (pp. 1–8).
Karp, T., & Maloney, P. (2013). Exciting young students in grades k-8 about STEM through an
afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 39–54.
doi:10.19030/ajee.v4i1.7857
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive
robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early child-hood. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5
Khanlari A. (2013). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students’ attitude
toward stem. In Conference on Engineering Education (pp. 62–66). doi:10.1109/ICEED.2013.
6908304
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary
education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers &
Education, 91, 14–31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.08.005
Kitchenham, B. A., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews
in software engineering. Technical Report, Evidence-based Software Engineering, United
Kingdom
Larkins, D. B., Moore, J. C., Rubbo, L. J., & Covington, L. R. (2013). Application of the cognitive
apprenticeship framework to a middle school robotics camp. In ACM Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education (pp. 89–94). doi:10.1145/2445196.2445226
Laut, J., Bartolini, T., & Porfiri, M. (2015). Bioinspiring an interest in STEM. IEEE Transactions
on Education, 58(1), 48–55. doi:10.1109/TE.2014.2324533
Liu, A., Newsom, J., Schunn, C., & Shoop, R. (2013). Students learn programming faster through
robotic simulation. Tech Directions, 72(8), 16–19.
Martin, T., Berland, M., Benton, T., & Smith, C. P. (2013). Learning programming with IPRO:
The effects of a mobile, social programming environment. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 24(3), 301–328.
128 F.B.V. Benitti and N. Spolaôr

McKay, M. M., Lowes, S., Tirhali, D., McGrath, E. W., Sayres, K., & Peterson, K. A. D. (2013).
Transforming a middle and high school robotics curriculum. In American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–21)
McKay, M. M., Lowes, S., Tirhali, D., & Camins, A. H. (2015) Student learning of STEM
concepts using a challenge-based robotics curriculum. In American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–25).
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, United States: Jossey-Bass.
Modekurty, S., Fong, J., & Cheng, H. H. (2014). C-STEM girls computing and robotics leadership
camp. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition
(pp. 1–14)
Montironi, M. A., Eliahu, D. S., & Cheng, H. H. (2015). A robotics-based 3d modeling curriculum
for k-12 education. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and
Exposition (pp. 1–14). doi:10.18260/p.23443
Mubin, O., Stevens, C., Shahid, S., & Al Mahmud, A. (2013). A review of the applicability of
robots in education. Journal of Technology for Education and Learning, 1, 1–7. doi:10.2316/
Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
Nag, S., Katz, J. G., & Saenz-Otero, A. (2013). Collaborative gaming and competition for CS-
STEM education using SPHERES zero robotics. Acta Astronautica, 83, 145–174. doi:10.1016/
j.actaastro.2012.09.006
Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2015). Developing creative behavior in elementary
school students with robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior 1–28. doi:10.1002/jocb.87
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and
competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75(Part
B) 686–691. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.011
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, United
States: BasicBooks.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2005). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Phamduy, P., Milne, C., Leou, M., & Porfiri, M. (2015). Interactive robotic fish: A tool for
informal science learning and environmental awareness. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine,
22(4), 90–95.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s conception of space. New York, United States:
Norton.
Pinzon, G. J., & Huerta, J. R. (2014). Introduction to STEM fields through robotics: A synergetic
learning experience for students and their parents. In American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–8).
Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callagha, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., & Petrovi, V. (2016). Virtual
laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers &
Education, 95, 309–327. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.02.002
Prayaga, L., Prayaga, C., Wade, A., & Whiteside, A. (2013). The design and implementation of
tele-robotics in education (TRE) to engage students in STEM disciplines: Including computer
science and physics. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(2), 205–211.
Qidwai, U., Riley, R., & El-Sayed, S. (2013). Attracting students to the computing disciplines: A
case study of a robotics contest. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 520–531.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.768
Rao, A. (2015). The application of LeJOS, LEGO Mindstorms robotics, in an LMS environment to
teach children java programming and technology at an early age. In IEEE Integrated STEM
Education Conference (pp. 121–122). doi:10.1109/ISECon.2015.7119902
Rubenstein, M., Cimino, B., Nagpal, R., & Werfel, J. (2015). Aerobot: An affordable one-robot-
per-student system for early robotics education. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (pp. 6107–6113).
5 How Have Robots Supported STEM Teaching? 129

Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and
associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1),
309–322.
Sala, A. L., Sitaram, P., & Spendlove, T. (2014). Stimulating an interest in engineering through an
“explore engineering and technology” summer camp for high school students. In American
Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–10).
Saleiro, M., Carmo, B., Rodrigues, J. M. F., & du Buf, J. M. H. (2013). A low-cost classroom-
oriented educational robotics system. In G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A.
Spiers, & U. Leonards (Eds.), International Conference on social robotics (pp. 74–83).
Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6
Sallee, J., & Peek, G. G. (2014). Fitting the framework: The STEM institute and the 4-H essential
elements. Journal of extension, 52(2), 1–13.
Senaratne, H., Gunatilaka, P., Gunaratna, U., Vithana, Y., de Silva, C., & Fernando, P. (2014).
SiFEB—A simple, interactive and extensible robot playmate for kids. In International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence with Applications in Engineering and Technology
(pp. 143–148).
Suescun-Florez, E., Iskander, M., Kapila, V., & Cain, R. (2013). Geotechnical engineering in us
elementary schools. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3), 300–315. doi:10.
1080/03043797.2013.800019
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and
programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3),
691–702. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9210-z
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
Sullivan, F., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for
learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2),
105–128. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
Talley, A. B., Crawford, R. H., & White, C. K. (2013). Curriculum exchange: Middle school
students go beyond blackboards to solve the grand challenges. In American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–10).
Tewolde, G., & Kwon, J. (2014). Robots and smartphones for attracting students to engineering
education. In Zone 1 Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (pp. 1–6).
doi:10.1109/ASEE.2014.6820652
Toh, L., Causo, A., Tzuo, P., & Chen, I. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and
young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 148–163. doi:10.1080/15391523.
2016.1146563
Tuluri, F. (2015). Using robotics educational module as an interactive STEM learning platform. In
IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (pp. 16–20). doi:10.1109/ISECon.2015.
7119916
Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training
camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222. doi:10.
1007/s10798-013-9253-9
Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Stone, J., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., et al. (2014). Group
tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary
and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 39–45.
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive
function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 198–226.
doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5
Chapter 6
Robotics Festival and Competitions
Designed for STEM+C Education

ChanJin Chung, Christopher Cartwright and Joe DeRose

Abstract In order to promote and support STEM+C (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics plus Computing, Coding, or Computer Science)
education, a student-centered robotics festival and competition called Robofest
(www.robofest.net) was launched in 1999. Robofest’s primary focus is the learning
of STEM subjects together with computer science through autonomous robotics.
When we make robots think, we will learn more because we have to think more.
We believe programming team-built robots provide an effective environment to
learn and exercise STEM disciplines in a truly integrated fashion. Furthermore,
Robofest challenges are designed in such a way that dead reckoning is discouraged,
which means students must program their robots with sensors to accomplish tasks
in a dynamic and partially unknown environment. Through the challenges with
unknown factors that require programming without adults’ direct help, students
learn, reinforce, and master STEM+C knowledge for twenty-first-century jobs.
Robofest meets the needs of students based on their respective age, interest,
learning style, and prior experience by offering diverse competitions such as Game,
Exhibition, Vision Centric Challenge (VCC), Global Robotics Art Festival
(GRAF), and Unknown Mission Challenge (UMC). As entry-level challenges for
beginners, Robofest offers BottleSumo, RoboParade, and Carnival. After 17 years,
there are currently over 2500 students participating in our programs annually in
fifteen US states and fourteen other countries. Assessment and survey results have
shown that the Robofest robotics experience has provided on opportunity for
thousands of participants to learn more about STEM. Importantly, more students in
the post-survey have indicated that they would consider a career involving STEM
after Robofest exposure.

Keywords Robotics
Coding
Computing
Problem-based learning (PBL)

STEM+C

C. Chung (&)
C. Cartwright
J. DeRose

Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 131

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_6
132 C. Chung et al.

6.1 Introduction

In 1967, Seymour Papert, Cynthia Solomon, Daniel Bobrow, and Wally Feurzeig
crafted Logo, a revolutionary programming language, the first designed for use by
children (Wikipedia 2016), at a time when mammoth computers occupied entire
rooms. Papert’s vision was that children should be programming the computer. At
last, a half century later, programming languages are becoming non-foreign lan-
guages. Worldwide trends show that coding will become increasingly more
important in early K-12 education. For example, in September 2014, the UK ini-
tiated the most ambitious attempt yet to get kids coding, with changes to their
national curriculum that includes coding lessons for children as young as five
(Dredge 2014). On December 10, 2014, US President Obama became the first
president to write a line of code as part of the “Hour of Code”—an online event to
promote Computer Science Education Week. The line of code in JavaScript he
wrote was (Mechaber 2014):

moveForwardð100Þ;

Later, in January 2016 in his 2016 State of the Union Address, President Obama
announced a “Computer Science (CS) for All” initiative to empower all American
students from kindergarten through high school to learn computer science as a “new
basic skill” and be equipped with the computational thinking skills they need to be
creators not just consumers, in the digital economy, and to be active citizens in our
technology-driven world (Smith 2016).
Robofest (www.robofest.net), launched in 1999, is an annual robotics festival
with competitions designed to promote and support STEM+C (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics + Computing, Coding, or Computer
Science) education (Chung and Sverdlik 2001; Chung and Anneberg 2003; Chung
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014 January, 2014 August, 2015, 2016;
Chung and Cartwright 2010, 2011a, b, 2012, 2013; MacLennan 2010; Chung et al.
2012; Coscarelli 2015 March, 2015 September) with the following key strategies:
(1) Autonomous robotics were chosen as a tool for STEM+C education because it
provides a true hands-on learning environment and integrates all the components of
STEM+C. (2) Robots were chosen, instead of simulation on a screen, as the target
platforms to execute programs because Papert’s research showed that children
learned more efficiently if they could see a physical/tangible result for their com-
puting efforts (Papert 1980). (3) Competition provides an active, collaborative,
student-centered, and problem-based learning (PBL) environment. (4) Competition
stimulates student motivation and performance. (5) Computer Science was the
focus because the concept of “STEM” overlooked the importance of computer
science, computing, programming, and coding at the K-12 level.
Robofest’s mission is to inspire K-12+ students in STEM+C, develop teamwork,
enhance creativity and problem-solving skills, and prepare them to excel in higher
education and technological careers. Robofest challenges teams of students to
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 133

design, build, and program autonomous robots to compete in various categories.

Robofest has witnessed significant growth over the past 17 years. In the 2015–2016
season, 2575 students participated in Robofest. Cumulatively over 20,000 students
have been a part of this program since its inception in the 1999–2000 school year at
Lawrence Technological University (LTU) in Michigan. Robofest has drawn stu-
dents from 15 States (Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, Texas, Florida, California,
Washington, Missouri, Hawaii, Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, and New York) and 14 other countries (Canada, China, Colombia,
Egypt, England, France, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Korea, Mexico,
Singapore, and South Africa) and continues to expand at a rapid rate. What makes
Robofest events unique? The following paragraphs summarize the unique charac-
teristics of Robofest.
STEM+C Learning through autonomous robotics: When we make robots think,
we learn more because we have to think more. Autonomous robotics is one of the
best ways to learn all the STEM disciplines in a truly integrated fashion by focusing
on computer science, computer programming, and computational thinking.
Furthermore, Robofest challenges are designed in such a way that dead reckoning is
discouraged. Students must program their robots with sensors to accomplish tasks
in dynamic and partially unknown environments. Through specified challenges,
students must apply the math and science skills learned in their classes to reinforce
the learning.
Affordable: Our emphasis is on making Robofest affordable to all students,
parents, and schools, and we accomplish this by charging a minimal team entry fee
($0–$50). Robofest does not require teams to hold major fund-raisers to underwrite
the cost of participation. Robofest encourages recycling of all the logistic materials,
such as robotic kits, parts, sensors, actuators, and playing field materials, which
helps to control costs. It is easy and simple for organizations to host their own
qualifier since the Robofest headquarters provide basic competition materials
including trophies, medals, name badges, and certificates to them free of charge.
Flexible: Robofest allows students to use robotics kits and programming lan-
guage of their choice. Any material can be used. The playing field materials are
affordable, modular, and easy to transport and store, allowing student teams to
practice anywhere at their convenience. Teams can be formed by any organization,
school, homeschool, club, neighborhood, or civic group.
Students rule: While adult mentorship is encouraged, students are requested to
design, construct, and program the robots themselves, and adult coaches/mentors
are not allowed to assist during the actual competitions.
Everyone is recognized: All registered participants receive personalized medals
and certificates if they do not drop out. Winners of the qualifying and championship
rounds receive trophies. Top teams in the World Championship Sr. Division (grades
9–12) receive $2000 LTU renewable scholarships.
Free technical workshops are offered to teams on campus and/or online. All the
workshop materials such as PowerPoint slides, example videos, sample programs,
and recorded Webinars are available online for all teams. Some workshops are
taught by high school seniors who have had extensive experience with Robofest.
134 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.1 Diverse categories

of Robofest programs

Various opportunities for every student: Robofest meets the needs of a variety of
students based on their age, gender, learning style, and experience/ability levels.
Figure 6.1 shows all eight Robofest program categories offered throughout the year
and the different skill levels and interests.
Each category of Robofest is introduced in the following sections. Then, out-
come and evaluation results will be summarized. A summary and conclusion will
follow at the end of this chapter.

6.2 Game

Robofest Game, which is the most popular category in Robofest, is a timed mission
defined with unknown factors and small unknown surprise challenges. Game is
designed to adopt the problem-based learning (PBL) paradigm (Hmelo-Silver
2004). Learning is driven by challenging problems with no one “right” answer.
Team members work as self-directed, active investigators, and problem-solvers in
small collaborative groups. Teachers/Coaches adopt the role as facilitators of
learning, guiding the learning process. Robofest Game especially puts math skills to
the test. Teams need to apply math concepts with computational thinking skills to
solve the missions. A new Game is introduced each year. The following subsections
describe the recent year missions from 2012 until 2016.

6.2.1 2012 Game—R2R (Robots to the Rescue)

Game synopsis: due to an earthquake, high-rise buildings (tissue boxes) in a city

are on fire. An autonomous robot is being sent to rescue people (tennis balls
covered with aluminum foil tape) on the top of the two buildings. R2R playing field
is shown in Fig. 6.2.
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 135

Fig. 6.2 2012 Game R2R (robots to the rescue) Jr. (grades 5–8) playing field

Fig. 6.3 2012 Game R2R (robots to the rescue) Sr. playing field

Missions of R2R Game are as follows: (1) Remove rock 3 off the table to clear
the south edge road. (2) Move the rock in front of each building. (3) Rescue each
individual (tennis ball) on each building. (4) Bring them into the hospital box. (5)
Measure the distance between two buildings and report (display) the length in
millimeters at the Home Base. Learning objectives of this Game are motion,
manipulation, object detection, localization, logic, ratio, proportion, algebra, mea-
suring, geometry, and navigation. High school teams were needed to use
trigonometry especially, since the table was set up on an angle as shown in Fig. 6.3.

6.2.2 2013 Game—SRCC (Search, Rescue, Cleanup,

and Collect Data)

An autonomous robot must search for and rescue people trapped in the black box in
the tower of boxes, collect data, and clean up a contaminated area around the tower.
136 C. Chung et al.

Detailed missions are to (1) remove (clean up) the white toxic boxes from the table,
(2) bring the black box out of the contaminated area to home, (3) measure the size
of the contaminated area in square millimeters and report/display the number, and
(4) return to the Home Base.
For the Jr. Division, a black circle is used to represent the contaminated area as
shown in Fig. 6.4. Two or three white boxes are used for the tower. The location of
the black box is always on the top of the tower. The number of white boxes is
unveiled 30 min before impounding robots to begin the competition.
For the Sr. Division, a right triangle shape is used instead of a circle. Two to four
white boxes are used for the tower. The number of white boxes and the location of
the black box in the tower are unveiled 30 min before impounding robots. It is
known that the black box will not be at the bottom to make the challenge not to be
too complicated. Teams are required to use geometry and/or trigonometry to
measure the black shape. Sr. SRCC playing field is shown in Fig. 6.5.

Fig. 6.4 2013 Game—SRCC (search, rescue, cleanup, and collect data) Jr. playing field

Fig. 6.5 2013 Game—SRCC (search, rescue, cleanup, and collect data) Sr. playing field
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 137

Fig. 6.6 2014 Game—avoid meltdown, Jr. playing field

6.2.3 2014 Game—Avoid Meltdown

A nuclear power plant is in trouble. An autonomous nuclear responder robot has

detected the problem and has two minutes to deliver up to three water balls (tennis
balls) and a special ball (hard-boiled egg) into the plant (box). The robot can carry
only one ball at a time. Two concrete blocks (AA size batteries) near the plant need
to be removed off the table. Also, the volume of the box (outer dimension) must be
reported/displayed in cubic millimeters at the Home Base.
For the Jr. Division, the height and depth of the box are given. The box is
aligned in parallel with the table. For the Sr. Division, only the depth of box is
given and the box is not aligned in parallel with the table. Jr. Division playing field
is shown in Fig. 6.6.

6.2.4 2015 Game—RoboBowl

The robot is to bowl, throw, shoot, or kick a tennis ball to knock down four pins
(500 ml water bottles). If pins are knocked down, the highest point value will be
awarded. If the ball just moves pins (but does not knock them down), partial points
will be awarded. If the ball ends up in the pin side area, points are also given. In
addition, the robot is required to report the height of the black rectangle shape on a
letter size paper in millimeters. The location of pins 1 and 2 is unveiled. The robot
must calculate the location of pins 3 and 4 based on the rectangle height mea-
surement. Figure 6.7 shows an example of RoboBowl, Jr. playing field.
138 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.7 2015 Game—RoboBowl, Jr. playing field

Fig. 6.8 2016 Game—RoboGolf, Jr. playing field

6.2.5 2016 Game—RoboGolf

There are four green areas with a golf ball. The robot must autonomously find each
green area, locate a golf ball, stop, and putt the ball into a hole by using a specific
piece of wood (wooden putter). The center hole, “a” in Fig. 6.8, has the highest
point value. For the Jr. teams, the location of the four green areas will be unveiled at
the competition site. However, for the Sr. teams, the exact location of the green area
No. 4 will be completely unknown. The exact location of the golf ball on the green
paper is unveiled to teams at the start of the competition.
During onsite workshops or Webinars, three methods to aim for the hole sug-
gested were (Method 1) search for the flagpole by scanning using a sonar sensor,
(Method 2) compute the location of the hole mathematically, and (Method 3)
determine the location using trial and error—we can find the hole by rotating the
robot different amounts in an attempt to find the correct orientation.
In the workshops and Webinars, the instructors reviewed the basic geometry
needed to implement the (Method 2) mathematical approach. In order to aim the robot
toward the center golf hole, the angle h can be calculated using geometry as shown in
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 139

Fig. 6.9 2016 Game—RoboGolf, Jr.; to aim the robot toward the center golf hole

Fig. 6.9. Then actually the robot needs to spin, 90° − h°. When the robot spins, the
wheel path is a red circle centered between the wheels as shown in Fig. 6.9.
We explained an example to spin 90° when the robot’s track width is 16.2 cm and
the diameter of the robot’s wheel is 5.5 cm. Students are instructed to calculate the
circumference of the robot’s path for a complete spin (the circumference of the red
circle): Cp = PI * D = 3.14 * 16.2 cm = 50.87 cm. Then students are asked to
calculate the circumference of the robot’s wheel: Cw = PI * D = 3.14 * 5.5 cm =
17.27 cm. Since 90° is ¼ of a circle, the robot travels 50.87 cm/4 = 12.72 cm in order
to spin 90°. The final calculation is “How many wheel rotations are needed to travel
12.72 cm?” The number of rotations can be found by dividing the distance by the
wheel circumference. Therefore, the answer is 12.72 cm/17.27 cm = 0.74 rotations.

6.3 Exhibition

Since the Game competition with fixed rules may limit students’ creativity,
Robofest offers a science fair-like stage for exhibitions to demonstrate creative
robotics projects. The robotics Exhibition is a great way for students to show off
their imagination and creativity. Each team has complete freedom to create any
autonomous robotics projects such as robot pets, robots for scientific experiments,
and practical robotics applications for any field. Computer-controlled robots with
sensors may be of any size and can use any material as long as it is safe for team
members as well as spectators. Hard-wired remote control is not allowed, but
wireless host computer/robot control via software messages is allowed. Robot-to-
robot communication is encouraged as well as human interaction with the robots.
Suggested human interaction with robots includes: claps/knocks, flash light, color
cards, and hand gestures. The application of math and science theories that are
appropriate to the team members’ age level is a strong plus for judging. Table 6.1
shows the summary of Exhibition judging rubric.
140 C. Chung et al.

Figures 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, and 6.17 show some notable
Exhibition projects from recent years. Automated chocolate factory was created
using LEGO robots as shown in Fig. 6.10. Figure 6.11 shows Z-bots with an
Arduino microcontroller and four Omni wheels solving maze problems and
demonstrating swarm behaviors. All the plastic body parts were made from scratch
using a 3-D printer.
Figure 6.12 shows an autonomous land mine seeker and destroyer robot.
Students presented a GPS-guided robotic boat monitoring and measuring

Table 6.1 Exhibition judging rubric

Judging category Weight (%)
Math and science concepts applied? 8
Students understand the math and science concepts applied? 8
Project idea 6
Originality 6
Robot demo performance 10
Project presentation 8
Project info (poster, brochure, Web site, video, etc.) 4
Teamwork 8
Robot mechanical design 7
New technologies, tools, parts, and materials 3
Project size 7
Practicality 7
Programming 8
Team independence 10

Fig. 6.10 Automated chocolate factory

6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 141

Fig. 6.11 Arduino swarm

robots

Fig. 6.12 Land mine seeker

ecological data (see Fig. 6.13). A student is playing a robotic violin (see Fig. 6.14)
created with LEGO NXT controller and NXT sensors. Figure 6.15 shows intelli-
gent four-way stop traffic control with self-driving cars built using Arduino con-
trollers and ZigBee communication. Figure 6.16 shows a sensor-heavy smart robot
arm built using Arduinos. A student is demonstrating a smart stick for the blind. It
vibrates on the yellow line and it beeps when it detects obstacles (see Fig. 6.17).
142 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.13 GPS-guided boat

Fig. 6.14 LEGO NXT violin

Fig. 6.15 Self-driving Arduino cars at four-way stop

6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 143

Fig. 6.16 Sensor-heavy robot arm controlled by Arduino

Fig. 6.17 Stick for the blind

144 C. Chung et al.

6.4 GRAF (Global Robotics Art Festival)

Robotics is all about STEM, and art is tightly coupled with all the STEM com-
ponents. The idea of GRAF is to integrate the arts with robotics to provide effective
and interdisciplinary STEM-learning environments where students will have an
unforgettable “show and tell like” experience by creating robotics art projects using
a universal language: art (Hamner and Cross 2013). GRAF implements the idea of
“STEAM = STEM + A (Arts)” with two main categories: Performing Arts Division
and Visual Arts Division. The Performing Arts Division includes dance/synchro-
nized group dance, fashion show, music band, robot and human playing music
together, robotic musical instruments played by humans (Chung et al. 2014 March;
Chung 2014 March, 2014 July), and robot skit. Examples of Visual Arts Division
are kinetic sculptures, kinetic canvas, and robotic painting. The following para-
graphs introduce some GRAF projects.
Team Courageous 1 introduced a piano-playing robot and a robotic guitar
instrument (see Fig. 6.18). The piano robot had a creative mechanism with three
motors to control six fingers. The guitar robot made different tones while sensing
the finger locations with an infrared distance sensor.
Team RoboCruisers introduced a believed-to-be the world’s first robot playing a
recorder (see Fig. 6.19). Three motors were synchronized to control two pumps to

Fig. 6.18 Piano robot and

robotic guitar
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 145

Fig. 6.19 Recorder playing robot

Fig. 6.20 Painting by mood

provide air powerful enough into the recorder windway to produce sound. When
the robot plays “Mary had a Little Lamb” on a recorder, the other robot Big Bird
dances to the music synchronized by Bluetooth signals.
Team Moodpainter from Mexico developed a robot system with a database that
draws a shape by spraying different color paints according to a person’s mood
determined by the music played on a foot keyboard (see Fig. 6.20).
146 C. Chung et al.

As shown in Fig. 6.21, team ALL2JESUS created a robot that displays kinetic
art patterns by using 16 servomotors and distance sensors. The robot changes the
pattern whenever it detects a new spectator or by using a built-in timer.
Team The Supernovas created a robot, Franc (see Fig. 6.22), which is designed
to paint letters based on pre-entered coordinates. Franc painted the official logo for
the global robotics art festival (GRAF) as shown in the figure.
Team Spruce Goose created an Arduino-based mechanical kinetic sculpture that
abstractly depicts a cam shaft, in an artistic way, playing a LED light show acti-
vated by IR distance sensors (see Fig. 6.23).
Based on the assessment results published (Chung 2015), the GRAF has
accomplished its goal to get students to pursue their interest in science, technology,
engineering and math subjects, by using the power of universal human interest in
arts. Student projects show hands-on application of STEM and computing science

Fig. 6.21 Kinetic art patterns

Fig. 6.22 Letter drawing robot and GRAF logo drawn by the robot
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 147

Fig. 6.23 Kinetic sculpture, Spruce Goose

skills to create robotics art projects that also require problem-solving skills. We also
learned, as Gullatt argues, that arts are not only for (self) expression, but also for
discovery (Gullatt 2008). Arts promote creativity while making everyone feel
beauty and joy. Participation data show that the inaugural GRAF resulted in
bringing more female and young students into STEM learning compared to
Robofest competition populations (Chung 2014 January). The acronym for STEM
+ Arts is STEAM. Since robotics art is a typical example of STEAM, similarly,
GRAF can be represented by STREAM, adding an R (Robotics) to STEAM.

6.5 Vision Centric Challenge (VCC)

Why is vision important to robots? Clearly, vision will enable a robot to become
intelligent and autonomous in undertaking manipulation, navigation, and even
social interactions. In this VCC launched in 2007, teams are required to build and
program a robot with camera(s) to solve challenges that needs “seeing.” This VCC
is for advanced high school students as well as college students. Earlier challenges
involved recognizing red/green light signals and green arrows, and following a lane
while avoiding obstacles between two dashed lines (Crocker 2011) as shown in
Figs. 6.24, 6.25, and 6.26.
148 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.24 Red/green light

detection (Color figure online)

Fig. 6.25 Green arrow

detection (Color figure online)

6.5.1 VCC 2014—Color Cup Navigation

To start the competition, a judge will show either Fig. 6.27 or 6.28 to the robot
camera. Then, the robot will be shown a digit on a letter-sized paper. After rec-
ognizing the digit, the robot should navigate through the path in such a way that the
blue cups are always on the left side if Fig. 6.27 is shown to the robot, for example.
If the number given was 2 for example as shown in Fig. 6.29, the robot needs to
return back home at the third yellow cross-line while maintaining the left blue color
rule (Fig. 6.30).
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 149

Fig. 6.26 Lane following while avoiding orange cones (Color figure online)

Fig. 6.27 Blue cup left

(Color figure online)

Fig. 6.28 Red cup left (Color

figure online)
150 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.29 Pattern for number 2

Fig. 6.30 Color cup navigation course example (Color figure online)

6.5.2 VCC 2015—MaxMin

The robot must follow a solid or dashed line to a series of waypoints (see Fig. 6.31).
Each waypoint will be associated with a numeric digit. Robots must locate and tra-
verse all waypoints recording their associated values during the challenge. Once all
waypoints have been evaluated, the robot must return to the waypoint with the largest
numerical value and spin 720°. The robot must then return to the waypoint with the
smallest numerical value and stop. Waypoints for High School teams are represented
by 9  12 in. sheets of colored construction paper. A table of the waypoint color to
numeric value information is provided in Fig. 6.32. College waypoints are represented
by white 8.5  11 in. sheets of printer paper. Each waypoint will have a printed
orange shape. Paper and shape orientation will vary but remain consistent for all
teams. All shapes with their associated numeric values are provided in Fig. 6.33.
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 151

Fig. 6.31 Course with waypoints

Fig. 6.32 Waypoint numeric

value chart for Sr. division

Fig. 6.33 Waypoint numeric

value chart for college (Color
figure online)
152 C. Chung et al.

6.5.3 VCC 2016—Mosaic

Due to the camera’s limited field of vision, the robot can see only a portion of an
alphanumeric pattern on a mosaic comprised of fifteen pieces of colored paper on the
floor. The mosaic will be arranged in five rows and three columns. The robot must
move to read all paper colors necessary to identify the digit or letter represented. For
example, Figs. 6.34 and 6.35 represent the number “2” and the letter “A,” respec-
tively. Note that Fig. 6.36 is a varied pattern for A. The robot must report (display)
the recognized digit or letter after spinning twice (*720°) on the field.

Fig. 6.34 Pattern for “2”

(Color figure online)

Fig. 6.35 Pattern for “A”

(Color figure online)
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 153

Fig. 6.36 Varied pattern

for “A”

6.6 BottleSumo

The objective of the game is to either be the first robot to find and intentionally push
a 2-L bottle (filled with 1 L of water) off the table or be the last robot remaining on
the table. In either case, after the event (either the bottle was pushed off or the
opponent are off the table), the robot must survive (remain) on the table for at least
three (3) seconds. A robot is considered off the table when any of its parts are
touching the floor, whether it was pushed off the table by the other robot or it fell off
the table on its own. Each robot must be fully autonomous. No human control,
signal, or remote computer control (tele-operation) is allowed. Through this entry-
level BottleSumo, students can learn multiple STEM subjects such as physics,
math, gears, logic, mechanical engineering, computer programming, and engi-
neering design process by doing. The introduction of an additional target object, a
2-L bottle filled with a liter of water, makes the game even more challenging and
minimizes the random chance of winning. Figure 6.37 shows Jr. BottleSumo
starting configuration using a 6-ft table. The Senior Division field is made up of two
tables.

6.7 Unknown Mission Challenge (UMC)

Mission tasks will be totally unknown until the day of competition. Contestants
solve simple missions in a very short time frame (less than 3 h). The goal of this
challenge is to provide an opportunity to develop problem-solving skills on the fly
154 C. Chung et al.

The Bottle will be

placed on this line

Fig. 6.37 Example of BottleSumo Initial configuration, Jr. division

Fig. 6.38 UMC 2016 problem—read a bar code and deliver

without any help from adult coaches. Teams may use only approved robot kits. Pre-
assembled robots cannot be used. Sensor or motor multiplexors are not allowed.
The UMC 2016 Challenge problem was “read the bar code and deliver” (see
Fig. 6.38). Your robot begins in the start zone loaded with a tennis ball and
completes two tasks: (1) Report the total line thickness (sum of the individual six
line thicknesses displayed on the robot screen) and (2) Deliver a tennis ball to the
safe zone. The X value in Fig. 6.38 is 4 * (total bar code line thickness). We have
witnessed and were truly amazed by the teamwork and solutions generated by the
teams. The “parent-free” environment is enjoyable.
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 155

6.8 RoboParade

RoboParade, a parade of self-driving cars, is an entry-level program to engage,

inspire, challenge, and prepare 4th–12th grade students for STEM+C learning and
careers (Chung 2010; Chung and Cartwright 2014 January). RoboParade students
design, build, program, and decorate autonomous robotic floats that follow a parade
route, a black line. This fun event has featured miniature robotic floats with moving
parts, sparkling lights, and all sorts of bells, drums, and musical instruments rolling
down a parade route without remote controls. The students must program their
robots to obey speed limits (minimum 7 cm/s and maximum 17 cm/s), display the
current average speed, follow a black line, and avoid other robots using sensors.
Through these tasks, students are learning, experiencing, and reinforcing STEM
subjects such as proportion, arithmetic operation, arithmetic mean, linear function,
unit conversion, ratio, circles, logic, data analysis, speed calculation, sensors, gears,
motors, force, friction, center of gravity, and many others. To join the official
parade, teams must pass a qualifying test that includes a written qualifying
examination. The annual non-competitive RoboParade has been designed to com-
plement the competition-oriented robotics events, targeting younger students and
less-experienced teams by providing an entry-level robotics program into STEM,
and freeing them of the stress of competition. RoboParade provides an interdisci-
plinary hands-on experiential approach where students may improve learning
STEM subjects.
Robofest conducted a controlled experiment showing that students who partic-
ipated in RoboParade 2012 and 2013 showed improvement on a pre–post STEM
multiple-choice test compared to students who did not participate in RoboParade
(Chung and Cartwright 2014). We believe the speed display requirement and the
written qualifying test asking about speed calculation embedded into the
RoboParade program contributed to the improvement of the RoboParade group. In
addition, the artistic and non-competitive nature of the event seems to attract more
female participants, with an over 28% female participation rate, well above the
other STEM programs. RoboParade is expanding to other cities. Two cities in
Michigan, one city in Florida, one city in Texas, and one city in Virginia have
offered this fun and effective informal STEM and STEAM learning opportunities.
Figure 6.39 shows the Halloween RoboParade 2015 at Macomb Community
College in Warren, Michigan.

Fig. 6.39 RoboParade 2015 at Macomb Community College, Michigan

156 C. Chung et al.

6.9 Carnival

Individual students will first learn how to program robots to follow a black line and
to send Bluetooth messages to robots, then visit multiple stations (Programming/
Construction, Beginner/Advanced) to program the controller and play the games
explained in the following paragraphs. Note that Carnival is not a team-based
program.
Scorpion Balloon Blaster: If the controller is programmed correctly, students are
asked to select a math or science trivia quiz card. If the answer is correct, then they
will have the chance to control a LEGO scorpion robot via Bluetooth to pop a
balloon. If the answer is not correct, the student may go back to the end of the line
to try the trivia quiz again. Winners will be determined based on the completion
time. See Fig. 6.40.
Goal Challenge (see Fig. 6.41): If the controller is programmed correctly, stu-
dents are asked to select a math or science trivia quiz card. If the answer is correct,
then they will have the chance to play with a LEGO soccer robot to kick tennis
balls. If not correct, the child may go back to the end of the line to try the trivia quiz
again. There will be 4 or more tennis balls with numbers on the field and some
obstacles. The goal is to maximize the sum of balls successfully kicked into the
goal. Some balls are easy to kick in, but the values are low. Only 2 min will be
given for each player. Winners will be announced based on the scores earned.
Lifter Design and Race (see Fig. 6.42): If the controller is programmed correctly,
students are asked to design a robot arm to lift a LEGO barbell. If a student brings
back the barbell using the robot with the arm, the mission is accomplished. Winners
will be determined based on the programming completion time and the game
completion time.

Fig. 6.40 Scorpion Balloon Blaster

6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 157

Fig. 6.41 Goal challenge

Fig. 6.42 Lifter design and

race

Speed Calculation Challenge: After introducing the concept of speed/velocity

calculation, a robot car will be started to follow a straight black line. When it stops
at the red color tape at the end of the black line, the robot will display the time taken
from the beginning. Students are asked to calculate the speed of the robot car in cm/
s as well as in./s. Students will be given a tape measure. Winners will be determined
based on the accuracy and use of correct mathematical formulas in the calculation.
Additional recognition will be given if the student implements more complex line
following algorithm with three states.
Block Math: Students are asked to calculate the number of LEGO blocks used to
construct shapes/structures. A bonus problem involves calculating a gear ratio.
Three minutes are given to complete the task. Winners will be determined based on
(1) accuracy, (2) use of math formulas/calculations, and (3) time to calculate.
158 C. Chung et al.

Slope Calculation: Each student is given a distance sensor connected to a LEGO

computer. They must watch a presentation to understand how the sensor works. The
goal is to calculate the slope of a secret board inside a black box using the distance
sensor. Winners will be determined based on accuracy and the mathematical
description used to solve the problem.

6.10 Outcomes of 2015–2016 Academic Year

In the 2015–2016 academic year, a total of 2575 students on 834 teams participated
Robofest from eight countries (Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Hong
Kong, India, and South Korea) in addition to 13 States from the USA (California,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington) (Chung 2016). Figure 6.43
shows the number of student participants since 2000. There was a surge in numbers
this year due to the growth in the international sites especially in India. The
cumulative number of registered students and teams in our Web database since
2000 has reached 20,569. Note that some of these students are duplicated from year
to year.
The average Robofest team size in 2016 was 3.0 which is same as that of last
year. We believe this small team size is good for effective learning, since each
student has more opportunity to contribute to the team’s objectives.

Fig. 6.43 Number of Robofest student participants and teams since 2000
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 159

Robofest offers a variety of categories in which to compete. Approximately 36%

of teams participated in the RoboGolf Game in 2015–2016 year. The second most
popular category was BottleSumo with 34%, then Exhibition with 15% of teams.
Figure 6.44 shows percentages of teams by competition category. This does not
include Robofest Camp (workshop plus mini competition) data.
Robofest competitions can be generalized into two categories: Games that use
fixed rules including BottleSumo, VCC (Vision Centric Challenge), and UMC
(Unknown Mission Challenge) and open-ended style with no fixed rules including
Exhibition, RoboParade, and GRAF. Figure 6.45 shows the trend of number of
teams between Games and Exhibition since 2005. We can see that the participation
in the open-ended exhibition categories has been decreasing since 2013. We think
students are more interested in fun game style challenges than creative science fair-
like categories.
Robofest checks and records students’ school grades, not ages. Approximately
40% of the students were from middle school, sixth through eighth grade.
Approximately 27% were from high school, 17% were fifth graders, 15% were
below fifth grade, and 1% were college students. Figure 6.46 shows the trend of
each school grade (age) group since 2005. From 2015 to 2016, the percentage of
fifth grade or younger increased from 22 to 32%. We believe this trend is positive
since hands-on STEM+C learning opportunities should be offered earlier to talented
young students.
Regarding gender, we experienced an increase of female student population in
2016; Approximately 71% were male and 29% were female students. Figure 6.47
shows the gender ratios of Robofest students. The average since 2005 is 75% male

Fig. 6.44 Percentages of

teams per competition
category in 2016
160 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.45 Percentages of game and exhibition teams

Fig. 6.46 Percent of age group since 2005

and 25% female. Clearly, young female participation in Robofest is far higher than
female college student participation in college engineering programs, which is
*15% (Godfrey et al. 2010). We believe this is due to female friendly categories
such as Exhibition, RoboParade, and GRAF. Note that again, the data is taken
directly from our registration database which means it does not include the students
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 161

Fig. 6.47 Gender ratios of Robofest students

Fig. 6.48 Percentage of

robotics kits used by teams in
2016

participating in Korea, Ghana, China, or Hong Kong as they were using their own
registration system and did not provide us with their data.
Robofest is completely open and allows the use of any robotics platform, which
is one of Robofest’s unique features to promote creativity. Figure 6.48 shows the
data on robotics kits used by the teams. Still the majority of the teams (79%) were
using LEGO® products. The use of Arduino increased notably from 3% in 2015 to
11% in 2016. Other kits include Raspberry PI (Pandey et al. 2013).
Robofest remains focused on the student participants learning STEM+C through
computer programming and testing. The programming languages used in Robofest
2016 are graphed in Fig. 6.49. Student teams continue to use advanced and varied
forms of programming languages. Allowing students to use whatever programming
language they prefer is one of the unique features of Robofest for STEM+C edu-
cation. “Other C” in the figure includes Easy C, NXC, and Arduino C (Sketch).
162 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.49 Percentage of

programming languages used

RobotC became popular when Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy provided free
licenses for Robofest teams beginning in 2009. All C-style languages together
totaled 18%. Robofest provides opportunities to learn professional programming
languages and helps to prepare our students for future professional career paths.
Robofest students continue to show advanced technical skills and improvements in
their problem-solving abilities. This is possible because of the many dedicated
coaches and technical mentors associated with Robofest teams.

6.11 Evaluation

We have designed Robofest programs to collect data to evaluate the following three
levels of impacts/outcomes (McLaughlin and Jordan 1999):
Short-term Impact: Acquired robotics knowledge and skills can be viewed as a
short-term outcome/impact. Robofest is a perfect setting for students who want to
be in the STEM+C career pathway as Robofest utilizes skills from all the STEM+C
subjects. During the four months of the program, many students will learn for the
first time in their lives how to write computer programs for real-time embedded
control systems, which are their robots! Programming itself is not easy, but when
their robots function correctly, it motivates students to work harder. In addition,
they will learn many aspects of real-world engineering projects, which require
problem specification, system design, implementation, and testing skills.
Intermediate-term Impact: Changes in students’ behavior can be viewed as an
intermediate-term impact/outcome of Robofest. Based on the knowledge and skills
they learned and the real-world-like competition experience, their view of STEM+C-
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 163

related classes will change. Students will have a reason to be more interested in
learning about these subjects, and they will have changed their learning behavior in
relating class subjects to real-world problems. As a result, they will be more attentive
in their classes and have more confidence in their skills in these subject areas.
Long-term Impact: While they are participating in Robofest competitions, stu-
dents who may have not yet decided on their career path could experience a life-
changing revelation, which may result in a decision to study in STEM+C-related
fields in college.

6.11.1 Short-Term Impact

To assess the short-term impact of Robofest roboticscompetitions, students were

asked to take online assessments before and after the competition based on
methodologies discussed in a previous study (Trudell and Chung 2009). In addition,
the same assessment was taken with another group of students who did not par-
ticipate in the competition as a control group. Each assessment consisted of 15
multiple-choice mathematics questions. Additionally, we collected information on
the students’ grade, gender, and whether or not they participated in Robofest, but no
other identifying information. The pre- and post-assessments were implemented as
a Google form.
Data (Chung and Cartwright 2011a, b) from Robofest 2011 involves a com-
parison of math scores among 4th–12th grade students who did and did not par-
ticipate in either Robofest or other robotics competitions. The pre-assessment
comparison comprised 164 students who participated in Robofest and 47 students
who did not participate (the control group). The post-assessment comparison
involved a subset of the students who took the pre-assessment: 51 Robofest stu-
dents and 40 control students. The pre- and post-assessments were multiple-choice
tests of 15 similar math questions. As shown in Fig. 6.50, Robofest students’ mean

Fig. 6.50 Robofest 2011 9

Pre Post Difference
math assessment results
8

0
Robofest Control
-1
164 C. Chung et al.

scores improved from 7.19 to 7.94 (p < 0.10), while the control group’s scores
actually decreased slightly.
In 2013 (Chung and Cartwright 2013), each assessment consisted of eight
multiple-choice STEM questions (six math, one science, and one engineering).
Additionally, we collected information on the students’ grade, gender, and whether
or not they participated in Robofest, but no other identifying information. The pre-
and post-assessments were implemented as a Google document. Data from
Robofest 2013 involves a comparison of math scores among 5th–12th grade stu-
dents who did and did not participate in either Robofest or other robotics compe-
titions. The pre-assessment comparison comprised 167 students who participated in
Robofest and 104 students who did not participate (the control group). The post-
assessment comparison involved a subset of the students who took the pre-
assessment: 75 Robofest students and 102 control students. As shown in Fig. 6.51,
Robofest students’ mean STEM scores improved from 4.23 to 4.56 (p = 0.19) and
STEM scores from students in the control group improved from 3.74 to 4.26
(p < 0.10). The higher participation rate from the control group (98% of the control
group students took both the pre- and post-tests while only 45% of the Robofest
students that took the pre-test also took the post-test) was a result that the control
group took these assessments as part of their regular classroom, while the Robofest
students took these assessments outside of the classroom.
2014 assessment (Chung and Cartwright 2014) consisted of seven multiple-
choice STEM questions (five math, one science, and one engineering). Data from
Robofest 2014 involves a comparison of math scores among 5th–12th grade stu-
dents who did and did not participate in either Robofest or other robotics compe-
titions. The pre-assessment comparison comprised 195 students who participated in
Robofest and 61 students who did not participate (the control group). The post-
assessment comparison involved a subset of the students who took the
pre-assessment: 21 Robofest students and eight control students. Average school

Fig. 6.51 Robofest 2013

math assessment results
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 165

Fig. 6.52 2014 STEM score comparison between Robofest and control group

grade level of Robofest group was 7.52, while the control group average grade level
was 10.8. Since the post-assessment was more difficult, both groups did not
improve their scores. However, the Robofest group had higher scores, even if the
average grade level is much younger and the control group performed worse on the
assessment than Robofest group, as shown in Fig. 6.52.
These assessment studies in 2011, 2013, and 2014 suggest that participation in
Robofest robotics competitions can help improve STEM scores (Chung et al. 2014;
Chung 2015). We believe the use of explicit math components and unknown factors
in Game designs as well as judging criteria requiring the use of mathematics and
science components in Exhibition helped improve the STEM scores.

6.11.2 Intermediate-Term Impact

In 2014, we added a question to the pre- and post-assessments to check whether

Robofest’s experience would change students’ interest in STEM subjects.
Figure 6.53 strongly shows that Robofest experience impacted their preference
toward STEM subjects as compared to a result of a control group. Robofest group’s
STEM interest increased from 77 to 96%; whereas the control group’s STEM
interest decreased from 63 to 50% (Chung and Cartwright 2014).
In 2015 and 2016 years, students were asked whether they would be interested
in professional STEM and computer programing careers in the future. As shown in
Fig. 6.54, 82.8% of Robofest 2015 students expressed their interest in STEM+C
careers before participating in Robofest. After completing their Robofest partici-
pation for around four months, 88.7% of the students expressed their interest in
STEM+C careers in the future (Chung 2015). The 2016 results showed similar
impact, from 81.8 to 83.3% (Chung 2016).
166 C. Chung et al.

Fig. 6.53 2014 STEM interest comparison between Robofest and control group

Fig. 6.54 STEM career interest

6.11.3 Long-Term Impact

To check how many students actually chose STEM career path, we contacted all the
students who participated in the inaugural Robofest in 2000. Approximately 109
students participated in the first autonomous Robofest. Among them 12 Lawrence
Tech college students entered the college level firefighting race, so they were
omitted in our contact list. In 2011 after 12 years, using the phone number on the
photograph release form (at that time we asked only phone numbers, no mailing
address) we tried to contact 97 K-12 students, after verifying the last name with
Internet sites such as whitepages.com. However, after more than a decade, we were
able to contact only 14 of them (either the student or parent) successfully. Table 6.2
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 167

Table 6.2 College majors of Computer Science and Engineering 2

inaugural Robofest students
Mechanical Engineering 2
CAD (associate degree) 1
Biology 1
Civil Engineering 1
Business 2
Public policy 1
Film, broadcasting 1
English, marketing 1
Political Science 1
Did not go to college 1
The italic text denotes the STEM areas

Table 6.3 Characteristics of the eight Robofest competition categories

Competition Rules Unknown Difficulty Art Age divisions
Category factors level component
Game Fixed Some Intermediate No Jr. and Sr.
Exhibition Open-ended N/A All Possibly Jr. and Sr.
yes
VCC Fixed Some Advanced No Sr. and college
GRAF Open-ended N/A All Yes Jr. and Sr.
RoboParade Semiopen- None Beginner Yes fourth grade, Jr.,
ended and Sr.
BottleSumo Fixed Some Beginner No Jr. and Sr.
UMC Fixed but All Intermediate No Jr. and Sr.
unknown
Carnival Fixed None Beginner No fourth grade, Jr.,
(individual) and Sr.

shows the summary result. Approximately 50% of them (seven students) majored in
STEM areas, 43% did not major in STEM, and 7% did not go to college (Chung
and Cartwright 2011a, b). Table 6.2 also lists their majors.

6.12 Summary and Conclusion

Autonomous robotics can play an important role in STEM+C education because it

naturally promotes hands-on learning and the integration of STEM subjects with
computer programming and coding. Robofest has provided something for every-
one, from novice to advanced, whether they like math and science subjects or not.
Since Robofest challenges are relatively simple and small, iterative and incremental
learning is practically possible within one season. Robofest introduces some new
ways to use robotics such as VCC as an educational tool. Table 6.3 summarizes
characteristics of the eight Robofest competition categories.
168 C. Chung et al.

Robofest is a student-centered program and has generated enthusiasm among

students. Programs are designed to adopt the problem-based learning (PBL) para-
digm. Team members work as self-directed, active investigators, and problem-
solvers in small collaborative groups up to five members. Teachers/Coaches work
as facilitators of learning to guide the learning process.
Robofest has been operating successfully for seventeen years and has made
broad impacts locally, nationally, and internationally. Every year, over 2500 stu-
dents and over 800 teachers, coaches, parents, competition judges, and volunteers
have been closely involved in Robofest programs. Robofest has been financially
stable with support from team registration fees, sponsorships, and the donation of
time by many volunteers. Robofest’s eight innovative programs advanced STEM
+C education by providing stimulating and diverse learning environments and by
integrating STEM and Arts components through the use of computer science-
oriented robotics. Robofest is an affordable and cost-effective program, and the ROI
(return on investment) is relatively high (Chung 2015, p. 18).
The Robofest workshop curriculum focuses on mathematics and computational
algorithms to solve the Robofest challenges. Assessment and survey results show
that the Robofest robotics experience helps students learn more about Science,
Technology, Engineering, or Math. Students expressed that they would consider a
career involving Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math after participating in
Robofest programs. Regarding long-term impact of Robofest programs, a prelim-
inary survey shows that 50% of first-year participants in 1999–2000 majored in
STEM areas when they attended college years after.

Author Note We would like to thank Robofest coordinators, Shannan Palonis and Katie Bis, for
proofreading this article.
The following Robofest 2015–2016 year sponsors deserve recognition: Lawrence
Technological University, Department of Math and Computer Science, DENSO, TOYOTA,
LEGO Education, Michigan Council of Women in Technology Foundation, Nielsen, Robomatter,
National Defense Industrial Association Michigan Chapter, IEEE Southeast Michigan Section,
IEEE Region 4 PACE, RIIS, Realtime Technologies, Inc., mindsensors.com, Hanyang University,
Aramark, CJ Chung, Howard Davis, ART/Design Group, Dennis Howie, and young+.

References

Chung, C. (2005). Robofest 2005 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2005/05rpt2.pdf

Chung, C. (2006). Robofest 2006 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2006/robofest06report.
pdf
Chung, C. (2007). Robofest 2007 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2007/robofest07report.
pdf
Chung, C. (2008). Robofest 2008 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2008/robofest08report.
pdf
Chung, C. (2009). Robofest 2009 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2009/robofest09report.
pdf
Chung, C. (2010). RoboParade—An opportunity to develop your imagination while having fun.
Robot Magazine, November/December, 48–49.
6 Robotics Festival and Competitions Designed for STEM+C Education 169

Chung, C. (2011). ROBOFEST 2010—Little robots perform big missions for STEM. Robot
Magazine, January/February, 60–64.
Chung, C. (2014, January). Unveiling 2014 Robofest. Robot Magazine, January/February, 48–51.
Chung, C. (2014, July). The global robotics art festival (GRAF)—Robotics artistry through
STEM. Robot Magazine, July/August, 60–62.
Chung, C. (2014, March). Integrated STEAM education through global robotics art festival
(GRAF). In 4th IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton University,
NJ, March 8, 2014.
Chung, C. (2014, August). Robofest 2013-2014 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2014/
robofest14report.pdf
Chung, C. (2015). Robofest 2014-2015 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2015/robofest
15report.pdf
Chung, C. (2016). Robofest 2015-2016 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2016/robofest
16report.pdf
Chung, C., & Anneberg, L. (2003). Robotics contests and computer science and engineering
education. In Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) 2003 Conference,
Boulder, CO, November 5–8, pp. FIF-8–FIF-14.
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2010). Robofest 2010 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/2010/
robofest10report.pdf
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2011a). Robofest 2011 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/
2011/robofest11report.pdf
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2011b). Evaluating the long-term impact of Robofest since 1999.
LTU Technical Memo, ARISE-TM-2011-3. http://www.robofest.net/2011/ARISE-TM-2011-3.
pdf
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2012). Robofest 2011-2012 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/
2012/robofest12report.pdf
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2013). Robofest 2012-2013 Annual Report. http://www.robofest.net/
2013/robofest13report.pdf
Chung, C., & Cartwright, C. (2014, January). RoboParade: A fun and effective way to promote
STEM education. In Proceedings of the 12th Hawaii International Conference on Education,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 5–9 January, 2014.
Chung, C., Cartwright, C., & Chung, C. (2014, March). Robot music camp: An experiment to
promote S. T. E. M. and computer science. In 4th IEEE Integrated STEM Education
Conference (ISEC), Princeton University, NJ, March 8, 2014.
Chung, C., Cartwright, C., & Cole, M. (2014b). Assessing the impact of an autonomous robotics
competition for STEM education. Journal of STEM education, 15(2), 24–34.
Chung, C., Marzougui, A., & Lahdhiri, T. (2012). Region 4 and the Southeastern Michigan section
help foster STEM With Robofest PACE project. IEEE USA in Action Magazine, Spring 2012.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ieeeusa/ieeeusa_spring12/index.php?startid=29#/29
Chung, C., & Sverdlik, W. (2001). Robotics education in the K-12 environment, robots and
education. Stanford Spring Symposium (a part of the annual AAAI spring symposium series),
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, March 26–28, 2001, pp. 37–45 (*).
Coscarelli, R. (2015, March). Robofest world championship. Robot Magazine, March/April, 20–23.
Coscarelli, R. (2015, September). Little robots—BIG missions. Robot Magazine, September/
October, 28–31.
Crocker, N. E. (2011). Robofest 2011 vision centric challenge (VCC) update! Robot Magazine,
November/December, 80–83.
Dredge S. (2014). Coding at school: A parent’s guide to England’s new computing curriculum.
The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/04/coding-school-
computing-children-programming
Godfrey, E., Aubrey, T., & King, R. (2010). Who leaves and who stays? Retention and attrition in
engineering education. Engineering Education, 5, 26–40.
Gullatt, D. E. (2008). Enhancing student learning through arts integration: Implications for the
profession. The High School Journal, 12–25.
170 C. Chung et al.

Hamner, E., & Cross, J. (2013). Arts & bots: Techniques for distributing a STEAM robotics
program through K-12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Integrated STEM
Education Conference (ISEC), March, 2013.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
MacLennan, J. (2010). Robofest 2009—Motivating young minds to master the machine. Robot
Magazine, January/February, 70–73.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s
performance story. Evaluation and Planning, 22, 65–72.
Mechaber, E. (2014). President Obama is the first president to write a line of code. White House
Blog. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/10/president-obama-first-president-
write-line-code
Pandey, A., Wagle, R., & Brouillette, B. (2013). Raspberry PI robots & imaging processing. Robot
Magazine, November/December, 56–59.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books
Inc.
Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all. White House Blog. URL: https://www.whitehouse.
gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
Trudell, E., & Chung, C. (2009). Development of methodologies to assess the impact of
autonomous robotics competitions in science, technology, engineering, and math education. In
Proceedings of the International Technology, Education and Development Conference
(INTED) in Valencia, Spain, 9–11th of March. ISBN: 978-84-612-7578-6.
Wikipedia. (2016). Logo (Programming language). URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%
28programming_language%29
Chapter 7
Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics
and Automation Workforce Needs
in the USA

Aleksandr Sergeyev

Abstract Recently, educators have worked to improve Science Technology

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education at all levels, but challenges
remain. Capitalizing on the appeal of robotics is one strategy proposed to increase
STEM interest. The interdisciplinary nature of robots, which involve motors, sen-
sors, and programs, makes robotics a useful STEM pedagogical tool. There is also a
significant need for industrial certification programs in robotics. Robots are
increasingly used across industry sectors to improve production throughputs while
maintaining product quality. The benefits of robotics, however, depend on workers
with up-to-date knowledge and skills to maintain and use existing robots, enhance
future technologies, and educate users. It is critical that education efforts respond to
the demand for robotics specialists by offering courses and professional certification
in robotics and automation. The initiative presented here introduces a new approach
for Industrial Robotics in Electrical Engineering Technology (EET) programs at
Michigan Tech and Bay de Noc Community College. The curriculum and software
developed by this collaboration of 2- and 4-year institutions match industry needs
and provide a replicable model for programs in the USA. This project also
addresses the need for certified robotic training centers (CRTCs) and provides
curriculum and training opportunities for students from other institutions, industry
representatives, and displaced workers.

Keywords Robotics
STEM education
Simulation software
Automation

7.1 Introduction

Many existing jobs will be automated in the next 20 years, and robotics will be a
major driver for global job creation over the next five years. These trends are made
clear in a study conducted by the market research firm, Metra Martech, “Positive

A. Sergeyev (&)
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 171

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_7
172 A. Sergeyev

Impact of Industrial Robots on Employment” (International Federation of Robotics:

Metra Martech Study on Robotics 2016). Many repetitive, low-skilled jobs are
already being supplanted by technology. However, a number of studies have found
that in the aggregate, the robotics industry is creating more jobs than the number of
jobs lost to robots. For example, the International Federation of Robotics (IFR)
estimates that robotics directly created 4–6 million jobs through 2011 worldwide;
with the total rising to 8–10 million if, indirect jobs are counted. The IFR projects
that 1.9–3.5 million jobs related to robotics will be created in the next eight years
(IFR International Federation of Robotics 2016). The rapid growth of robotics and
automation, especially during the last few years, its current positive impact, and
future projections for impact on the US economy are very promising. Even by
conservative estimates (International Federation of Robotics: Metra Martech Study
on Robotics 2016), the number of robots used in industry in the USA has almost
doubled in recent years.
In the manufacturing sector, the recent growth was 41% in just three years—the
number of robots per 10,000 workers employed in 2008 was 96 and reached 135 in
2011. The automotive sector in the USA relies heavily on robotics as well—China
produces more cars than the USA, but the number of robots used in vehicle
manufacture in China is estimated at 40,000 compared to 65,000 in the USA. From
2014 to 2016, robot installations are estimated to increase about 6% a year,
resulting in an overall 3-year increase of 18% (International Federation of Robotics:
Metra Martech Study on Robotics 2016). Likewise, industrial robot manufacturers
are reporting 18–25% growth in orders and revenue year on year. While some jobs
will be displaced due to the increased rollout of robots in the manufacturing sector,
many will also be created as robot manufactures recruit to meet growing demand.
Furthermore, jobs that were previously sent offshore are now being brought back to
developed countries due to advances in robotics. For example, Apple now manu-
factures the Mac Pro in America and has spent approximately $10.5 billion in
assembly robotics and machinery (Apple investing record $10.5 billion in supply
chain robots & machinery 2016). In March 2012, Amazon has acquired Kiva
Systems, a warehouse automation robot, and in 2013 deployed 1382 Kiva robots in
three fulfillment centers. This initiative has not reduced the number of employees at
Amazon; in fact, it added 20,000 full-time employees to its US fulfillment centers
alone.
Such rapid growth of Robotic Automation in all sectors of industry will require
an enormous number of technically sound specialists with the skills in industrial
robotics and automation to maintain and monitor existing robots, enhance devel-
opment of future technologies, and educate users on implementation and applica-
tions. It is critical, therefore, that educational institutions adequately respond to this
high demand for robotics specialists by developing and offering appropriate courses
geared toward professional certification in robotics and automation. In addition,
certified robotic training centers (CRTCs) will be in high demand by industry
representatives and displaced workers who need to retool their skills. The initiative
described here will demonstrate and test an effective approach for teaching
emerging topics of Industrial Robotics in Electrical Engineering Technology
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 173

(EET) programs at both the university and community college levels. The cur-
riculum and software developed in this initiative between 2-year (Bay de Noc
Community College) and 4-year (Michigan Tech) institutions matches current
industry needs and provides a replicable model for the EET programs across the
country. The project also addresses the need for CRTCs and provides curriculum
and training opportunities for students from other institutions, industry represen-
tatives, and displaced workers. Resources developed via this project will be dis-
seminated through a variety of means, including workshops, conferences, and
publications.

7.2 Project Overview and Objectives

The overall goal of the project is to help meet the nation’s forthcoming need for
highly trained industrial robotics workers. Strategies include developing, testing,
and disseminating an updated, model curriculum, laboratory resources, and simu-
lation software package suitable for use in both 2- and 4-year EET programs. To
complement this effort, outreach to K-12 students and teachers will work to enlarge
the pipeline and diversity of students interested in careers in robotics. Programs will
also be offered to students at other institutions and to workers in industry to broaden
impact.
Specific project objectives include the following:
1. Provide Electrical Engineering Technology (EET) 2-year and 4-year students
with current and relevant skills in Industrial Robotics by:
a. Updating both the 2-year and 4-year EET curriculum to include skills in
industrial robotics relevant to current industry needs.
b. Enhancing the existing industrial robotics laboratory at Michigan Tech and
establishing a similar laboratory at Bay de Noc Community College to
demonstrate the value of state-of-the-art, hands-on training experiences and
support the course changes.
2. Provide “stand-alone” programs to train and certify students from other insti-
tutions, industry representatives, and displaced workers.
3. Develop new “RobotRun” robotic simulation software and make it available at
no cost for adaptation by the other institutions. This will allow current concepts
related to industrial robotics to be taught even in locations without access to
current robotics hardware.
4. Train faculty members at similar institutions to build expertise in industrial
robotics using state-of-the-art FANUC Robots.
5. Develop a pipeline and encouragement for 2-year students (particularly under-
represented students, many of whom attend community colleges) to explore
options in 4-year EET degree programs.
174 A. Sergeyev

6. Conduct robotics-oriented seminars for K-12 teachers to expand their knowl-

edge in engineering and science and increase the awareness of the role the field
of robotics plays in STEM education.
7. Conduct robotic workshops for high school students to increase their interest in
STEM fields, utilizing the appealing concepts of robotics and automation to
attract participants.
8. Disseminate the new curriculum and software widely to significantly influence
the future electrical engineering technology workforce by encouraging
enhancements in other EET programs.
9. Survey of industry and K-12 partners about the importance of the proposed
activities identifies a significant need for and interest in robotics curriculum
development, industry worker training, and K-12 STEM outreach.
This project meets several objectives of educational curriculum reform in the
USA by:
• Creating and widely disseminating improved and industry-relevant learning
materials,
• Developing faculty expertise at both university and community college levels,
• Assessing the success of curriculum enhancements and the overall project in
achieving goals,
• Providing career pathways for technicians from 2- to 4-year programs,
• Linking educators and programs in 2-year colleges with those in 4-year insti-
tutions and industry,
• Improving K-12 teachers’ technological understanding and providing them with
tools to engage students in real-world technological problems,
• Promoting STEM fields among K-12 students.

7.3 Educational Need

Robotics is a great tool to promote STEM fields. Educators have been making
measurable progress toward improving STEM education from primary to tertiary
levels of education, but challenges remain. Given the current shortage of student
interest in STEM education, increased attention has been given to the appeal and
attraction of robotics. The interdisciplinary construction of robots, which involves
motors, sensors, and programming, makes it a useful pedagogical tool for all STEM
areas. The novelty of robotics is instrumental in attracting and recruiting diverse
STEM students. In the classroom, robotics can easily be used to introduce a variety
of mandatory skills needed to pursue a variety of STEM career paths (Office of
Science and Technology Policy, Domestic Policy Council 2006; Witeman and
Witherspoon 2003; Mauch 2001). More specifically, a robotics platform advances
students’ understanding of both scientific and mathematical principles (Witeman
and Witherspoon 2003), develops and enhances problem-solving techniques
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 175

(Rogers and Portsmore 2004; Beer, Chiel and Drushel 1999; Robinson 2005), and
promotes cooperative learning (Nourbakhsh et al. 2005).
While robotics can be used as an interdisciplinary STEM learning tool, there is
also a strong need for industrial certification programs in Robotics Automation.
More and more robots are designed to perform tasks that people may not want to
do, such as vacuuming, or are not able to do safely, such as dismantling bombs.
They have changed the lives of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) patients by
giving them the ability to speak after their vocal cords have failed, and have sparked
our imagination in space exploration (not to mention our fascination with characters
like R2D2). As many have put it, robots do our dirty, dangerous, and/or dull work.
Millions of domestic/personal robots are already on the market worldwide, from
lawn mowers to entertainment robots (Mauch 2001). As a result, popular interest in
robots has increased significantly (Barker and Ansorge 2007; Barnes 2002; Papert
1980; Johnson 2012; Fernandez 2009; Downloads—World Robotics 2014 2016).
Global competition, productivity demands, advances in technology, and afford-
ability will force companies to increase the use of robots in the near future (Ciaraldi
2009a, b; Devine 2009a, b Schneider 2005). While the automotive industry was the
first to use robotics, aerospace, machining, and medical industries now also rely on
Robotic Automation (Morey 2007). More than ever, trained and certified specialists
are needed to maintain and monitor existing robots and to develop more advanced
robotic technologies (Ciaraldi 2009a, b; “Robots: More Capable, Still Flexible”
2005; Tolinski 2006; Devine 2009a, b).
As mentioned, robotics can be used as an interdisciplinary, project-based
learning vehicle to teach STEM fundamentals (Ciaraldi 2009a, b; Alimisis 2005;
Chang 2009; Liu 2009; Karatrantou and Tzimogiannis 2005; Eslami 2009; Ren
2009; Piaget and Piaget 1973; You 2009; Michalson 2009). Understanding the
valuable role robotics education plays in helping students understand theoretical
concepts through invention and creation, many universities include components of
robotics research in curricular offerings (Ren 2009). It is widely recognized that
robotics is a valuable learning tool that can enhance overall STEM comprehension
and critical thinking (Ciaraldi 2009a, b; Piaget and Piaget 1973; You 2009).
Because of these benefits and industry needs, new programs in Robotics
Automation and applied mobile robots are popping up in the USA and abroad.
Industrial help from Microsoft, FANUC Robotics America Inc., and MobileRobots
Inc., is essential to the growth of these programs. The objectives behind robotic
programs are clear: (1) In the short term, robotics education fosters problem-solving
skills, communication skills, teamwork skills, independence, imagination, and
creativity; and (2) in the long term, robotics education plays a key role in preparing
a workforce to implement twenty-first century technologies.
Currently, few universities offer specific robotics degrees. For instance,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) has offered a Bachelor of Science in
Robotics Engineering since 2007 (Guiding the Independent Learner in Web-Based
Training 1999). Universities that have graduate degrees focused on robotics include
Carnegie Mellon University, MIT, UPENN, UCLA, WPI, and the South Dakota
School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT). Michigan State University has a
176 A. Sergeyev

well-established robotics and automation Laboratory, but it is utilized for graduate

robotics courses and research. Very few universities across the USA offer a degree
and/or certification specifically in Robotics Automation. In fact, Lake Superior
State University (LSSU) is one of very few universities in Michigan that specializes
in Robotics Automation; however, it does not have a program to certify industry
representatives (Schneider 2005). With few focused industrial robotics programs,
undergraduate industrial robotics training often occurs in electrical engineering
technology programs, the focus of the proposed program. Training in Robotics
Automation is especially important to Michigan’s economy. A major decline in
automotive manufacturing jobs has left many areas in Michigan with high rates of
unemployment. Baraga County, located 15 miles south of Michigan Tech, has one
of the nation’s highest rates of unemployment. Yet, Michigan has an unmet need
for workers in robotics jobs (Downloads—World Robotics 2014 2016). Filling
these jobs, however, requires workers trained and certified in the following skill
sets: designing, testing, maintaining, and inspecting robotic components; trou-
bleshooting robot malfunctions; using microcomputers, oscilloscopes, hydraulic
test equipment, microprocessors, electronics, and mechanics; and reading blue-
prints, electrical wiring diagrams, and pneumatic/hydraulic diagrams. Driven by
industry needs, the new curriculum designed in this project will be adapted for both
2- and 4-year programs. The project aims to address the current US workforce need
for properly prepared STEM professionals, train current industry representatives
and displaced workers in Robotics Automation, educate K-12 teachers with the
current art of industrial robotics, and promote STEM fields among K-12 students.

7.4 University and Community College Partnership

Michigan Technological University is a public university committed to providing a

quality education in engineering, science, business, technology, communication,
and forestry. Fall 2014 total enrollment was 7100 students, including 1442 (20.6%)
graduate students. Over 65% of Michigan Tech students are enrolled in engineering
and technology programs. Cumulatively, the School of Technology (SOT) and
College of Engineering (COE) granted 700 undergraduate degrees in 2012–2013
with 63% of total first-major Michigan Tech undergraduate degrees. Twenty-two
research centers and institutes support interdisciplinary research, partnerships with
industry, and collaboration with community and informal education organizations.
The SOT awards Bachelor’s degrees in Computer Network and System
Administration, Construction Management, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Technology, Mechanical Engineering Technology, and Surveying Engineering—all
degrees that require an understanding of robotics. Michigan Tech is rated highly for
academics, career preparation, and quality of life in the Princeton Review’s Best
379 Colleges 2015 Edition. Michigan Tech is ranked in the top tier of national
universities according to the US News & World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges
2014.” Employers, especially in the state of Michigan, have consistently relied on
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 177

Michigan Tech to deliver experiential educational opportunities. That is why

Michigan Tech students average five interviews before they graduate, and why,
despite record levels of unemployment in Michigan over the past three years,
Michigan Tech has maintained on average a 93% job placement rate.
Bay de Noc Community College: While Bay College’s racial and ethnic
diversity is limited compared to other regions (Bay’s student population is 86%
White, 3% Native American, and 1.5% Hispanic), the socioeconomic reality of the
local area is such that a large percentage of students enter college in a disadvan-
tageous position. For instance, a full 58.4% of the Bay College’s student population
are first-generation students. Due in part to their lack of knowledge regarding the
navigation of systems of higher education and in part to their typically lesser
personal support systems, studies have shown that first-generation students have
one of the lowest degree-completion rates of any demographic. A report published
by the Higher Education Research Institute found that only 27.4% of first-genera-
tion students earn a degree after 4 years, compared to 42.1% of students whose
parents have college experience (“Higher Education Research Institute,” n.d.).
While available data on the socioeconomic status of Bay’s students is limited, the
rate of Pell Grant eligibility, when used as a proxy, indicates that a large percentage
of Bay College’s students are low income. During the current fall semester, 62% of
the Bay’s student population were Pell eligible, representing another large popu-
lation of students who enter college with a degree-completion disadvantage. This
project will have a positive impact on the success of students by providing a local
opportunity to receive for-credit education and training in a growing field. Students
will have a clear educational pathway to either receive the necessary training or
enter the workforce, or to articulate their educational experience to Michigan Tech
for a more advanced degree. In either option, the clearly articulated pathway, the
local availability of the program, and the many student support services offered by
Bay College will help these students overcome obstacles and be successful in
college and beyond.

7.5 Current Industry Partnership

Michigan Tech’s EET department has an established collaborative relationship with

FANUC Robotics America Inc., the leading company specializing in the devel-
opment and production of innovative and intelligent robotic solutions. FANUC
Robotics supports Michigan Tech’s School of Technology, as well as other STEM
programs. FANUC has provided significant educational discounts and made it
possible to educational institutions to purchase resources that would otherwise not
be feasible. Michigan Tech’s FANUC Robot is the latest electric, servo-driven mini
robot, housed in a self-contained, portable enclosure. It provides multiple benefits:
industry-standard components that allow teaching principles of automation, com-
pact and portable design, affordability, safe construction, and an integrated vision
system that is commonly used in industry.
178 A. Sergeyev

The FANUC Robotics Certified Education Robot Training (CERT) Program

promotes understanding of FANUC Robotics’ Automation solutions through the
development and implementation of integrated classroom instruction and student
projects. The CERT program is a new certification available to qualified univer-
sities. The program certifies instructors at educational institutions to train their
students to program FANUC robots. Michigan Tech is a CERT-endorsed program.
The EET department at Michigan Tech is a Certified Training and Education Site
for FANUC Robotics Material Handling Program Software and iR-Vision 2D under
the certification of Dr. Sergeyev. The collaboration between Michigan Tech and
FANUC continues to bloom. In 2013 under Dr. Sergeyev leadership, Michigan
Tech became a FANUC Authorized Certified Training Facility. Under this agree-
ment, Michigan Tech becomes a regional training center specializing in industrial
automation, eligible to train and certify students from other institutions, industry
representatives, and displaced workers. Michigan Tech is one of only three existing
FANUC Authorized Satellite Training Programs in the USA and the only one in the
state of Michigan (F.A.S.T. 2014).

7.6 Current State of Robotics Automation at Michigan

Tech and Bay de Noc Community College

At Michigan Tech, we are building a strong undergraduate Robotics Automation

Program through the EET department. Dr. Sergeyev successfully launched the
cross-disciplinary Robotics Automation-training program in 2009. The program
continues to enroll: (1) Michigan Tech students from diverse STEM disciplines, (2)
industry employees who seek retooling in Robotic Automation skills, and (3)
students from other universities. Industrial collaboration between the EET
department and FANUC Robotics is continuing to expand. The global presence of
the automotive sector in Michigan, as well as the large number of companies
specializing in industrial automation, generates an enormous demand for well-
trained and certified in Robotic Automation specialists. Our ability to offer ongoing
training and certification not only makes this project sustainable, but also provides
us with an extensive opportunity for continuous evaluation of these educational
initiatives. The current success of the program, CERT experts, and industry col-
laborations make Michigan Tech the ideal partner for Bay College. Via this joint
collaboration, Bay College adapts Michigan Tech’s existing curriculum in Robotics
Automation, and implements and evaluates the robotics curriculum in a 2-year
degree program. This partnership of 2- and 4-year institutions not only serves as an
exemplary model of collaboration, but also allows for developing of a full spectrum
of robotics curriculum adaptable at various levels of education. Bay College faculty
collaborates with Dr. Sergeyev to adapt the existing curriculum for the 2-year
program, develop new courses in Robotics Automation, and create state-of-the-art
educational robotic training software. In addition, Bay College faculty participates
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 179

Fig. 7.1 Proposed Robotics Automation curriculum development

in the CERT program at FANUC. The goal is to become a FANUC-certified

facility, which would allow Bay College to become a Certified Training and
Education Site for FANUC Robotics Material Handling Program Software and iR-
Vision 2D.
Robotics Automation Curriculum Development for EET Programs
This project has a significant impact on the curriculum at both institutions—Bay
College and Michigan Tech. During this collaborative initiative, a broad spectrum
of educational material is to be developed and made available between institutions
for adaptation. Figure 7.1 depicts the proposed models in robotics curriculum
development which will impact three different educational groups: (1) 2- and 4-year
institutions; (2) students from other universities and community colleges, industry
representatives, and displaced workers; and (3) K-12 teachers and high school
students. The proposed curriculum changes are presented below.
180 A. Sergeyev

7.6.1 Model Robotics Curriculum for 2- and 4-Year

Educational Institutions

The robotics curriculum at Michigan Tech is enhanced by adding a new course

Robotics Vision Systems and by developing new, state-of-the-art educational
robotic simulation software called RobotRun. Bay College has no robotics-related
courses in its current curriculum. Through this project, Bay will add two new
courses and utilize the open-source robotic training software in the classroom.
Working closely with Michigan Tech, Bay College modifies Michigan Tech’s
existing Real-Time Robotics System course for use at the community college level.
During the project, faculty from both partner institutions collaborate in the devel-
opment of the new Robotics Vision course and the robotics training software. Both
the new course and the robotic training software are to be adapted for use in the Bay
College curriculum. Bay College is currently in the process of developing a multi-
skilled technician certificate program that will serve as a broad-based entry point for
students interested in careers ranging from automation, to advanced manufacturing,
to industrial systems control, and more. The robotics courses being developed as
part of the partnership with Michigan Tech fits seamlessly into this degree to
provide students with an entry-level understanding of robotics and automation
technology. Furthermore, the courses included as part of the articulated transfer
program designed for students interested in a more intensive study of robotics.
These courses are also available to pre-engineering students, which is also an
articulated transfer program to Michigan Tech. Students at Bay College benefit
from these curriculum additions in numerous ways, including expanded exposure to
advanced technologies, better career preparation, and increased options for transfer
to Michigan Tech.

7.6.2 Building upon the Strong Foundation of Michigan

Tech’s Existing Course: Real-Time Robotics Systems

As shown in Fig. 7.1, the current curriculum at Michigan Tech in Robotics

Automation includes one Real-Time Robotics Systems course (4 credit hour: 3 h of
recitation and 3 h of weekly laboratory) covering all the theoretical and practical
aspects of the knowledge required for technologists involved in the Robotics
Automation industry. The course introduces the science and technology of
mechanical manipulations and robotics systems control. A broad range of robotics
topics is covered, including sensors, end effectors, and actuators. Essentially, this
course is the building block for future coursework in the mechanics, control, and
programming of robotic systems. Designed from a manufacturing perspective, the
course addresses robots in an isolated manner while exploring the broad topic of
industrial work cells that contain a robot. This includes robot automation and all
related technology needed to integrate the robot with the work environment and
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 181

with the enterprise database. The course also addresses the major aspects of design,
fabrication, and robotic-enabling systems. Design aspects involve determining
specifications for a robot, configurations, and what sensors and actuators should be
used. Considerable attention is currently dedicated to safety procedures of operating
robotics platforms. The currently used FANUC Roboguide software package allows
students to learn the structure of the programming language commonly used in the
field of robotics for off-line programming.
After receiving sufficient off-line programming training and passing the safety-
related test, students implement their knowledge and perform laboratory experi-
ments that involve hands-on programming and operation of a state-of-art FANUC
industrial robot. This course offers the foundation of an educational platform for
developing and implementing an effective curriculum model in Robotics
Automation. Close collaboration with industry in the initial design of this course
also helped to advance an industrial certification program that is endorsed by
industry. Students who successfully complete the course are issued a FANUC
industrial certificate in “Handling Tool Operation and Programming.” To further
promote the course development and make the course-offering model more flexible,
two derivatives of the course have been developed. The first, a hybrid version of the
course, has been successfully implemented several times since 2012. In this version
of the course, the theory, quizzes, and examinations are delivered online, but stu-
dents still have an opportunity for hands-on training during weekly 3-hour
labortaories.
This model allows for more flexible scheduling of the class, which in turn helps
students who work while attending school. The second-course derivative involves
an intense 2-week structure with the same amount of theory and hands-on practices
in a condensed time. The first week involves an introduction to the theoretical
content, culminating in the midterm examination. In the second week, students are
completely immersed in the hands-on activities of operating and programming
FANUC industrial robots. The second week culminates with a 2-hour certifica-
tion/final examination. The 2-week intense course model has proven to be very
effective and has become very popular among students at Michigan Tech in a
variety of disciplines. Since 2009, Dr. Sergeyev, a FANUC-certified instructor, has
trained and awarded industrial certificates to more than a hundred students.
Building upon the foundational course in place at Michigan Tech, Bay College
adapted and implemented all the derivatives of the Real-Time Robotics System
course in order to provide Bay students with flexible course offerings and certifi-
cation options.

7.6.3 Robotic iR-Vision 2D Course

Nearly any robot currently used in industry is equipped with a vision system. Vision
systems are being used increasingly with robot automation to perform common and
sometimes complex industrial tasks, such as part identification, part location, part
182 A. Sergeyev

orientation, part inspection, and tracking. The vision system provides the robot
“eyes” needed to perform complex manufacturing tasks. The Robotic iR-Vision 2D
course is designed as a four-credit hour course (3 h of recitation and 3 h of weekly
laboratory). The course introduces topics on the following: (1) safety, including
laser safety; (2) basics of optics and image processing; (3) setting up lightning
conditions required for the successful vision error proofing and camera calibration;
(4) teaching tool, application, and calibration frames; (5) performing 2D calibration
and 2D single and multi-view robotic processes; (6) performing 3D calibration and
3D single-view robotic vision processes.
Hands-on training is an integral part of any course developed in the School of
Technology at Michigan Tech, and this course is no exception. It includes 12
laboratory exercises, totaling 36 h, with the goal of providing students the oppor-
tunity to configure and execute real-life, industry comparable, and robotic vision
scenarios. The course is similar to the existing Real-Time Robotics Systems’ rig-
orous assessment strategy and culminates in a 2-hour certification examination.
Students successfully passing the examination receive a certificate in iR-Vision 2D.
In addition to the traditional offering, two derivatives (a hybrid and 2-week intense
version) of the Robotics iR-Vision 2D course have been developed at both insti-
tutions—Bay College and Michigan Tech.
The industrial automation laboratory at Michigan tech has four FANUC training
carts each comprising of a FANUC LR Mate 200iC robot, R-30iA Mate Controller,
Sony XC-56 camera, air compressor, and a computer. These robots have an option
for interchangeable end effect or such as suction cups and 2-finger parallel grippers,
which are used in developing a variety of applications. The iR-Vision 2D course
offered to students at Michigan Tech consists of 12 laboratory exercises that help
them gain hands-on training and experience with the FANUC iR-Vision 2D system.
A scaled down version of the same set of laboratory exercises is used for the
certification program for industry representatives.
Following are the topics for the laboratory exercises:
Camera and lighting concepts,
Camera setup
Frames,
2D calibration,
Error proofing,
2D single-view process,
2D single-view process: pill sorting,
2D single-view process: chips sorting and palletizing,
2D single-view process: battery picking, orienting and placing.
The first few exercises begin with introducing the students to all the hardware
and software components of the setup consisting of the camera, lights, robot con-
troller, and iR-Vision software. Significant attention is given explaining the wiring
and communication between the camera, robot controller, and the computer. The
above also includes the type of camera and connection ports and explains the
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 183

procedure to setup the camera. Setting up the camera allows the user to select the
exposure time and type of mounting of the camera and attain different parameters
such as image size and aspect ratio. TCP/IP is the protocol used between the
controller and the computer to communicate through the software, and the hands-on
activity is designed to provide a stepwise procedure to achieve successful com-
munication. After the communication is established, the user can access the soft-
ware and learn the functionality of all the options on the graphical user interface of
the software. Objects that will be used to be taught and further recognized by the
robotic vision system are placed in the camera’s field of view. The camera view is
obtained via the robotic vision software and respectively displayed on the computer
screen. The clarity of images can be improved by varying the contrast and the
exposure time of the camera. These exercises help students to understand how the
camera perceives images using pixels under different lighting conditions and apply
this knowledge in future.
The next stage is to teach students the coordinate systems referred to as frames,
related to the robot and camera’s environment. The three frames that affect the
motion of the robot are world, user, and tool frames. Using the teach pendant, a
handheld device used to program and control the motion of the robot, these frames
are taught to the robot and used in the procedure for camera calibration. Camera
calibration helps in locating the position of the camera with respect to the robot
world frame by implementing a calibration grid, a predetermined pattern of black
circles drawn in a grid format, and helps determine different parameters such as
focal distance and location. After teaching the basics of setting up and calibrating
the vision system, the process of error proofing is introduced in the next session.
“Error Proofing in automation relates to the ability of a system to either prevent an
error in a process or detect it before further operations are performed (FANUC
Robotics System R-30iA Controller iR-Vision with Error Proofing Student
(Manual), n.d.).” It is widely used in the industry for various applications and can
be performed on manufactured parts in a process, or can be used to monitor critical
components of a process.
Error proofing technique identifies the presence/absence or orientation of parts,
and critical areas on a part and is an economical way to perform quality checks
(FANUC Robotics System R-30iA Controller iR-Vision with Error Proofing
Student (Manual), n.d.). “The Error Proofing Process requires no calibration and
does not return any part offset that can be used to modify robot movement. It does,
however, return a pass or fail dependent on criteria set by the user (FANUC
Robotics System R-30iA Controller iR-Vision with Error Proofing Student
(Manual), n.d.).” The process involves stepwise approach to teach different objects’
location, orientation, and size to the vision system. It uses the geometric pattern-
matching tool to teach the pattern of the object, and this tool includes features such
as masking and emphasis area, which help in identifying unimportant areas of the
image or emphasize on important ones. Image recognition accuracy is expressed by
a score threshold, and the target object is successfully found if its score is equal to
or higher than this threshold value. Based on the PASS and FAIL results of the error
proofing process, the user can use this data to program the robot.
184 A. Sergeyev

Upon going through initial laboratory exercises described above, students obtain
hands-on training on the basics of robotic vision and become well accustomed to
the vision system process. The next few sessions involve the use of 2D single-view
process with the camera in a fixed mounted position, and different practical
applications using the vision system are programmed on the robot. One of the
exercises is a pill sorting application in which few pills of two different colors (red
and white) are placed on a black background (Fig. 7.2) and two empty bottles are
placed on the side for collecting them. The main objective of this exercise is to
recognize the differently colored pills using the vision system, and pick and place
them into their respective bottles. The robot equipped with vacuum cup end effect
or uses suction for the pick and place process. This exercise trains the students in
differentiating between objects of the same size but different colors and improves
their programming skills of using iR-Vision. Palletizing is a process of stacking
products on to a pallet with a defined pattern of forming the stack. It is a widely
used application in the industry, and the next laboratory exercise integrates the
vision system techniques with the palletizing option installed on the controller of
the robot. Round chips with different numbers printed on them are placed randomly
(Fig. 7.3) on the base frame, and each chip is taught as a different object pattern to
the vision system. First program is written on the teach pendant to locate the
position of these chips and pick them up using suction cups of the robotic end
effector.
A second program is written using a preinstalled option on the teach pendant
called Palletizing EX. This option teaches the approach, picks up and places points
to create a vertical stack of chip in a desired matrix format at predefined locations
and places chips at corresponding positions. The students use their programming
skills to integrate the above-mentioned programs and execute the desired
objectives.

Fig. 7.2 (1) Randomly placed red and white pills, (2) robot pickup position, (3) white pills drop
position
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 185

Fig. 7.3 (1) Randomly placed numbered chips, (2) robot pickup position, (3) robot orients and
places chips at corresponding positions

Fig. 7.4 (1) Randomly placed batteries, (2) pick position, (3) orientation check position, (4) drop
position

The objective of the next laboratory is to recognize the position and orientation
of a set of randomly placed batteries, pick them up one at a time, show the positive
terminal of the battery to the camera to check for orientation of the battery, and drop
them in a given slot with the positive terminals of all the batteries on one side. The
setup is provided with the camera placed above the area and all the stepwise
functions required to be complete the task are shown in Fig. 7.4.

7.6.4 New Open-Source Robotic Training Software

“RobotRun”

A team of undergraduate students led by faculty members of Michigan Tech is

developing an engaging, free, and open-source robotic training software aimed at
186 A. Sergeyev

helping students learn the basics of programming robotic arms. The software acts as
a simulator where a user can write a program and then view how that program
performs when run on a virtual 3D robotic arm displayed on the screen.
Although robotics play an essential role at a variety of manufacturing facilities,
there is currently no accessible and free software that can give students the
opportunity to learn about robotics and its applications. The developed software is
intended to be used alongside the other training materials developed as a part of this
project, but also be available online for anybody to download and use. The
RobotRun software shows a 3D, animated rendering of a robotic arm that can be
controlled via an intuitive programming language that is similar to the programs
used to program real robotic arms.
The programming language of the simulator software provides all of the basic
commands that exist in real-world robotics systems so that students can easily
transfer the knowledge gained from the developed software to real-world robotic
arms. The software allows the user to control where the end effector should jog, at
what speed and type of motion termination, how many times it should repeat the
movement, and other common robotics controls. Besides the option of jogging the
robot and performing programming tasks, the software can be configured to present
users with different scenarios that mimic real-world industrial scenarios such as pick
and place, palletizing, welding, and painting. The program also allows users to load
and save their programs so that they can turn them into an instructor for grading.
The new software provides all options necessary to teach the required skills in
robotics handling tool operation and programming. It is intuitive, without features
of expensive robotic simulation software packages that are designed for in-depth
industrial simulations and are not typically used in educational settings. The open-
source and free nature of the developed RobotRun training software has tendency of
providing a significant and broad impact by: (1) enabling institutions unable to
obtain expensive industrial robots to adapt and teach the developed robotics
courses; (2) providing K-12 teachers with the opportunity to promote STEM
education to students by introducing the appealing concept of robotics via an
interactive training environment, at no cost to K-12 institutions; (3) providing
displaced workers wanting to improve their robotics skills with an intuitive,
interactive and complete tool to succeed.

7.7 Curriculum for Students from Any Institution,

Industry, and Displaced Workers

While robots play a role in all STEM fields, robots are key components of most
manufacturing industries—from health to automotive sectors. Robotic Automation
has been embraced as a way to stay globally competitive and to reduce the reliance
on manual labor to perform redundant tasks. If the USA does not want to outsource,
we need to automate. To provide support for the industry, educational institutions
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 187

need to: (1) develop a training curriculum with industrial certification available to
students from institutions where a robotics curriculum is not available; this will
make those students more valuable in the job market; (2) provide effective, certified
training to industry representatives who need to retool their skills to match rapidly
developing technologies, especially in the field of Robotics Automation; (3) pro-
vide displaced workers with the opportunity to enhance, or acquire new, skills in
robotics and enter the in-demand robotics job market. Michigan Tech’s existing
industrial certification program is enhanced by offering two additional FANUC
certificates.

7.7.1 Certification 1: Handling Tool Operation

and Programming (32-Hour Course)

The course is designed to be both practical and progressive. The content offers
easily applied guidance to personnel involved in manufacturing with current robotic
systems on site, or who may be asked to engage in implementing robotic systems in
the near future. The course includes a discussion of scholarly and practical robotic
topics ranging from kinematics and programming to practical application areas and
economic concerns. Topics include the development of industrial robotics; an
overview of the mechanical design, control, programming, and intelligence; orga-
nizational and economic aspects; robotics in operation and various applications.
Hands-on experience is an essential part of this course and will occupy 70% of
course time. The laboratory exercises are devoted to practical aspects of pro-
gramming FANUC Robotics robots. This 32-hour course is designed to be offered
partially online. The first 16 h are devoted to theoretical content delivered online.
The remaining 16 h provide extensive hands-on experience working in the labo-
ratory at Michigan Tech manipulating and programming FANUC industrial robots.
The course culminates in a certification examination in which the participants
will have to demonstrate an understanding of theoretical background as well as the
ability to program the robot for a task given by the instructor. Participants suc-
cessfully passing the examination will receive a certificate issued by a FANUC-
certified instructor. Due to the nature of the course, it can be offered on demand and
conducted during weekends, students’ breaks or in the summer. This flexibility has
proven successful in attracting students from other institutions, industry represen-
tatives, and displaced workers. Feedback from past participants of the Michigan
Tech training sessions showed very positive results. Students indicated that the
partially online delivery approach not only saves travel time and money, but also
allows participants to be more focused on the hands-on part of the course, thereby
providing a more effective learning environment.
188 A. Sergeyev

7.7.2 Certification 2: Robo Guide—Robotic Work Cell

Assembly (8-Hour Course)

FANUC Robo guide software is widely used in industry; therefore, there is a great
need to train workers in this software. The developed an 8-hour training course
provides participants with a foundation for understanding all software features. By
the end of the course, students assemble a fully functional virtual robotic work cell
that includes the robot, end effector, several fixtures, and industrial parts that the
robot can manipulate. Students program the robot to execute “pick-and-place”
operation, run simulation in step-by-step and production modes, and compile a file
that can be further transmitted to the physical FANUC robot for real-time pro-
duction. This one-day training can be offered on demand and in conjunction with
the other existing and under development certification courses.

7.7.3 Certification 3: Robot Operations (16-Hour)

There is a great demand in the industrial sector for robot operators that do not
necessarily need to have very in-depth programming and theoretical skills. This
course is intended for the person who operates or may be required to perform basic
maintenance on FANUC robots via the standard application software package. It
teach students how to safely power up, power down, jog the robot to predefined
positions, and set up different frames of operation. In addition, it will cover tasks
and procedures needed to recover from common program and robot faults, and
teach basic programming skills. The course does not address the setup and oper-
ation of specific software features and options nor will it teach in-depth program-
ming skills. These are covered in the 32-hour Handling Tool Operation and
Programming course.

7.7.4 Certification 4: iR-Vision 2D (32-Hour Course)

Any robot currently used in industry is equipped with a vision system. Vision
systems are being used increasingly with Robot Automation to perform common
and sometimes complex industrial tasks, such as part identification, part location,
part orientation, part inspection, and tracking. In other words, the vision system is
the robot’s “eyes” needed to perform complex manufacturing tasks. This developed
course teaches students how to set up, calibrate, teach, test, and modify iR-Vision
applications using FANUC robots. The course includes detailed discussion of
hardware and software setup, establishing the communication link between the
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 189

robot and teaching computer, teaching single- and multi-view processes, and pro-
gramming. Safety procedures will be integrated into all exercises. As an integral
part of this course, a series of laboratory exercises will be developed to provide
hands-on training to reinforce the theory the student has learned. This 32-hour
course is designed with a structure similar to the Handling Tool Operation and
Programming course: 16 h of online and 16 h of hands-on training. The course
culminates in a certification examination in which the participants demonstrate an
understanding of the theoretical background, as well as the ability to successfully
set up, calibrate, program, and utilize the FANUC robot equipped vision system.
Participants passing the examination receive a certificate in iR-Vision 2D issued by
a FANUC-certified instructor. Similar to the other certification courses, it can be
offered on demand and conducted during weekends, students’ breaks or in the
summer.

7.8 Task 3: Model Robotics Curriculum for K-12

Teachers and Hands-on Training Sessions for High
School Students

As a way to encourage more (and more diverse students) to consider careers in

robotics, faculty members from Bay College and Michigan Tech promotes Robotics
Automation to K-12 teachers and high school students. One-day seminar for K-12
teachers is conducted at both Michigan Tech and Bay College in Years 2 and 3 of
the project. During the seminar, participants (1) learn concepts of industrial
robotics; (2) learn the basics of programming FANUC industrial robots; (3) try the
robotic software “RobotRun”; and (4) work with faculty to consider ways the
software can be integrated into the K-12 curriculum. Participating teachers are
provided with 4 h of theory and 4 h of hands-on operating and programming with
FANUC robots and the “RobotRun” simulation software. To promote the field of
robotics directly among the high school students, one “day camp” is conducted
yearly, at both institutions. Students (1) learn basic principles of industrial robots;
(2) operate and program FANUC industrial robots; (3) utilize the gaming envi-
ronment of the “RobotRun” simulation software to play embedded games and
conduct basic programming tasks (in Year 2 and 3). Due to the remote location of
Upper Peninsula schools, very few programs targeting STEM fields are available.
The proposed camps will provide high school students with the extraordinary
opportunity to learn and be engaged in STEM-related activities using the appealing
nature of robotics. This early-age engagement in STEM activities will help to create
a clear path for the students to continue education through postsecondary
institutions.
190 A. Sergeyev

7.9 Task 4: Robotic Automation Laboratories at Michigan

Tech and Bay College

The School of Technology at Michigan Tech offers high-quality, up-to-date aca-

demic programs aimed at meeting the immediate and future needs of industry. As a
technology program, we offer significant hands-on laboratory experiences and
applied research opportunities to undergraduates. These experiences complement
the classroom experience and prepare our students for careers in a wide range of
industries.
The EET program at Michigan Tech has a state-of-the-art Robotic Automation
laboratory, which allows faculty to provide students with training that meets
industrial standards. Currently, the laboratory is equipped with four FANUC LR
Mate Education Training Carts and incorporates FANUC Robotics’ latest-genera-
tion electric, servo-driven mini robot, housed in a self-contained, portable enclo-
sure. The LR Mate Education Training Cart MH1 can be used to teach students how
to program a real robot, in real time, in a safe, controlled environment. The FANUC
robot is a highly upgradable system and allows demonstrating basic functions (e.g.,
vision, collision guard, path tracing, insert, straight-line accuracy), as well as cre-
ating more advanced hands-on laboratories. While it is desirable to have more
robots, the four units currently installed at Michigan Tech are sufficient to teach a
class of 16 students with two laboratory sections.
Current robot capacity is adequate to train and certify at least eight industry
representatives, students from other institutions, or displaced workers. This capa-
bility allows for program sustainability and expansion. Training revenue will be
used to acquire new robots to further support program growth. Bay College robotic
laboratory is equipped with three FANUC LR Mate carts which allows Bay for: (1)
introducing two Robotics Automation courses in the curriculum; (2) providing
hands-on training to Bay students; (3) training and certifying students from other
institutions, industry representatives, and displaced workers; (4) conducting semi-
nars for K-12 teachers; and (5) conducting outreach activities for the high school
students.

7.10 Sustainability of the Project and Its Broader Impact

The four certification programs in Industrial Automation: Handling Tool Operation

and Programming, Roboguide, Robot Operations, and iR-Vision 2D, implemented
at Michigan Tech and Bay College through this project, will attract prospective
students, industry representatives, and unemployed workers who want to retool
their skills, and students from other universities and colleges without a certification
program. The revenue received from these certification programs will serve as a
main source of funds to sustain the project and to continually enhance and update
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 191

the Robotics Automation programs at the partnering institutions. Due to the rapidly
evolving technological world, Robotics Automation is currently developing at a fast
pace. This pace will only increase in the near future. As a result, the demand for
technologists in the field of robotics is also increasing. Educational units must
support this growing demand for highly knowledgeable technologists from the
industrial sector and, in particular, by technology programs which place an
emphasis on hands-on training. To build highly effective and self-sustaining pro-
grams with broad impacts in Robotics Automation is not a simple task. Bay College
and Michigan Tech have joined efforts to build this program and to make it highly
adaptable by various institutions and with different budgets. The curriculum
developed in this project and open-source training software “RobotRun” will enable
three modes of adaptation, which are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Modes of adaptation by other institutions

Modes Institution Adapted project materials, Benefits
budget hardware, and software
Mode 1 High 1. All course materials 1. Teach robotics courses and
2. 3–4 Fanuc Industrial Rabun certify students
3. FANVC Roboguide 2. Provide bands-art training
Software using industrial robots
4. Project developed 3. Train students on industrial
RobotRun Software and educational software
packages
4. Train and certify significant
number of students from other
institutions, industry
representatives, and displaced
workers. High profit and
possibility for fast expansion
5. K-12 outreach activities
Mode 2 Medium 1. All course materials 1. Tench Robotics courses and
2. 1–2 Fanuc Industrial certify students
Robots 2. Provide hands-on training
3. FANUC Roboguide using industrial robots
Software 3. Train students on industrial
4. Project developed Robot and educational software
Run Software packages
4. Train and certify average
number students from other
institutions, industry
representatives, and displaced
workers. Medium profit and
possibility for slow expansion
5. K-12 outreach activities
Mode 3 Low 1. All course materials 1. Teach Robotics courses
2. Project developed 2. Train students on educational
RobotRun Software software package
3. K-12 outreach activities
192 A. Sergeyev

All three modes will allow any institution to teach robotics skills; modes one and
two will also allow for industrial training and certification, which will enable the
other new programs to grow and expand.
FANUC is represented in five continents and >22 countries with more than
100,000 robots installed in the USA and 250,000 robots worldwide. The extensive
presence of FANUC robots in industry requires well-trained and certified specialists
to design, operate, and maintain the robots. College graduates equipped with these
skills will be highly marketable, which in turns makes adaptation and implemen-
tation of the proposed curriculum in Robotic Automation very attractive for others.
These factors suggest that institutions that make the initial investment to implement
our curriculum will likely generate a significant revenue stream to not only support
but also further expand their programs in Robotics Automation.

7.11 Conclusion

The overall goal of the collaborative project between Michigan Tech and Bay de
Noc Community College is to help meet the nation’s forthcoming need for highly
trained Industrial Robotics workers. Strategies include developing, testing, and
disseminating an updated, model curriculum, laboratory resources, and simulation
software package suitable for use in both 2- and 4-year EET programs. To com-
plement this effort, outreach to K-12 students and teachers will work to enlarge the
pipeline and diversity of students interested in careers in robotics. Programs will
also be offered to students at other institutions and to workers in industry to broaden
impact.
Described curriculum development not only is geared toward students enrolled
in the university program but also provides opportunity for industry representatives
to retool their skills in robotics and automation. Developed course and its deriva-
tives are designed to provide significant hands-on training in robotic vision systems
and teach skills that are very relevant to current industry needs.

Acknowledgements This project is supported by National Science Foundation grant DUE-

1501335.

References

Alimisis, D. (2005). Technical school students design and develop robotic gear-based construc-
tions for the transmission of motion. Warsaw: Eurologo.
Apple investing record $10.5 billion in supply chain robots & machinery. (2016).
Barker, B., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal
learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782481.
7 Meeting Twenty-first Century Robotics and Automation Workforce … 193

Barnes, D. (2002). Teaching introductory Java through LEGO MINDSTORMS models. SIGCSE
Bulletin, 34(1), 147. doi:10.1145/563517.563397.
Beer, R., Chiel, H., & Drushel, R. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and
engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85–92. doi:10.1145/303849.303866.
Chang, D. (2009). Educating generation Y in robotics. Proceedings of ASEE AC 2009-750.
Ciaraldi, M. (2009a). Designing an undergraduate robotics engineering curriculum: Unified
robotics I and II. ASEE.
Ciaraldi, M. (2009b). Robotics engineering: A new discipline for a new century. ASEE.
Devine, K. (2009a). Agile robotic work cells for teaching manufacturing engineering. ASEE.
Devine, K. (2009b). Integrating robot simulation and off-line programming into an industrial
robotics course.
Downloads—World Robotics 2014. (2016). Worldrobotics.org. Retrieved 30 July 2016, from
http://www.worldrobotics.org/downloads
Eslami, A. (2009). A remote-access robotics and PLC laboratory for distance learning program.
ASEE.
FANUC Robotics system R-30iA controller iR-Vision with error proofing student (Manual)
(1st ed.).
F.A.S.T. (2014). Robot.fanucamerica.com. Retrieved 30 July 2016, from http://robot.fanucamerica.
com/support-services/robotics-training/schools.aspx
Fernandez, K. (2009). NASA summer robotics interns perform simulation of robotics technology.
ASEE.
Guiding the Independent Learner in Web-Based Training. (1999). Educational Technology, 39(3).
International Federation of Robotics: Metra Martech Study on Robotics. (2016). Retrieved 29 July
2016, from http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/Metra_Martech_Study_on_robots_02.pdf
Johnson, J. (2012). Children, robotics, and education. IEEE Artificial Life and Robotics, 7, 16–21.
Karatrantou, A. & Tzimogiannis, A. (2005). Introduction in basic principles and programming
structures using the robotic constructions LEGO Mindstorms. In 3rd National Conference,
Teaching Informatics, University of Peloponnese.
Liu, Y. (2009). From handy board to VEX: The evolution of a junior-level robotics laboratory
course. ASEE.
Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem-solving skills of middle
school students: Educators’ experiences with the lego mindstorms robotic invention system.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74(4), 211–213.
doi:10.1080/00098650109599193.
Michalson, W. (2009). Balancing breadth and depth in engineering education: Unified robotics III
and IV. ASEE.
Morey, B. (2007). Robotics seeks its role in aerospace. Manufacturing Engineering, 139(4).
Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., et al. (2005).
The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational
assessment. Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103–127. doi:10.1023/b:auro.0000047303.20624.02.
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Domestic Policy Council. (2006). American
competitiveness initiative—Leading the world in innovation.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J., & Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman Publishers.
Ren, P. (2009). Bridjing theory and practice in a senior-level robotics course for mechanical and
electrical engineers. ASEE.
Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science
learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84. doi:10.1177/
0270467604271244.
Robots: More capable, Still Flexible. (2005). Manufacturing Engineering, 134(5).
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM
Education, 5, 17–28.
Schneider, R. (2005). Robotic automation can cut costs. Manufacturing Engineering, 135(6).
194 A. Sergeyev

Stienecker, A. (2008). Applied industrial robotics: A paradigm shift. ASEE.

Tolinski, R. (2006). Robots step up to machining. Manufacturing Engineering, 137(3).
Witeman, E. & Witherspoon, L. (2003). Using Legos to interest high school students and improve
K-12 STEM education. Frontiers in Education, 2, 5–8.
You, Y. (2009). A project-oriented approach in teaching robotics application engineering. ASEE.
Chapter 8
STEM Education by Exploring Robotics

Francis Tuluri

Abstract The chapter on ‘STEM Education by Exploring Robotics (SEEbots)’

describes a wide range of educational robotics modules for increasing STEM
learning at pre-college level and at the college level. The recent advances in
electronics technology and computer technology are making a variety of novel and
versatile robotics modules within the budget of educational institutions for creating
interest among the students toward STEM learning, and to broaden participation of
students seeking STEM careers. The suggested robotics modules are based on the
experiences gained in teaching robotics for STEM education to middle school level
to college level, through projects sponsored by funding agencies. The information
described is intended for educators as a reference guide to designing their robotics
courses for STEM learning in secondary or post-secondary introductory robotics
educational program.

Keywords STEM
Robotics
Lego
Technology
Learning
Education

8.1 Introduction

In particular, the chapter discusses some of the topics on introductory educational

robotics course entitled ‘Introduction to Robotics’ taught to the full-time under-
graduate students and to K12 students in outreach pre-engineering summer pro-
grams. The course is designed as providing transition in robotics education to K12
students entering into higher education with advanced topics on hardware and
software of educational and industrial robotics. Similar courses will sustain the
skills that the K12 students had in robotics while they begin their journey through
higher learning as a passage to seeking STEM career in industry. The goal of the
project is to use robotics to increase STEM learning among students through
hands-on activities by integrating science, mathematics, computer programming,

F. Tuluri (&)
Jackson State University, Jackson, MS, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 195

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_8
196 F. Tuluri

engineering, and technology. The instructional methodologies explored a variety of

robotic platforms ranging from educational robot modules (EDR) to industrial robot
trainers. To introduce robotics to the entry-level students, three educational plat-
forms are used—Lego NXT/EV3 robot, VEX cortex robot, and Parallax Beebot.
A FANUC robot trainer is also used for teaching skills on programming industrial
robot. For programming practice on EDRs, graphical language and higher level
language (C language) are used. For programming robo arm trainer, propriety
software loaded on its teach pendant is used. Additionally, a simulation software
package (Handling-Pro) is also used to strengthen practicing programming indus-
trial robots. See additional resources given at the end of the chapter for information
on Lego, VEX, Parallax, and FANUC brands. The information provided in this
chapter is intended for use by educators to introducing robotics as a learning
platform in STEM education in schools, community colleges, and universities. The
course content is developed from the projects sponsored by funding agencies—Title
III DoE grant, Army Educational Outreach Program (UNITE and REAP/USAEOP),
and Lockheed Martin Foundation.

8.2 Course Overview

The ‘Introduction to Robotics’ course is targeted to regular freshman undergradu-

ates or K12 high school students interested in taking summer pre-engineering
program with a view to broadening STEM participation. The course provides 3
credits to the freshman undergraduates and is given in every spring semester. The
pre-engineering summer program is offered for four weeks during the month of
June. In addition to hands-on activities on programming educational robotics
modules, the course also covers basics of topics such as sensors, digital automation
systems, fluid automation systems, pneumatic automation systems, and industrial
robotics. Upon competition of the course, the student will have the ability to:
• describe the distinction between educational robotics and industrial robotics
• build educational robotics modules
• program educational robotics modules
• review electronics (analog and digital)
• understand the function of sensors and actuators
• navigate robotics modules using sensors
• explain automation systems—digital, electromechanical, fluid, and pneumatic
systems
• state and explain the functions of industrial robot
• select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, and tech-
nology to engineering technology problems that require the applications of
principles and applied procedures or methodologies
• identify, analyze, and solve broadly defined engineering technology problems;
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 197

• apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and

non-technical environments, and an ability to identify and use appropriate
technical literature.

8.3 Motivation

In traditional teaching methods of science and engineering, students lack experience

of applying physical principles to real-time physical situation required in these
disciplines of study (Barreto and Benitti 2012). Students are not properly engaged
and inspired in learning through interactive activities. Lack of interest combined
with shortage of practical experience in learning eventually leads them to failure to
keep up with the grades expected of them or even can lead to increased rates of
attrition in science and engineering disciplines (Graham et al. 2013). Robotics is an
interactive discipline through which the learner can get the feeling of learning by
achievement through designing, building, programming, and executing (Rockland
et al. 2010; Mataric et al. 2007; Nugent et al. 2010; Wang 2016). Additionally,
robotics integrates the application of other disciplines such as science, mathematics,
electronics, and technology. Robotics educational modules enable the students learn
principles of science and mathematics by working through real-world applications
by using system integrated approach (Barker 2012; Sullivana and Heffernana 2016;
Eguchi 2016).
Further, recent advances in technology are providing EDRs to classroom
instruction at a very modest and affordable price with excellent computing features.
EDRs come up with immense power for use in education as an interactive and
intelligent tool to study variety of physical systems through sensors. The electronics
system facilitates collecting the physical data which can be used to study the
behavior of the physical system of interest (Teslya and Savosin 2014).
Robotics education creates interest to the students to get started with learning big
ideas in STEM education through experiencing practical applications that go
beyond classroom learning. Further, the students are engaged and inspired to be
prepared for a fruitful career in STEM-related workforce. With recent advances in
technology, robotics industry is on the rise leading to robots being used in every
walk of life—from domestic appliances, to manufacturing, to automation, and to
military. As the competition in industry is getting critical, the students have to face
challenges to procure multiple skills. Robotics education is the means to make the
students of K12 level and beginner undergraduate level excel in STEM disciplines
to aspire related careers.
198 F. Tuluri

8.4 Lego NXT/EV3 Platform

Lego Mindstorms educational kit (Wang 2016) contains a microcomputer (NXT or

EV3), lego elements (axles, connectors, wheels, gears, etc.), sensors, and servo-
motors required for students to assemble and program a robot. The kit comes with
basic sensors such as touch, sound, ultrasonic, light, and gyro; however, a variety of
sensors are also available from a third party. See Fig. 8.1 for a robot built with
Lego NXT kit and Tetrix EV3 kit.
The microcomputer can be programmed using a software package called NXT G
(a graphical programming) or RobotC (a high-level C-programming) (Cruz-Martin
et al. 2012). Graphical programming is more appropriate to introduce programming
concepts for a beginner-level student in robotics education (Grandi et al. 2014).
While the Lego kit is popularly used in robotic completions at K12 level (Grandi
et al. 2014), it can also be extended to design and study a programmable physical
system (Cruz-Martin et al. 2012). The configuration of the programmable physical
system consists of five stages, namely (1) building the robot, (2) connecting the
robot sensors, (3) programming the robot to collect data, (4) analyzing, and
(5) interpreting the results to study the behavior of the system.
‘Introduction to Programming EV3’ curriculum of Lego provides a series of
topics for getting acquainted with basic robotics and programming for all levels of
students. Here, we describe an approach with a few examples of using educational
robotics to further STEM learning by designing novel programmable physical
systems.
(1) 1 D motion under uniform acceleration
To study one-dimensional motion of an object under constant acceleration, a
physical system can be designed with a NXT/EV3 mounted over a trolley (a cart,
for example, with freely rotating wheels) rolling down an inclined flat surface (for
example, a wooden plank) (Tuluri et al. 2014). A light sensor is attached to the
robot module. The trolley is made to move on a wooden plank with ten strips of

Fig. 8.1 An educational robot module of Lego NXT, and EV3 on Tetrix platform (a) An example
of EV3 graphical programming work space (b)
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 199

paper equally spaced 5 cm apart, along its length (see Fig. 8.2). The robot module
is mounted on a trolley with its light sensor moving over the strips of paper.
The robot is released from rest on the inclined plane. Then, the robot module is
programmed in remote data logging mode to record the changes in the reflectivity
of the light sensor with time as it moves past the stripes of paper. The reflectivity
markers enable to locate the position of the robot as it rolling down the inclined
plane. Let v is the initial velocity of the cart, h is the angle of the incline, and g is the
acceleration due to gravity. By simple physics principles (Halliday et al. 2014a), the
acceleration of the moving robo-trolley on the inclined surface can be obtained
from the study of distance versus time2 plot relationship given by,
 
1
s¼ ðg sin hÞt2 ð8:1Þ
2

where s is the distance, t is time, and g is acceleration due to gravity.

Since the physical system is an intelligent and programmable, the students can
extend the concept to predict and test hypothesis. For example, the experiment can
be repeated for measuring the acceleration due to gravity for different slopes of the
inclined surface and extrapolate to find the acceleration due to gravity in free fall, or
the effect of friction on the motion of the trolley can also be estimated and compared
with theoretical expectations.
(2) RC constant
In a series resistor (R) and capacitor (C) electric circuit, measurement of RC time
constant is a simple activity for demonstrating the working principle of a capacitor
(Halliday et al. 2014b; Floyd and Buchla 2010a). The experiment relates principles
of electronics coupled with mathematical concept of exponential growth or decay
which is common in many real-time situations of science and engineering. The time
constant of a series RC circuit describes the rate of charging/discharging of the
capacitor and is mathematically given by,

Fig. 8.2 A physical system of robo-trolley on an inclined plane for measuring acceleration of the
moving cart (a) A sample of photo sensor peaks as the cart is moving past the paper strips (b)
200 F. Tuluri

Timeconstant; s ¼ R  C ð8:2Þ

where R is the resistance and C is the capacitance of the series RC circuit.

Using educational robotics for measuring RC time constant enables students to
learn through designing a programmable physical system. In this experiment, a
simple RC circuit is built on a breadboard with a two-way switch for charging and
discharging the capacitor. The capacitor is charged from a 9 V battery and is dis-
connected from the source to discharge through a LED. The light sensor of the robo
module is programmed in data logging mode (remote or wired) to record the
decreasing intensity of the LED (Tuluri et al. 2014; Tuluri 2015) (See Fig. 8.3). The
experiment can be explored for different resistor and capacitor combination to
examine the rate of decay plots and compared with theoretical predictions.
(3) ADC
Analog-to-digital conversion is a commonly used principle in all digital pro-
cessing systems. The touch sensor of a Lego NXT or EV3 microcomputer can be
tweaked and can be used to teach and study analog-to-digital conversion (Tuluri
2015). Inside the microcomputer circuitry, the touch sensor port is basically a part
of a voltage divider (Floyd and Buchla 2010b), and analog voltage signal across the
sensor is digitized through an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) (Floyd 2006). The
voltage divider is powered by 5 V supply line of the microcomputer and consists of
a fixed 10 K X resistor and the sensor resistance. The sensor resistance is measured
between the pin#1 of the sensor cable (white color) and pin#2 (black color) which is
connected to the ground (zero volts). Thus, a resistance sensitive probe is made by
cutting the sensor end of the cable and bringing out the terminals of pin 1 and pin 2
(see Fig. 8.4a). Corresponding to the change in the sensor resistance between zero
(short) and infinite (open), the ADC measures the voltage between 5 and 0 V in
intervals of 1023 (210 bits) with a resolution of 4.88 mV (Floyd 2006). Using the

Fig. 8.3 EV3 physical system arrangement for studying discharge rates of a capacitor (a) A
sample of data logging plot using NXT module (b) A EV3 program to display sensor value on the
module LCD (c)
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 201

Fig. 8.4 A sample of resistance sensitive probes for studying physical systems (a) NXT physical
system set up for demonstrating ADC principle (b)

principles of voltage divider and ADC, the resistance of the resistive sensor probe
(R) can be expressed in terms of the raw value of the ADC (Raw) as,

10;000  Raw
R¼ X ð8:3Þ
1023 þ Raw

Several types of resistance sensitive probes can be designed based on the study
of interest (See Fig. 8.4a). A programmable physical system can be designed to
study physical quantities of interest. For example, the open ends of the resistance
sensitive probe can be immersed in fluids to study humidity (See Fig. 8.4b), or can
be connected to a thermistor to study temperature variation, or as a skin resistance
sensor value. A simple program will enable to display the resistance of the resis-
tance sensitive probe (See Fig. 8.5).

8.5 VEX Cortex Platform

Robotic competitions are becoming very popular method of inspiring the students
toward learning by experiences (Caro 2011; Nugenta et al. 2016). In view of the
availability of educational resources, many institutions are adopting VEX robotics
into their curriculum to increase STEM learning (Sullivan et al. 2016). Further VEX
robotics modules have rigid framework design and powerful processor and are also
gaining popularity in robotic competitions at K12 and undergraduate level to
broaden STEM participation. We have used VEX cortex robotic educational
module to develop working knowledge of computer hardware and software and
teach problem solving skills in STEM education. We have used RobotC to teach
advanced skills in programming the robot.
VEX cortex enables to set the speed of the wheels independent of the other—the
magnitude and direction. Here, we show one example of combining kinematics
202 F. Tuluri

Fig. 8.5 NXT program to display the resistor sensitive probe value on the module display panel

Fig. 8.6 Geometrical formulation for angular rotation or spin rotation of a robot. The inset (on the
top-right corner) shows an assembled VEX cortex educational robot

principles with mathematics in the context of navigating the motion of a robot along
arc of a circle of certain radius of curvature (see Fig. 8.6).
Consider that ‘d’ is the diameter of the wheels, b is the center-to-center distance
between the drive wheels, and R is the radius of curvature of the robot’s turn. Let
VR and VL are the speeds of the right and left wheels, respectively. Using the basic
principles of angular velocity, one can calculate the radius of curvature of robot’s
turn in terms of VR and VL (Halliday et al. 2014c) given by,
 
b ðVR þ VL Þ
R¼ ð8:4Þ
2 ðVR  VL Þ

The sign of R determines the direction of rotation. As a special case, if the speed
of the wheels is equal then the robot moves linearly corresponding to infinite radius
of curvature. The other cases are pivot rotation (keeping the speed of one of the
wheels zero) and point rotation (keeping the speed of the wheels equal and
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 203

#pragma config(Motor, port2, leftMotor, tmotorNormal, openLoop,

driveLeft)
#pragma config(Motor, port3, rightMotor, tmotorNormal, openLoop,
reversed, driveRight)
//*!!Code automatically generated by 'ROBOTC' configuration wizard !!*//

void forward()
{
wait1Msec(2000); // Robot waits for 2000 milliseconds before executing
program
// Move forward at full power for 3 seconds
motor[rightMotor] = 63; // Motor on port2 is run at 63 power
forward
motor[leftMotor] = 63; // Motor on port3 is run at 63 power
forward
wait1Msec(3000);
}
void turn()
{

// turn for 1.5 for 3 seconds

motor[rightMotor] = 20; // Motor on port2 is run at 20 power
forward
motor[leftMotor] = 50; // Motor on port3 is run at 50 power
forward
wait1Msec(1500);
}
task main()
{
forward();
turn();
stopAllMotors();
}

Fig. 8.7 An example of RobotC programming for a robot moving in a curve linear motion

opposite) which are useful for programming the robot for making turns in a
labyrinth. An example of RobotC programming for a robot moving in a orbital turn
is given in Fig. 8.7.
Using the mathematical solution, one can estimate to program a robot move in a
complex path (see Fig. 8.8). Similar examples facilitate the students toward
problem-based learning investigation. Working on such hands-on activities
increases student’s skills in problem solving, and critical thinking and engaging
them through predicting, and validating the principles with measuring.
204 F. Tuluri

End

Start

Fig. 8.8 An example of navigating a robot in straight segments and turns in a complex track of
motion

Fig. 8.9 An assembled

circuitry of sensors on
Boe-Bot for programming

8.6 Parallax Stamp 2 Platform

We have used Parallax Boe-Bot robot to teach working principles of sensors and
controlling them through a microcontroller. Boe-Bot kit is equipped with Basic
Stamp II microcontroller and comes with servomotors for locomotion and a variety
of sensors. Students are also introduced to build circuits on the onboard breadboard
and program and control the sensors. Further, students with little or no program-
ming experience can easily program the microcontroller using PBASIC—a BASIC
programming version for the Stamp II controller. A set of simple hands-on activities
is designed for the students to learn the working principles of basic sensors such as
photoresistor, ultrasonics sensor, IR sensor (transmitter and receiver), piezoelectric
force sensor. A sample of the assembled circuit of the robot with IR and ultrasonic
sensors to detect an obstacle and avoid collision in an autonomous mode is shown
in Fig. 8.9.
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 205

8.7 FANUC Robot Trainer

Because of the growing demand of robotics automation in manufacturing and the

importance of interdisciplinary STEM skills in the workforce, we have used a few
topics in our robotics course on FANUC Robotics LRMate Education Training Cart
MH1 (see Fig. 8.10).
Simple hands-on activities on using industrial robot trainer help the students to
prepare them to moving from educational robotics to industrial robotics. These
activities will also motivate the K12 and undergraduate students to aim for suc-
cessful career in engineering in particular and robotics automation in general.
Motivating the students on bridging the skills gap between industry and academia is
essential to prepare the students in meeting challenges in the high-tech-oriented
workplace of the global market. Particularly, when students are exposed in the
classroom to real-world industrial equipment and environment that they are going
to be working on, they will be engaged and focused on learning STEM disciplines.
In our course on ‘Introduction to Robotics,’ we have used Robo guide and used
Handling-Pro to teach topics such as frames of reference. The students are given
hands-on activities to use Teach Pendant to make the arm of the robot move in joint
frame reference, user frame reference, and world frame reference. An example of
the robo arm moving along the sides of a rectangle in user-defined coordinate frame
of reference is shown in Fig. 8.11. Similar activities were also done in robotic
simulations using the Handling-Pro. See Fig. 8.12 for a simple pick and drop
example in robotic simulations, and Fig. 8.13 for instructions available on the help
menu of the software.

Fig. 8.10 FANUC Robotics LRMate Education Training Cart MH1 (a) and the teach pendant
(b) for programming and teaching the robo arm
206 F. Tuluri

Fig. 8.11 Programming Robo Arm in a user-defined frame of reference along the sides of a
square (a) is the home position of the robo arm (the inset on the top-left corner is the program code
on the Teach Pendant) and (b) is a snapshot of the robo arm during the execution of the program in
auto mode

Fig. 8.12 A snapshot of Pick and place robotic Simulations using Handlin-Pro simulation
software. The inset (on the top-right corner) shows the instance of picking the object during the
simulation
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 207

Fig. 8.13 Handling-Pro easy to do instruction for writing programming for simple examples

8.8 Conclusion

An approach to broadening STEM participation using robotics education is

described in the chapter. The methodology is based on a course on an introductory
robotics course to engage and inspire entry-level undergraduate students (of any
discipline) and K12 students for pursuing STEM education. The examples covered
are to showcase how the students can be challenged to develop interdisciplinary
skills, problem solving skills, reasoning skills toward attaining critical thinking in
their studies of interest through tactile experience of real-world environment. The
information can be extended by users of their interest and is also intended for
educators as a reference guide for designing their course in secondary or
post-secondary robotics program.
Additional Resources
1. Lego Mindstorms. (2016). Available from: http://www.lego.com/en-us/mindstorms/
?domainredir=mindstorms.lego.com
2. Lego EV3. (2016). Downloads available from: http://www.lego.com/en-us/
mindstorms/downloads
3. Lego EV3, (2013). User Guide available from: https://le-www-live-s.legocdn.
com/sc/media/files/user-guides/ev3/ev3_user_guide_en-20dff91180424fe8a914
8052f5288c82.pdf
4. Lego NXT, (2009). User Guide available from: http://lego.brandls.info/ebooks/
8547_ms_user_guide.pdf
5. VEX Cortex EDR. (2015). Curriculum available from: http://curriculum.
vexrobotics.com/curriculum, http://curriculum.vexrobotics.com/home
6. VEX Cortex EDR. (2015). Teacher resources available from: http://www.
education.rec.ri.cmu.edu/robots/vexteacher/cortex/D
208 F. Tuluri

7. Parallax Boe-Bot. (2016). Available from: https://www.parallax.com/product/

boe-bot-robot
8. Parallax Boe-Bot. (2004). User guide available from: https://www.pololu.com/
file/download/Roboticsv2_2.pdf?file_id=0J208
9. FANUC LRMate Trainer Cart. (2016). Available from: http://robot.
fanucamerica.com/robot-applications/FANUC_Certified_Education_Robot_
Training.aspx
10. FANUC robotics simulations software Handling-Pro. (2016). Available from:
http://robot.fanucamerica.com/products/vision-software/roboguide-simulation-
software.aspx
11. FANUC Training. (2016). Information available from: http://www.alleghenye
dusys.com/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTQvMDQvMDQvMDhfNDJfMT
FfNzIxX0ZBQ19DZXJ0X2Jyb2NodXJlXzIwMTRfNF9wYWdlLnBkZiJdXQ/
FAC%20Cert%20brochure%202014%204%20page.pdf

References

Barker, B (Ed). (2012). Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning: A new
technology for learning. ISBN 978-1-4666-0182-6, IGI-global.
Barreto, F., & Benitti, V. (2012). 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools:
A systematic review, Computers & Education, 58, 978–988.
Caro, A.I. (2011). VEX robotics: STEM program and robotics competition expansion into Europe.
In D. Obdrzalek & A. Gottscheber (Eds.), Research and education in robotics—EUROBOT
(pp. 10–16). Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7000936
Cruz-Martín, A., Fernández-Madrigal, J. A., Galindo, C., González-Jiménez, J., Stockmans-Daou,
C., & Blanco-Claraco, J. L. (2012). A lego mindstorms nxt approach for teaching at data
acquisition, control systems engineering and real-time systems undergraduate courses.
Computers & education, 59, 974–988.
Eguchi, A. (2016). Computational thinking with educational robotics. In Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 79–84).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Floyd, T. L. (2006). Digital fundamentals (9 ed., pp. 744–754). Pearson—Prentice Hall,
ISBN-0-13-194609-9.
Floyd, T.L., & Buchla, D.M. (2010a). Electronics fundamentals—circuits, devices, and
applications (pp. 409–414). Prentice Hall, ISBN-13: 978-0-13-507295-0.
Floyd, T. L., & Buchla, D. M. (2010b) Electronics fundamentals—circuits, devices, and
applications (pp. 135–141). Pearson—Prentice Hall, ISBN-13: 978-0-13-507295-0.
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A., & Handelsman, J. (2013) Increasing
persistence of college students in STEM, Science 27, 341(6153), 1455–1456 (2013) doi:10.
1126/science.1240487
Grandi, R., Falconi, R., & Melchiorri, C. (2014). Robotic competitions: Teaching robotics and
real-time programming with LEGO. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress: The
International Federation of Automatic Control. South Africa.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014a). Fundamentals of physics (10th ed., pp. 23–25,
and 94–129). Wiley Publications, ISBN-10: 1118230647; ISBN-13: 978-1118230640.
8 STEM Education by Exploring Robotics 209

Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014b). Fundamentals of physics (10th ed, pp. 788–792).
Wiley Publications, ISBN-10: 1118230647; ISBN-13; 978-1118230640.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014c) Fundamentals of physics (10 ed, pp. 257–270).
Wiley Publications, ISBN-10: 1118230647; ISBN-13: 978-1118230640.
Mataric, M.J., Koenig, N., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and
STEM education. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). Available
from: http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-09/SS07-09-022.pdf
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adarnchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and
geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.
Nugenta, G., Barkera, B., Grandgenett, B., & Welcha, G. (2016), Robotics camps, clubs, and
competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75(B),
686–691.
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H.
(2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36
(1), 53–64.
Sullivana, F., & Heffernana, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives
for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2),
105–128. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
Teslya, N., & Savosin, S. (2014). Smart-M3-based robot interaction in cyber-physical systems. In
Proceeding of the 16th Conference of FRUCT Association, 2014, pp. 108–114.
Tuluri, F. (2015). Using robotics educational module as an interactive STEM learning platform. In
ISEC (IEEE), 5th IEEE Integrated STEM Conference, Proceedings, 2015, pp. 16–20.
Tuluri, F., Colonias, J., Vance, D., Dixon, D., White, M., & Edwards, A. (2014). Robotics-based
educational tool—An interactive learning platform to enhance understanding behavior of
physical systems. The Researcher, 27(1), 89–104.
Wang, W. (2016). A mini experiment of offering STEM education to several age groups through
the use of robots. In 2016 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), pp. 120–127.
 Part III
Robotics, Creativity and STEAM
Education
Chapter 9
The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity:
Design and Problem Solving

Florence R. Sullivan

Abstract Learning with robotics through open-ended design challenges enables

the development of creativity in children. Such robotics learning environments
encourage three creative activities that are closely identified with problem solving
and design activity, including problem finding, idea generation, and invented
strategies. In this chapter, I present the theoretical grounding for the relationship of
creativity to robotics, with a special emphasis on the role of play in robotics
learning. I provide examples, drawn from my research, to demonstrate how children
engage in play and creativity with robotics, and I discuss how these activities relate
to learning. In addition, I provide curricular and pedagogical recommendations to
teachers interested in supporting student creativity through a robotics learning unit.
Curricular recommendations focus on the types of open-ended challenges teachers
may enact across the STEM disciplines. Pedagogical recommendations detail a
progressive approach to teaching that emphasizes the facilitating role of students’
interest, students’ experience, and students’ collaborative interactions in learning.

Keywords Robotics
Creativity
Play
Design
Problem solving

9.1 Introduction

Robotics learning revolves around two activities that are creative in nature: design
and problem solving. When students work on a robotics challenge, they are
involved in the design of a system that includes the building and programming of a
robotic device. Designing such a system requires creativity. Oftentimes, students
run into unanticipated problems that they must solve in order to create a well-
functioning robotic device. Solving such problems also requires creativity. The
STEM-based creative activity of design and problem solving has certain attributes

F.R. Sullivan (&)

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
e-mail: fl[email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 213

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_9
214 F.R. Sullivan

that students can manifest in the classroom with the appropriate pedagogical and
curricular support. This creative activity of designing and problem solving in a
robotics context may lend itself to other, nearby engineering and computing
problems, for example, building a stable bridge or similar structure, creating a
mobile application, or developing an interactive Web site. In this way, robotics
learning is a creative endeavor with wider application across the STEM disciplines.
In this chapter, I introduce a sociocultural definition of creativity as collaborative
dialogic inquiry, which is rooted in the work of Bakhtin (1981). I then discuss the
role of play in learning with robotics with examples of such, drawn from my
research with colleagues. Next, I provide a theoretical view of the creative nature of
design and problem-solving activity, I describe empirical findings that support the
theory, and finally, I present a discussion of the pedagogical and curricular
approach that best supports creative activity.

9.2 Creativity as Collaborative Dialogic Inquiry

Bakhtin (1981) developed a theory of communication and language development

called dialogism. Dialogism has three, interrelated components: addressivity and
answerability, heteroglossia, and ideological becoming. Addressivity and answer-
ability refer to Bakhtin’s (1986) notion that in any communicative act, the speaker’s
utterance is influenced by whom she is addressing and the anticipated response of
the addressee. In other words, every speaker considers who they are speaking to,
prior to the act of speaking. Utterances are formulated with a specific audience in
mind. The addressee or audience, thereby, helps to shape what the speaker will say.
In this way, utterances among individuals are social and multi-voiced in nature,
always containing the voice of the speaker and the anticipated answering voice of
the addressee.
Heteroglossia refers to the dynamic and constantly evolving nature of language
that is a result of the tension created by the many social languages that make up a
national language. With any national language, there are always variations in
language usage at the level of social groups that exist within the nation. These
social groups may develop slightly different definitions of particular words and/or
may coin new words that then become part of the national language lexicon. In
Bakhtin’s (1981) theory, then, the meanings of words are not fixed, but are ever-
changing and dependent on the social and/or ideological position of the speaker of
the words and the social context in which they are spoken. Bakhtin describes this
phenomenon as the centrifugal forces always affecting any language. At the same
time, there are constant centripetal forces that seek to fix the meaning of words in
order to create a “unitary language.” These centripetal forces are, generally
speaking, more institutional in nature in that they seek to reify specific meanings in
particular, formal ways. The tension created by these opposing social forces also
contributes to the dialogic nature of language. Newer meanings and words are
created within the context of this social milieu.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 215

Ideological becoming refers to the development of consciousness within any

individual. Consciousness in this regard is the development of one’s ontology.
Bakhtin (1981) argues that it is through participation in and exposure to various
social languages within one’s lifeworld that one develops notions and ideas about
how the world functions. It is the interplay of ideas espoused in various realms
(family, friends, school, religious settings, books, T.V., radio, Internet, etc.) that one
begins to form one’s own ideas about life and the world. In this way, ideological
becoming is a creative act that emerges out of the “interanimation” (p. 345) of the
utterances/discourses to which one is exposed.
According to Bakhtin (1981), the utterances one is exposed to can be charac-
terized as one of two types of discourses, internally persuasive discourses or
authoritative discourses. Internally persuasive discourses are utterances and ideas
that are dialogic in nature. In other words, these utterances are always informed by
the addressee, and they are open, dynamic, living, responsive utterances.
Authoritative discourses, on the other hand, are monologic in nature. These are
dogmatic ideas that have been institutionally reified over time, these utterances are
not responsive to the audience, but are always the same and purport to represent
“the truth,”—these utterances do not admit the voice of the other in formulation,
they do not reflect the perspective of the other, only of the hierarchical authority
from which they emanate. In this way, authoritative discourses constitute one-way
communication, from the speaker to the addressee. Bakhtin considered these
monologic, authoritative discourses to be “dead” discourses. Such a discourse may
not be entered into or changed in any way, and it must either be accepted or rejected
as it is. The clearest example of this type of discourse is religious doctrine and
dogma. True believers accept the religious pronouncements as is and attempt to
conform themselves to these ideas.
Of these two types of discourses, it is the internally persuasive discourses that
account for creativity. As noted above, it is the interplay of various internally
persuasive discourses that account for the development of one’s consciousness, but,
in addition to this, it accounts for the creativity of the individual as manifested in
her actions (including her thoughts). Indeed, Bakhtin (1981) argues that “The
semantic structure of an internally persuasive discourse is not finite, it is open; in
each of the new contexts that dialogize it, this discourse is able to reveal ever newer
ways to mean” (p. 346) emphasis added. Ever newer ways to mean is reasonably
interpreted as the creation of new ideas and the creation of new meanings. In this
way, creativity is a fundamental aspect of meaning making and cognitive
development.
In Bakhtin’s formulation of dialogism, it is clear to see the connection between
creativity and learning. Like creativity, learning may also be viewed as a process
that unfolds through the understanding of “ever newer ways to mean.” Creativity as
collaborative dialogic inquiry, then, refers to both the process of meaning making
and the making of new meanings through the interanimation of internally persua-
sive discourses. Again, internally persuasive discourses are the ideas offered from
multiple perspectives within a culture or society. An individual takes in these
discourses, considers them in light of one another, and in this way, makes sense of
216 F.R. Sullivan

the world. And, at times, the individual creates a new meaning that others have not,
yet, considered. Hence, creativity and creative ideas emerge from the social, from
the juxtaposition of voices in society as represented in internally persuasive
discourses.
In a Bakhtinian sense, voice refers not only to the actual voices of actual
speakers, but also to voices as they are set on the pages of a book. Bakhtin was a
literary theorist who worked to illuminate our understanding of language and
society through examination of literary works. According to the theory of dialo-
gism, the author’s voice is reified on the page. Importantly, as Kristeva (1986) has
pointed out, the author’s voice is speaking within the context of other textual
voices. In an elaboration of the theory of dialogism, Kristeva argues that every text
is created with other texts in mind, and the author is speaking to an audience that is
formed, in part, by other authors and other texts. The voice of the author so reified
becomes part of a larger, ongoing textual conversation—this phenomenon is known
as intertextuality. I argue that this reification of voice takes place not only in a
written text, but in the design of tools that people take up and environments they
occupy. For example, in the case of robotics construction kits, the voice of the
designer is embedded in the design of the tool. Indeed, the designers of the RCX
brick, the prototype of all of the LEGO robotics toys, are Mitch Resnick and Fred
Martin. In a chapter published in 1991, Resnick and Martin discussed the design of
the RCX along the lines of the features of the microcomputer that enable student
learning. These features represent the voice, the ideas, of the designers. When
children use the robotics kits, they are, in fact, interacting with the voices and ideas
of the designers—these reified voices help to shape student activity and learning
through the design of the device and what the features of that design makes pos-
sible. Norman (2002) calls this the system image. According to Norman, knowl-
edge of how a device works is encoded in the design of the device. A well-designed
device suggests how it is to be used—for example, a handle suggests the action of
pulling or pushing. The system image is a means of communication between the
designer and the user of the device. And, this communication is dialogic in nature,
as the designer has well-considered the addressee (the user of the device) when
considering how to design it’s features.
In the case of robotics, children interact with the voice/ideas of the designers of
the device through play. Indeed, the designers explicitly created a device with
which children would wish to play. Resnick (2006) has emphasized the role of
playful learning in the learning technologies he has been part of creating, which
includes the RCX brick (Resnick & Martin 1991), Pico Crickets (Rusk, Resnick,
Berg, & Pezalla-Granlund Rusk et al. 2008), and Scratch (Resnick, et al. 2009).
This is an important point to understand, by creating a device with which children
can play, the designers have both motivated student learning activity and also
introduced a child-friendly mode of inquiry that may lead to both creativity and
learning. Let us now consider play in greater depth.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 217

9.3 Play

9.3.1 Role of the Object in Play

One very notable aspect of robotics learning activity is the robotic device itself, given
its status as both a manipulable and a computational object. The robotic device is
similar in size to a smartphone. It is a microcomputer that can understand and execute
commands written in various programming languages. One can easily hold the
robotic device in one’s hand. While it may be slightly unwieldy for young children,
children in middle childhood and older youth have no difficulty holding and
manipulating the device. Perhaps due to the handiness of the robotic device, children
and youth tend to play with it; it has almost a Heideggerian “ready-to-hand” quality in
the way that children immediately identify the robotic device as a playful object.
Indeed, in my research with colleagues over the last decade, we have repeatedly
observed the playful attitude students take toward the device. This playfulness
generally manifests in two modes: anthropomorphizing play and analogical play. In
the former mode, my research colleagues and I have observed children pick up a robot
and make it dance. We have seen children cradle a robotic device like a baby and
wonder aloud what to name it. We have heard children scold a robotic device that is
not functioning the way the student believes it should (hence the robot is misbe-
having) (Sullivan & Wilson 2015). All of this anthropomorphic play is an example of
both imagination (what could the robot be?) and investigation (what is the robot?).
In the mode of analogical play, we have observed children pick up the robot and
discuss what other objects the robot reminds them of, for example, children have
observed that the robot looks like a drag racing car, a robot with cables attached
reminded a child of a purse, yet another child imagined the robot as a dog. These
interactions with the robot are not only acts of imagination and investigation, but also
acts of identification. In one instance, a middle-school-aged female student playing
with one of the small LEGO figurines that come with the robotics kits exclaimed
“let’s make it a girl” (Sullivan & Wilson 2015). In making this suggestion, the female
student was identifying her own gender with that of the nondescript LEGO toy; she
was creating space for herself in, what many view as, the male-identified activity of
robotics (American Association of University Women 2010).
We have also taken note of the role popular culture depictions of robotics play in
students’ imaginary play in robotics learning settings. Oftentimes, the only prior
knowledge children and youth have about robotics is the popular culture depictions
they have encountered in television shows or movies. For example, a middle-
school-aged female student we worked with at a daylong robotics workshop for
girls continually referred to the LEGO robotic device as “Evie,” based on the
female robot from the Disney/Pixar movie Wall-E, known as Eve. Her reference
accomplished two goals, first she was able to playfully identify with the activity
through her prior knowledge of the Eve robot character, and second she was able to
play with ideas related to the functioning of the robotic device. For example, she
discussed tasks she thought her group should program “Evie” to execute.
218 F.R. Sullivan

9.3.2 Play as a Mode of Inquiry in Creative Activity

Both anthropomorphic and analogic plays contain aspects of investigation that lead
to more robust, playful inquiry that deals directly with conceptual aspects of
robotics learning. For example, I have observed students engage in analogic play
with the light sensor in such a way as to improve their understanding of how the
light sensor functions. In this study, the students had programmed the light sensor
to respond to a light reading that was lower than a certain threshold. In other words,
the sensor was triggered to activate a particular programming sequence when it
detected a dark colored object. Through play, the students came to realize they
could trigger the light sensor with the tip of their black shoes (Sullivan 2011). The
students developed the analogy of the light sensor as a magnet, claiming the light
sensor was following their shoes (see Fig. 9.1). While this analogy is weak (a light
sensor would only act similarly to a magnet if it was programmed to detect a certain
reflected reading and to stay on that reading, for example, as in a line following
program), it helped the students begin to understand that the light sensor is pro-
grammed to respond to certain environmental conditions, which is the conceptual
essence of sensors. We have observed that play is an important mode of inquiry for
children when they are working with robotics; it stimulates their interest in the topic
and allows them to consider robotics in light of prior knowledge; it allows them to
identify with the activity (which is particularly important for girls); and it allows
them to develop deeper conceptual understanding of the functioning of the robot,
for example, the role of sensors in robotics activity.
Having defined creativity from a sociocultural lens and considered play as an
important element of student creative learning with robotics, let us now consider the
specific creative activities that are most closely related with formal robotics study:
design and problem solving.

Fig. 9.1 Students playing with triggering the light sensor with their shoes
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 219

9.4 The Creative Nature of Design and Problem-Solving

Activity

As noted earlier in the chapter, the activity of robotics is comprised of both engi-
neering design and computer programming elements. Both of these activities are
creative by nature. In robotics, an important aspect of designing the robot and
writing the computer program is problem solving. Inevitably, students run into
issues when they test the robot they have built and programmed. Sometimes, stu-
dents change the physical design of the robot to address an issue, and most times,
they troubleshoot and revise the computer program they have written. Hence,
design and problem solving are foundational activities when working in a robotics
learning environment. Let us now consider the elements of design and problem
solving as they relate to creativity.

9.4.1 Design

Design has been described by Svihla (2010) as “a ubiquitous activity that occurs in
formal and everyday settings, commonly with a goal of making something to be
used by someone else” (p. 246). In the case of robotics, students may focus on
creating a number of different designs for different purposes. For example, they may
design a robotic vehicle or device for use in a scientific investigation (e.g., data
collection) (Mitnik, Nussbaum, and Recabarren Mitnik et al. 2009), or they may
design a machine or vehicle capable of performing a certain type of work or solve
specific challenges (Sullivan 2008; Sullivan 2011), or they may design a robotics
system that models a biological system (Cuperman and Verner Cuperman and
Verner 2013).
Schön (1983) has argued that framing a problem is at the heart of creativity in
design. Framing a problem refers to seeing the problem from a specific perspective
or with a specific lens. For example, the designer can choose to frame the problem
from the perspective of a naïve or novice user of a product, and in this way, think
about the basic functionality of a device. However, one may also choose to frame a
problem from the perspective of the nature of the problem to be solved—what are
the constituent elements of the problem and how can a design address each? Dorst
and Cross (2001) have also argued that creativity in design unfolds as a process of
problem framing. In their view, as people work on creating a design to address a
specific problem their unfolding understanding of the problem informs the design of
the solution. Dorst and Cross term this the co-evolution of the problem and the
solution. This process of co-evolution is applicable to a robotics design situation for
students. For example, I have found in my research that as students work in the
robotics environment, they develop a better understanding of the problem to be
solved (they frame or reframe the problem), and this has an influence on the design
of the solution (Sullivan 2011).
220 F.R. Sullivan

Framing or reframing of a problem is foundational to design, and it can be

thought of as an aspect of apposite design. Apposite design refers to a process in
which a designer, or group of designers, arrives at a solution that has been hinted at,
but not yet hit upon (hence, it’s apposite nature). Such a solution may arise in the
midst of a designing session when a designer has an illuminating thought in which
the solution is brought into alignment with the constraints of the problem (co-
evolution). For professional designers, this illuminating thought often has ante-
cedents in sketches or discussions (Cross 1997), but arrives as a centralizing idea in
the way that it bridges problem and solution. Akin and Lin (1995) have found that it
is when designers are immersed in the triple process of sketching, examining, and
thinking that they arrive at novel or illuminating design decisions, which, in many
ways, rests on the knowledge of the designer. Given this, what are some ways that
novice designers (e.g., students designing a robot) can develop the background
knowledge and experience to help them develop a creative solution? One way to do
this is to become familiar with design techniques. Cross (2004) defines four such
techniques as follows:
• Combination in design is to take elements of existing designs and combine them
to create a new design, for example, a headboard for a bed that has a built-in
bookshelf.
• Mutation is when one takes one element of a designed artifact and changes it to
create something new, for example, arm rests attached to the inside of a car door
that have been expanded below to become compartments for small items.
• Analogy in design is best characterized by the design of the personal computer.
Apple co-founder Steve Jobs conceived of the screen view on a computer as one
that should be analogous to a person’s actual desktop. In this way, the visual
depiction and organizing principle of files and folders for the modern day
computer was born.
• First principles approach refers to the idea of considering the domain that the
designed item itself is a part of—Cross uses the example of sitting posture as
first principles for the design of a chair. In using this approach, in order to design
a chair, one should first consider the nature of the human body in a seated
position—from there, one can develop a design. One problem with the first
principles approach to design, as noted by Cross, is that, while it is possible to
define first principles for a chair, it may be difficult to define them for other
domains.
Each of these four design approaches requires synthesis of ideas. Owen (2007)
argues that there are two types of creative activity in design: synthesis and dis-
covery. An approach to design that relies more on discovery than synthesis is
emergence. Cross (2004) discusses the idea of emergence, similar to apposite
design, as the recognition of new properties within an existing design. These new
properties can then be utilized as the basis for exploring new and different
designs.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 221

9.4.2 Social and Collaborative View of Design

While a designer may work alone, creativity in the process of design emerges from
the social. This is so because as the designer works with ideas, sketches, or tech-
niques, he is always drawing on the internally persuasive discourses that constitute
his consciousness. Moreover, it is this consciousness, born of specific social and
cultural voices that provide the individual designer with judgment and sensibilities
that are then brought to bear on a design. We may think of this judgment and
sensibility as the artistic aspects of design—irreducible to technical aspects only
because of the very personal and unique origins of ideas. The social and collabo-
rative view of design is also buttressed by the fact that a designer is always
interacting with the reified ideas of other designers. For example, in the case of
robotics, the student designers are interacting with the designed LEGO materials
provided with the robotics construction kits, the design of these building materials
cause them to fit together in specific ways, and these constraints suggest specific
designs to builders. Within these material constraints, students find ways to realize
their creative ideas.
In some ways, we can think of these constraints as an aspect of the “problem” of
designing in the LEGO context. Co-evolution of a design, then, works both in terms
of understanding the affordances and constraints of the materials, as well as the
problem. Let us now consider the creative aspects of problem solving in greater
detail.

9.4.3 Problem Solving

Creativity in problem solving may be manifested in multiple ways. Here we will

consider three such modes that are relevant to robotics learning environments:
problem finding, invented strategies, and idea generation.

9.4.4 Problem Finding

Similar to the notion of problem framing, problem finding has to do with identi-
fying a problem, formulating an understanding of that problem, and clearly com-
municating ideas about the problem to others (Runco & Chand 1995).
Csikszentmihalyi (1997) describes the process of problem finding as uncertain and
emergent. However, there are things that individuals can do to enhance their
problem-finding abilities. For example, Csikszentmihalyi argues that to develop a
good formulation of a problem a person should think about it from as many per-
spectives as possible. In this way, students can create a number of possible paths to
solutions to the problem. Moreover, students should not stay bound to one solution
222 F.R. Sullivan

to a problem, rather they should evaluate the solution as it is unfolding. This is in

the same spirit as Dorst and Cross’s (2001) notion of the co-evolution of the
problem discussed above. Changes or revisions to the solution should be made in
relationship to how well the solution is working out.
In prior research, I found that students developed a creative solution to a
problem through this process of co-evolution (Sullivan 2011). The key to the
students’ development of a creative idea was their evolving understanding of both
the problem they were trying to solve and the functionality of the materials they
were using to solve the problem. In this case, the students were asked to write a
program that caused a light sensor to respond to specific environmental stimuli. In
order to solve this problem, the students in the study first needed to transform their
conceptual understanding of the light sensor as a measurement device to a com-
putational device. They also needed to reframe the problem accordingly; rather than
simply measuring the amount of light that was reflecting off of one surface, the
students needed to measure the light reflected off of both the approach surface and
the target surface, and they needed to use the differential between those two
readings to program the robot to respond to the smaller (less reflected light) reading.
In this case, the students discovered that their target surface was not as dark as
required to solve the problem. This discovery is what Koschmann and Zemel
(2009) would call an occasioned production. It is a discovery that the students did
not know they needed to make prior to the moment they made it. Once the students
had made this discovery and had developed a greater understanding of how the light
sensor worked, they were able to repurpose materials provided to them in the
learning environment to create a darker target surface and thereby solve the robotics
challenge. In this case, the repurposing of materials constituted a creative solution
to the problem.
Research on problem finding indicates that the type of problem to be solved will
have an effect on the creativity of the solution. For example, ill-structured or open
problems require greater problem-finding efforts, and this correlates with more
creative solutions, whereas well-structured or closed problems call for more
reproductive or algorithmic solutions (Jay & Perkins 1997; Mumford, Blair, &
Marcy Mumford et al. 2006; Ward, Finke, & Smith 1995; Weisberg 1986).
According to Jonassen (2000), an ill-structured problem has the following
characteristics:
• Not all of the problem elements are known.
• There are multiple solutions and multiple-solution paths.
• There are multiple criteria for evaluating the solution.
• Solutions may require personal judgment on the part of the solver.
Robotics challenges may be considered ill-structured in that there are always
multiple solutions and multiple-solution paths. This is so as equally successful
solutions to a robotics challenge may include differently constructed robotic devices
and differing computer programs. Because of this, it is possible that students
solving robotics problems will be more likely to develop their own solutions.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 223

Amabile (2012) discusses this as heuristic versus algorithmic problem solving.

When tackling an open-ended problem, people have the chance to develop their
own heuristic approach to the solution; this is often a creative endeavor in itself,
whereas simply applying an existing, step-by-step algorithm to solve a closed
problem does not require much creativity. Let us now consider in greater detail the
role of invented strategies in robotics.

9.4.5 Invented Strategies

While many students begin their robotics problem-solving efforts using a trial-and-
error method (Barak & Zadok 2009; Castledine & Chalmers 2011; Gaudiello &
Zibetti 2013; Sullivan & Lin 2012; Williams, Ma, Prejean, Ford, & Lai 2008), over
time, they move beyond that method and begin to develop more sophisticated
approaches to problem solving. Barak and Zadok identified two approaches that
they call heuristic searches—defined as approaches that leverage the knowledge
students have built about the problem to help them solve the problem. The first type
of heuristic search, called the proximity method, involves forward and backward
reasoning toward the goal of gradually arriving at a solution. The second approach
involves planning that includes modeling and reasoning through analogy or
abstraction.
In our work, we also identified students using a modeling strategy to reason
about the problem (Sullivan & Lin 2012). Students used either the robotics mate-
rials or their own bodies to simulate the desired movement of the robot. For
example, we have repeatedly observed students hold a robotic device in their hands
and move it along a surface in the manner they would like to program it to run. In
this way, students think through the discreet movements that the robot will execute
and they consider how they must program the robot to do so. Oftentimes, students
will go back and forth between moving the robot by hand and writing the program.
This strategy of simulating the movement of the robot may also take place with a
student’s hand standing in for the robot. In other words, we have observed students
moving their hands in the manner that the robot should be programmed to move—
this activity serves the same intellectual purpose as physically moving the robotic
device.
The invented strategy of using one’s own body to model/simulate the movement
of the robot is an aspect of embodied cognition. Embodied cognition is defined by
Weiskopf (2010) as the view that “cognitive capacities are shaped and structured by
the bodily capacities of a creature, including the sensorimotor capacities that make
possible its basic interactions with the world” (p. 295). The theoretical basis for
embodied cognition is provided by Barsalou’s (2003) situated-simulation theory. In
this formulation, cognition is not characterized by, what Barsalou has termed,
amodal semantic knowledge (memorized texts), but, rather, by modal recall (simu-
lation) of experiences and actions on a sensorimotor level. Barsalou argues that:
224 F.R. Sullivan

When the conceptual system represents an object’s visual properties, it uses

representations in the visual system; when it represents the actions performed on an
object, it uses motor representations. The claim is not that modal reenactments
constitute the sole form of conceptual representation…The claim is simply that
modal reenactments are an important and widely utilized form of representation
(p. 521).
Embodied cognition is enabled by robotics devices, and many students will
intuitively use their own bodies to reason about how to program the robotic device.
In this way, the invented strategy is not only an instance of creative problem
solving, but also it may lead to increased learning because it activates real-world
knowledge and improves memory and recall through physical action (McNeil and
Jarvin 2007).

9.4.6 Idea Generation

A third mode of creative activity related to problem solving is idea generation. As

discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the sociocultural approach to under-
standing creativity focuses, in part, on the discursive interactions among people.
Rojas-Drummond, Albarrán, and Littleton (2008) in their research on collaborative
creativity in the language classroom have developed a good explanation of how
idea generation works in a group:
Among the common acts present in all the [discourse] data were: joint planning;
taking turns; asking for and providing opinions; sharing, chaining and integrating of
ideas; arguing their points of view; negotiating and coordinating perspectives;
adding, revising, reformulating and elaborating on the information under discussion
and seeking of agreements. These data, taken together, suggest that the children
engaged in diverse processes of “co-construction” of meaning and knowledge to
achieve their goals (p. 186).
The evolution of a creative idea, then, rests in part on an interactive process in
which students draw on their own prior knowledge (internally persuasive dis-
courses) and experience to generate ideas and contribute them to the group. These
ideas may then be acted upon by others in a number of ways including evaluation,
elaboration, clarification, or refutation. Moreover, these ideas may then be con-
sidered in light of the other voices that are present in the classroom that contribute
to the development of knowledge about the problem. Indeed, in my research, I have
found that a number of voices in a classroom can contribute to the development of
students’ creative ideas including the voices of collaborative group members,
voices of other students in the classroom, the voice of the classroom teacher, the
reified voice of the curriculum developers, and the reified voices of the technology
designers (Sullivan 2011). It is the interanimation, the juxtaposition of these voices
with one another that may lead the students to the development of a creative
solution.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 225

Having considered the creative aspects of the twin robotics activities of design
and problem solving, let us now consider how to support student creativity with
robotics in terms of curriculum and pedagogy.

9.5 Curricular and Pedagogical Approaches to Support

Creativity

9.5.1 Robotics Curricula

As argued elsewhere (Sullivan & Heffernan 2016), teachers may use robotics to
teach about robotics (first-order uses), or to teach about other subjects (second order
uses). In terms of first-order uses, curricula may focus on issues related to the
engineering design of a robotics system, including how to create a working gear
system, building stable and functional structures, and the steps one should take to
create and troubleshoot the device (the engineering design process) (Heffernan
2013). First-order uses will also focus on teaching about programming the robot
and may include instruction on sequencing (Kazakoff & Bers 2012; Kazakoff,
Sullivan, & Bers 2013), conditional reasoning with sensors (Slangen, van Keulen,
& Gravemeijer 2011; Sullivan & Lin 2012), and computer science concepts such as
input/output/process, control structures, iteration, and parallel programming
(Nugent, Barker, Grandgenett, & Adamchuk 2010; Sullivan & Lin 2012).
Meanwhile, second-order uses of robotics in the curriculum generally focus on
modeling or simulating systems or phenomena in the natural sciences. For example,
one may use robotics to model biological systems (Cuperman & Verner 2013) or to
teach about forces and motion in a physics context (Mitnik, Nussbaum, &
Recabarren 2009; Williams, Ma, Prejean, Ford, & Lai 2008). Moreover, robotics
may be used to reinforce students understanding of systems in the context of
science literacy (Sullivan 2008).

9.5.2 Curricular Enactment and Pedagogical Approach

Whether a teacher chooses to use robotics to teach about robotics or some other
topic, certain elements of the curricular enactment and pedagogical approach are
key to supporting student creativity. These key elements are (1) the nature of the
problem to be solved; (2) student choice; (3) a non-evaluative stance; (4) the nature
of student interactions; and (5) modeling or allowing playful inquiry.
Nature of the problem to be solved. As noted earlier in this chapter, problems
may be well-structured or ill-structured (Jonassen 2000). Many times, in formal PK-
12 school settings, children and youth are asked to solve well-structured problems.
Well-structured problems have the following characteristics:
226 F.R. Sullivan

• All elements of the problem are readily apparent

• Problem solution requires the application of a limited number of rules or
principles
• Problem solutions are knowable and comprehensible, and all problem states are
probabilistic
While it is possible to develop a meaningful and rich, well-structured robotics
problem for students to solve (Sullivan 2005), ill-structured problems are the better
choice for enabling creativity. This is so as ill-structured problems support many
paths to solution and many correct answers. As noted earlier in this chapter, in a
design context, creativity is an aspect of the co-evolution of one’s understanding of
the problem and the solution. If students are provided with a problem where all
elements of the problem are readily apparent, they will not need to evolve their
understanding of the problem. Therefore, providing a problem that is robust enough
to support many paths to solution will expand the learning space and the learning
opportunities for students, thereby improving the chances that students well engage
in creative design.
Student choice. To support student creativity, it is critical that students be given
some choice in the robotics project they will undertake. Providing students oppor-
tunities to choose how they want to work with robotics allows them to follow their
intrinsic interests, which fosters creativity (Amabile 1983). Providing choice does not
preclude teacher facilitation or scaffolding; indeed, it is very important that the tea-
cher works closely with students as they evolve the project they want to accomplish.
A project-based approach to robotics centers on student-driven questions about
robotics. The role of the teacher is to consider the knowledge, experiences, and
interests of the students and build on these through robotics projects that are open-
ended, diverse, and challenging. A project-based approach that allows students to
explore robotics over time will support student learning, interest, and creativity.
Non-evaluative stance. Another important pedagogical aspect of supporting
student creativity is to take a non-evaluative stance. While such a stance is anti-
thetical to the measurement focus of regular classwork, it may be possible to run a
robotics project at a time of year when evaluation can be set aside and interest-
based learning can take center stage. In the USA, such a time comes in late spring
when students have finished taking all of the standardized tests expected of them.
During these last six weeks of the year, many teachers are able to undertake more
interesting activities with their students. This is a good time to devise a robotics
project that will reinforce the learning that students have already done during the
year (as in a second order approach), or to simply introduce them to the field of
robotics (as in a first-order approach). The goal is to allow students to explore,
learn, and create without the tension of evaluation and expectation. Hennessey
(1995) has shown that student creativity is enhanced when they have a chance to
pursue their own intrinsic interest in a non-evaluative, open inquiry. Notably, both
of these elements are very important, students must be allowed to pursue their own
interests, and their efforts need not be evaluated—when these two classroom
conditions are met, student’s creativity will be realized.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 227

Nature of student interactions. In addition to creating a classroom environment

that allows for student choice in a non-evaluative format, to enable and support
creativity with robotics, students must be allowed to work together. Students may
be supported to work with one another in collaborative groups, and/or they may be
allowed to engage in what Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, and Messina (2006) have
called opportunistic collaboration. This form of collaboration supports spontaneous
collaborative interactions among any students in the classroom. Students may
choose to work with one another to achieve a specific goal, or one or more students
may choose to observe the work of other students in order to learn and develop a
better understanding of robotics. The goal is to create an open classroom where
students can work with and learn from one another. The operative elements of such
a classroom are freedom of movement for students. In other words, while they are
working on their robotics projects, students should be allowed to freely move about
the room and to speak with any student they choose. While there is potential in this
situation for students to veer off course and not tend to the robotics project, there is
also great potential for students to engage in deep inquiry and learning. Skillful
teachers will find ways to support students in staying on task with their chosen
robotics projects.
Modeling or allowing playful inquiry. Teachers should not be alarmed if the
robotics learning activities that students engage in resemble play. As has been noted
earlier in this chapter, play is a meaningful mode of inquiry in the field of robotics,
and I would argue, whenever one wishes to improve or enable creativity. The
teacher may also engage in play with the students to aid their learning. For example,
in my prior research (Sullivan 2011), I have witnessed the power of the teacher’s
playful inquiry to both motivate students to work with robotics and also in causing
them to develop working analogies to more fully explore and build knowledge
about the robot as well as the task at hand. In this particular example, the teacher
playfully triggered a program on the robot by passing his shod foot below the light
sensor affixed to the front of a robotic device. In playing with the robot, the teacher
spurred the children to interact in a similar fashion, and in this way, they developed
an understanding of the light sensor as functioning like a magnet, which, as noted
earlier, is an accurate analogy when the robotic device is running a line following
program (as it was programmed to do in this case).

9.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have made the case for the creative nature of learning with
robotics. Robotics is an interdisciplinary STEM activity, consisting of both engi-
neering design and computer programming content and concepts. Indeed, at the
heart of robotics learning is design and problem solving, two activities that have a
strong potential to enable student creativity. This creativity may begin through play
—as noted above, students may first spend time playing with the robotics devices
in order to learn about them or to orient themselves in relation to robotics.
228 F.R. Sullivan

Teachers must keep in mind that to actually enact a robotics curriculum that
engenders play and creativity, the curricular and pedagogical approaches must
include ill-structured problems that students have chosen to tackle due to their own
interests. Moreover, the classroom environment should provide students opportu-
nities to walk around and collaborate freely with other students. Teachers should
withhold evaluation of students’ ideas, and rather encourage and support them in
their work; finally, teachers should allow students time to play with the robotic
devices; and, if so inclined, the teacher may choose to model such playful behavior.
If such a playful, open, nonjudgmental, and collaborative environment is created,
the potential for student creativity with robotics will be high.

References

Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies, 16
(2), 211–236.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
Amabile, T. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
American Association of University Women. (2010). Why so few? Women in Science Technology
Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.),
Speech genres and other late essays (V.W. McGee, Trans. pp. 60–106). Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology
and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3),
289–307.
Barsalou, L. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 18(5/6), 513–562.
Castledine, A. R., & Chalmers, C. (2011). LEGO Robotics: An authentic problem-solving tool?
Design and Technology Education, 16(3), 19–27.
Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4),
311–317.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cuperman, D., & Verner, I. M. (2013). Learning through creating robotic models of biological
systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 849–866.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution.
Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Gaudiello, I., & Zibetti, E. (2013). Using control heuristics as a means to explore the educational
potential of robotics kits. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 15–28.
Heffernan, J. (2013). Elementary engineering: Sustaining the natural engineering instincts of
children. Charlestown, SC: Printed by CreateSpace.
Hennessey, B. A. (1995). Social, environmental, and developmental issues and creativity.
Educational Psychology Review, 7, 163–183.
9 The Creative Nature of Robotics Activity … 229

Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: The search for mechanism. In M. A. Runco
(Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. one, pp. 257–294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten
classroom: the impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational and Hypermedia, 21(4),
371–391.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive
robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.
Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned
productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 200–246.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34–61).
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: Disentangling the manipulatives
debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309–316.
Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative robotic instruction:
A graph teaching experience. Computers and Education, 53, 330–342.
Mumford, M. D., Blair, C. S., & Marcy, R. T. (2006). Alternative knowledge structures in creative
thought: Schema, associations and cases. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and
reason in cognitive development (pp. 117–136). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2010). Impact of robotics and
geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1),
16–27.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D.
Singer, R. Golikoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and
enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al.
(2009). Scratch: Programming for all [Electronic version]. Communications of the ACM, 52
(11), 60–67.
Resnick, M., & Martin, F. (1991). LEGO/logo: Learning through and about design. In I. Harel &
S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 183–192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarrán, C. D., & Littleton, K. S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and
the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177–191.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3),
243–267.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics:
Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1),
59–69.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,
NY: Basic books.
Slangen, L., van Keulen, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). What pupils can learn from working with
robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 21(4), 449–469.
Sullivan, F. R. (2005). The ideal science student and problem solving. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York New York.
Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills, and
systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative
creativity. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 55–65.
230 F.R. Sullivan

Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives
for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 49(2),
105–128. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563.
Sullivan, F. R., & Lin, X. D. (2012). The ideal science student survey: Exploring the relationship
of students’ perceptions to their problem solving activity in a robotics context. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 273–308.
Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2015). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in
collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 5–52.
Svihla, V. (2010). Collaboration as a dimension of design innovation. Journal of CoDesign:
International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 6(4), 245–262.
Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Creativity and the mind: Discovering the genius
within. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Weiskopf, D. A. (2010). Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(3), 294–304. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.07.005.
Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2008). Acquisition of physics content
knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Research on Technology in
Education, 40(2), 201–216.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2006). Collective cognitive responsibility in
knowledge building communities. American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Chapter 10
Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots:
Integrating Robotics and the Arts to Teach
Foundational STEAM Concepts to Young
Children

Amanda Sullivan, Amanda Strawhacker and Marina Umaschi Bers

Abstract In recent years, there has been an increasing national focus on the
importance of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education for
young children beginning in kindergarten. This chapter explores the newest
acronym, “STEAM,” which integrates the Arts with STEM education. While many
assume the “A” in STEAM refers only to the fine arts, the full potential of STEAM
goes beyond aesthetics to include language arts, culture, history, and the humani-
ties. The emerging domain of robotics offers playful strategies for engaging young
children with the technology and engineering components of STEM. Additionally,
when implemented thoughtfully, robotics is a creative medium with the power to
engage young children in the arts and humanities. KIBO is a newly developed
robotics construction set specifically designed for children ages 4–7 years to learn
foundational engineering and programming content in a hands-on, open-ended way
—no screen-time required! This chapter presents vignettes of three interdisciplinary
robotics curricular units that utilize the KIBO Robotics Kit: (1) Dances from
Around the World, (2) Art-Making Robots, and (3) Superhero Bots. It highlights
strategies for taking a child-focused approach to robotics education by drawing on
student interest in music, visual arts, and literature when exploring foundational
technological ideas.

Keywords Robotics
Early childhood
Humanities
Arts
STEAM

A. Sullivan (&)
A. Strawhacker
M.U. Bers

Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 231

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9_10
232 A. Sullivan et al.

10.1 Introduction

The difference between science and the arts is not that they are different sides of the same
coin [...] or even different parts of the same continuum, but rather, they are manifestations
of the same thing. The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity.
—Mae Jemison, doctor, dancer, and first African-American woman in space

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has been of

growing importance to educators and researchers working with young children. In
recent years, there has been a particular focus on addressing the “T” of technology and
“E” of engineering in early childhood education through robotics and computer pro-
gramming applications. This is partially due to federal education programs and private
initiatives making computer science and technological literacy a priority for young
children in a growing number of countries worldwide (e.g., U.S. Department of
Education 2010; UK Department of Education 2013). However, as technology has
grown in prevalence in schools and at home, some researchers and educators have also
expressed concern that excessive usage of computers and digital technologies may
actually stifle children’s learning and creativity through passive consumption of media
(Cordes and Miller 2000; Oppenheimer 2003). In order to address these concerns, there
is a growing body of work on how technology can be used to foster positive behaviors
and engage children as creators rather than consumers of digital content (Bers 2012;
Resnick 2006). One way to do this is by explicitly integrating the arts, self-expression,
and identity exploration with traditional technology and engineering curricula for
young children.
Over the past few years, there has been growing enthusiasm about integrating the
arts with STEM in early childhood settings. This trend is clear in school curricula,
new educational initiatives, and even in popular children’s media. In the 43rd
season of Sesame Street (which was aired from 2012 to 2013), the television show
continued its introduction of STEM education with the addition of arts, introducing
viewers to the acronym of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and
Mathematics) for the first time on the show (Maeda 2012). This milestone for the
STEAM movement was achieved surprisingly quickly, as it was only one year prior
that Elmo was interviewed on CNN about the importance of STEM (Maeda 2012).
The STEAM movement was originally spearheaded by the Rhode Island School
of Design (RISD) but is now widely adopted by schools, businesses, and indi-
viduals (STEM to STEAM 2016). In some ways, it is surprising that the STEM
education movement has not always included an integration of the arts. Historically,
there have been a countless brilliant innovators, such as Leonardo Da Vinci and
Frank Lloyd Wright, who have woven together the fields of art and science
seamlessly in their work. Many modern innovations have also resulted from an
integration of the arts with STEM. For example, the computer chips that run almost
all of our digital devices are made using a combination of three classic artistic
inventions: etching, silk screen printing, and photolithography (Root-Bernstein
2011). Today, it is estimated that Nobel laureates in the sciences are seventeen
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 233

times likelier than the average scientist to be a painter, twelve times as likely to be a
poet, and four times as likely to be a musician (Pomeroy 2012). This is likely
because the arts, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, are
rooted in a similar mindset of curiosity and creativity.
It is clear that the arts have a place in the exploration of technology and the
sciences, but how educators bring these fields together effectively can be a chal-
lenging question, particularly during the early childhood years (ages 4–7 years)
when teachers are already juggling a large load of foundational content that needs to
be covered. This chapter describes how robotics can be used as a creative medium
for young children to playfully explore STEAM content in a developmentally
appropriate way. It presents three illustrative vignettes that highlight different
interpretations of the “A” in STEAM, all using the newly developed KIBO robotics
kit developed by the DevTech Research Group at Tufts University and KinderLab
Robotics (Sullivan et al. 2015). The goal of this work is to provide readers with
examples of how robotic tools like KIBO can facilitate STEAM learning in a
natural way that can easily tie in with content educators are already teaching.
Additionally, it demonstrates examples of how STEAM curricula can be imple-
mented in different learning environments such as formal classrooms, camps, and
extracurricular clubs.

10.2 Literature Review

10.2.1 Moving from STEM to STEAM in Early Childhood

Historically, early childhood education has focused on building foundational

numeracy skills and an understanding of the natural sciences when it came to
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education for young
children (Bers 2008; Bers et al. 2013). In the growing national-level discussion
around STEM, the question of how to teach technology and engineering has
become more pressing (UK Department of Education 2013; US Department of
Education 2010). New education policy changes, commercial products, and non-
profit organizations are promoting a message that highlights the benefits of com-
putational thinking, digital citizenship, and technological literacy (Bers 2012;
Hobbs 2010; Hollandsworth et al. 2011; White House 2011; Wing 2006). However,
this increased focus on children’s usage of computers and digital technology has
also sparked some concern that children’s natural play and creativity may be stifled
by these tools (Cordes and Miller 2000; Oppenheimer 2003). Adding the arts to
STEM-based subjects, such as computer programming and engineering, may
enhance student learning by infusing opportunities for creativity and innovation
(Robelen 2011).
234 A. Sullivan et al.

This concept of promoting creativity and expression through technology is

articulated in a newer acronym called “STEAM” (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) that is growing in popularity (Yakman 2008). The
“A” of STEAM can represent more than just the visual arts, but rather a broad
spectrum of the humanities including the liberal arts, language arts, social studies,
music, culture, and more. For example, Maguth (2012) proposed that social studies
content should also be integrated into a STEM-focused curriculum in order to
promote the development of well-rounded citizens prepared for voting on ethical
and social issues related to STEM. New technologies, such as programmable
robotics kits described in the following section, offer innovative ways to integrate
the arts with traditional technology and engineering content.

10.2.2 Robotics in Early Childhood Education

Early childhood is an important time to explore the arts and play, as children need
hands-on experiences to construct their own learning (Papert 1980). Although
robotics and programming can seem rigid, there is much room in these fields for
creativity and innovation (Resnick 2006). Digital media, when designed within
developmentally appropriate guidelines, can afford children the same opportunities
for exploration and construction that traditional learning tools offer (Bers 2008). In
research trials with simple robotics and programming languages, children as young
as 4 years old demonstrated understanding of foundational engineering and robotics
content, (Bers et al. 2002; Sullivan et al. 2013; Sullivan and Bers 2015; Cejka et al.
2006; Perlman 1976; Wyeth 2008). In addition to mastering this new content,
programming interventions have been shown to have positive benefits for children’s
developing numeracy, literacy, and visual memory, and can even prompt collab-
oration and teamwork (Clements 1999; Lee et al. 2013).
New developmentally appropriate technological software and robotic kits have
evolved in the tradition of educational manipulatives such as Froebel’s “gifts,”
Montessori materials, and Nicholson’s loose parts, and like their predecessors, these
tools allow children to explore their understanding of shape and number, spatial
relations, and proportion (Kuh 2014; Nicholson 1972; Resnick et al. 1998;
Brosterman 1997). However, cognitive development is not the only area of growth
for young children, and “screen time” is a serious concern for learners at this age
(American Academy of Pediatrics 2003). Robotics curricula are now being
developed to address children’s need to move, dance, and push their physical
boundaries. For example, when constructing a robot with many parts, children may
exercise fine motor skills, and when observing a robot’s movements, children are
compelled to move and dance along, developing their hand-eye coordination and
gross-motor activity (Resnick et al. 1998).
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 235

10.2.3 The KIBO Robotics Kit

KIBO is a robotics kit designed specifically to playfully introduce young children (ages
4–7 years) to foundational engineering, programming, and computational thinking
concepts through tangible “screen-free” activities (Bers 2017; Sullivan et al. 2015).
KIBO was created based on research by the Developmental Technologies Research
Group at Tufts University and made commercially available through funding from the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and a successful Kickstarter campaign (Sullivan
et al. 2015). KIBO is unique as compared to its counterparts on the commercial market
because it engages children with both building with robotic parts (KIBO’s hardware)
and programming KIBO to move with tangible programming blocks (KIBO’s soft-
ware). KIBO is designed based on years of child development research at Tufts
University and is intended explicitly to meet the developmental needs of young chil-
dren (e.g., Sullivan and Bers 2015; Sullivan et al. 2015; Kazakoff and Bers 2012). The
kit contains easy-to-connect construction materials including wheels, motors, light
output, a variety of sensors, and wooden art platforms (see Fig. 10.1).
KIBO is programmed to move using a tangible programming language that consists
of eighteen interlocking wooden programming blocks and 12 parameters (see
Fig. 10.2). With just eighteen blocks, children are able to master increasingly complex
computational thinking concepts such as repeat loops, conditional statements, and
nesting statements (Bers 2017). These wooden blocks resemble familiar early child-
hood manipulatives such as alphabet blocks and contain no embedded electronics or
digital components. Instead, KIBO’s main body has an embedded scanner that scans
the barcodes on the programming blocks in order to “read” the program the child has

Fig. 10.1 The KIBO robot with sensors, light output, and sample block program
236 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.2 KIBO’s tangible programming language

created. Once the program has been scanned, it is saved on the robot instantly. No
interaction with a computer, tablet, or other screen-based software is required to learn
programming with KIBO. This tangible approach to computer programming is
developmentally appropriate for young children and is aligned with the American
Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that young children have a limited amount of
screen time per day (American Academy of Pediatrics 2003).

10.2.4 Exploring STEAM Through KIBO

The KIBO robot is well suited to exploring a variety of STEAM concepts. From a
technology and engineering perspective, children can use the kit to learn about
basic electronic elements they encounter everyday but may not understand, such as
wires, batteries, computer chips, motors, sensors, and light bulbs. Additionally,
children can explore foundational programming concepts such as sequencing,
repeat loops, and conditional statements in order to make their robot move.
Along with these robotic and programming components, the KIBO kit also
contains art platforms that can be used for children to personalize their projects with
craft materials in order to foster STEAM integration. Unlike KIBO, many robots for
young children come out of the box already decorated to look like a toy or creature.
For example, the Beebot (a programmable floor robot developed for preschoolers)
is designed to look like a bumblebee. The Wonder Workshop robots Bo and Yana
(robots programmed through an ipad application) are round and blue with large eye
in the center, resembling a friendly creature. KIBO on the other hand does not look
like anything until the child places his or her imagination on it. It does not have a
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 237

face and is constructed of neutral colors and wooden materials, in the style of
Reggio-Emilia child manipulative design (Strong-Wilson and Ellis 2007; Kuh
2014). Like an unsculpted wad of play-dough, KIBO looks and feels differently
each time the child uses it, which makes the robot ideal for an integration of the arts
(see Figs. 10.3 and 10.4). The following section will provide three vignettes of the
KIBO robot as it has been used in different types of playful learning settings to
explore STEAM content.

10.2.5 Designing STEAM Curricula with KIBO

It can be challenging to design STEAM activities for young children that not only
promote technological content, but also foster elements of personal and interper-
sonal skills that are critical to early childhood development. Bers’ (2012) Positive
Technological Development Framework (PTD) provides a framework to guide
educators in the creation of effective pedagogy and classroom practices. The PTD
framework is rooted in the field of applied child development and is based on the
Positive Youth Development framework created by Lerner et al. (2005) and
Constructionist theory (Papert, 1980). PTD focuses on enhancing positive skills and
behaviors in children by describing “6 Cs” that the digital world offers to promote
healthy development in our youth: communication, collaboration, community
building, content creation, creativity, and choices of conduct. Each of the vignettes
in the following section feature curriculum that was developed with these 6 C’s in

Fig. 10.3 Sample KIBO

construction
238 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.4 Sample KIBO

kinetic sculpture

mind. They provide examples of children not only engaging with content creation
through robotics and the arts, but also communicating with one another, sharing
their work with a larger community, and creatively following their passions.

10.3 Vignette 1: Art-Bots

10.3.1 Curriculum Overview

Children can gain their first taste of the art world by exploring, manipulating, and
playing with tactile and visual art materials. From finger-painting to sculting clay,
art has traditionally been a core component of early childhood education (Althouse
et al. 2003). In the early childhood years, the visual arts are typically composed of
drawing, painting, arts and crafts, and sculpting with materials such as clay and
play-dough (2003). This exploration of drawing, painting, and crafting naturally
aligns with elements of STEM such as geometry, engineering sturdy structures, and
iteratively bringing designs to life. In the Art-Bots curriculum, the visual arts are
integrated in two specific ways: (1) through the design and decoration of the KIBO
robot and (2) by programming KIBO to draw and paint on paper. This curriculum
focuses explicitly on the technology, engineering, math, and art components of
STEAM.
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 239

10.3.2 Educational Environment

The art-making robots activity can apply to a variety of educational settings

including classrooms, clubs, and at home. In this example, Art-Bots were explored
in an extracurricular Saturday extracurricular club called the “Saturday STEM
Series.” Over the course of five weeks, the Saturday STEM club met once a week
for a six-hour period to explore different concepts such as the engineering design
process, animations and storytelling, robotics, programming, and more. Unlike
formal school classrooms, this STEM series was open to a mixed-age group of
children in Kindergarten through second grade. Therefore, the series was typically
made up of a diverse group of approximately 10 children including boys and girls
from both public and private schools ranging from 5 to 7 years old. This mixed-age
learning setting more closely resembled a Montessori classroom or an informal play
environment than a traditional classroom.

10.3.3 STEAM Concepts Explored

This STEM-Saturday session was scheduled as a culmination to prior sessions that

introduced foundational KIBO robotics and programming concepts. Children were
already familiar with this robotic kit and basic concepts of coding and engineering.
For this reason, this activity was not an introductory robotics exploration, but more
like creative free play using a familiar technological tool.

10.3.4 The Engineering Design Process

The Art-Bots curriculum introduced young children to the engineering design

process by giving children the challenge of building a 3-dimensional structure on
top of KIBO’s art platforms. This structure could be motorized or static, but needed
to be secure enough that when KIBO executed a program the structure stayed
securely connected to the robot. This encouraged children to focus on the steps of
the engineering design process. In particular, children practiced testing and
improving their robot by trying out various types of materials, testing out different
programs, and experimenting with ways to attach the structures to their robot.
The engineering design process provides children with a cyclical way to satisfy
their budding curiosity about the world by asking questions or posing problems that
they are personally interested in investigating (see Fig. 10.5). Early childhood is an
ideal time to begin teaching engineering concepts because children are naturally
inquisitive about the world around them and are motivated to explore, build, and
discover answers to their big questions. The engineering design process refers to the
iterative process engineers use to design an artifact in order to meet a need (Bers
240 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.5 Engineering design process classroom poster

2010). Although it is a fluid process, its steps typically include some variation of the
following: identifying a problem, looking for ideas for solutions and choosing one,
developing a prototype, testing, improving, and sharing solutions with others (MA
DOE 2006). The curriculum adapted this definition for use with children ages 5–7
years. The STEM-Saturday instructors paid particular attention to the steps of
testing and improving, which require problem solving and perseverance, critical
skills for young children’s social and emotional development.
Children were given access to a range of materials including paper, play-dough,
legos, tissue paper, cardboard, and other recycled and craft materials. They were
given open-ended prompting about the type of structure they could create; there-
fore, the challenge was interpreted in a variety of ways. While some children
created little kinetic sculptures of things such as people and animals (see Figs. 10.6
and 10.7), other children created more abstract decorations (see Figs. 10.8 and
10.9).

10.3.5 Geometry

Once children felt comfortable with artistic design and decorating their robots, the
unit continued with an exploration of creating lines and shapes through movement.
Children brainstormed the different two-dimensional shapes they were familiar with
and practiced drawing squares, circles, trapezoids, diamonds, and more on paper.
Then, they were presented with this question: Can KIBO draw any of these shapes?
As a group, the class made hypotheses as to which shapes KIBO could or could not
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 241

Fig. 10.6 Human-inspired

KIBO decorations

Fig. 10.7 Animal inspired

KIBO decorations
242 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.8 Abstract KIBO

decoration

Fig. 10.9 Mixed-media

KIBO decoration

draw with its current programming language. This led to a group dialogue on
KIBOs ability to draw a circle, with some children arguing that KIBO’s
straight-line movements could not allow for a curved shape.
To test these hypotheses, the group returned to the engineering design process to
plan how they would test and improve their hardware creations so that KIBO could
draw (i.e., attaching pens and markers securely to their KIBO, see Fig. 10.10) and
how they would create programs that would make KIBO draw the different shapes
(i.e., which blocks would make KIBO draw a square versus a circle, see Fig. 10.11).
After a few experiments with robots and children’s own movements, the group
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 243

agreed that KIBO could make curves using “turn” movements and its “spin” block
(see Fig. 10.12). This moment of math exploration, driven purely by children’s
curiosity, is reminiscent of the turtle-geometry described by Papert (1980), in which
he discusses how children using LOGO who made many small straight lines
eventually discovered that by changing angles, they could create different shapes
and even curves and circles.

Fig. 10.10 Children

programmed their robot to
draw a straight line on paper

Fig. 10.11 Children

combined lines to create
shapes such as triangles, stars,
and squares with KIBO
244 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.12 This figure shows the KIBO robot drawing a circle and its accompanying program
(Begin Spin End)

10.3.6 Creating Works of Art

Last but not least, the Art-Bots curriculum focused on artistic expression and
design (see Fig 10.13). As a group they investigated different artistic styles such as
watercolor paintings, abstract art, and photo-realism as expressed by favorite picture
book illustrators such as Eric Carle and Lois Ehlert. Children were then given time to
freely create any illustrations they chose using KIBO to guide their art materials. In
planning how to make their “robot artists,” children considered the techniques that
illustrators might use to achieve different effects (e.g., short movements and long
winding brushstrokes), and the programming blocks necessary to capture the same
look (see Fig. 10.14). Children moved their own arms and bodies, and spoke out loud
as they considered what they were doing and how they would instruct a machine to
carry out these motions. Again, this recalls the self-reflective thinking strategies
described by Papert, who argued that these “meta-cognitive” learning opportunities are
unique to programming and robotic experiences (Papert 1980).

10.4 Vignette 2: Dances from Around the World

10.4.1 Curriculum Overview

In this vignette, the arts are explored with KIBO through a formal curricular unit
called “Dances from Around the World.” The Dances from Around the World unit
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 245

Fig. 10.13 Children created visual works of art using traditional art tools attached to the front and
sides of KIBO

Fig. 10.14 This painting was made using paintbrushes taped onto KIBO

is designed to combine music, culture, dance, and language with programming and
engineering content. While the Art-Bots activity was completed during one
six-hour Saturday session, the Dances from Around the World unit was covered
over the course of approximately seven weeks in a formal school setting. Each
246 A. Sullivan et al.

week, teachers introduced new robotics and programming concepts, from basic
sequencing through conditional statements, to their students within the curriculum’s
music and dance theme. For example, in order to teach the concept of sequencing,
children programmed their robots to dance to the Hokey-Pokey with them.
Lessons took place for approximately one hour once a week, leading up to a final
project. For the final project, students worked in pairs or small groups to design,
build, and program a cultural dance of their choosing. This involved not only
robotics and programming knowledge, but also research into the music, the history
and cultural relevance of the dance, and facts about the country in which the dance
originated. The unit culminated in a dance recital for both the children and the
robots to perform in together. Finally, their hard work was celebrated when they
received certificates showcasing their knowledge of KIBO robotics and
engineering.

10.4.2 Educational Environment

The Dances from Around the World curriculum unit was developed by the
DevTech Research Group at Tufts University. It has been used with a variety of
schools, camps, and after-school programs across the USA. The unit is now freely
available on DevTech’s online community the Early Childhood Robotics Network
(http://www.tkroboticsnetwork.ning.com) and is therefore available to educators
nation and worldwide to adapt and use in their own classrooms. The unit was
originally developed for use in an urban public school in Boston, USA, during the
piloting phase of the KIBO robot. However, it was recently adapted by five pre-
school centers in Singapore integrating robotics into their classrooms for the first
time. The Singaporean preschools serve as the setting for this vignette.
In order to address the growing need for promoting technological literacy in
early childhood classrooms, Singapore’s newly launched PlayMaker Programme
was released as part of a master plan to introduce younger children to technology
(Digital News Asia 2015; Chambers 2015). As part of the PlayMaker Programme
initiative, approximately 160 preschool centers across Singapore were given
innovative new technological toys that engage children with robotics, program-
ming, building, and engineering including: BeeBot, Circuit Stickers, and KIBO
robotics (Chambers 2015). In addition to the new tools, early childhood educators
also received training at a one-day symposium on how to use and teach with each of
these tools (Chambers 2015).
For the five centers exploring KIBO, the Dances from Around the World unit
was chosen because it ties in naturally with the multicultural and bilingual
Singaporean community. Singapore has four official languages (English, Mandarin,
Tamil, and Malay) and a bilingual education policy where all students in public
government schools are taught English as their primary language. However, stu-
dents also learn another language called their “Mother Tongue,” in addition to
English. This mother tongue might be Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil depending on the
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 247

community the school is located in. Because Singaporean children speak different
languages and have different cultural backgrounds, the Dances from Around cur-
riculum easily integrated into the cultural appreciation and awareness units already
taught in the preschool classes.

10.4.3 STEAM Concepts Addressed

Students covered different STEAM concepts each week, primarily related to

technology, engineering, music, and culture. For their final dancing robots, children
worked in groups of 2–3 and utilized their existing knowledge of KIBO to create
robotic projects that represented the cultural tradition of their choosing.

10.4.4 Music and Dance

Throughout the curriculum children were invited to listen to music drawing on a

variety of cultural styles. Varied examples of music and choreographed dances from
international traditions, such as the Chinese Lion Dance and Indian Bhangra, were
presented to children during play and lesson times. While listening to songs,
children spontaneously danced along and became inspired by the videos they had
watched with their classmates. This exploration of sound, rhythm, and performance
led children to consider dance and elements of movement. They explored
behind-the-scenes elements of performance, such as the dancers underneath the
Chinese Lion costume.
Later in the curriculum, children became dance choreographers and directors as
part of their robotic exploration. Children and teachers chose songs from the class’s
earlier music explorations and programmed their robots to complete special dance
moves in time to the songs. After their robot was programmed the way they wanted,
children choreographed their own moves to act out along with the robot. In this
way, children explored elements of stage production, as they practiced being live
performers, creative directors of the performance, and even the engineers who
ensured that the technology and equipment (i.e., the robot and program) were ready
for the show.

10.4.5 Repeat Loops and Patterns

While children were free to choose from any of the blocks in KIBO’s programming
language, many chose to use the Repeat blocks in order to choreograph a dance for
their robot that included repetition and patterns. Repeat loops are a foundational
concept in computer programming that refers to a sequence of instructions that is
248 A. Sullivan et al.

continually repeated until a certain condition is reached. In the lessons leading up to

the final project, children explored what it means to repeat something and how to do
this with KIBO’s Repeat blocks. The repeat loops are considered an advanced
KIBO programming concept because it requires mastery of a new syntactical rule:
KIBO will only repeat what is between the “Repeat” and “End Repeat” blocks (See
Fig. 10.15). Finally, the Repeat loops must be modified with parameters that dictate
how many times the sequence will repeat. These can be numerical parameters or
sensor parameters. For example, with a numerical parameter, a child might program
KIBO to shake three times. With a sensor parameter, a child might program KIBO
to shake until it senses it is near something.
As children worked on their final projects, they drew on their knowledge of
Repeat Loops in order to create programs that matched the songs (or clips of songs)
their robots would be dancing to. In order to match the song’s duration, children
experimented with different number parameters that would achieve the correct
length of KIBO dance time. Other children used the Repeat blocks to create a dance
with only certain dance moves that were repeated, and others that happened just
once. The end result was a diverse display of complex robot choreography with a
mix of repeated and isolated dance moves.

10.4.6 Expressions of Culture

Children and teachers used the Dances from Around the World curriculum to
explore the Chinese, Indian, and Malay cultures that comprise most of the popu-
lation of Singapore. This manifested itself in different ways for the varying pre-
school classrooms. For example, some classrooms spent time learning about the
foods, clothing, and languages unique to each culture in addition to the music and
dance. Children were also encouraged to think about and explore their own cultural
backgrounds through discussions with their families at home.

Fig. 10.15 This photograph shows a sample KIBO program using repeat loops. In this program,
KIBO would shake 3 times, but only beep once because the Beep block is outside of the Repeat
loop
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 249

For the final dance recital, students found a variety of ways to express the culture
that inspired their dancing robots. Some groups focused on cultural “clothing” for
their robot by using arts, crafts, and recycled materials to create performing cos-
tumes for KIBO (see Figs. 10.16 and 10.17). Others focused primarily on pro-
gramming dance moves to accurately resemble the actions of the dance they
studied. Still other groups took a more immersive approach to representing the
culture they explored with their robotics projects. These students wore clothing to
represent the culture of their dance, learned portions of songs themselves, and
danced along with their KIBO robots at the recital (see Fig. 10.18).

Fig. 10.16 Child-made KIBO costumes for recital

Fig. 10.17 Child-made

KIBO puppets for recital
250 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.18 Child wears

traditional Indian clothes
while performing a dance
with KIBO

10.5 Vignette 3: Superhero Bots

10.5.1 Curriculum Overview

From Superman to The Incredibles, children have always had a fascination with
superhero (and super-villain) characters (Jones 2008). The Superhero Bots unit
incorporates an exploration of programming and robotics (with a special emphasis
on sensors) and integrates it with an investigation of superheroes from an inter-
personal perspective. This unit leans more on the humanities and civics portion of
the arts, by engaging children in discussions of leadership and decision-making.
Also, since superheroes are typically rooted in back-stories and sagas involving
other characters and important moments in their lives, this unit involves drama and
storytelling elements that enrich the meaning of the robotic creation that children
produce.

10.5.2 Educational Setting

The Superhero Bots curriculum was recently implemented in a one-week robotics

summer camp for children entering kindergarten through second grade. The camp
met for five half-days (approximately four hours each day) and culminated in an
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 251

open-house showcase of the children’s work that parents, families, friends, and
babysitters were invited to attend. Each camp group consisted of approximately 8–
10 children and was taught by a college undergraduate or graduate student studying
education and technology.
The camp atmosphere provided an informal play and learning environment,
which made the superhero content appropriately light-hearted and fun. With the
loosely structured days, counselors had time to indulge in extended fantasy and
free-play time, which added to the joy of the content. In addition to the time spent
on deeper discussions of story structures and personal character, children crafted
silly superhero masks and capes, and imagined superhero powers and identities for
themselves. This imaginary play helped inspire the robotic constructions that stu-
dents created for their final projects.

10.5.3 STEAM Concepts Addressed

Children attending this camp were able to spend several hours at a time exploring
the robotic components (interspersed with non-robotic games and activities), and
they quickly progressed to the more complex elements of the KIBO. Children in the
robotics camp explored how to program the sound, distance, and light sensor
modules to react to stimuli using conditional “If” statement blocks. In this way, they
were able to create interactive robotic creations that could react to the surrounding
environment. This exploration of advanced programming blocks was integrated
with a discussion on what it means to be a hero and rehearsals for their showcase at
the end of the week.

10.5.4 Identity and Civic Engagement

When beginning to work on the superhero projects, the children had a group
discussion with their counselor in order to answer this question: What makes
someone a hero? Initially children focused on super-abilities such as flying, super
strength, and invisibility. However, when prompted to think of some super villains
or classic “bad guys” who also had many of these super-abilities, the children came
to a new conclusion: superheroes strive to “do good” in the world. This child-led
discussion naturally came to the conclusion that there are also “everyday super-
heroes” in the world and they brainstormed a long list that included firefighters,
teachers, doctors, and even their parents and friends to inspire the superhero robots
they would design for their projects (see Fig. 10.19).
While many superhero movies and shows portray conflicts as black and white,
good or bad, the children in this camp came to a conclusion that everyone faces
choices each day and that even good people can make mistakes and bad decisions.
Finally, they talked about the ways that they can be “everyday heroes” through their
252 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.19 Children’s ideas

about what makes a superhero

choices in actions such as being a good friend, helping at home, and recycling.
These actions were used to help children brainstorm their own superhero characters
and personalities that would be brought to life through KIBO.

10.5.5 Sensing Robots

The sensor components of the KIBO robot are among the most complex and
engaging parts of the KIBO kit. To introduce the concept of a sensor, counselors
first discussed human body parts and our own five senses that allow us to take in
information about our environments. Similarly, KIBO’s distance, light, and sound
sensors allow the robot to take in information about the environment.
Because the children had already expressed their fascination with their favorite
superheroes’ powers, the sensors were introduced as KIBO’s “super senses” that
allow it to perform extraordinary tasks. As children were designing their Super Bots
to react to the environment in order to help others, they took into consideration the
skills that KIBO’s different sensors provide. For example, one boy used the KIBO’s
ear-shaped sound sensor and the accompanying Wait For Clap block. This, he
explained in his accompanying story, was how his robot hero “listens for calls for
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 253

Fig. 10.20 Robot with light sensor and light output, and program to turn on lightbulb in the dark

help.” Another child used the light sensor to detect when it was dark out.
When KIBO sensed it was dark, it was programmed to turn on a helpful bright light
(using KIBO’s light output) to patrol for “bad guys” and guide others to safety (see
Fig. 10.20). By using the superhero context which was engaging to the campers,
children were motivated to use these complex robotic and programming elements in
order to continually improve and refine the design of their robots.

10.5.6 Storytelling and Drama

With their knowledge of KIBO’s special sensing abilities as well as a discussion

about civic engagement and what it means to be a hero, children let their imagi-
nations run wild as they planned out their own KIBO robots. This process involved
discussion and brainstorming, drawing characters, and planning out the KIBO
programming blocks that would be used to bring their superhero robots to life. They
used arts, crafts, and recycled materials to build their final superhero robots and
spent several hours working to program their robot in a way that would showcase
its special abilities (see Fig. 10.21).
During this process, the counselors also encouraged children to engage in
dramatic free-play that involved making capes, dressing up as superheroes, and
constructing an imaginary world populated their favorite heroes. They were also
encouraged to think of a story for their super KIBOs, and they read popular chil-
dren’s books around the superhero theme for inspiration. Children were prompted
254 A. Sullivan et al.

Fig. 10.21 Example of

KIBO superhero design

to come up with a beginning, middle, and end of their superhero robot stories and
use their program to represent one scene from their story. Along with the programs,
children wrote, narrated to a counselor, or drew their completed stories to share with
one another. Children came up with both individual and full-group superhero tales.
Throughout the week of the camp, there was also an air of excitement as
campers knew that on the last day they would be performing their superhero stories,
showcasing their robots, and sharing their knowledge with a crowd of guests made
up of their families and friends. This provided an external motivation to complete
their robots and stories to the best of their abilities. It also provided an opportunity
to take their superhero stories from a written and/or illustrated format, and expand it
with some performance elements. The camp groups held several rehearsals to
practice songs they had made up, share the superhero stories they invented as a
class, and give demonstrations of their robots. The campers focused on projecting
their voices, conveying the emotion and personalities of the characters they
invented, and properly demonstrating the technical elements of KIBO. In the end,
the showcase served as a joyful celebration of the kids’ hard work and dedication to
their projects.
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 255

10.6 Discussion

10.6.1 Strengthening STEM Curriculum Through the Arts

The core element present throughout these three vignettes was the use of the arts to
strengthen the STEM learning and exploration that was already happening with
KIBO. For example, in the Art-Bots unit, children explored visual art by pro-
gramming robots to create drawings. In this case, working toward their artistic goal
(be it a shape, letter, or abstract picture) prompted them to explore mathematical
concepts such as geometric paths, straight and curved lines, and angles. This also
prompted a deep exploration of sturdy building and iterative engineering design.
Research has shown that music and movement can be beneficial to young
children’s development (Andress 1980; Lillard 2005). The Dances from the Around
World unit invited children to investigate movement and music from different
cultures. Although children themselves might not be able to act out all of the
ritualistic dances, they were able to break apart complex steps into smaller parts that
even a KIBO robot could do. In this way, children exercised their sequencing skills,
a foundational skill for both developing numeracy and literacy as well as computer
programming.
Finally, storytelling and drama were used to strengthen the KIBO unit on
superheroes. In this camp, dramatic play offered children the chance to use sym-
bolic representation through engaging in make-believe play with familiar objects
such as blankets representing capes, and legos representing cities to protect.
Dramatic play can also prompt literacy development when it involves the use of
reading and writing materials (Christie 1990; Fields and Hillstead 1990). In the
superhero robots camp, children explored books and stories with their counselors,
created lists and brainstorms, and developed their own sequential stories using a
combination of writing, drawing, and speaking. The stories provided a context for
the programs the children made for their superhero KIBOs, and prompted them to
think logically and sequentially when constructing these programs. Throughout this
process of programming and storytelling, children were immersed in a world of
fantasy and role-playing that captured their attention for intensive learning in the
form of light-hearted play.

10.6.2 The Educational Environment

The three vignettes in this chapter highlighted a range of different types of teaching
and learning environments. In the Art-Bots curriculum, we saw educational tech-
nology specialists leading longer workshop-style explorations for a mixed-age
group of children. The Dances from Around the World curriculum showed formal
early childhood educators teaching sequential lessons in their classrooms each week
over the course of nearly two months. Finally, in the Superhero Bots curriculum we
256 A. Sullivan et al.

saw college student counselors leading a play-based exploration of robotics and the
dramatic arts. Each of these environments offered different strengths to the STEAM
content being taught. In the STEM-Saturday club, children played at being “sci-
entists” engaged in secret experiments, with volume and buoyancy, map-making,
and bridge construction being some of the many exciting mysteries they explored
along with KIBO robotics. The Dances unit, which lasted almost two months, gave
children the space to bring cultural inspiration from home to inform their song and
dance performances. The Superhero Bots curriculum offered its own playful
approach, with counselors and kids using robots as part of a week-long imaginative
play experience.
When designing an educational environment for young children, it is important
to consider a few questions. First, what are the educational needs of the students?
Before designing any kind of educational experience, especially one that involves
technology, it is important to identify your learning goals and determine how
technology and the arts will serve to enhance children’s learning rather than distract
from it. In the case of the three vignettes in this chapter, the use of KIBO robotics
served as a technical medium to teach foundational engineering and programming
content. But it also served to help bring big ideas about culture, identity, and the
visual arts to life in a tangible and interactive way that held the attention of the kids.
Secondly, educators will want to consider the resources available to them. Using
the KIBO robotics kits as an example, if a classroom only has 1–2 robotics kits,
setting up a robotics center or a technology corner might be the most effective
environment for learning. Children in the Dances from Around the World cur-
riculum worked effectively in groups of 2–3 children. While this did spark some of
the usual conflicts and discomforts that characterize group work with preschool
aged children, it also provided an opportunity for practicing collaboration, com-
munication, and troubleshooting conflict in an authentic way.
Finally, educators should consider the physical space where the children will
engage with the new technology. Teachers leading the Dances curriculum used
different spaces to achieve different ends, giving children small, isolated work areas
to become acquainted with the robot kit, and bringing them to large open areas
where they could move freely when they were choreographing and practicing their
robot dances. In any environment, it is important to consider ways to help the
children feel ownership and safety, by posting their hand-drawn robot designs, or
displaying robotic and art objects to further inspire children’s designs.

10.6.3 The Teacher’s Role

These vignettes predominantly highlighted the children’s experiences and the

products they made throughout the three curriculum units. However, it is important
to highlight the adult’s role in the classroom when working with technology and
arts. Each of these units took a constructionist approach to teaching and learning.
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 257

Constructionism is the idea that people learn effectively through making things
(Papert 1980; Ackermann 2001). When considering that children learn through
making tangible objects as well as testing their own theories and ideas, this puts
teachers in a special role. In these types of learning environments, it is often useful
to think of the teacher as more of a facilitator than an instructor. For example, in the
Superhero Bots camp, the counselors followed the discussions and interests of the
children and used these conversations to help guide the expectations for their final
robotics projects. Similarly, when it came to providing technical support to children
grappling with difficult concepts such as sensors and repeat loops, teachers from all
three units worked to provide prompts, examples, and demonstrations rather than
step-by-step answers and tutorials. This type of facilitation allowed the children to
have their own “aha!” moments while making discoveries about the technology.
This Constructionist approach to teaching and learning is aligned with Bers
(2012) Positive Technological Development (PTD) framework, which guided the
development of each of the curricular units presented in this chapter. Through the
PTD approach, children not only gained skills related to technology, math, and the
arts, but they also gained interpersonal skills from working in groups and sharing
materials. Children learned how to effectively share their thoughts and ideas with
the greater community. For example, in both the Dances and Superhero curricula,
the units culminated with a showcase that was open to friends, parents, and family
members to learn about KIBO from the children. In this way, robotics and the arts
were in service of greater early childhood developmental needs such as community
building and fostering a caring and supportive environment for playful inquiry.

10.7 Conclusion

There is often a misconception that the end goal of science and technology cur-
ricular interventions is to prepare children to grow up and become scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers. Quite the opposite, the goal of the PTD approach to
STEAM education is to provide young children with a mindset that is applicable to
a range of subject matter and experiences they have during their schooling years
and beyond (Bers 2012). While STEM career fields are rapidly growing in the
USA, in future decades, many of our best leaders may come from art and design
backgrounds (Maeda 2012). Whether today’s kindergarteners grow up to become
ballerinas, inventors, designers, or teachers, their success will be rooted in an ability
to problem-solve and think creatively. By integrating the arts with technical and
scientific fields starting in early childhood, young children grow up with the abil-
ities they need to be well-rounded thinkers in any domain they pursue.
258 A. Sullivan et al.

References

Andress, B. (1980). Music experiences in early childhood. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.
Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.
Althouse, R., Johnson, M. H., & Mitchell, S. T. (2003). The colors of learning: Integrating the
visual arts into the early childhood curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Prevention of pediatric overweight and obesity: Policy
statement. Pediatrics, 112, 424–430.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics Program: Applied computational thinking for young
children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2).
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen
to playground. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bers, M. U. (2017). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the
early childhood classroom. Routledge press.
Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers:
Integrating robotics into early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood
Education, 123–145.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and
E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 21(3), 355–377.
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: H.N. Abrams.
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate
math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.
Chambers, J. (2015). Inside Singapore’s plans for robots in pre-schools. GovInsider.
Christie, J. F. (1990). Dramatic play: A context for meaningful engagements. The Reading
Teacher, 43(8), 542–545.
Clements, D. H. (1999). Young children and technology. In G. D. Nelson (Ed.), Dialogue on early
childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College
Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Digital News Asia. (2015, September 24). IDA launches S$1.5 m pilot to roll out tech toys for
preschoolers. Retrieved from: https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/ida-launches-
pilot-to-roll-out-tech-toys-for-preschoolers.
Fields, M. V., & Hillstead, D. V. (1990). Whole language in the play store. Childhood Education,
67(2), 73–76.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute.
Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a
village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47.
Jones, G. (2008). Killing Monsters: Why children need fantasy, superheroes, and make-believe
violence. Basic Books.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom:
The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4),
371–391.
Kuh, L. P. (Ed.). (2014). Thinking critically about environments for young children: Bridging
theory and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster
social interaction in Kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281.
10 Dancing, Drawing, and Dramatic Robots … 259

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005).
Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and
community contributions of fifth grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H
study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71.
Lillard, A. (2005). The impact of movement on learning and cognition. In A. Lillard (Ed.),
Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maeda, J. (2012). STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 is key to building a strong economy. Edutopia:
What works. in education.
Maguth, B. (2012). In defense of the social studies: Social studies programs in STEM education.
Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 84.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and
technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/
frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf
Nicholson, S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for design methodology.
Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology, 4(2).
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of
technology. New York: Random House.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for
preschool children. Logo memo no 24, Cambridge, MA: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Publications 260.
Pomeroy, S. R. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: Science and art go hand-in-hand. Scientific
American Guest Blog.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. Play =
learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth,
192–208.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., et al. (1998). Digital
manipulatives. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘98 Conference, Los Angeles, April 1998.
Robelen, E. W. (2011). STEAM: Experts make case for adding arts to STEM. Education week, 31
(13), 8.
Root-Bernstein, R. (2011). The art of scientific and technological innovations. Retrieved April, 13,
2011.
STEM to STEAM. (2016). Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://stemtosteam.org/
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia’s environment as third
teacher. Theory Into Practice, 46, 40–47.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in
Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education. Online First.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes
from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education. Online First.
Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). KIBO Robot demo: Engaging young children in
programming and engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘15). ACM, Boston, MA, USA.
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round:
Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219.
U.K. Department for Education. (2013, September). National curriculum in England: Computing
programmes of study. Statutory guidance. London, UK: Crown copyright.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American
education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ed.
gov/technology/netp-2010
White House. (2011). Educate to innovate. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/
education/educate-innovate
260 A. Sullivan et al.

Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks.
International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.
Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education.
In Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-19) Conference: Research on Technology,
Innovation, Design & Engineering Teaching, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Index

A L
Arts, 231, 232, 234, 238, 244, 250, 253, Learner-centred learning, 65
255–257 Learning, 195, 197, 198, 201, 203, 205
Authentic learning, 63, 64 Lego, 196, 198, 200
Automation, 171, 172, 174–178, 180, 181, Lego Mindstorms robotics, 67, 69
183, 187–192 Lego robots, 120, 125

C M
Coding, 131, 132, 167 Maker movement in education, 12, 14, 15
Computer programming, 59–63, 65, 74, 75 Methodology, 109, 113, 125
Computing, 131, 132, 146
Concepts, 103, 107, 109, 113, 115–117, 120, O
124 Operating system, 91
Constructionism, 10, 11, 13
Creativity, 213–215, 218, 219, 221, 222, P
224–228 Play, 213, 214, 216–218, 227, 228
Curriculum, 34, 35, 39, 43, 44, 50–54 Problem-Based-Learning (PBL), 132, 134, 168
Problem-solving, 213, 214, 219, 221, 227
D Programming, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120
Design, 213, 214, 216, 218–221, 225–227
3D printing, 92 R
Review, 103–109, 111, 114, 117, 118, 123,
E 124
Early childhood, 232–235, 237, 239, 246, 255, Robotics, 33–37, 39, 40, 42–45, 49, 50, 52–54,
257 85–87, 89–92, 98–100, 132, 133, 139,
Education, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 205, 207 144, 147, 155, 161–164, 167, 168,
Educational robotics, 3, 8–12, 14–18, 20–23, 171–183, 186, 187, 189–192, 195–198,
25, 26 200, 205, 207, 213, 216–219, 221–228,
231–235, 239, 246, 250, 256, 257
H
Humanities, 231, 234, 250 S
Simulation software, 173, 180, 186, 189, 192
I STEAM, 231–234, 236–239, 247, 251, 256,
Innovation literacy, 18 257
Innovative tools, 59, 69 STEM+C, 131, 132, 155, 159, 161, 162, 165,
Interface, 94, 98 167, 168

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 261

M.S. Khine (ed.), Robotics in STEM Education,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57786-9
262 Index

STEM, 33–44, 49–51, 53, 54, 90, 100, T

195–198, 201, 205, 207 Technological literacy, 17, 19
STEM education, 171, 174, 186 Technology, 103–107, 115, 117, 121, 122,
Systems thinking, 34, 35 124, 195–197