Elementary Robotics Pilot Study John He ff ernan Research Questions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Elementary Robotics Pilot Study John He ff ernan Research Questions How do grade K to 6 elementary students robotics engineering ski lm s and processes change over time in terms of construction and programming techniques? Specifica lm
John Heffernan
How do grade K to 6 elementary students’ robotics engineering skilms and processes change over time in terms
Specificalmy, what changes in their techniques and processes can be seen over time that impact their ability to realize their design ideas?
Reviewed papers and books on applicable fsameworks, design process models, and methodologies for a longitudinal case study of elementary robotics
Constructivism (Piaget, 1969) Map stages applicable to K-6 (preoperational, concrete
List cognitive milestones Constructionism (Papert, 1993) basis of curriculum Social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1986),
Structures not as universal as Piaget claimed (Y
2011) Central Conceptual Structures - (Case, 1991) Instruction/schooling part of development (Bedelm & Fisher, 1992) Learning Progressions (Krajcik, 2011)
Engineering/design models (Portsmore, 2011; Crismond, 2012) Design process models are similar with different names and number of steps Design based science models include science processes
✤ Use a variation of the standard engineering design process model
that focuses on observable behavior and wilm get at what is chalmenging for the students
✤ Main EDP codes: plan, research, build, rebuild, program,
reprogram, evaluate, wait
Piaget - fsom realism, objectivity, reciprocity, relativity, fsom magical, self-centered to eventual scientific/
Most people are not good at causal reasoning and selectivity pick data to match their pre-existing ideas (Kuhn & Dean, 2004)
Consists of quantitative (math/data) and qualitative mechanism (science) Need both (Kuhn & Dean, 2004) Usualmy a posteriori In general, engineers engage in a priori predictions (mental projections) about the performance of designs
No systematic longitudinal studies of children’s cognitive design processes Many calms for more longitudinal studies - (Crismond, 2012; Penner et al., 1997; Roth, 1996)
Establish task Establish methodology Establish data analysis Look for emergent themes
Qualitative, Cross Case, Longitudinal, Cross-Sectional (Yin, 2006) (Borman, Clarke, Cotner, & Lee, 2006) Semi-clinical video interview (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) Microgenetic Analysis (Chinn, 2006; Siegler & Crowley, 1991) Film one second grade student and one grade six student doing same
Transcribed and coded using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 2009)
Kept process journal Process was very iterative and emergent but not infinite
Main EDP codes: plan, research, build, rebuild, program, reprogram, evaluate, wait
Plan, Research, Build-Normal, Build-Rebuild, Program-Normal, Program-Reprogram, Evaluate- Physical, Evaluate-V erbal, Evaluate-System, Evaluate- Visual, W ait
ASYMMETRY, SYMMETRY, STABILITY, PROBLEM-SOLVING, SCALE, CONNECTION, MATH,SCIENCE, SEQUENCING, SYSTEMS-THINKING, FINE-MOTOR,
UNANTICIPATED-CONSEQUENCE,PERSIST-BAD
, IMPORTANT
0:00:00# 0:07:12# 0:14:24# 0:21:36# 0:28:48# 0:36:00# PLAN# RESEARCH# BUILD# PROGRAM# EVALUATE#
Time%in%EDP%Phase%by%Grade %%
Grade#6# Grade#2#
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45" 50" PLAN" RESEARCH" BUILD" PROGRAM" EVALUATE"
Count&of&EDP&Phases&by&Grade &&
Grade"6" Grade"2"
0:00:00# 0:00:09# 0:00:17# 0:00:26# 0:00:35# 0:00:43# 0:00:52# 0:01:00# 0:01:09# PLAN# RESEARCH# BUILD# PROGRAM# EVALUATE# TOTAL#
Average'Dura*on'of'EDP'Phase'by'Grade'
G6#Ave#DuraCon# G2#Ave#DuraCon#
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" P L A N " R E S E A R C H " B U I L D 5 N O R M A L " B U I L D 5 R E B U I L D " P R O G R A M 5 N O R M A L " P R O G R A M 5 R E P R O G R A M " E V A L U A T E 5 P H Y S I C A L " E V A L U A T E 5 V E R B A L " E V A L U A T E 5 V I S U A L " E V A L U A T E 5 S Y S T E M "
Count&of&EDP&Subcode&Phase&by&Grade&&
G2"Count" G6"Count"
0:00:00# 0:07:12# 0:14:24# 0:21:36# 0:28:48# 0:36:00# P L A N # R E S E A R C H # B U I L D 8 N O R M A L # B U I L D 8 R E B U I L D # P R O G R A M 8 N O R M A L # P R O G R A M 8 R E P R O G R A M # E V A L U A T E 8 P H Y S I C A L # E V A L U A T E 8 V E R B A L # E V A L U A T E 8 V I S U A L # E V A L U A T E 8 S Y S T E M #
Time%in%EDP%Subcode%Phase%by%Grade%%
G2#Time## G6#Time#
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45" 50" A F F E C T " A S Y M M E T R Y " C O N N E C T I O N " C R E A T I V E 5 P L A Y " F I N E 5 M O T O R " I M P O R T A N T " M A T H " M U L T I P L E 5 P H A S E S " P E R S I S T 5 B A D " P R O B L E M 5 S O L V I N G " P R O J E C T 5 C O R R E C T " P R O J E C T 5 I N C O R R E C T " S C A L E " S C I E N C E " S E L F 5 T A L K " S E M I C O N C R E T E " S E Q U E N C I N G " S T A B I L I T Y " S T R A T E G Y " S Y M M E T R Y " S Y S T E M S 5 T H I N K I N G " T A L K 5 A L O U D 5 A R T I F A C T " T A L K 5 T O 5 R O B O T " U N A N T I C I P A T E D 5 C O N S E Q U E N C E "
Count&of&Non)EDP&Codes&by&Grade&
G2"COUNT" "G6"COUNT"
AFFECT& CREATIVE*PLAY& FINE*MOTOR& IMPORTANT& SELF*TALK& TALK*TO*ROBOT& PERSIST*BAD& PROJECT*CORRECT& PROJECT*INCORRECT& SEMICONCRETE& UNANTICIPATED* CONSEQUENCE& MULTIPLE*PHASES& PROBLEM*SOLVING& STRATEGY& TALK*ALOUD*ARTIFACT& ASYMMETRY& CONNECTION& MATH& SCALE& SCIENCE& SEQUENCING& STABILITY& SYMMETRY& SYSTEMS*THINKING&
0:00:00& 0:14:24& 0:28:48& 0:43:12& 0:57:36& 1:12:00& 1:26:24&
Non$EDP$Code$Timeline$Grade$2$
AFFECT& CREATIVE*PLAY& FINE*MOTOR& IMPORTANT& SELF*TALK& TALK*TO*ROBOT& PERSIST*BAD& PROJECT*CORRECT& PROJECT*INCORRECT& SEMICONCRETE& UNANTICIPATED& MULTIPLE*PHASES& PROBLEM*SOLVING& STRATEGY& TALK*ALOUD*ARTIFACT& ASYMMETRY& CONNECTION& MATH& SCALE& SCIENCE& SEQUENCING& STABILITY& SYMMETRY& SYSTEMS*THINKING&
0& 5& 10& 15& 20& 25& 0:00:00& 0:14:24& 0:28:48& 0:43:12& 0:57:36& 1:12:00& 1:26:24&
Non$EDP$Code$Timeline$Grade$6$
Grade 2 student could not project out consequences of his design decisions Grade 2 student could troubleshoot and attempt to fix problems afuer testing and teacher questioning (concrete and semi-concrete evaluation) Grade 2 student transitioning to concrete operation stage, lacks causal reasoning, formal operations would almow mental projection of design choices beforehand Previous informal research showed fine motor at grade K and building at grade 1 to be primary chalmenges
Code Gra Grade 6 Persist in non-optimal design 21 Correct Projection 15 44 Unanticipated consequences 8
Any ideas why it did not work? No Which block makes the car go? [Points to last one.] I think I am forgetting something. [Traces wires and realizes problem.] It’s supposed to go up here. [Fixes motor not connected issue.]
[00:20:29] [PLAN] BOY 11: I was thinking that I could have one that kind of connects on both sides but then alm this would get in the way. So then I couldn’t realmy have it go around. [PROJECT-CORRECT] [SYMMETRY]
Grade 2 students persist in non-optimal design choices even when they manifest as very difficult (n=21) Likely reasons: causal reasoning, single variable focus See video
Design concepts and aesthetics - Sixth grader was concerned and could verbalize issues around symmetry, scale,and stability Grade 1, 2 tape example
W as not a major activity focus (8% G6, 3% G2) Alm mental projection 4 of 10 second graders did not choose to use computer
Grade 2 (n=35), Grade 6 (n=22) Mix of positive and negative Students show positive affect and satisfaction afuer finishing Do these go hand in hand?
Changing viewing angle (G6, n=7; G2, n=4) Semi-concrete moves (G6, n=5; G2, n=7) Others: lifuing car, using W eDo connection tab, checking connections, checking for power
Functional Analysis (Cross, 2008) - subsystems and top- down design Alternative ideas and starting over Teacher questioning to stimulate causal reasoning Stability, symmetry, balance, scale, and center of gravity
Key connector pieces Cross to cross for axle connections Motor connections Motor drive trains
W eDo Programming Generalmy clear and easy to use Confusion between Motor on For and W ait For Multiple meanings of Motor This W ay depending on context Interlocks could be bigher
Macintosh specific issues
Multiple EDP phases V erbal and physical “tracks” can be different Talk aloud artifacts Discernability
Smalm sample size (n=2) Difference in levels Lack of gender diversity Lack of age diversity Methodology constraints
More students, girls, levels Hone in on causality Define learning progression