A robotics project lends itself to myriad technical terms — actuator, rotary, application, input, sensors,
interface, linear, android— and can help
to develop academic and social language as students work together in small groups. Even where the
words are somewhat familiar from science
fiction or other technology kits or games, this project — with its attention to
the manual-specific directions and need to get the special domain meaning of
the specified robot function exact — forces students to learn the special
domain-targeted robotics vocabulary, much as they will need to master job or
workplace vocabularies as adults. This develops vocabulary as a necessary
condition of robot-building success
Reflection journals — student portfolios and
artifacts — were especially beneficial to ESL students as they learned to express
themselves in English using academic
language. CIT (Collaborative Integrated Teaching) classes could work on
argumentative pieces to defend their robot as the best challenge solution. The
more verbally outspoken students could lead the way, while those with an Individualized
Education Program used sentence frames to
contribute their argument details.
The Robot Challenge Begins
With the teacher team having developed
a framework, the students actually began their 21st century collaboration,
critical thinking, and creativity. The robotics class was told from the start
that they would be working in small groups to achieve the end product of
constructing a functioning robot.
First, there is a discussion on 21st
century learning and innovation skills: creativity, innovation, critical
thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration. They are also
taught about 21st century life and career skills such as flexibility,
adaptability, initiative, self-direction, social and cross cultural skills,
productivity, accountability, leadership, and responsibility.
The students get the kit and a deadline for
building the robot to function and be presented for rubric-aligned assessment.
They have to decide how to tackle the
challenge. They self-direct and generally appoint a group leader to supervise
and divide tasks of building, recording, group meetings, and addressing
frustrations as the project evolves. The teachers may suggest students look at
specific parts of the manual or work as a
team to brainstorm solutions for problems that come up, but do not actually intervene or help them.
Each
team member had to collaborate, communicate and often create solutions when
what they did at first did not “work.” Much of their effort involved “fixing” a
part or aspect of the robot and dealing
with the frustration that required another potential intervention strategy.
In
their teams, students had to be flexible as they worked with others to follow
the instructions in the manual. They had to adapt to one another’s learning
style and style of work. They had to be self-directed if members of the team
did not work together. Some had to assume leadership and take responsibility
for getting the robot ready to perform and function by the deadline date.
In
their small groups, the students focused on how to interpret these special 21st
century words into ongoing writing assignments and discussions. Before breaking
up into small groups, a large group team meeting focused on the project
objectives. Throughout
the process, students take notes for their journal entries and, with personal
comments, can reflect on the team’s progress as a whole. Some students enjoy
recording, while others “voice” the material. Some illustrate or draw cartoons.
Excerpts
from students’ written work and discussions (voiced in formative and summative
assessment journal responses) demonstrate powerful learning outcomes.
21st Century Flexibility
Just
as with complex jigsaw puzzles and in real life when you plan an event, teach a
class, or run a company, issues come up which were not and cannot be
anticipated. Unlike some simpler erection or science kits students may have
played with, the robotics kit is not assembled easily or immediately. Some
students felt they had “lost” pieces, or they were “following instructions
precisely,” yet the parts did not fit. In addition, just as in any adult life
enterprise or social effort, some
students assigned specific roles do not come through and others have to pick up
the slack. Many discussed how hard it was to execute the stepby- step
programming detailed. They talked about team members who took over — or
deserted. They journal anger at members who dominate, not collaborate.
Khaliphkai noted that many within her group were focused on
the building, but not the programming of the robot, an issue of accountability.
Lizbeth revealed that the concept of teamwork in building the robot did not
excite her since she
wanted
to work alone.
Missing Pieces
The
project has an explicit emphasis on problem-solving, critical thinking,
flexibility, self-direction, accountability, responsibility and leadership
skills. The following passage describes a snapshot
of students working with their robots in the classroom:
Janiah actually got to the point of thinking about “breaking
the robot” because it “would never work.”
Yarellis noted that parts in the box refused to go in
properly, although obviously they were manufactured for the robot.
Theresia put it literally, not realizing she had come up
with an apt metaphor for the process and its frustration: “One ... problem we had
is the missing pieces. One day we had all the pieces; the next day, we don’t.”
One team found they had installed the parts incorrectly and
needed to
change the wires.
Other groups were upset after having done so much work to
discover
that there was still more work.
Khaim’s group found it exceedingly frustrating to get the
robot codes to
actually result in the robot making a full turn.
Just
underscoring 21st century skills implicit in robotics was not enough; students
had to apply it to their own lives and reason through real-life situations.
Students were asked to brainstorm
situations
echoing the same “missing pieces” feeling. The students were also challenged to
relate robotics reflections to their school social lives and family members’
frustrations with
other
adults at home or at work in terms of communication and collaboration.
Students
went into their homes and communities to talk about the robotics project and
their team work attitudes.
For
some, this exercise highlighted the efficacy of being flexible. Others saw how
they might need to develop that quality or suffer the consequences when things
did not work out as they
wanted.
The
students did a set of interviews with parents to find out the extent to which
their lives involve chosen teaming. This culminated in an oral history.
Finally, the students were given the
option
of developing arguments for and against teaming on projects. Some referenced a
parent’s feeling that the parent has to do “all the work” because others “goof
off” or “disappear.” One student said he felt that at home as well. He is
responsible for the rest of his siblings in terms of cleaning up and preventing
fights while other older siblings who are supposed to share this responsibility
focus on themselves. Some students boldly argue that working alone is better because
they can focus on tasks or assignments themselves. They can get these tasks
done independently. Since the STEM teachers, Carideo and Liotta, are
deliberately teaching as a
team,
their partnership and the collaboration by choice with a team of colleagues
was
compared and contrasted with the solo teachers.
Some
students shared the pleasure of spending time on intricate jigsaw puzzles, only
to be left unable to complete them because of “missing pieces.” Students
confessed to telling stories at
school
or to parents with deliberately missing pieces. For some students in search of
birth parents, there were missing pieces. Discussion was reciprocal. The
teachers shared the endless
feedback
and customizing of curricula for students that goes with teaching. They also
considered how friendships, family relationships and even schools required
ongoing and continued work
to
run well, far beyond what was originally anticipated as needed.
Once
the students had vented their frustrations, the discussion and reflective
writing focused on how they had dealt with that frustration. Had they “fixed”
the issues or problems or in some way bypassed them to get to successfully
build a functioning robot? Their solutions were at first connected to robotics
domain-specific issues.
Groups
frustrated by the loss of crucial kit pieces brainstormed organizing and
inventorying kit pieces by type and color. This facilitated tracking of the
pieces so that any loss could be followed
by
focused search. The following classroom snapshot highlights some of the
challenges students overcame during the project:
Shanay realized that programming the right codes required
careful detailed reading of all the code descriptions. She personally undertook
that task with another team member. This self-directed initiative led to
identifying all the correct codes.
Joseph identified a leadership role as the
scheduler/organizer. He scheduled each team member for four turns at building
and four turns at programming. Most complied.
Luna’s team applied the ELA class collaborative
accountability speaking and listening conversations to group discussions about
how things were going. As a team they came up with
a plan to get their robot to work.
Janiah, who had initially vented frustration on the robot,
reminded herself that she was the intelligent being in the equation. As she
framed it, “It is not the robot’s fault. It was my fault because I was doing
something wrong.” She disciplined herself to return to the computer. With
this resolve, she was able to get the color sensors
working. Having taken responsibility for her action, she was “really happy”
when it worked.
The team with the mixed wire issue returned to the manual to
get the wires placed correctly. The program actually worked, and that made all the
difference in their mood.
Rashun came up with a plan for his team to have half the
members build the robot and half start
programming.
Azreen did change the name of the program to under 32
characters. Several teams that had missing parts and couldn’t find them simply went
forward minus the parts,
including a pivotal ball and a front bumper.
One team member tried delegating tasks, but when they
weren’t done, he wound up doing multiple tasks himself.
Applying Robotics to other Real-World Situations
Finally,
students worked on “fitting” these robotics “fixes” to real life, including
real-world frustrations. We called this 21st century applied learning.
In
a closing session, Reissman challenged students to apply this strategy of
robotics “fixes” to a real-life, career or job challenge.
Inventorying
turned out to be a job one student’s uncle had at a local 99 cent store.
Another student recalled a hardware store clerk who had a written inventory of
screw types available with
a
back order list.
Scheduling
was something students schoolwide were familiar with in terms of limited
scheduled access to gym, art, lunch and lab use. Many without computers at home
also had to schedule
access
to computers in the public library.
Reading
a manual slowly and carefully without emotion was a strategy students had seen
work successfully for their parents or adults when using or setting up
tech/exercise equipment,
furniture,
programming a cell phone and other tasks. Several students shared with pride
their ability to read and interpret manuals.
In
discussing multitasking when delegating tasks had failed, students mentioned
family
members, teachers, and coaches who ultimately made certain things got done on
time. They were asked to identify multitaskers versus true leaders of teams in
the news and in
books. The idea of meeting a deadline by getting out a product that was not
exactly the desired product, but still a viable one, was floated. What in real
life got done, but not exactly how it
was planned? Student response to this took awhile. Finally, a student artist
noted that a mural he worked on in another school came out great, but was not
his original design.
21st Century Born
Since
the journals and explicit discussion about aspects of the project beyond the
robot-building had been a key element of the project, students could understand
how they were actually
doing
much more than just building a robot. They were able to look at their journals
and listen to peers apply the skills they had demonstrated to the real world.
Students
in this project all developed journals that reflected information writing, CCSS
standards and robotics special skills (for which a rubric was created). They
also programmed robots which all functioned and were rated according to a
rubric. The students’ visual and verbal group presentations were rated by CCSS
Speaking and Listening-aligned rubrics.
Students
were pre- and post-surveyed about the extent to which this project might be
related to academic and social/real-world learning beyond the classroom. After
all these outcomes
and
rubrics and the robots themselves are viewed, what stands out as an immediately
infusible practice is the way in which robotics allowed students to practice
real-world 21st century
collaboration,
communications, and creativity, and experience real world skills and outcomes,
as they “studied” sixth-grade required ELA, science, engineering and
mathematics skills during the school day. They were not learning these key
cognitive skills in isolation, but rather doing
them
as real-world persons — 12-yearolds functioning as 21st century learners.
Programming
21st century learning does not require an outlay of cash or the purchase of
expensive materials. Rather it can and should be done through a team of
collaborating teachers modeling in their partnership the ways content skills
meld together for problem-solving, strategizing, and addressing frustrations.
Robotics building is an example of one ready opportunity for staff and students
to engage in 21st century learning.
School
curriculum maps are filled with other project-based literacy learning
opportunities that can connect teachers as teams and students as peerdependent
teams working together on
real-world
products and productions during school time.
