19

R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
Abstract
W ith the current curriculum focus on correlating classroom
problem solving lessons to real-w orld contexts, are LEG O
robotics an effective problem solving tool? This present
study w as designed to investigate this question and to
ascertain w hat problem solving strategies prim ary students
engaged w ith w hen w orking w ith LEG O robotics and
w hether the students w ere able to effectively relate their
problem solving strategies to real-w orld contexts. The
qualitative study involved 23 G rade 6 students participating
in robotics activities at a Brisbane prim ary school. The study
included data collected from researcher observations of
student problem solving discussions, collected softw are
program s, and data from a student com pleted
questionnaire. Results from the study indicated that the
robotic activities assisted students to reflect on the problem
solving decisions they m ade. The study also highlighted
that the students w ere able to relate their problem solving
strategies to real-w orld contexts. The study dem onstrated
that w hile LEG O robotics can be considered useful
problem solving tools in the classroom , careful teacher
scaffolding needs to be im plem ented in regards to
correlating LEG O w ith authentic problem solving. Further
research in regards to how teachers can best em bed real-
w orld contexts into effective robotics lessons is
recom m ended.
Key words
technology, LEG O robotics, problem solving, m etacognition,
reflection, authentic contexts.
Introduction
The use of robotics w ithin m iddle yearsclassroom s can
help students to develop problem solving strategies w hile
engaging them in exploring and understanding
m athem atics, science and technology concepts (Cham bers
& Carbonaro, 2003, Cham bers, Carbonaro & Rex, 2007,
Cham bers, Carbonaro & M urray, 2008; D illan, 1995;
N orton, M cRobbie & G inns, 2007; Portz, 2002).
Scaffolding know ledge construction using a guided inquiry
instructional approach w ith robotics develops conceptual
understanding, enhances critical thinking, and prom otes
higher-order learning in the dom ains of m athem atics and
science (Cham bers, Carbonaro & Rex, 2007; Cham bers,
Carbonaro & M urray, 2008). Students im m ersing
them selves in technology and designing curriculum ,
specifically through robot activities, facilitate team w ork,
problem solving and critical thinking skills (N orton,
M cRobbie & G inns, 2007). U sing robotics activities not only
encourages students to form successful com m unities of
learning they also enable teachers to successfully integrate
science, m athem atics and technology dom ains. Teachers
can create robotic learning activities in the classroom that
are collaborative, creative and authentic (D illon, 1995;
Portz, 2002). Interacting w ith classroom technology is
essential for todays learners in that digital m aterials are
becom ing increasingly com m on in daily environm ents. The
use of digital technologies in the classroom allow s students
to understand the possibilities of transferring classroom
technologies to other contexts (Barchi, Cagliari & G iacopini,
2002).
W hile previous studies have focused m ainly on the
m athem atical and science concepts learnt by students
w hen using robotics, including gear m echanics and m otion
(Cham bers, Carbonaro & M urray, 2008), navigation and
direction (D illon, 1995; Portz, 2002) and ratio (N orton,
M cRobbie & G inns, 2007), this study builds upon previous
research by specifically focusing on the problem solving
strategies students utilise w hile w orking w ith LEG O
robotics, and their abilities to reflect on these strategies. For
students, reflecting on their problem solving strategies is
im portant in that their m etacognitive beliefs, decisions and
actions can be determ inants of learning success or failure
(G arofalo & Lester, 1985). Furtherm ore, the ability to reflect
on and correlate problem solving strategies to authentic
contexts can provide students w ith the confidence needed
to successfully solve problem s in authentic situations
(Kram aski, M evarech & Aram i, 2002). For students, m aking
authentic connections is im perative in that they are able to
gain an understanding of how and w hatthey have
learned. W hen students understand the problem s they
have solved they are then able to correlate and
com m unicate these understandings to problem s
encountered on a daily basis (Edw ards-Leis, 2007)
The purpose of this study w as to exam ine the correlation
betw een m iddle years studentsproblem solving strategies
w hile engaged in a LEG O robotics activity and the abilities
of those students to reflect on and relate their problem
solving strategies to real-w orld authentic problem solving
contexts. M ore specifically, the project sought to answ er the
follow ing:
1. W hat problem solving strategies do m iddle years
students engage w hen utilising LEG O robotics as an
educational tool?
2. Are m iddle yearsstudents able to effectively relate
problem solving strategies to other contexts?
Literature Review
According to Papert (1993) w hen children learn to use
com puters and softw are in m asterful w ays, they often
transfer this learning to other life realm s. Paperts
constructionism theory (1980, 1991) suggests that
m etacognitive skills are constructed through students as
active builders of their ow n intellect, and that integrating
LEGO Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Alanah-Rei Castledine and Dr Chris Chalmers, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
20
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
com puter technology into the specific problem solving
realm can be a m ajor determ inant of real-w orld problem
solving aptitude. M etacognition or reflective intelligence
(Skem p, 1987) describes the active m onitoring and
consequent regulation of thought processes in regards to a
specific objective or goal. Reflection is a pow erful link
betw een thought and action, w hich can supply inform ation
about outcom es and the effectiveness of the applied
strategies w hen problem solving. Reflection allow s learners
to consider plans m ade prior to tasks, assess and adjust as
they w ork, and revise and relate the problem s to authentic
contexts (Ertm er & N ew by, 1996).
Problem solving uses an investigative approach to prom ote
student aw areness of their learning skills, perform ances
and of their abilities to reflect on w hat they have learned.
Problem based learning has been the focus of m uch
research and w ith m any curriculum s now reflecting the
need for greater problem solving strategies, teachers are
now considering new w ays to im plem ent problem based
learning into existing lessons. Acquiring problem solving
skills is essential for studentsfutures. W hile the teaching
paradigm of teach, learn, practice and assess are com m on
teaching m ethods em ployed by educators, this is not how
problem s arise in the real w orld (Peterson, 2004).
Authentic problem s are not usually provided w ith a w ay in
w hich to generate an answ er and as such there is a gap in
how teaching m ethods encourage m etacognitive
aw areness and how students relate this aw areness to
everyday problem s. Teaching students to becom e
m etacognitively aw are is not an easy task, how ever m ost
curriculum advisors agree that problem solving is m ost
effective w hen carefully scaffolded by educators (Pang,
2010).
W ith m odern curriculum in Australia focusing heavily on
key com petenciesincluding problem solving strategies
(Ashm an, 2010; Le M etais, 2003), teachers need to
actively correlate their problem based learning w ith
authentic contexts. Authentic learning and assessm ent
refers to learning opportunities that can be related to, and
seen as, valuable outside the classroom (Low rie & Sm ith,
2002). For students, m aking authentic connections is
im perative in that they are able to gain an understanding of
how and w hatthey have learned. W hen students
understand the problem s they have solved they are then
able to correlate and com m unicate these understandings
to problem s encountered on a daily basis (Edw ards-Leis,
2007).
Authentic learning is m eaningful to students and dem ands
that they actively solve problem s and reflect on how w ell
they have achieved their objectives. H ow ever, w hilst
authentic problem s are rich pow erful learning tools, there
is little research to dem onstrate that teachers are effectively
em bedding authentic learning opportunities and
encouraging students to reflect upon their use in relation to
real-w orld contexts (Kram aski, M evarech & Aram i, 2002).
The sm all but present existing body of know ledge suggests
teachers find authentic tasks tim e consum ing and their
corresponding assessm ent com plicated. Research has
further dem onstrated that students often have difficulty
m onitoring and reflecting on their learning, therefore it is
not surprising that teachers are reluctant to teach authentic
tasks and correlate them to real-w orld situations w ithout
the correct support of curriculum and educational tools
(Kram aski, M evarech & Aram i, 2002).
LEG O robots as educational tools engage students in their
ow n learning through active constructionist environm ents,
w hich in turn prom otes the developm ent of higher thinking
and problem solving skills, prom oting student
conceptualisation in m eaningful authentic w ays (Cham bers,
Carbanaro & M urray, 2008). W ith LEG O robotics, students
are engaged in their learning and as such, they often gain
critical thinking skills conducive to m ore com prehensive
m eaning m aking. Robotics can provide an authentic context
for learning and offer technological literacy skills necessary
for participation in a m odern w orld. A study on problem
solving by Barak and Zadok (2007) identified that students
involved in robotics activities often utilise heuristics in the
classroom (the processes in w hich problem solvers identify
solution m ethods) based on their ow n life experiences. The
heuristics used by students can then be capitalised on to
strengthen and expand studentsreal-w orld problem solving
capabilities. LEG O robotics can be a useful tool in aiding
students problem solving capabilities in the classroom
(Barak & Zadok, 2007; N orton, M cRobbie & G inns, 2007)
and a useful tool for curriculum based technology
assessm ent (Edw ards-Leis, 2007).
Method
A descriptive qualitative case study m ethod w as used for
this study to focus on identifying them es and connecting
categories (Cresw ell, 2008). A qualitative case study
approach acknow ledges the subjective nature of data
collection and interpretation especially in educational
contexts w here the boundary betw een the phenom enon
and its context is often unclear (Yin, 1994). Follow ing the
principles of data collection proposed by Yin, data w ere
collected from researcher observations regarding the groups
problem solving, robot design, m odifications, softw are
program m ing and the tw o specific problem solving tasks.
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
21
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
The study involved tw o w eeks of daily one-hour lessons
and observations w ere recorded at the end of each of
these lessons. The observations focused on w hat problem
solving strategies the students used and how they w ere
able to use the strategies to solve the robot race and m aze
problem s, w hat connections students w ere m aking
betw een the strategies used and real-w orld situations, and
how they w ere reflecting on their problem solving. D ata
collection further com prised a short questionnaire
undertaken by the students upon com pletion of the set
problem tasks. The questionnaire w as researcher created
and based on the m etacognitive studies of King (1991)
and Schraw (2001) that use strategic questions to guide
studentsreflections on strategy during problem solving.
The students w ere asked:
1. H ow did you calculate the secret distance tim e for the
robot?
2. Explain how you used your trial runs. W hat strategies did
you use?
3. W hat strategies did you change during your trial runs?
4. W hat new strategies did you learn?
5. W here else in your life could you use these strategies?
The case study w as conducted in a G rade 6 classroom
w ithin an outer Brisbane state prim ary school. The class
consisted of 23 students (12 m ale and 11 fem ale) w ith no
prior robotics instruction, w ho w ere divided into 8 groups
of 2-4 students of m ixed m athem atical, technological and
problem solving abilities. G roups w ere assem bled prior to
the study by the classroom teacher w ho selected the
participants based on the abilities dem onstrated by the
students throughout the school year. Each team consisted
of tw o to four students; tw o groups com prised all m ale
students, three groups w ere all fem ale and the rem aining
groups had both m ale and fem ale m em bers (see Table 1).
The eight robots w ere called Ironbot, TAN K, H am ilton,
W heely, M .O .E.Bot, N em o, JJ and Yum m y, as show n in
Table 1. Each group w as specifically form ed w ith differing
genders and abilities to allow for dissim ilar design and
problem solving strategies to em erge and evolve.
D uring the tw o w eeks of lessons students w ere show n the
basic LEG O robotics building and program m ing procedures
and then encouraged to actively m ake design
m odifications and program their robots. The introductory
lesson of the study consisted of 15 m inutes of direct
instruction in w hich the activity w as introduced and the
robots, softw are, and problem solving activities w ere
discussed. To com plete the first lesson student groups
w ere each given a LEG O robot kit and asked to build their
basic robots follow ing the included LEG O instruction
booklet. By follow ing the instruction booklet, m ost groups
w ere able to build their robot successfully w ith m inim al
problem s. The research w as specifically scaffolded in this
w ay so students w ere able to gain success at the initial
building stage and also to provide a com m on base from
w hich students w ere able to m odify their robots for specific
tasks in later stages if required by the group.
The second lesson involved a 10 m inute instruction in
w hich students w ere show n how to use the LEG O
M indstorm s softw are program to direct their robots. The
M indstorm s softw are program has an easy to use interface
in w hich students choose a function tile from the selection
(for exam ple, a m ovem ent tile) and sim ply drag the tile to
the screen, then apply sim ple instructions to the tile for the
robot to perform the selected function in a particular w ay
(for exam ple, m ove forw ards for 3 seconds). The single tile
program for the Robot Race (see Figure 1) allow ed the
robots to m ove forw ard and then stop. O nce students had
program m ed their initial m ovem ent the robots w ere then
connected to the com puter by a U niversal Serial Bus
(U SB) and the program w as dow nloaded directly to each
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Table 1
Robot Groups
Robot names Male Female Total
Ironbot 3 1 4
TAN K 3 3
H am liton 1 1 2
W heely 2 1 3
M .O .E.Bot 3 3
N em o 3 3
JJ 2 2
Yum m y 3 3
Totals 12 11 23
22
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
robot allow ing the robots to follow the softw are program
instructions. Students utilised the rem aining lesson tim e to
expand upon and practice robot program m ing including
opening and adjusting the saved robot files and
program m ing forw ards m ovem ents. The groups had
m ultiple attem pts at program m ing their robots and during
their trial runs m ade necessary design and softw are
changes to ensure that their robot w as running effectively.
Problem 1 The Race
The introduction of the Robot Race w as the focus for
lesson three. Students w ere inform ed of the race problem
and w ere given data collection sheets to start collecting
data for the upcom ing race. Students fixed a 150cm tape
m easure to the ground and used the data collection sheet
consisting of tw o colum ns, w here they could record the
tim e program m ed, and the distance travelled. Students
w ere asked to trial a num ber of different tim es and to
record the distance the robot travelled.
After students had conducted a num ber of trial runs w ith
their robot they w ere presented w ith the problem of finding
the secretdistance. Five m inutes prior to the race, the
student groups w ere inform ed of the secret distance of
117cm . G roups w ere advised that the race w inner w ould be
the robot that finished closest to the LEG O figure, placed on
the tape m easure at 117cm . Each group had 5 m inutes to
strategise the tim e they w ould program for the race, program
their robot, and place their robot on the starting line. Students
w ere further inform ed that trials runs and robot design w ere
dependent upon their groups decisions; how ever groups
needed to be strategic w ith their program m ing in order to
finish closest to the secret distance (see Figure 2).
Problem 2 The Maze
The M aze w as introduced in lesson six and students w ere
able to redesign their robots for optim um perform ance if
they desired. The M aze activity differed from the Robot
Race in that it required the students to learn new softw are
program m ing including navigating directions and turns, and
required the use of a tile sequence instead of a singular tile
(see Figure 3). Students groups w ere again given tim e to
learn new program m ing techniques including turning w ith
degrees or rotations, and navigating the robot in reverse.
G roups spent the rem aining lessons redesigning the robot
and their robots program and navigating their robots
through the m aze.
Team s w ere asked to successfully navigate their robots
through the m aze, cross the finish line, and return to the
starting place w ithout touching the m aze outline (see
Figure 4). To do this, the robots began on the start line,
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Figure 1. Mindstorms software program for the Robot
Race demonstrating one tile representing a forwards
movement for 3.6 seconds.
Figure 2. The Robot Race
Figure 3. Mindstorms software Maze program
demonstrating a series of movement tiles programmed
to navigate directions through the maze.
23
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
travelled forw ard, turned right, travelled forw ard, turned left
and crossed the finish line. Students then program m ed
their robots to either turn 180 and travel back through the
m aze in a forw ards m otion or sim ply return back through
the m aze in a reverse m otion. For each directional change
and forw ards m ovem ent, a separate tile w as program m ed
to form the softw are program sequence needed to
successfully com plete the task.
Results
The analysis of the data incorporated a constant
com parison m ethod as recom m ended by Strauss and
Corbin (1998). Constant com parison relies on the
em ergence of categories from the data analysis
(H uberm an & M iles, 2002). Several m ajor them es arose
from the study that focused on studentsproblem solving
and authentic reflection skills. Estim ation and looking for
num ber patterns w ere the m ost com m on problem solving
strategies used by the students in the initial stages of
program m ing. This w as closely follow ed by trial and error.
W hen correlating their problem solving strategies to real-
w orld contexts, transport and general careers w ere the
m ost prom inent them es. These them es are further
explored and presented in this results section. In order to
address the research questions this section w ill present the
results in tw o sections. The first section addresses the
problem solving strategies students use w hen w orking w ith
LEG O and the second section addresses the relation of
classroom problem solving to authentic settings.
Section 1- What problem solving strategies do middle
years students engage when utilising LEGO robotics as an
educational tool?
To assess the problem solving strategies of the students,
the class w as provided w ith the race and m aze inquiry
tasks, w hich required them to produce a solution. These
tasks included robot design and construction, and softw are
program m ing. Although the students had little robotics
know ledge prior to the activities, as robotics w as new to
the school curriculum , they quickly becam e proficient at
robot building and program m ing. O f the eight groups in
the study, m ost groups w ere able to successfully construct
the robots unaided, w hile tw o groups required som e
instruction at this stage, for exam ple, one group had
difficulty attaching the robot w heels w hile the other group
struggled w ith building the w heel base back to front.
U pon com pletion of the robot construction, the researcher
observed that tw o of the com pleted robots had incorrect
w heel assem blies. These tw o particular groups m oved to
the program m ing stage and soon realised that their robot
construction w as causing som e concern w ith their robots
running proficiency during their trial runs. Although these
groups found specific building areas difficult, such as w heel
construction and attachm ent, they w ere able to distinguish
w ithin a short tim efram e that their robot construction
w ould need adjustm ent. Furtherm ore, each group w as
quick to locate the source of the problem and m ake the
necessary m odifications to their robot.
In the initial program m ing session, once each group had
successfully com pleted program m ing their robots to m ove
forw ard for a certain num ber of seconds, m ost group
m em bers w ere keen to have their turn program m ing the
robot. D uring this initial stage if the students m ade a
m istake w ith their program m ing they seem ed hesitant to
seek their ow n solutions and relied on instructor help. It
w as observed that as their efficacy increased, students
began m aking strategic changes to the softw are program s
and robot designs. At this initial stage of program m ing,
groups w ere also invited to nam e their robot, program their
robot to m ove forw ard, and accordingly save their program
file. It w as noted by the researcher during observations that
nam ing the robots gave the groups a high sense of robot
ow nership and pride, and encouraged group togetherness.
O nce groups had constructed and successfully navigated
their robots in a forw ard m ovem ent, students began
collecting data to com pete in the race. The class w as
inform ed of the race problem and groups w ere supplied
w ith the task tools (data collection sheet, tape m easure
and m asking tape). G roups then began to collect the data
they w ould need to calculate the secret distance. Results
from the data collection sheets show ed that the groups
had tested from 1cm to 152cm (the beginning and end of
the tape m easure) to ensure that their robot w ould finish
som ew here w ithin the length of the tape m easure.
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Figure 4. The Maze
24
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
The initial tim e program m ed and used for each group
caused their robots to m ove correctly along the tape
m easure, how ever m ost robots continued to travel for
som e distance after the end of the tape m easure. All
groups w ere quick to note that the tim e program m ed (8+
seconds) w as too high and adjusted their program m ing
accordingly. O n the first day of trial runs w hile groups w ere
program m ing their robots to stay w ithin the tape m easure
length (152cm ) it w as noted through observations that the
groups w ere not correlating the trial runs and data
collection w ith the race aim . O n the second day of trial
runs and as robot program m ing efficacy began to increase,
groups began to think strategically about how their trial
runs w ould affect their robots race perform ance. G roups
that w ere initially program m ing using random num ber
selection began to select distances progressed from w hole
num bers (ranging from 1-6) to decim als num bers (ranging
from 1.2-6.5) in order to get m ore precise m easurem ents.
The w inning robot (Ironbot) com pleted and w on the race
by touching the LEG O figure w ithout knocking it over, w hile
other groupsrobots finished w ithin 1cm of the 117cm
target (see Figure 2). The race dem onstrated that all
groups w ere able to problem solve effectively and
responses to the first tw o questions on the student
questionnaire (see Table 1) show ed that the groups used
a range of m ethods including estim ation, addition and/or
subtraction, division trial and others, including trial and
error, to calculate the secret distance tim e.
Although efficacy for robot program m ing had increased
during the robot race, the introduction of new
program m ing techniques for the m aze caused som e
concern am ongst the students. Students began to feel as
though adding extra tiles m ay have been too difficult w ith
one student stating I dont think w e can do this, it looks
too hard, how ever w ithin a short tim efram e all groups had
m anaged to use a program m ed sequence of at least three
tiles. As noted w ith the original robot race, as efficacy for
the m aze developed during the trial runs, so did the
groups problem solving abilities. As studentsconfidence in
their robotics abilities heightened, groups w ere actively
seeking solutions to the problem s that w ere arising
(overturning/under turning, and too m uch/not enough
distance, and softw are program m ing difficulties)
independently. For exam ple, Team JJ had initial difficulty
w ith overturning, how ever through changing the turning
degrees a num ber of tim es they w ere able to effectively
turn for the rem ainder of the m aze. Students identified
strategies they had used and changes they had m ade
during their trial runs including softw are program m ing
changes, robot design, m athem atical strategies, and
team w ork (see Table 2).
Program m ing efficacy elevated w hen students began to
question the efficiency of their robot design; students w ere
offered the choice of redesigning their robots as w ell as
their robots program to m eet the groups objective. W hile
som e groups w ere strategic and m aintained the basic
design citing reasons such as the group doesnt w ant to
w aste race tim e rebuildingand w e know how our robots
distance w orks so w hy change it?others (m ainly m ale
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Table 1. Responses to Questions One and Two on the
Student Questionnaire
Question Responses
1. H ow did you
calculate the
secret distance
tim e for the
robot?
Estim ation and rounding off (40% )
Addition and/or subtraction (20% )
D ivision (20% )
O thers: e.g. trial and error,
m easurem ent, softw are
program m ing (20% )
2. Explain how
you used your
trial runs. W hat
strategies did you
use?
Strategic num ber patterns (50% )
Trial and error (20% )
O thers: e.g. robot design, random
trials (30% )
Table 2. Responses to Question Three and Four on the
Student Questionnaire
Question Responses
3. W hat strategies
did you change
during your trial
runs?
Softw are program m ing changes
(45% )
N um erous trial runs (30% )
Change in robot design (20% )
O ther: e.g. no changes (5% )
4. W hat new
strategies did you
learn?
Softw are and program m ing (55% )
Robot design (50% )
M athem atical strategies (20% )
Team collaboration (10% )
25
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
dom inated groups) w ere m ore concerned w ith the robot
aesthetics. O f the groups redesigning their robots, only one
group (M .O .E.Bot) w as able to provide a strategic reason
for rebuilding, w ith one group m em ber stating: w eve
added extra w heels for greater stability. It w as noted that
groups w ho m ade robot design changes not conducive to
race perform ance reflected on the robots perform ance
after a few trail runs and readjusted their new design or
reverted to the basic design.
G roups progressed through program m ing and navigating
the m aze and becam e quickly adept at m aking the
necessary changes to com plete the race w ithout
instruction. The first team to successfully navigate the m aze
(W heely) did so w ith little instructor help after the original
program m ing help. The next three team s com pleted the
m aze in quick succession and the rem aining groups w ere
also able to com plete the m aze task.
Section 2 Are middle years students able to effectively
relate problem solving strategies to other contexts?
The student groups w ere able to effectively identify and
discuss the activity learning objectives including robot
design and construction, softw are program m ing, and
m athem atical strategies articulately. The groups initially
struggled to identify the problem solving strategies w ithin
the activities, how ever, after the researchers discussed
exam ples of the problem solving skills students had used
(for exam ple redesigning their robots for better
perform ance, or a particular m athem atics skill), students
w ere able to m ake the connections from the activities to
real-w orld contexts. Few students w ere able to discuss the
actual problem solving skills they had used in the activities
and their correlations to authentic problem solving w ithout
this prom pting. H ow ever, each group w as confident that if
asked to participate in a different LEG O problem solving
activity, they w ould attem pt the task w ith confidence.
The prom inent them e found w ithin the student groups
w hen relating LEG O robotics to authentic contexts w as that
of transportation (see Table 3). Students identified that
being able to calculate the am ount of tim e it w ould take a
vehicle to travel a certain distance could im pact on their
travel tim e. Students further recognised that the speed in
w hich the vehicle travelled, and the type of vehicle being
used (for exam ple bus, car, train), w ould also im pact on
travelling tim e. Through w orking w ith the robotics, the
students felt that they w ould be able to calculate the tim es
needed to travel for certain distances at particular speeds,
therefore problem solving travel departure and destination
arrival tim es.
Another them e the study identified w as the correlation
betw een problem solving w ith LEG O and future careers.
W hile a sm all percentage of students discussed specific
m athem atics, Inform ation and Com m unication Technology
(ICT) and robotics careers, other students w ere able to
relate the problem solving skills used in the LEG O activities
to m ore general ideas including m onetary calculations (for
exam ple shopkeeping/retail careers), m easurem ent
(building industry), and com puter program m ing
(household and w ork equipm ent). These students w ere
able to identify the correlations betw een the LEG O
problem solving activities and authentic problem solving
strategies by relating the problem solving skills used in the
activities to future applications.
Discussion
This study sought to identify the problem solving strategies
students use w hile w orking w ith LEG O robotics and to
exam ine if they w ere able to effectively reflect on and
relate these problem solving strategies to authentic
situations. The analysis of the results including task
participation, student questionnaires and researcher
observations indicate that LEG O robotic program s allow
students to analyse and reflect on the decisions they m ake
in regards to the problem solving involved in robot design
and program m ing. Furtherm ore, students are able to
design, program and problem solve, and w ith prom pting,
are able to relate problem solving strategies to authentic
contexts w ithin a certain level. The discussion w ill
accordingly focus on studentsproblem solving strategies
w hen using LEG O robotics and relating problem solving to
authentic contexts.
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
Question Responses
5. W here else in
your life could
you use these
strategies?
Transport/driving (45% )
G eneral future: shopkeeping,
building industry, program m ing
household and w ork equipm ent
(45% )
Robotic careers (20% )
M aths/science careers (10% )
Secondary school or university
(10% )
ICT careers (10% )
Table 3. Responses to Question Five on the Student
Questionnaire
26
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
W hen students engage in robot design/softw are
program m ing, and m ake m odifications in repeated
processes w ith the aim of solving a specific problem , then
they are reflecting during the action (Cham bers, Carbonaro
& Rex, 2007). Throughout both activities, each group w as
able to actively m onitor, reflect, and adjust their processes
in regards to strategically solving the problem s. As students
efficacy w ith the robotics heightened, so did their
confidence in their problem solving abilities, and
accordingly their m etacognitive skills increased.
M etacognition is necessary for students to gain deeper
understandings of how tasks are perform ed (G arofalo &
Lester, 1985; Schraw , 1998) and therefore to reflect on
how each problem w as solved. Students w ere able to
successfully identify problem s, negotiate m odifications to
design and program m ing, and im plem ent the necessary
changes to com plete the set activities w ith their robots. The
m ain strategies students in this study used to problem
solve designing and program m ing the LEG O robotic
activities w ere estim ation and trial and error, both of w hich
proved effective in this particular situation.
Although students successfully problem solved, the
students m ay have perform ed differently w ith m ore
supportive problem scaffolding incorporated into the
lessons (Cham bers & Carbonaro, 2003). As the research
sought to identify the problem solving strategies the
students used, they w ere given no problem solving
strategies or scaffolding from w hich to build strategies
upon. This decision w as m ade on the basis that the
studentsproblem solving decisions m ay w ell have been
influenced by the scaffolding m ethod im plem ented,
leading to an incorrect result. W hile students w ere still able
to problem solve effectively, the decision to provide no
problem solving strategies or scaffolding did have som e
im pact on the studentsabilities to reflect on their problem
solving strategies.
The student questionnaires and researcher observations
w ere used to assess if the students w ere able to correlate
the problem solving LEG O activities to authentic contexts.
The study found that although m ost students w ere able to
identify basic relationships, som e students had difficulty
recognising the connections w ithout researcher prom pting.
The study further found that although the m ajority of
students could form ulate correlations, the them es
identified dem onstrated that the students only form ed a
basic understanding betw een LEG O problem solving and
authentic contexts (N orton, M cRobbie & G inns, 2007),
how ever, the students m ay only have form ed basic
understandings as they have yet to experience m any
authentic situations. Students m ay have been able to relate
problem solving strategies to authentic situations w ith
m ore definition if the problem solving itself w as scaffolded
to dem onstrate w ays in w hich problem solving strategies
could be transferred to authentic contexts (Barak & Zadok,
2007).
Research suggests that students m ust have an
understanding of the m etacognitive and reflective practices
they are utilising for authentic learning to be successful
(Pang, 2010). W hile m ore research in this critical dom ain is
w arranted, factors for success in authentic learning include
orienting students w ith the problem to be solved, guiding
and providing reflective feedback w hilst problem solving,
and using effective m ethods to assess problem solving and
their correlation to authentic reflection contexts (Peterson,
2004). H ow ever, w hile these strategies have proven
effective, there is less know n about how educators can
effectively em bed these strategies into m odern classroom s
for optim um results. W ith research suggesting teachers are
inept to perform and assess authentic tasks in the
classroom (Kram arski, M evarech & Aram i, 2002) further
research is w arranted. The study w as lim ited by tim e and
sam ple size. The study w as further lim ited by m inim al
teacher problem solving scaffolding due to the nature of
the study. Further research regarding how to relate problem
solving strategies through LEG O robotics to authentic
contexts is recom m ended.
Conclusion
Creating conducive learning environm ents is a strategic
process w hich focuses on the studentsabilities to
understand and reflect upon their ow n cognitive processes,
and as such educators are faced w ith the question of how
best to em bed problem solving strategies into m odern
curriculum and pedagogies, and to further exam ine if
students are correlating problem solving lessons w ithin
authentic settings. W hile this study dem onstrated that
LEG O robotics are effective tools for problem solving, it
also established that problem solving strategies need to be
carefully scaffolded in order for students to be able to
relate their problem solving w ith LEG O robotics to
authentic situations. W ith technological literacy and
problem solving skills becom ing essential for living in
m odern tim es, students m ust be provided w ith educational
environm ents that w ill enhance these skills beyond the
classroom . For problem solving to be successful in real-
w orld situations, relating studentsproblem solving activities
in the classroom to real-w orld contexts is of critical
im portance and as such m ore research m ust be
undertaken in this im portant dom ain.
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?
27
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
D esign and Technology Education: An International Journal 16.3
References
Ashm an, D . (2010). Trialling the Australian Curriculum .
Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 15-16.
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.
Barchi, P., Cagliari, P., & G iacopini, E. (2002). Encounters
betw een children and robotics. Retrieved April 17, 2011,
from : http://w w w .itd.cnr.it/dow nload/
CAB_research_findings_and_perspectives.pdf
Cham bers, J., & Carbonaro, M . (2003). D esigning,
developing, and im plem enting a course on LEG O robotics
for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 11(2), 209-241.
Cham bers, J., Carbonaro, M ., & M urray, H . (2008).
D eveloping conceptual understanding of m echanical
advantage through the use of LEG O robotic technology.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4),
387-401.
Cham bers, J., Carbonaro, M ., & Rex, M . (2007). Scaffolding
know ledge construction through robotic technology: A
m iddle school case study. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 55-70.
Cresw ell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (Third edition). N ew Jersey: Pearson Education.
D illon, R. (1995). U sing a robotics contest to enhance
student creativity and problem solving skills. The
Technology Teacher, 55(1), 11-14.
Edw ards-Leis, C. (2007). M atching m ental m odels: The
starting point for authentic assessm ent in robotics. Design
and Technology Education: An International Journal,
12(2), 25-36.
Ertm er, P.A., & N ew by, T.J. (1996). The expert learner:
Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional
Science, 24(1), 1-24.
G arofalo, J., & Lester, F. (1985). M etacognition, cognitive
m onitoring, and m athem atical perform ance. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163-176.
H uberm an, A., & M iles, M . (2002). The qualitative
researcher's com panion. Thousand O aks, CA: Sage.
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning
on childrens problem -solving perform ance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317.
Kram arski, B., M evarech, Z., & Aram i, M . (2002). The
effects of m ategocnitive instruction on solving
m athem atical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 49(2), 225-250.
Le M etais, J. (2003). International trends in curriculum
fram ew orks.The Educational Forum, 67(3), 235-247.
Low rie, T & Sm ith, T. (2002). Problem -solving: By any
other nam e. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom,
7(2), 16-21.
N orton, S., M cRobbie, C., & G inns, I. (2007). Problem
solving in a m iddle school robotics design classroom .
Research in Science Education, 37(3), 261-277.
Pang, K. (2010). Creating stim ulating learning and thinking
using new m odels of activity-based learning and
m etacognitive-based activities. Journal of College Teaching
and Learning, 7(4), 29-38.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and
powerful ideas. N ew York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. H arel & S.
Papert (Eds.), Constructionism(pp. 1-11). N orw ood: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Papert, S. (1993). The childrens machine: Rethinking
school in the age of the computer. N ew York: Basic Books.
Peterson, T. (2004). So youre thinking of trying problem -
based learning? Three critical factors for im plem entation.
Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 630-647.
Portz, S. (2002). LEG O League: Bringing robotics training to
your m iddle school. Tech Directions, 61(10), 17-19.
Schraw , G . (1998). Prom oting general m etacognitive
aw areness.Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
Schraw , G . (2001). Promoting general metacognitive
awareness. In H . H artm an (Ed.) Metacognition in learning
and instruction: Theory, research and practice(pp. 33-68).
D ordrecht, The N etherlands: Kluw er Academ ic Publishers.
Skem p, R. (1987). s. N ew Jersey: Law rence Erlbaum
Associates.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). G rounded theory
m ethodology. In N . D enzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of
Q ualitative Inquiry (pp. 158-183). Thousand O aks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K, (1994). Case study research, design and
m ethods, (2nd ed.) N ew bury Park, CA: Sage.
LEG O Robotics: An authentic problem solving tool?