ROBOTICS. also enjoy buildi ng things with such manipulatives as Legos. Robotics was the. Real World. technology build engineering intuition.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ROBOTICS. also enjoy buildi ng things with such manipulatives as Legos. Robotics was the. Real World. technology build engineering intuition."

Archibald Mervin Leonard
5 years ago
Views:

The grant (along with additional funding from the Rush-Henrietta School District) supported an engineering partnership between The Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and the elementary school.

1 Real World ROBOTICS By Lisa J. Clark 38 Science and Children Lego equipment and adapters; $500 for computer tables; $1,750 for consultant fees; $4,000 for computers; and $350 for books and other program supplies. The grant (along with additional funding from the Rush-Henrietta School District) supported an engineering partnership between The Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and the elementary school. In our program, mixed-ability groups of fourth- and fifth-grade students (who were chosen based on their interest and demonstrated skill in building and design) would collaborate with RIT engineering students to build, design, and program robots using ROBOLAB. Legos a n d c o m p u t e r technology build engineering intuition. M ost teachers and parents will agree: Children are natural inventors. They also enjoy buildi ng things with such manipulatives as Legos. Robotics was the route to dynamic, problem-based learning for fourth- and fifthgrade students at Emma Sherman Elementary School in Henrietta, New York, because it capitalized on students natural inventing abilities and enthusiasm for constructing. As the school s technology teacher, I am always searching for enrichment programs, and the idea to implement an elementary robotics program developed through conversations with fellow teachers in the spring of The teachers observed that some students with academic difficulties displayed remarkable talents in building and design. Robotics seemed a natural and constructive way to channel these skills and talents into a technology-based pull-out program for 45 students once a week from October to May. If the program was a success, we hoped to expand it to involve more students. In 1999, I put my plan in writing and was awarded a Toyota TAPESTRY grant (see box on page 39) totaling $8,900 to fund the robotics program. We used $2,300 for the

Toyota TAPESTRY Program Over the past 11 years, the Toyota TAPESTRY grant program, sponsored by Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., and administered by NSTA, has awarded 443 grants totaling nearly $4.

2 Toyota TAPESTRY Program Over the past 11 years, the Toyota TAPESTRY grant program, sponsored by Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., and administered by NSTA, has awarded 443 grants totaling nearly $4.5 million to teachers in the United States and U.S. Territories. This year, 50 grants of up to $10,000 each and a minimum of 20 mini-grants of $2,500 each are available to K 12 teachers of science. To apply for funding, qualified teachers must submit a written proposal this year s deadline is January 17, Proposals must describe a one-year project that centers on either environmental science education, physical science applications, or literacy and science education. For more information, visit A ROBOLAB Primer What is ROBOLAB? A product resulting from a partnership among National Instruments, Lego Dacta, and Tufts University, ROBOLAB is a complete K 12 curriculum module on building robots. The 1,600-piece starter set that I used contains four trays of color-coded Legos (for four different robots), complete with motors, gears, and sensors; computer software; and programmable Lego bricks. The four robots of the starter set are named My Home, The Car, The Bug, and The Gadget. Each one of these inventions completes a different task when programmed: The Bug uses two motors to drive its rear legs for motion; travels in a circle and creates a fanfare when finished; My Home features a lamp that turns on when it s dark; a bed that slides a Lego figure out of bed when the Sun comes up; and a door opens and closes when a Lego figure approaches; The Car stops automatically when the front bumper hits something; and The Gadget automatically flips or rolls a ball. Students follow the module s step-by-step directions on how to build the robot, and then they write a computer program to run it using LabVIEW graphical development software. Students then transfer their computer programs to a programmable Lego brick, called the RCX, using a special infrared transmitter that is included with the set. To start the robot, the student simply presses the appropriate button on the RCX, and the model runs using the programmed information. The RCX brick a microcomputer capable of storing up to five programs uses sensors to take input from the environment, process data, and signal output motors to turn on and off. Robot Fundamentals To prepare the children for the robot-building experience, I followed the ROBOLAB curriculum, which included introductory material about robotics, a teachers guide and notes, and student worksheets. The RIT engineering students helped me facilitate discussion and, later in the year, helped children build their robots at the elementary school. I started the first robotics class by asking students, What are robots? Many students envisioned a humanlooking machine that could perform tasks to help them with chores around the house, especially with cleaning their rooms. The students had little knowledge of how robots are used in the real world their experience with robots mainly came from movies or cartoons. Next, we discussed the three common features of robots: a physical body; operation by control [robots take input (information from the sensors) from a program (set of instructions for the robot to follow) to make the output (action of the robot)]; and behavior (what the robot does). Machines differ from robots in that they lack the control or programming component. We then viewed a clip from the video The Scientific American Frontiers: Natural Born Robots (1999) to discover how robots are used in the real world and to learn about current research in the field. Keyword: Robots at Enter code: SC An RIT engineer helps this group build a robotic bug. October

Figure1. A robotics challenge. Students built four models: The Car (see page 38), The House (below), The Gadget (upper right), and The Bug (lower right).

robots can explore places considered dangerous to humans (such as volcanoes, Antarctica, and space). Building the Robots PHOTOS COURTESY OF RIT: www.rit.edu/~merobots/sherman.htm Figure 2.

40 Science and Children After viewing the videotape, students completed a set of introductory activities from the module worksheets to experiment with the light and touch sensors, motors, and lamps.

3 Figure1. A robotics challenge. Students built four models: The Car (see page 38), The House (below), The Gadget (upper right), and The Bug (lower right). The students learned about the role of sensors, trends in robotic design (such as movement simulation of insects and fish, cooperative behavior among robots, and socially interactive robots), and how robots can explore places considered dangerous to humans (such as volcanoes, Antarctica, and space). Building the Robots PHOTOS COURTESY OF RIT: Figure 2. A student journal entry. 40 Science and Children After viewing the videotape, students completed a set of introductory activities from the module worksheets to experiment with the light and touch sensors, motors, and lamps. The real learning, however, would come from actually building the robots the next step. To begin the building process, I described the four robot models to the students and asked each student to list his or her top three choices on a worksheet. Then I divided students into groups of three or four according to their interest. Next, students built their robots (car, bug, house, gadget) using the step-by-step instructions in the module s constructopedia. It took about three class periods for building, and the instructions were so complete that students rarely had problems. They did, however, frequently request assistance with locating a tiny Lego piece that was necessary for construction (this was challenging as the sets included more than 1,600 pieces; many of the pieces had subtle, yet important differences for building the robots). The children could hardly wait to program their robots. In previous classes I had introduced them to the programming software with assistance

4 from the RIT students using a projector connected to my laptop computer. Programming with LabVIEW is really quite simple because it is entirely icon-based. Everyone began programming their robots in Pilot, which has four levels. In each, students needed only to click and choose icons in a template to program a specific function. Some students finished programming in minutes; others took longer, depending on ability level. At any time students could click on a premade program for help, but this was used only as a last resort. The RIT students and I offered support, but our goal was to have the students complete the various challenges independently. Gaining Knowledge The Lego Robotics System was designed to offer students endless learning possibilities (Cyr 1998). This was apparent in our classroom. As soon as the students completed building and programming their own robots, they wanted to change how the robots looked and behaved. Often, students would disassemble all or part of their robot model in an attempt to rebuild and perfect the robot s design. Like engineers in the real world, our students found that they were never really finished building and programming their robots there was always something to improve. It was fascinating to observe students while they worked. I was impressed at how quickly they learned the language of ROBOLAB and how effectively they used it when communicating. Some vocabulary I heard included RCX, transmitter, wait for command (amount of time that a motor or lamp is on), RCX input (ports on the RCX to which motors and lamps may be connected), and commands (programming instructions). Naturally each student had his or her own ideas about how to successfully build and program the robots. However, the students quickly discovered that they accomplished more when they compromised and discussed ideas in a thoughtful and objective way. Throughout the year, students kept a journal of their progress. At times I gave them prompts to guide their thinking, but their entries were designed to be reflective. I assessed students through written tests on the use of light and touch sensors in the real world; writing and creating programs to perform a specific task; and how the input and output devices may be used and modified. I also assessed progress through teacher observations. However, the factor that ultimately determined a robot s success was whether the robot performed a specific task and was durable in its construction. All robots passed the test! At the end of the year, both fourth- and fifthgrade student groups met to show off their robots and hold a circus. The groups who made the car even raced their cars. Visiting and Sharing In May, all participants took a field trip to learn about the college students robotics projects. The RIT students demonstrated how to create a program on their computers using traditional programming and download the program to a robot. The children enjoyed this demonstration because it mirrored what they had done with the Lego robots. Next, the RIT students set up a template and had the children operate the robotic arms in the lab. One of the arms could be programmed to grasp and let go of a cup. The children were impressed and surprised by the large size and complexity of the robots, and they quickly learned that how a robot behaves is based on the program written. A small error in the program can prevent the robot from completing a task correctly. See Figure 2 for one student s journal entry of this field trip experience. At the end of the year, the students also presented their work at an assembly for students, faculty, parents, and district staff. Each student had a speaking role in the presentation to help explain how the robots were built, demonstrate the computer programming with the aid of a projection system, and discuss how problems were solved. I was amazed at the high confidence level the students displayed while discussing their work in front of such a large audience. Expanding Our Program The ROBOLAB program received much attention from the local media, our school district, and the RIT community. Teachers and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) have been supportive of efforts to expand the robotics program to include additional students. With funding from our school s PTA and the school district, the robotics program is now taught as a 12- lesson enrichment unit in all fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms, and now all of the elementary schools in our district use ROBOLAB. I continue to offer support, from team teaching with the classroom teacher to serving as a resource outside of the classroom. During the winter of 2001, our school embarked on a distance-learning partnership with another school in a surrounding district in upstate New York. Both schools shared the same robotics challenges, and students from both schools communicated ideas and practiced problem-solving skills with each other via e- mail. At the end of the unit, the students and teachers October

5 met through the distance-learning labs in their respective districts to share work. My students were fascinated as they watched their distance-learning partners successfully run robots with designs that were different from their own. They soon discovered that multiple solutions can exist to any given problem. My next goal is to collect data to determine how students view the computer as a learning tool and as a career in engineering before and after participating in the robotics classes. This information will be used to determine future goals for the robotics program! Robotics for All Robotics is a hot topic. According to Pritchett (1994), By 1982 there were approximately 32,000 robots being used in the United States. Today there are over 20,000,000. Our students are living in a technology-rich world that I could only imagine when I began teaching. Connecting to the Standards This article relates to the following National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996): Science Teaching Standards Teaching Standard B: Teachers of science guide and facilitate learning. Teaching Standard C: Teachers of science engage in ongoing assessment of their teaching and of student learning. Teaching Standard D: Teachers of science design and manage learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science. Science Content Standards Content Standard E: As a result of activities in grades K 4, all students should develop abilities of technological design; understandings about science and technology; and abilities to distinguish between natural objects and objects made by humans. Content Standard E: As a result of activities in grades 5 8, all students should develop abilities of technological design and understandings about science and technology. My school s robotics program provided a way to prepare children for future career possibilities. While our robotics program began with a grant that made it possible to purchase costly equipment, similar experiences can be had with other, less expensive equipment. Teachers may be interested in a single amusement park set or the Lego intelligence house set. These less expensive sets contain the materials necessary to build one robotic model. See Internet below for the web address for PITSCO, where the sets can be purchased. Through the program, students have increased their knowledge of robotics and engineering in the real world, strengthened cooperative group skills, improved visual-spatial skills, developed an understanding of how to write a simple computer program, and enhanced their presentation skills. Lisa J. Clark is the enrichment/technology teacher at Emma Sherman Elementary School in Henrietta, New York. Resources Brooks, J., and M. Brooks The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cyr, M ROBOLAB: Getting Started. Denmark: Lego Dacta. National Research Council National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Papert, S Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. Pritchett, P The Employee Handbook of New Work Habits for a Radically Changing World: 13 Ground Rules for Job Success in the Information Age. Dallas, Tex.: Pritchett and Associates. Natural Born Robots Videotape. Chedd-Angier Production Company. With Alan Alda. GTE Corporation. Internet Center for Engineering Educational Outreach. Tufts University National Instruments. Components of ROBOLAB how_labview.htm Pitsco LEGO Dacta Rochester Institute of Technology A collection of free web-based resources for learning about robots is available to NSTA members at 42 Science and Children

Laboratory 7: CONTROL SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS

Laboratory 7: CONTROL SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS OBJECTIVES - Familiarize the students in the area of automatization and control. - Familiarize the student with programming of toy robots. EQUIPMENT AND REQUERIED