Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 59–69 | Cite as

New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation

  • Natalie Rusk
  • Mitchel Resnick
  • Robbie Berg
  • Margaret Pezalla-Granlund
Article

Abstract

This paper suggests new strategies for introducing students to robotics technologies and concepts, and argues for the importance of providing multiple entry points into robotics. In particular, the paper describes four strategies that have been successful in engaging a broad range of learners: (1) focusing on themes, not just challenges; (2) combining art and engineering; (3) encouraging storytelling; (4) organizing exhibitions, rather than competitions. The paper describes a new technology, called the PicoCricket, that supports these strategies by enabling young people to design and program artistic creations that integrate light, sound, music, and motion. The paper concludes with an analysis of robotics activities in three educational environments, examining how these new strategies and technologies can engage young people with diverse interests and learning styles.

Keywords

Robotics Art Creativity Learning styles Gender Technology 

References

  1. American Association of University Women (AAUW) (2000) Executive summary: tech-savvy: educating girls in the new computer age [electronic version]. Author, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beane DB (1992) Opening up the mathematics and science filters our schools did it, so can yours! Mid-Atlantic Center, Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Chevy ChaseGoogle Scholar
  3. Bers M (in press) Engineers and storytellers: using robotic manipulatives to develop technological fluency in early childhood. In Mathematics, science and technology in early childhood education series contemporary perspectives in early childhood education. Information Age Publishers, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  4. Bers M, New R, Boudreau L (2004) Teaching and learning when no one is expert: children and parents explore technology. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 6(2), Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v6n2/bers.html
  5. Bers M, Urea C (2000) Technological prayers: parents and children exploring robotics and values. In: Druin A, Hendler J (Eds) Robots for kids: exploring new technologies for learning experiences. Morgan Kaufman-Academic Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  6. Druin A, Hendler J (eds) (2000) Robots for kids: exploring new technologies for learning experiences. Morgan Kaufman/Academic Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) (2006) Impact: FIRST LEGO League growth. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.usfirst.org/community/resourcecenter.aspx?id=950
  8. Hermos H, Parris J, Spielvogel B (2005) The playful invention and exploration (PIE) network evaluation. Center for Children and Technology (CCT), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin, F (1996) “Kids learning engineering science using LEGO and the programmable brick.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, 8–12 April 1996Google Scholar
  10. McCartney R (1996) Introduction to robotics in computer science and engineering education. Comput Sci Educ 7(2):135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Melchior A, Cutter T, Cohen F (2004) Evaluation of FIRST LEGO league. Center for Youth and Communities, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council on Information Technology Literacy (1999) Being fluent with information technology. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Resnick M (1991) Xylophones, hamsters, and fireworks: the role of diversity in constructionist activities. In: Harel I, Papert S (eds) Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  15. Resnick M, Rusk N, Cooke S (1998) The computer clubhouse. In: Schon D, Sanyal B, Mitchell W (eds) High technology and low-income communities. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 266–286Google Scholar
  16. Resnick M, Mikhak B, Petrich M, Rusk N, Wilkinson K, Willow D (2000) The PIE Network: promoting science inquiry and engineering through playful invention and exploration with new digital technologies. Proposal to the U.S. National Science Foundation (project funded 2001-2004). MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Sadler P, Coyle H, Schwartz M (2000) Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: key elements in developing effective design challenges. J Learn Sci. 9(3):299–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shotwell J, Wolf D, Gardner H (1979) Exploring early symbolization: styles of achievement. In: Sutton-Smith B (ed) Play and learning. Gardner Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Turbak F, Berg R (2002) Robotic design studio: exploring the big ideas of engineering in a liberal arts environment. J Sci Educ Technol 11(3):237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie Rusk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mitchel Resnick
    • 1
  • Robbie Berg
    • 3
  • Margaret Pezalla-Granlund
    • 4
  1. 1.Lifelong Kindergarten Group, MIT Media LabCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Eliot-Pearson Department of Child DevelopmentTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Physics DepartmentWellesley CollegeWellesleyUSA
  4. 4.Learning Technologies CenterScience Museum of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations