Research in Science Education

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 261–277 | Cite as

Problem Solving in a Middle School Robotics Design Classroom

  • Stephen J. Norton
  • Campbell J. McRobbie
  • Ian S. Ginns
Article

Abstract

Little research has been conducted on how students work when they are required to plan, build and evaluate artefacts in technology rich learning environments such as those supported by tools including flow charts, Labview programming and Lego construction. In this study, activity theory was used as an analytic tool to examine the social construction of meaning. There was a focus on the effect of teachers’ goals and the rules they enacted upon student use of the flow chart planning tool, and the tools of the programming language Labview and Lego construction. It was found that the articulation of a teacher’s goals via rules and divisions of labour helped to form distinct communities of learning and influenced the development of different problem solving strategies. The use of the planning tool flow charting was associated with continuity of approach, integration of problem solutions including appreciation of the nexus between construction and programming, and greater educational transformation. Students who flow charted defined problems in a more holistic way and demonstrated more methodical, insightful and integrated approaches to their use of tools. The findings have implications for teaching in design dominated learning environments.

Key words

design technology activity theory teacher beliefs robot design student learning 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, present, and future of knowledge research: A re-examination of the role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 89–92.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anning, A. (1994). Technological capability in the primary classroom. Report published by University of Leeds, School of Education, Education for Capability Research Group.Google Scholar
  4. Bergen, D. (2001). Learning in the robotic world: Active or reactive? Childhood Education, 77(4), 249–250.Google Scholar
  5. Crew, T., & Butterfield, J. (2003). Improving the learning environment in beginning programming classes: An experiment in gender equity. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 69–76.Google Scholar
  6. Davydov, V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39–53). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deek, F., Hiltz, S. R., Kimmel, H., & Rotter, N. (1999). Cognitive assessment of students’ problem solving and program development skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 317–326.Google Scholar
  8. Education Queensland (2001). New basics project: Technical paper. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from http://www.education.qut.edu.au/nortonsj/Curriculum/New-Basics-paper.rtf.
  9. Engestrom, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Part 2, pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Leontyev, A. N. (1977). Activity and consciousness: Philosophy in the USSR, problems of dialectical materialism: Progress. Retrieved February 17, 2004 from, http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm.
  12. Levien, K., & Rochefort, W. (2002). Lessons with LEGO – Engaging students in engineering courses. In Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Oregon State University, Oregon. American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Mauch, E. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem-solving skills of middle school students: Educators’ Experiences with the LEGO Mindstorms Robotic Invention System. Clearing House, 74(4), 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McRobbie, C. J., Norton, S. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2003, April). Student designing in a robotics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  16. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1998). All or futures: Creativity, culture and education. Nottingham, UK: DfEE.Google Scholar
  17. Noble, M. (2001). The educational impact of LEGO Dacta materials. Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved November 2, 2004 from, http://www.lego.com/education/download/sheffield_hallam.doc.
  18. Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situated constructivism. Retrieved February 21, 2002 from, http://www.papert.com/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
  20. Queensland School Curriculum Council (1999). Science years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The Office of the Queensland School Curriculum Council.Google Scholar
  21. Queensland Studies Authority (2004). Technology: Years 1–10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from, http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1_10/kla/technology/index.html.
  22. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Modelling design as situated and distributed. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 11–239.Google Scholar
  23. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Zimmerman, A., Natasia, B., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: An activity-theoretical study of learning in co-teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Satchwell, R. (1997). Using functional flow diagrams to enhance technical systems understanding. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(2), 1–28. Available http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v34n2/Satchwell.html.
  25. Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Tolman, C. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen J. Norton
    • 1
  • Campbell J. McRobbie
    • 2
  • Ian S. Ginns
    • 2
  1. 1.Griffith University, Mount Gravatt CampusMount GravattAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations