Abstract
This paper presents a study about learning and the problem solving process identified among junior high school pupils participating in robotics projects in the Lego Mindstorm environment. The research was guided by the following questions: (1) How do pupils come up with inventive solutions to problems in the context of robotics activities? (2) What type of knowledge pupils address in working on robotics projects? and (3) How do pupils regard or exploit informal instruction of concepts in science, technology and problem solving within a project-based program? Data collection was made through observations in the class, interviews with the pupils, observations of the artifacts the pupils had constructed, and analyses of their reflections on each project. The study revealed that the pupils had often come up with inventive solutions to problems they tackled by intuitively using diverse kinds of heuristic searches. However, they encountered difficulties in reflecting on the problem solving process they had used. In robotics projects, the pupils deal primarily with qualitative knowledge, namely, the ability to identify specific phenomena in a system or factors that affect system performance. The study also showed that pupils are likely to benefit from implementing informal instruction on concepts in science, technology and problem solving into a project-based program. This type of instruction should take place in the context of pupils’ work on their projects, and adopt a qualitative approach rather than try to communicate in the class procedural knowledge learned by rote.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altshuller, G. S. (1988). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Barak, M. (2004). Issues involved in attempting to develop independent learning in students working on technological projects. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 171–183.
Barak, M. (2007). Problem-solving in technology education: The role of strategies, schemes and heuristics, In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design & technology – for the next generation (pp. 152–167). London: The Technology Enhancement Program and the Nuffield Design and Technology Project.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using a portfolio to enhance creative thinking. The Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–25.
Barak, M., & Goffer, N. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 227–247.
Barak, M., & Mesika, P. (2007). Teaching methods for inventive problem-solving in junior high school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 19–29.
Ben-Hur, M. (2006). Concept-rich mathematics instruction: Building a strong foundation for reasoning and problem solving. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering, students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59–73.
Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington: D.C. Health.
Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Students identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.
Eberle, B. F. (1977). SCAMPER. Buffalo: D.O.K. Publishers.
Guba E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Haapasalo, L., & Kadijevich, D. J. (2000). Two types of mathematical knowledge and their relation. Journal for Mathematik-Didaktik, 21(2), 139–157.
Hayes, J. R. (1978). Cognitive psychology thinking and creating. Homewood: Dorsey Press.
Hennessy, S., & McCormick, R. (1994). The general problem solving process in technology education. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching Technology (pp. 94–108). London: Routledge.
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of lego training on students’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182–194.
Hystad, D. (2002). Building Lego robots for the First Lego Leagues. Plymouth: Innovation in Science and Technology. Retrieved February, 2007 from http://neuron.eng.wayne.edu/LEGO_ROBOTICS/lego_building_tutorial.pdf
Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process—Does it exist? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 199–217.
Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (Eds.) (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolodner, J. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 1–31.
Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J. T., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119–170.
Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond “The design process”: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.
Murray, J., & Bartelmay, K. (2005). Inventors in the making. Science and Children, 42(4), 40–44.
Newell, A, & Simon, A. (1972). Human problem solving. Inglewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning, International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘Back Door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New York: Garden City.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.
Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge, new experience. In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 37–51). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Silverman, D. (Ed.) (1997). Qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688.
Vernado, T. E. (2005). The effects of a technological problem solving activity on FIRST™ LEGO™ league participants’ problem solving style and performance. Ph.D dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Wankat, P., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barak, M., Zadok, Y. Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. Int J Technol Des Educ 19, 289–307 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3