Project Description

The overarching goal of the project is to broaden perspectives of K12 teachers on active learning approaches to stimulate students’ interest in science, math, engineering and technology (STEM) through the use of robots in both classroom activities and after school competitions. To meet this goal, the following objectives are noted for the project:

Objective #1: Provide training for 7 Regional Directors, 70 Lead Teachers and 108 Science Team members who will organize, coordinate, and help implement in-class activities and after school competition activities. These individuals will compose the management/leadership team for the duration of the grant.

Objective # 2: Provide a base set of in-class robot based activities and enough robot kits to insure a viable program for each K12 system involved in the project to give teachers a foundation upon which to build a robust set of activities designed to connect robot design and programming activities to learning objectives in math and science in a way that will improve success rates as well as develop interest in and preparation for careers in the STEM and Interactive Communications Technology (ICT) workforce of the future.

Objective #3: Establish an after school robot competition program that will engage students in cooperative competitions requiring further use of the math and science skills in a way that will develop maturity and instill innovative thinking in science and math.

Objective #4: Develop and implement a set of evaluation tools and techniques that will enable a dynamic study of the effectiveness these activities and competitions have toward achieving objective #2.

The grant will provide personnel and Lego equipment for all five of the K12 systems in the service area for the Alexander City campus of CACC for all three years of the project. This will be region 1. In the second year three more regions will be added, and funds for personnel and Lego equipment for one school system in each of these regions for the second year, and two school systems in each of these regions for the third year will be provided. In the third year three more regions will be added, and funds for personnel and Lego equipment for one school system in each of these regions will also be provided. The fully operational program in Region 1 is to provide a “proof of concept example”, and data to be studied by all those involved to further improve this project. The gradual introduction of new regions into the project is to insure a solid, quality program in each region. Ultimately, the real goal is to cover this entire state with science teams and robot competitions funded by local communities and the state.

The personnel for this project will include:

• Project Director (Also regional director for region 1)

• Project Administrative Assistant • Regional Director for each participating college

• 1 lead teacher for each school in each school system (maximum of 4)

• 1 four person Science Team for each K12 school system involved in the project.

Each regional director will be a physics instructor and the science team sponsor at that region’s college. Regional directors will recruit their own science team members.

Lead teachers will maintain Lego kits, coordinate use of the Lego kits, and assist teachers in preparing the in-class activities.

The Science Team will be in charge of after school competitions. It is expected they will have parent and/or teacher volunteer assistance. In the fall they will coach First Lego League (FLL) and First Tech competitions for six to eight weeks. In the spring they will coach two 4-week local competitions, one for grades 3 & 4 and one for grades 5 & 6. They will also conduct five in-class science activities each semester with two different third grade classes (total of ten visits each semester).

As was noted in the Journal of Extension (JOE) article A New Model of 4-H Volunteer Development in Science, Engineering, and Technology, April 2009 // Volume 47 // Number 2 // Ideas at Work // 2IAW4,

“What is interesting about these innovative programs of distinction is that they do not rely on the traditional 4-H adult volunteer to deliver the program. For example, the Union County Extension program stated that their program was unique because they do not rely on volunteers, but rather on paid staff, because of the intensity of the program. Other projects use Extension educators, classroom teachers, and university faculty to facilitate these 4-H programs. Overall, five out of the eight programs do not use adult volunteers in their delivery model. While this is not an exhaustive list of projects, it does suggest a general trend away from traditional 4-H volunteer-based delivery.”

The science team is a unique, key component of this project. After school robot competition activities are typically organized and operated by a teacher and parent volunteers, and this provides a fatal flaw: depending too much on volunteers allows for it to disintegrate after a few years. The science team will be a constantly renewable, trained, organized, and paid group of students that will provide a solid foundation upon which to build a program. Each science team will directly engage in science activities throughout the year with between 40 and 50 third graders, and in after school competitions with 30 to 50 students involved in each of the four competitions.

Information questionnaires were sent out this fall asking how many fifth and sixth graders at Radney Elementary would be interested in a spring competition and twenty-seven (27) students signed up for it. But after observing our trial program this spring, that number could easily double in the future. Eight (8) Mindstorm kits have been loaned to one group of 4th and 5th graders, and seven (7) to another group of 7th & 8th graders to practice logistics and study reactions of teachers and students. A test program is planned for next year in just the Alexander City school system utilizing three (3) volunteer teachers and four (4) paid science team members. The Mindstorm robot kits borrowed from the CACC Physics department will be used for this trial.

Multiplied by the 4 or 5 science teams for each region and the number of K12 students engaged in these activities in a typical region that is in full operation could easily reach 1000. Regional directors, lead teachers and science team members will attend a three (3) day training workshop held in August each year. In addition, science team members will enroll in the Physics 299, in which their weekly science activities with third graders will be discussed and planned. They must also have taken, or be enrolled in, a two semester sequence of physics courses.

Brief History of the Science Teams

One might ask what evidence exists for the capability and reliability of college students to perform the duties assigned to them. This is the thirteenth year the Principal Investigator (PI) of this proposal has sponsored student science teams. Each year some students select science team membership as their semester project. Each science team may have up to six members, averaging three or four, (one student planning to be a weatherman was a one-man show). Each team must adopt a third grade class and perform five (5) science activities with the class each semester. Not only do they meet their obligations, most teams over the years have adopted 2 and sometimes 3 third grade classes. The PI has accompanied some teams who are met at the front door of the school by a principal requesting the science team do the activities with 50 or more students and they sometimes do if they have enough equipment.) Most add their own activities to the standard set, (frequently at their own expense for materials). In an extreme case, two girls who were working with 3 third grade classes put together 45 Easter baskets which contained, among other things, tie-died T shirts with each student’s name on them for their final visit to the school. It is these observations over the years along with discussions with science team members that generated the idea for this proposal and validate this capability for delivery of services.

Third Grade Science Activities

The PI of this project has sponsored a volunteer science team using members of his physics courses for thirteen years. Many of them have also volunteered to assist with the Lego competitions as a part of the CACC summer stem camps (sponsored in part by the NSF CARCAM Grant, DUE 0501328). Over the years the science teams have compiled a complete set of basic third grade science activities that span the entire year of physics, beginning with mechanics and ending with electricity and magnetism. Each year, science teams add their own activities to their programs. Although some of the activities require equipment usually found in standard physics labs, most of them can be done using a box of materials we have made up. The list of activities, a list of materials in the box, and a picture of the materials in the box can be seen at this webpage. http://caccphysics.cacc.cc.al.us/science_team/2000-2001/scienceact/items- in-boxes.html

Most of these items can be found in grocery stores or department stores. Four items in the picture but not visible are the most difficult to obtain, (you have to make them yourself). These are the two metal disks of different diameters and the two metal hoops of different diameters. If necessary, these boxes of parts could be provided, probably for around $50 each.

Sustainability Plan

As a member of the CARCAM Consortium, our experience has allowed us to forge strategic relationships with companies throughout our service area as well as the State of Alabama. After the first year, we will be able to utilize our initial success to formally solicit companies for additional support.

Once the program is underway and proven effective, regional director’s cost could be absorbed by their college or university, lead teacher’s stipend could be part of their salary from the state. The PI will continue to lobby for state funds to be used for science team participants’ stipends.

We do not operate under any illusions, due to the nature of the economy, State, Federal, and corporate resources will be very scarce. We will be forced to be very aggressive in developing continued support to ensure the program’s viability.

In-Class Activities Grades 3 & 4 will use the WeDo Lego Kits. These kits come with a set of eleven activities. Teachers will begin with this set as a base set of activities, and add their own ideas. One of the primary objectives of this proposal is to evaluate and collect these generated activities into booklets for each group level. A sample description page of the WeDo activities is included below.

WeDo Activity Sample

“Street Sweeper”

Introduction: The brick models and the LEGO® Education WeDoTM programs used in this activity are suitable for children from the age of seven and up, but for children at the younger end of this age range to become fully engaged in the learning process they will need to be supported and encouraged by an adult. Much of the written text is directed towards an adult reader, but certain parts of the activity have a more child-oriented approach. It is hoped that adult guidance and support will assist in making this activity a rewarding experience.

Description: In this activity you will build and program Street Sweeper. The program will change the Street Sweeper’s direction and also change the motor power, thus changing the effort used by the Street Sweeper to sweep. The Street Sweeper has a lot to do outside the café, and also when the wind blows it can be difficult to sweep all the litter up. You will also build people eating inside and outside the café.

Objectives: • Using technology to create and communicate ideas

• Demonstrating knowledge and operating digital tools and technological systems

• Building and testing using feedback and knowledge of simple machines

• Tracing the transmission of motion • Writing a script with a dialogue for at least two characters

• Acting out a story, storytelling and narrating through characters

V ocabulary As you have already tried the LEGO Education WeDo Software, the terms used in this activity should be familiar. If you need additional guidance, we recommend referring to the Teacher’s Guide, which is included in both 2000097 LEGO Education WeDo Software and 2009580 Activity Pack for LEGO Education for the WeDo Construction Set.

• Start On Key Press Block

• Add to Display Block

• Subtract from Display Block

• Motor Power Block

• Motor That Way Block

• Motor This Way Block

• Wait For Block • Repeat Block

• Number Input

• Random Input

• Display Input The following words will be used in the activity and might need explaining:

• Friction

• Belt• Pulley

• A café

• Litter LEGO® Materials Required

• 2000097 LEGO Education WeDo Software (alternatively 2000095 LEGO Education WeDo Software + 2009580 Activity Pack for LEGO Education WeDo )

• 9580 LEGO Education WeDo Construction Set

• 9311 City Building Set

Grades 5 & 6 as well as grades 7 & 8 will use the Robotics Engineering I with the Mindstorm Kits. Robotics Engineering I has a set of six basic activities utilizing all the features of the Mindstorm kit. These will be used as the basis for in-class activities for grades 5 through 8. These activities are proprietary and cannot be distributed, but a sample description page is included below. Teachers involved are expected to create their own activities to add to the program.

Mindstorm Sample Activity from Robotics Engineering I

Teacher Notes: Faster Line Tracking

Introduction to Mobile Robotics > Faster Line Tracking

Description of the Unit

In the Follow the Guidelines activity, students learned how to program a robot to track a line. The students should have constructed a robot that was successful, but also very slow. In real world robotics projects, speed and efficiency are often important goals. For this reason, the students will learn how programming and engineering can be used together to track a line quickly, without sacrificing accuracy.

Activity summary: students will...

Prerequisites:

• Set up an area with a black line of electrical tape on a light surface, or have an area ready for students to set up

Alter the Line Tracking program by increasing motor speed

Study the effects of changing motor speed on line tracking ability

Learn how the placement of the Light Sensor affects line tracking ability

Reposition the Light Sensor to improve the robot’s efficacy and test it

• Follow the Guidelines Activity

• Present to class the Faster Line Tracking slideshow from Teacher’s Curriculum CD and have class discussion (optional)

• Review/teach calculating thresholds and using View Mode (optional)

Central Concepts A

pproximate classroom time: 3-4 class periods (45-minute periods) Approximate homework time: Up to 1 hour (Conclusions section)

Note to the teacher

This Exploration can only be performed with the Taskbot model. The Robot Educator model (REM) has a different wheel configuration, and thus tracks the line in a different way. None of the explanations of the line tracking problems that the robot encounters will make sense if you are using the REM.

There are many reasons why a robot would be unable to track the line. Common problems include an incorrect threshold level, or a threshold level that is correct on one area of the board, but, due to lighting changes, will not work on another side of the board. With the Light Sensor on the front of the robot, it also cannot track the line very quickly, so watch out for students whose line tracking behavior will not work because the motor power levels are set too high.

Math

•Boolean Logic

• Comparisons (<,>)

• Distance

•Spatial Reasoning

•Thresholds and Averages

Science

• Light & Reflectivity Color Perception Observations and Predictions

Technology

Design Critiquing

Conditional Statements

• Troubleshooting Robotic Decisions & Behaviors

Communication

• Explanatory, Summative, & Descriptive Composition

Design Critiquing Conditional Statements • Troubleshooting Robotic Decisions & Behaviors

Students may also find it difficult to understand how the light sensor detects colors as opposed to black and white. To help demonstrate this concept, refer to the Light Sensor page in the Basics > NXT Sensors portion of the student CD, or check out this useful animation.

Students will be able to:

Follow directions to conduct a guided partial inquiry

Learn about how the robot’s geometry inhibits its ability to track a line

Learn how to speed up the line tracking behavior

Experiment with different aspects of the robot’s design to come up with an optimal method for line tracking

Grades 9 – 12 will use Robotics Engineering II with Mindstorm kits. This program includes three studies about engineering, “What is Engineering, Engineering Process, Engineering Example: Red Team” and three engineering projects, “Mine Mapping, Sentry System, and Tree Surveying”, which will be used as the basis for in-class activities for grades 9 through 12. These activities are proprietary and cannot be distributed, but a sample description page is included below. Teachers involved are expected to create their own activities to add to the program.

Robotics Engineering II Sample Worksheet

Worksheet: Existing Design

Engineering > Tree Surveying > Investigation 1

This worksheet is provided for reference only. Be sure that you follow the steps in the online directions, and answer the questions at the appropriate times. Fill out all your answers on a separate sheet of paper.

Measure: Test the Device

1.Are readings from the same object similar or dissimilar?

2. Are readings from different objects similar or dissimilar?

3. Do larger objects produce higher or lower numeric readings than smaller objects?

(Below are headings of a table for students to fill in.)

Reading #1 Reading #2 Reading #3 Object 1: Object 2:

Conclusions and Exercises

4. There are two Touch Sensors used in the caliper. What does each do?

5. Looking at the program:

i. What sensor is used to give the final value displayed on the NXT screen, and what are the units of this value?

ii. Where is this sensor located on the robot?

iii. Based your answer from part (ii) and your knowledge of the arm mechanism, would you expect a larger object to produce a higher or lower reading than a smaller object when measured? Explain why.

iv. Does your prediction align with the actual results that you received when testing?

6. The arm swings outward before swinging inward.

i. How does the program know when to stop the outward motion?

ii. What does this outward movement accomplish for the caliper?

iii. What is the purpose of the Rotation Sensor Reset Block at the end of this behavior?

7. Summarize your findings about the way the existing caliper design works, in a format that you will be able to refer back to later when you are working on the robot.

8. Do you see any areas in the program or on the physical mechanism that could be improved? Identify any such areas, and if reasonable, make the improvements!

After School Spring Competitions

All these competitions will be free.

Grades 3 & 4 will use the WeDo robot kits

Grades 5 & 6 competitions will use the Mindstorm robot kits and will be simple competitions made up by the regional teachers. Four of these competitions have already been made up and used in CACC’s summer STEM camp for four years. A sample is included below.

Sample After School competition

Race # 1: CACC 5 - A Round Race Course Competition

  Rules:

1. The robot's front wheels must start behind the starting line.

2. Robots will be disqualified if any piece falls off during the race.

3. Robots must add a penalty second each time a wheel completely crosses a lane marker. (means it's ok to touch the lane line.)

4. Robots will be disqualified if two or more wheels completely cross a lane marker. 5. Robots failing to stop within twelve inches after crossing the finish line will be disqualified.

6. You will place your robot at the starting line and start the program. The robot must be activated to take off when it hears the starting gun.

7. The robot must go around the track 5 laps. 8. The robot with the fastest time of the two time trials wins the race.

Each member of the winning team will receive a winner's certificate and a prize.

Each team will have two runs. 

Teams will be allowed to repair and modify their robots while other teams are making their runs. 

May the best robot win!

Students in grades 5 – 8 will also participate in state FLL competitions in the fall. Students in grades 9 – 12 will compete in either First Tech or FIRST Robotics competitions in the fall.

Connection Between Academic Concepts and Lego Activities

The following charts are available from Lego Education. Engineering I- Math, Science, and Technology Concepts charts. Engineering II Math, Science, Technology, and Communication Concepts charts, WeDo- Learning Grid. Collectively they constitute 31 pages of information so will not be included here.

Project Time Line

Year One

During the first year the project will only include the five K12 systems in the service area of the Alexander City campus of Central Alabama Community College (CACC). The project team for this system will include :

Regional Director – PI for this project Four or Five 4-person Science Teams – Students taking physics at CACC Lead teacher for each school in the k12 system

Year Two

During the second year the project will expand to include three more regions.

Region 1 CACC Alexander City campus Service Area –Regional Director, K. W. Nicholson Region 2 Jefferson State Community College area schools – Regional Director, Ali Yazdi Region 3 Huntingdon College or Birmingham Southern College-Jamie Demick (maybe) Region 4 Auburn University area schools – Regional Director, Marlin Simon

Year 3

Region 5 Southern Union Community College or -Regional Director, not yet determined Region 6 University of Alabama or University of Alabama in Birmingham– Regional Director, not yet determined Region 7 Montevallo or Birmingham Southern College-Regional Director, not yet determined

Personnel for this project

PI -K.W. Nicholson, CACC Physics Instructor Co PI – Marlin Simon, Auburn Physics Instructor and Region 2 Director Co PI- Beverly Price, Radney Elementary Principal Evaluator – Regina Halpin

Evaluation Plan The Project Goal is to develop a strategy for integrating robotic concepts into the elementary

and secondary school curriculum and partnerships with universities and junior colleges to ensure consistency in preparing college-bound students in the STEM fields. This goal will be achieved by developing a sustaining model using in-class robotic activities and after-school robotic competitions for school systems.

Expected Project Outcomes:

1. Participants (grades 3-12) will demonstrate an increased interest and understanding in robotics 2. Participants (grades 7-12) will understand the math and science required for STEM related careers 3. Science Team Leaders (college students) will develop confidence and leadership skills4. A model for developing sustainable partnerships between grade schools and universities will be developed 5. Lead Teachers will facilitate the integration of robotic concepts into the state-wide science curriculum using refined classroom activities

6. Participants in grades 4 -8 will annually compete in the First Lego League competition and grades 9-12 will compete in the First Tech Robotics 7. Robotic modules will be developed for use in elementary and secondary science curricula

Evaluation Overview -

The evaluation efforts will focus on gathering information about the implementation of project modules consisting of in-class and after-school activities and the progress made toward achieving annual benchmarks regarding student achievement and the participants’ interest in robotics and related careers. An experimental design will be implemented to assess the attitudinal and career-based knowledge within a school by comparing those participants within this project to those not participating. Sampling and data collection methods will be used such that all participants can be followed longitudinally as the project unfolds and becomes sustainable for dissemination. Multiple validated quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g. test scores, surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis) will be obtained from the literature and as needed, modified or developed to obtain valid data regarding the impact of this project. The proposed evaluation plan incorporates qualitative and quantitative assessments to assess the overall impact of the project, the development of the partnerships during the three year project, sustainability of the project, and dissemination of the curriculum-based materials. Triangulation will be achieved by gathering the qualitative data from and/or about the participants, science team instructors, project and regional directors, and lead teachers as they pertain to the project goals and desired outcomes. All data will be collected using web-based evaluation instruments and managed using a database.

Summarizing and Reporting Evaluation Results - All data gathered will be gathered online and managed in a database. The evaluations will be grade appropriate. The unit of analysis will be each school in those systemic changes and outcomes are expected within schools as a result of this project. Therefore, most data will be aggregated at the school level to determine the impact of project initiatives on school-wide curriculum and instructional practices and policies, teacher knowledge, and student achievement. All data will be reviewed and reported anonymously as approved by the Institutional Review Board process at Auburn University. Findings will be presented formally (in written and verbal formats) and informally (e.g. progress reports at planning group meetings) on a regular basis. Additional report briefs will be customized according to the intended audience (e.g., school administrators, teachers, parents).

Research Questions:

RQ1: What are the participants’ characteristics?

RQ2: After participation in this program, will participants’ knowledge, interest, and attitude toward robotics increase?

RQ3: How will participants’ evaluations of the in-class and after-school activities relate to their reported interest and confidence in their ability to do math and science?

RQ4: How well does the content engage and maintain the participants’ interest?

The purpose is to gather formative data so changes can be made between sessions

RQ5: Will participants’ confidence in their math and science skills continue to increase each year until graduation?

RQ6: Do participants understand the math and science courses needed for specific careers, including robotics?

RQ7: Will the Science Team Leaders demonstrate an increase in confidence and an elevation in leadership skills?

RQ8: Will all students participate in the annual robotic competitions?

Students – The students are the primary focus of this project. As the project works toward increasing student achievement, the evaluation will assess other important student outcomes such as the types of courses students are taking, their academic efficacy and the motivation to learn math and science, their attitudes toward school and learning math, science, and robotics, and their orientation toward math- or science-related careers. The evaluator will use psychometrically-sound, grade-appropriate measurement instruments when examining these factors (e.g. Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALs), Motivation Strategies Leaning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Career Orientation Scale, and the Checklist of Math and Science-related Activities). In addition, age-appropriate journaling by the student participants and observational comments and checklists from the instructors regarding the students’ participation, interests, and attitudes will be incorporated. A control and experimental group will be used for comparison.

Lead Teachers – The lead teachers will serve as an important source of information for the project’s evaluation. These evaluations will be helpful in determining the extent to which the current teaching force is adequately prepared to integrate robotics in accordance with established best practices in the field and examining the opportunities for teacher professional development needed to impact on teaching and assessment practices and student learning. Through the lead teachers, formative and summative evaluations will include an assessment of teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge and the observation of the skills they are demonstrating in their classrooms. Furthermore, the role that school- and district- teacher leaders are providing in helping teachers and establishing learning communities will be closely monitored by the evaluation through quarterly progress reports and teacher surveys.

Evaluation Plan Timeline

Module Task

Evaluation Instrument

Completing Evaluation

Year 1

Baseline Data (RQ1)

Age-appropriate Demographics Survey

All student participants (with the exceptionsNeeds Assessment Test Scores

Pre-Robotic Attitude and Interest Evaluation

Pre-Math and Science Confidence Evaluation

Pre-Career Knowledge and Interest Evaluation

Pre-Leadership Skills Eval.

outlined above for Grades 7- 12)/Lead Teachers

Student Control Groups

Science

Participants – & Experimental

Team

Module Development

Module Checklist

Module Usability Assessment

Lead Teachers, Regional Dirs

Lead teachers

Train instructors

Training Satisfaction Questionnaire

Workshop Participants Workshop Instructors

Implement activities in classrooms and after school

Formative Instructor Satisfaction Questionnaire (RQ4)

Summative Implementation Eval.

Robotic Competition Participation (RQ8)

Science Team

Lead Teachers, Science Team

Student Participants (control group) & Science Team

Year 2

Module Task

Evaluation Instrument

Units Completing Evaluation

Implement activities in classrooms and after school

Formative Instructor Satisfaction Questionnaire (RQ4)

Summative Implementation

Formative Robotic Attitude and Interest Evaluation (RQ2)

Science Team

Lead Teachers, Science Team

Student Participants

Formative Math and Science Confidence Evaluation (RQ3)

Robotic Competition Participation (RQ8)

Student Participants (control group) & Science Team

Module Task

Evaluation Instrument

Units Completing Evaluation

Year 3

Summative comparison to Baseline

Test Scores

Lead Teachers

Post Robotic Attitude and Interest Evaluation (RQ2)

Post Math and Science Confidence Evaluation (RQ5)

Post Career Knowledge and Interest Evaluation (RQ6)

Student Participants

Student Participants – Control & Experimental Groups

Post Leadership Skills Evaluation (RQ7)

Science Team

Robotic Competition Participation (RQ8)

Student Participants (control group) & Science Team