Using Robotics to Enhance Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Curricula
Ann-Marie Vollstedt, Michael Robinson, Eric Wang
University of Nevada, Reno
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
curricula using robotics at the Middle School level, as well as improve students’ knowledge of
science, mathematics, robotics, computer programming, and engineering.
In order to improve science education, a curriculum based on LEGO Educational Division’s
“Race against Time” was created, which utilizes LEGO Mindstorms for Schools kits and
Robolab software. Twelve local middle school teachers were trained in building robots with
LEGO bricks and programming them with Robolab. The middle school teachers introduced the
program to their students.
Results of pre and post physics, Robolab, and engineering attitude tests as well as teacher
interviews showed that the curriculum helped improve students’ knowledge of science,
mathematics, robotics, computer programming, and engineering.
Introduction and Background
The results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) given in 1995
show that in comparison to their international counterparts, students in the United States test
above average in fourth grade, average in eighth grade, and below average in twelfth grade: “US
fourth graders performed well in both mathematics and science in comparison to students in
other nations, US eighth grade students performed near the international average in both
mathematics and science, and US twelfth graders scored below the international average and
among the lowest of the TIMSS nations in mathematics and science general knowledge, as well
as in physics and advanced mathematics.” 1
In 1999, four years after the TIMSS, students in 38 countries took the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R) test. The TIMSS-R showed that eighth
graders ranked 19th in mathematics and 18th in science. Thus, eighth graders in the United States
performed better than the international average in mathematics and science, but showed no
improvement since 1995.
The TIMSS and TIMSS-R results show that US students are falling behind their international
counterparts somewhere in the middle grades: “It (TIMSS and TIMSS-R) suggests that our
children do not start out behind those of other nations in mathematics and science achievement,
but somewhere in the middle grades they fall behind.”2 When researchers compared the
performance of fourth graders in 1995 with eighth graders in 1999, they found that the relative
performance of eighth graders in science and math was lower then the fourth graders. 1 TIMSSProceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
R also showed that US twelfth graders scored below average and among the lowest in science,
math, physics, and advanced mathematics. 3 Since American students are falling behind in math
and science in international testing, the House Science Committee developed a new National
Science Policy, which aimed to strengthen United States educational systems in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology in preschool through college. The new National
Science Policy aims to strengthen the educational system, ensure the flow of new ideas, ensure
that discoveries are made incessantly, and make certain that these discoveries are used to
produce new products.4
Many teachers are not prepared to teach math and science: “About 40 percent of U.S. eighth
graders learned science from teachers who reported a low level of confidence in their preparation
to teach science.” 1 In order to increase test scores, American schools need to ensure that
educators are prepared to teach math and science classes. Government acts like “No child left
behind” (NCLB) help ensure that US teachers are adequately trained. NCLB mandates that all
practicing teachers become highly qualified. In order to do this, they must pursue a master’s
degree in the subject they teach or pass an equivalency test.
The overall goal of this research was to improve science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education at the middle school level in order to inspire more young people
to pursue careers in the engineering and science fields. Robots were used in this effort because
they are a valuable tool to teach STEM at the middle school level since they provide hands on
experience that is fun for most students. The specific objectives of this project were to:
• Obtain funds to purchase robotics equipment
• Provide teacher training
• Provide a semester long class to train teachers in using robotics to teach physics
• Initiate an after-school program
• Have teachers implement the robotics program in their classrooms
• Compare in-class to Internet-based robotics experiences
• Evaluate teacher and student progress
Equipment
Equipment such as Robolab software, the Robotic Command eXplorer (RCX), and Mindstorms
for Schools were used in the research. The RCX is a programmable microcomputer embedded in
a LEGO brick that acts as a control system for the robot (Figure 1). Many different kinds of
computer code can be used to program the RCX including Robolab, C, not quite C (NQC), Pb
Forth, LejOS, BrickOS, Matlab, and LASM code. For this project, Robolab software was
utilized. Robolab is icon-based software, based on LabVIEW, suitable for students of all ages
due to its multiple levels of programming capabilities. In order to transfer programs from the
computer to the RCX, an infrared (IR) transmitter is used. The IR transmitter (“tower”) is
connected to the computer’s USB port via cable. This establishes a wireless link between the
computer and RCX allowing control programs to download to the RCX. The front of the RCX
has an IR phototransistor to accept IR transmission. Mindstorms for Schools is one of many
product lines designed by LEGO Educational Division to incorporate LEGO pieces and Robolab
into a school curriculum to aid in teaching math, science, engineering, and technology. This
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
project utilized the Mindstorms for Schools, RoboChallenge: Race against Time workbook,
which is broken into four different challenges: Dance to the Music, Robohoops, Speed Racer,
and The Competition.
Input Ports
Two-way IR link
Output Ports
LCDisplay
AC Adapter port
Figure 1. The RCX programmable brick.
Methodology
In order to improve STEM education at the middle school level, a robotics program was
implemented at local schools. In order to implement this program local 12 local middle school
teachers attended a week long robotics workshop and were given 7 robotics kits as well as
Robolab software to use in their classrooms.
Teacher training took place over the course of 1 week in the summer of 2003 and 1 week in the
summer of 2004. A total of twelve teachers attended representing twelve different schools. 7
teachers attended the first workshop, while 8 teachers (3 returned from the first year plus 5 new)
attended the second workshop. The first day was reserved for passing out materials, installing
software, building basic structures, and learning basic programming skills. Days two through
five were reserved for separate lessons in the LEGO’s Race against Time activity book.
Participants went through as many activities as possible each day. The last 45 minutes of each
day were reserved for teaching techniques, and discussing how the curriculum met the local
school district standards.
In the following schools years, teachers implemented the robotics program in their classes.
Teachers modified the suggested Race against Time robotics curriculum to fit their individual
classroom needs. Teachers used the program in their classroom anywhere between 10 and 40
hours over the course of 1 full term. Obviously, the more time the students have to experiment
with the kits the more they can learn about physics and robotics. The first few hours always take
some time for students to get acquainted with Robolab and building sturdy structures out of
LEGO pieces.
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
Qualitative Results
Teachers were asked to assess their students with a Physics test, a Robolab test, and an
engineering attitude survey given prior to any work done in the curriculum. After completing the
Robotics units, researchers requested that teachers give their students the same tests. A priori,
researchers expected results to vary due to teachers’ choice of activity, ratio of students to the
number of computers, class size, and time spent using the curriculum. Evaluating middle school
students proved to be a difficult task. Teachers were not always willing, did not have the time,
or some forgot to evaluate their students with the pre and posttests. Some teachers gave either a
pretest or a posttest, but not both. Results could not be evaluated with out both tests since there
is no way to determine the students’ baseline knowledge. The middle schools discussed below
are referred to as Middle School I, II, and III to insure anonymity of the students and teachers.
One teacher did provide both Robolab pretests and posttests for her classes. These results are
from an ESL class with students that are mainly from a lower socioeconomic class with an
almost even number of girls and boys. Middle School I results for the Robolab tests showed
improvement on 6 of the 10 questions asked with an overall improvement of 5.25%. Since this
class was an ESL class, the teacher proctoring the test thought that students had trouble reading
the test, which could contribute to low test scores. While successfully programming in Robolab
does not require students to speak English, doing well on the pre and post tests require students
to understand the language. Another contribution to low test scores could be that the teacher
chose to teach this class by example. She would demonstrate to students exactly what she
wanted by showing them how she built her robot and how she utilized Robolab to program the
robot. Students would imitate her example. After everyone has a programmed robot, students
were asked to write about their robot and present it to the class.
Another teacher at Middle School II provided pre and post engineering attitude surveys to his
science topics class. This class included mainly male students with some females and minorities.
Results of the engineering attitude test showed significant change in 3 of the questions regarding
student attitude toward the social skills of an engineer. A large change in student attitude toward
engineering was not expected since engineering was not directly spoken about in class. In order
for students to change their idea of an engineering career, they would need to make a connection
between the LEGO robotics and engineering. Another problem affecting the validity of the
engineering attitude survey is that it may be too long with too advanced vocabulary for middle
school students. Also, some questions refer to making a second career choice which is not
applicable to middle school students.
A teacher at Middle School III provided results for the pre and post physics tests. Her class was
a mix of 32 boys and girls with half the class considered a minority. Researchers attempted to
evaluate the physics tests using a paired t-test, however the initial results could not be considered
normally distributed so a Mann Whitney test was employed. Results of the physics tests did not
provide proof of significant change, although these results may differ if the results had passed a
normality test. Validity may have been affected by the short amount of time the teacher spent
using the Robotics program and also by the activities she chose to use in her class. Researchers
believe that even if the physics scores did not increase more than normal across the board, this
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
curriculum is still a valuable tool because the students enjoyed learning the physics much more.
Also, long term knowledge retention may be higher although this information was not tested.
Although teachers did not provide researchers with completed assessment materials, they did
provide comments about their student’s reactions to the program. Teachers experienced a
positive reaction from the students in their classes. Most students showed much interest in
building with LEGO bricks. One teacher noted that students enjoyed their building time so much
they would often build 3 different models for one robot at the expense of programming time.
Teachers felt that working with the robots made the students excited to come to class and learn
each day. A teacher from Middle School III said that students showed a real enthusiasm for
design problems: “They were animated and engrossed in what they were doing.” Another
teacher found that her students would request to spend lunch in the classroom so they could work
on their projects.
Contests proved to be a major motivating factor for students. The groups get very involved
emotionally in the outcome of their robot. Entire classrooms cheer and congratulate each other
when a robot performs well.
About half of the middle school teachers seemed to enjoy using the robotics curriculum in their
classrooms and felt that it pertained to Washoe County standards. Teachers noted that robotics
can be used to cover simple machines, forces, speed and motion.
Quantitative Results
Results of the Middle School I’s Robolab tests are shown in Figure 2. Students showed
improvement on questions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9. Students did slightly worse on questions 2, 4, 10.
Students did worse on these questions by an average of 1.01%. This change is negligible;
however, it causes some questions as to why students did not improve. Students did worse on
questions 5 and 8, which inquire about student knowledge of programming loops as well as the
number of inputs on an RCX
Figure 3 shows the results of the Mann Whitney Rank Sum test for the engineering attitude test
questions given to Middle School II students. The Mann Whitney Rank Sum Test was used to
test the significance of the pre and posttest answers on each individual question, since the
samples were not drawn from a normally distributed population. The test checked for the
significant difference between the medians in the pre and posttests. There was a statistically
significance change in the answers many of the questions. In the posttests, the answers that were
significantly significant showed an improved student attitude toward the social abilities of an
engineer, the range of knowledge needed to be an engineer, and the level of interest students had
in an engineering career.
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
1
Percentage of Correct
Answers
0.8
0.6
Pre
0.4
Post
0.2
0
-0.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questions
Figure 2: 2003 Middle School I Robolab test scores.
N=19
Question
P
Significant
T
1. Most engineers have poor social skills.
<.001
Yes
180
2. *Engineers spend most of their time doing complex (hard) mathematical calculations.
0.791
No
341
3. Engineering would be a highly interesting profession for me.
<.001
Yes
454.5
4. A problem with engineering is that engineers seldom get to do anything practical.
<.001
Yes
207
5. *Engineers deal primarily (mostly) with theory.
0.154
No
282
6. Engineers spend relatively little time dealing with other people.
0.046
Yes
263
7. Engineers spend most of their time working in offices.
0.134
No
280
303.5
8. Engineers spend most of their time working with computers.
0.419
No
9. Engineers seldom get involved in business decisions.
0.411
No
360
10. Engineers have little need for knowledge about environmental issues.
0.181
No
337.5
0.872
No
325.5
11. Engineers have little need for knowledge about economics.
12. *Engineers have little need to deal with ethical issues (questions about behavior that is morally right
or wrong).
0.41
No
360
13. Engineers have little need for knowledge about political matters.
0.038
Yes
260.5
14. To be a good engineer requires an IQ in the genius range.
0.223
No
289.5
15. Engineering is a poor career choice because job availability is so dependent on defense spending.
0.086
No
272.5
16. *Engineers need a great deal of aptitude (inborn ability) for science and mathematics.
0.037
Yes
260
17. Most engineers have very narrow outside interests.
0.216
No
374
18. Engineering is important to future U.S. economic success in the world.
0.0724
Yes
319
19. *Engineers typically (usually) have very little common sense.
0.872
No
325.5
20. A career in engineering would be financially rewarding.
0.021
Yes
410.5
21. Most of the skills learned in engineering would be useful in everyday life.
0.499
No
308
22. *Engineers are not typically (usually) people who are fun to be around.
0.024
Yes
254
23. *Engineers do not tend to be appreciative (to like) of the arts.
0.988
No
332.5
24. Engineers are frequently those individuals who were regarded as "nerds" in high school.
0.607
No
349.5
25. If I had it to do over again, I would consider a career in engineering.
0.918
No
335.5
Figure 3: Results from the Engineering Attitude Pre and Post tests at Middle School II.
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
Figures 4, 5, and 6, show the results of the Mann Whitney Rank Sum test for the physics tests
given to Middle School III students. The Mann Whitney Rank Sum Test was used to test the
significance of the pre and posttest answers on each individual question, since the samples were
not drawn from a normally distributed population. The test checked for the significant difference
between the medians in the pre and posttests. The test did not find any significant changes in the
scores.
Middle School III Period 1 Physics Scores
1. Graph 1 shows a point at which coordinate?
2. Graph 2 shows the distance a toy car travels over time.
How far has it travelled in 3 seconds?
3. Calculate the speed of the toy car that travels 12 feet in 3 seconds.
4. What is velocity?
5. What is acceleration?
6. What is friction?
7. Tires that produce a large amount of friction will?
8. In physics, we define power as?
9. What is the formula for force?
10. A light sensor measures what?
11. What are the 2 basic kinds of energy?
12. A diver is standing on the edge of a platform, she has what?
13. The diver jumped off the platform and is halfway down. She has what?
14. The diver just entered the water and starts slowing down. She has what?
15. In physics, we define work as?
16. The first step in the scientific process is?
N=32
P
0.283
0.834
Sig.
No
No
T
0.995
0.133
0.835
0.834
0.523
0.134
0.671
0.523
0.995
0.995
0.523
0.835
0.522
0.671
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1040
928
1024
1024
992
928
1008
992
1040
1040
1088
1056
992
1008
N=25
P
0.334
0.815
Sig.
No
No
T
587.5
625
0.227
0.992
0.472
0.633
0.634
0.147
0.09
0.227
0.47
0.815
0.335
0.815
0.471
0.376
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
575
337.5
600
662.5
662.5
562.5
550
700
600
625
687.5
650
600
975
960
1024
Figure 4: Middle III School Physics Scores for Period 1.
Middle School III Period 2 Physics Scores
1. Graph 1 shows a point at which coordinate?
2. Graph 2 shows the distance a toy travels over time.
How far has it travelled in 3 seconds?
3. Calculate the speed of the toy car that travels 12 feet in 3 seconds.
4. What is velocity?
5. What is acceleration?
6. What is friction?
7. Tires that produce a large amount of friction will?
8. In physics, we define power as?
9. What is the formula for force?
10. A light sensor measures what?
11. What are the 2 basic kinds of energy?
12. A diver is standing on the edge of a platform, she has what?
13. The diver jumped off the platform and is halfway down. She has what?
14. The diver just entered the water and starts slowing down. She has what?
15. In physics, we define work as?
16. The first step in the scientific process is?
Figure 5: Middle School III Physics scores for period 2.
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
Middle School III Period 7 Physics Scores
1. Graph 1 shows a point at which coordinate?
2. Graph 2 shows the distance a toy travels over time.
How far has it travelled in 3 seconds?
3. Calculate the speed of the toy car that travels 12 feet in 3 seconds.
4. What is velocity?
5. What is acceleration?
6. What is friction?
7. Tires that produce a large amount of friction will?
8. In physics, we define power as?
9. What is the formula for force?
10. A light sensor measures what?
11. What are the 2 basic kinds of energy?
12. A diver is standing on the edge of a platform, she has what?
13. The diver jumped off the platform and is halfway down. She has what?
14. The diver just entered the water and starts slowing down. She has what?
15. In physics, we define work as?
16. The first step in the scientific process is?
N=30
P
0.829
0.994
Sig.
No
No
0.829
0.662
0.378
0.268
0.662
0.077
0.662
0.509
0.376
0.83
0.662
0.83
0.994
0.47
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
T
930
915
900
885
855
990
885
795
885
960
975
900
945
930
915
600
Figure 6: Middle School III Physics scores for period 7.
Discussion
Although there are not many tangible test results, positive student and teacher reactions made the
project worthwhile. Students seemed to think the Mindstorms curriculum work was fun and an
enjoyable, educational way to spend their time in science class. Some teachers found that the
program motivated students to come to class and was an effective way to teach some Washoe
County science standards.
Tangible test results were next to impossible to obtain because the teachers do not have any
incentive to administer pre and post tests, since they have no use for the results. In the future,
equipment will be collected if teachers fail to submit test results from their classes. This should
provide researchers with useable data that will help justify the value of the program. In addition,
the tests may be translated into Spanish to accommodate ESL students. Researchers are not sure
that the Robolab test scores from Middle School I are viable data since many of the students had
trouble reading the test. Teachers will also be encouraged to give tests to a control group so
researchers can obtain results that compare a control group to the treatment groups.
One obstacle to using the robotics curriculum in school is that computers are a limited resource
in the local middle schools. A limited number of computers make it harder for the curriculum to
be conducted because each group of students cannot use their own computer. Teachers remedy
this problem by having students draw out their programs on paper or use Robolab magnets
before using a computer, leading a group discussion where the class designs one program for
everyone to use, or by focusing on building robots that need minimal programming.
Another obstacle in implementing this program is providing teachers with enough training that
they are comfortable programming. Many of the teachers displayed much discomfort in using
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering
the computer, which makes them uncomfortable answering their student’s questions involving
the Robolab software. This discomfort with the computers makes the teachers reluctant to teach
their students to program.
Recommendations for Future Work
This program has many outlets for growth including use of new textbooks, expanding the Kids
University program, initiating after school programs, and offering semester long robotics classes
for teachers at UNR.
A secondary teacher is publishing a book that uses the LEGO Mindstorms kits to teach physics.
This book provides many different robotics activities including lesson plans, student
explanations and worksheets, and solutions. With the use of the new textbook, the Kids
University class can grow in many directions and researchers can initiate an after school
program. The new textbook will allow the class to be split into basic and advance classes that
can be offered over numerous weeks.
Researchers can initiate an after school program at local middle schools. The group will meet
once a week for an hour and a half directly after school for a minimal charge. This program will
provide students an opportunity to explore robotics concepts in a creative, social environment
that fosters learning, while providing further training for teachers.
Despite the training teachers can receive through the summer workshop and after school
programs, a semester long class at UNR provides extra needed support. Based on the new
textbook described above, the class meets once a week for 2.5 hours to teach physics using
robotics. Students will build and program a different robot each week and work on creating
lesson plans appropriate for their classroom. The class provides teachers with an opportunity to
maintain and enhance their robotics skills as well as earn graduate credits. These additional
credits will help teachers remain “highly qualified” so they are eligible to teach under the No
Child Left Behind act.
References
1.
Delisio, E. 2000. “US Students Continue to Lag in Math and Science.” Education World. Accessed from
<http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr305.shtml>
2.
Valverde, G., Schmidt, W. 1997. “Refocusing U.S. Math and Science Education” Issues in Science and
Technology Online. Winter 1997. Accessed from <http://www.nap.edu/issues/14.2/schmid.htm>
3.
Gonzales, P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn, L., Mak, K., Kastberg, D., Arafeh, S., Williams, T., and Tsen, W. 2000.
“Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement
from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999.” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education. Accessed from <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf>
4.
House Committee on Science. 1998. “Unlocking Our Future Toward a New National Science Policy.”
Accessed from <www.house.gov/science>
Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering