LEGO Robotics in the Classroom:
An Ethnographic Study of Implementing the Technology into the Classroom
Mid-term paper CD 145
Morgan Hynes
April 6, 2005
Abstract
Innovations in technology are making their way into the classroom. There are
different schools of thought on if or how these innovations should be used, and can be
many obstacles to overcome to implement new technologies. In this paper, I take an
ethnographic look at one such innovation, LEGO robotics, and discuss the discourse that
accompanies implementing such an innovation. The paper discusses the idealized vision
for this educational tool and how it is actually realized in the classroom.
I use
observations from 4th-8th grade classrooms, conversations with teachers, and a teacher
survey to paint the picture of LEGO robotics implementation in the classroom. Issues
that arise in classroom management such as, LEGO kit management, student and group
management, curricular content management are discussed in some detail to further
illustrate how the innovation becomes realized in the “real world.” LEGO robotics can
be an extraordinary tool sparking children’s interest in science and technology. I would
fully endorse them for classroom use and wrote this paper as reference for teachers
embarking on such an adventure.
1
Introduction
Technology has shown a potential to transform what and how students learn in
and out of the classroom. Innovations in technology have already significantly
transformed the way society conducts business, communicates, and operates on a daily
basis. Businesses and people are continuously being trained and developed in new
technologies so they can keep pace in this innovation-focused society. The social change
we have experienced with the pervasion of the computer over the last few decades has
put pressure on the educational system in our country. Industry and society have an
increased demand for technologically fluent individuals and our educational system is
often placed with the burden of outputting these individuals.
Society’s demand for high technology has fostered the creation of many new
educational technologies. Both software and hardware have been developed and applied
to educational settings from pre-kindergarten all the way through college. Often times,
the developers of these educational technologies develop them from a technocentric
(Papert, 1987) focus. That is, they innovate and conceive the technology without putting
much focus on its eventual educational use. This places the burden on teachers and
educators to, not only, learn these new technologies, but to also effectively apply them to
their educational setting.
In this paper, I take an inside look at the implementation of such an educational
technology in its “real-world” setting, the school classroom. My focus will be on the
implementation of LEGO Mindstorms and ROBOLAB, which I will simplify to LEGO
robotics in this paper, in 4th-8th grade classrooms. While it may be up for debate, I regard
2
these technologies as a technocentrically educational tool. The programmable LEGO
brick (RCX) and ROBOLAB programming software are very sophisticated technologies
that allow for a very high ceiling of technical projects. While the technology is very
advanced, the application to the classroom environment is not so straightforward or easy.
So, how does the LEGO robotics technology look when it is implemented into the
classroom setting? This is the question I will branch out from as I take an ethnographic
look into the 4th-8th grade classrooms I have taught and assisted in teaching LEGO
robotics.
What are LEGO Mindstorms and ROBOLAB?
LEGO Mindstorms and ROBOLAB are both products distributed by the LEGO
Company. LEGO Mindstorms are, simply said, a kit of LEGO pieces. However, there
are a number of very special pieces within this kit. The LEGO Mindstorms kit includes a
piece called the RCX, which has a programmable microprocessor, or “mini computer”
embedded within it. The RCX can send and receive signals to motors and sensors. The
RCX, motors, sensors, and other pieces can be combined to create a multitude of
machines and robots that can be programmed to perform numerous tasks. ROBOLAB is
the software-programming program that allows users to program their LEGO Mindstorm
creations. The ROBOLAB software is icon-based and, as such, can be used by young
children unable to read. The icon-based graphical interface is also easier and more
straightforward for k-8 students than a classic syntax based programming language.
Together, these two technologies can and are used to teach students pre-kindergarten
3
through college content and principles from a number of math, science, technology, and
engineering disciplines.
Methodology
To understand how LEGO robotics are implemented in the classroom, I rely
mostly on my observations, conversations, and experiences as an educator and observer
in these settings. I have been in a number of 4th-8th grade classrooms teaching LEGO
robotics. I have taught in classes on a weekly and bi-weekly schedule for an entire
semester. I have also made, what I call, “guest appearances”, where I teach a single
session of a classroom. My discussion and conclusions from these ethnographic data will
be complemented with an informal survey I conducted about educational technology in
the classroom with four educators.
Educational setting: the teachers and their classrooms
The educational setting I have been situated in is the typical school-day
classroom. All the sessions I have either taught or assisted in were single sessions of the
students’ school day. In each case, I was in the classroom with their usual teacher, and
sometimes accompanied by others acting in the same role as myself.
The specific classrooms I discuss in this paper include two fourth grade classes,
one fifth grade class, and two eighth grade classes. The teachers Mr. Cho (fourth grade),
Ms. Greene (fourth grade), Ms. Liu (fifth grade), and Ms. Pall (eighth grade, two classes)
had all attended some sort of professional development workshop to learn how to use the
LEGO robotics technology. With the exception of Ms. Pall, none of these teachers were
4
teaching with the LEGO robotics on their own. They all had some sort of outside support
to teach these lessons, most commonly, they had a college student assisting them during
the lesson.
I think it is important that I describe in some detail each classroom before I move
on to my observations and discussion. Mr. Cho’s fourth grade and Ms. Liu’s fifth grade
classes are both at the Josiah Quincy Lower Elementary School in the Chinatown district
of Boston, Massachusetts. Both of these classes had myself and two other college
students come in to assist in teaching a LEGO robotics portion of the class. We visited
Ms. Liu’s class once a week and Mr. Cho’s class twice a week. The majority of the
students are of Asian descent and some speak English as a second language. Both Mr.
Cho and Ms. Liu had done LEGO robotics in previous classes in previous years.
Ms. Greene’s fourth grade class is at the Lincoln Elementary School in Lincoln,
Massachusetts. The Lincoln Elementary School has a unique relationship with LEGO
robotics. Chris Rogers, the inventor and developer of ROBOLAB, has children who
attend the school. Over the past few years the school, with Rogers’ assistance, has
received grant money to fully outfit the school with LEGO Mindstorms kits and provide
extensive professional development for all teachers using the kits. It’s also important to
note that the town of Lincoln ranks high in socio-economic status in Massachusetts.
The last classes I discuss in this paper are two eighth grade classes taught by Ms.
Pall. Ms. Pall teaches at the Grover Cleveland Middle School in Dorchester,
Massachusetts. Ms. Pall has been working with LEGO robotics for over three years. She
is the only one of the teachers, I will name in this paper, which has taught with LEGO
robotics on her own. Ms. Pall’s class is also unique in that she received a special grant to
5
outfit her class with enough LEGO Mindstorms kits and laptop computers for each pair
of students in her class. The Grover Cleveland Middle School is classified as low socioeconomic in status and has 90% of students on the free lunch program. One of these
classes is one that I am teaching a LEGO robotics curriculum that I have developed and
am now testing in Ms. Pall’s class for a nationally funded project. Ms. Pall assists me
along with my project partner Angel.
Observations and discussion
Innovation-focused discourse vs. social system-focused discourse
As previously mentioned, technology has certainly been making its way into the
school and classroom. As with most educational reforms or changes, there are differing
viewpoints on how and if these technologies should find their way into the classroom.
Bruce (1993) distinguishes between two conflicting discourses on innovation and social
change in education. He describes one discourse as innovation focused. Here the
discourse is primarily positive about the changes in social systems brought about by
innovations. The second discourse, social system focused, emphasizes already
established social, cultural, economic, or political processes that slow down or inhibit
innovation and change.
My first impression of all the teachers with whom I worked teaching LEGO
robotics was that they took the viewpoint and participated in an innovation-focused
discourse. I remember the first time I met Ms. Pall. We were at the “kickoff” reception
for the nationally funded research project I am working on. I was introduced to Ms. Pall
as a former mechanical engineer returning to academia to study k-12 engineering
6
education. Ms. Pall’s eyes lit up and she launched into a sales pitch to have me come
help her class with a LEGO robotics project they were working on. Ms. Pall went on to
tell me how she got a grant to get LEGO Mindstorms kits and laptops for “her” kids. She
shared how the resources were limited at her school, and that she was “…going to do
what it takes to get these kids computers and LEGO kits … the kids love this stuff!”
Similarly, Ms. Liu, Ms. Greene, and Mr. Cho expressed how much they enjoy having
college students come in and help them teach LEGO robotics because of how engaged
the students are with the materials.
While I would say that my first impression remains intact for these teachers, the
more I worked with them I began to notice some social system-focused discourse make
its way into conversations. For the most part, this discourse seemed to be imparted on
them. It didn’t necessarily come from their thoughts or feelings but from some outside
source. Ms. Liu had to limit our visits to her class to once per week because she needed
the other time for MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) test prep.
Ms. Greene stated at the end of one of our sessions, “Thanks for coming. I could never be
able to help the kids with the computer stuff.” Being in these conversations with these
teachers, I see how the politics of the MCAS test and social beliefs about learning
technologies can undermine innovation and foster resignation in innovation-focused
discourse.
The social system-focused discourse appears to hinder or thwart teachers
energetic push to integrating new technologies in their classroom. These teachers have
expressed the difficulties they have convincing their principal to invest in LEGO robotics
kits for the school, and are grateful that Tufts has been able to work with them. Even Ms.
7
Pall who worked for and won a grant from outside her school was clear that this was the
only way her students were going to get this sort of opportunity. Otherwise, I feel the
social system-focused discourse of the school administrators would limit the access to
these types of materials.
Idealization vs. realization
Most educational technologies come along with an idealized view of their use.
Their creators have a vision that the technology will transform education and if it can just
get into the classroom their vision will be realized. Bruce (1993) highlights the
importance to look at and distinguish between an innovations idealized affect on change
and its realized affect or non-affect on change. Bruce describes how developers of the
innovation often intend for their innovation to work in a certain way, which may or may
not be realized once implemented in its real situation.
I certainly believe the LEGO robotics software and hardware developers have a
certain idealized vision for their innovations. I have heard Rogers, a developer of
ROBOLAB, voice his intention that the software spark curiosity in students, create a high
ceiling for exploration, apply to real-world engineering problems, and work in tandem
with the hands-on construction of the LEGO kits.
LEGO robotics appear to be an excellent toolset or object for students to create
and design meaningful projects, discover and learn powerful ideas, and then reflect upon,
which are all important elements of constructionism (Papert, 1980). Ideally, students
would be given a very open-ended sort of problem where they can construct their own
ideas and knowledge and create a project that is personally meaningful to them. The
8
teacher would minimize instructional time in front of the class and be more of a guide to
the students as they explore and learn. A number of researchers have used LEGO
robotics as a tool or object for students to learn within the context of constructionism
(Bers, Ponte, Juelich, Vera, & Schenker, 2002; Bers & Urrea, 2000; Rogers & Portsmore,
2004).
Given the above as the idealized situation, I will describe the realized situation
that I encountered in these classrooms. Mr. Cho’s classroom provides one stark contrast
between the idealized and realized situation. Mr. Cho’s class was the most energetic of
all the classes I have taught in. The students always expressed their excitement when we
arrived to teach LEGO robotics. The energy and excitement carried over into the lesson,
however, the room of 25 students often turned into a chaotic series of questions,
equipment breakdowns, and misbehaving. The children moved at different paces with
the projects. Some would finish very quickly and move on to their own, often disruptive,
project. Others who would move at a slower pace would require more assistance. These
groups may also be engaged at the beginning, but become frustrated when things don’t
work as they planned, and become less and less interested. Papert’s proposition of
meaningful projects often went out the window halfway through the lesson, leaving little
time to work with a group to get them back on track.
The idea of eliciting powerful ideas from these lessons was also rarely realized.
Many students were more concerned with smashing or racing their robots, making it
bigger or prettier than they were with how or why it worked the way it did. One group
from Ms. Liu’s class preferred sitting in the hallway just outside the class, where they
9
would only work on the project if myself or the teacher were there prodding them along.
They rarely wanted to discuss any of the content or ideas the problems raised.
The realization of LEGO robotics lessons, activities, and curriculum is distorted
from its realization as though it were passed through the prism Bruce (1993) describes.
That is, as with a prism, the light that goes in, or the idealized vision in this case is split
into many different beams or outcomes. The prism seems to be analogous to the
classroom environment, the teacher(s) teaching the lesson, the resources available, the
curricular content associated with the activity, and many other variables in the
educational setting. Where changes in any one of these variables can distort the idealized
intent of the use of the LEGO robotics into a new and maybe unexpected realization.
Classroom Management
Technologies applied to a classroom setting often bring with them new
requirements in classroom management. Some software program developers may tout
the software’s ability to reduce the number of teachers needed. Some innovations require
group work, or additional peripherals, and so on. LEGO robotics has a number of
classroom management issues or obstacles that teachers should be aware of going into
such lessons. I think it is important to understand these types of issues going into
teaching LEGO robotics because the idealized visions you may have when you first see
the kits may not match what you realize. The issues that I will comment on here and that
stand out the most are: LEGO kit management, student and group management, and
curricular content management. I will also be commenting on computer and software
10
management, another significant issue, in its own section to follow. Understanding these
issues can help create a realization that may come closer to the ideal you’re striving for.
The LEGO robotics kits most often come in a bin approximately 12”x18”x5” in
size. Clearly, if you have 10-12 of these kits, which is generally what you’ll want in a
class of 20-25 students, you will need storage space sufficient to house them. Also,
seeing that the kits cost about $200 apiece, you will want to keep the storage space
locked. This by itself can be a logistical issue. Ms. Greene expressed on one of my
visits, “It’s so much easier when you bring in your kits … I don’t have to coordinate
signing them out … and you take them away with you right away.” Ms. Greene’s school
has a number of LEGO robotics kits that the teachers can sign out at any time. However,
as Ms. Greene expressed, it is often difficult to get them reserved and an added
inconvenience. In her statement, she also expresses the next point I will talk about,
putting the kits back together. The LEGO robotics kits have hundreds of pieces, many
small, easy-to-lose ones to boot. When it comes time to disassemble the LEGO
creations, it is very easy to lose some of the smaller pieces, and, what seems, nearly
impossible to put the kits back together with the pieces correctly sorted. In Mr. Cho’s
class, which I previously mentioned is often chaotic, this clean-up part of the activity is
also very chaotic and within a few weeks the kits are an absolute disaster requiring the
students to beg other groups for pieces that may have been misplaced into other kits. I
remember this one poor group from Mr. Cho’s class that didn’t participate every session.
Often, when they would come back to their next session, they would find their creation
had LEGO pieces and parts stolen from it. Ms. Liu had a unique way to help deal with
this challenge. She would give everyone large pieces of poster board that she referred to
11
as mats. Ms. Liu had a rule that all your pieces had to stay on the mat during
construction. When I asked her how she came up with this she responed, “I needed a
way to contain this mess waiting to happen, the mats at least keep them in one area, and
it’s easy to remind the kids, “keep them on your mats!” This summarizes a few of the
issues that come up in just managing the LEGO kits in the classroom.
Managing the students as they work in groups can be another challenge. The
LEGO robotics activities are often designed for students to work in groups (Rogers &
Portsmore, 2004). Rogers and Portsmore also comment on how gender can play a role in
the group dynamics during LEGO robotics activities. Rogers and Portsmore (2004)
observed, “Girls tend to design before building … girls will work better as a team.”
While boys, “…tend to build before thinking,” and, “would much rather be on their own
… often leading to more arguments than discussions in groups” (p. 23). After reading
this, it may come as no surprise that of all the five classes I have taught in of over 100
students there was only one mixed gender group, and this was a group of three (two boys,
one girl).
The LEGO robotics can be very attractive as an educational tool; however,
integrating them into a curriculum in the classroom requires some thought an effort on
behalf of the teacher. The LEGO robotics can be applied to science, math, engineering,
and other content, but it will take some creativity on behalf of the teacher. There are
some websites with resources on activities and lesson plans, but currently there are very
few robust resources for using LEGO robotics in the classroom to teach specific content
materials.
12
Classroom management is something that you can strategize for and have plans in
place. With strategies or practices in place, you may be able to decrease the frequency of
classroom problems and avoid some altogether.
Computer and software management
Using computer labs or computers in a classroom, brings about a whole set of
challenges. This combined with software and other hardware issues related specifically
to LEGO robotics can pose challenges to the teacher. I break discussion of this section
into two topics: computer management at the school and LEGO robotics computer
management.
Managing to use computers during the school day often times places an additional
administrative burden on teachers. For example, the Josiah Quincy Elementary school
has one computer lab. Mr. Cho was only able to reserve the computer lab for one of the
two days that we came in to assist with the LEGO robotics lessons. Two of the four
respondents to my survey, when asked, “What sorts of challenges do you face when using
the computer lab?” answered that it was hard to reserve the computer lab. This sort of
issue has to be addressed before a teacher takes on teaching with this technology.
One respondent to the survey stated, “chat rooms/other internet distractions,” act
as a challenge when using the computer lab. Since most computer labs have Internet
access, it is a very tempting option for students to sign on to online chat programs or surf
the Internet. In one session of Mr. Cho’s class, we found many of the young boys on the
Internet searching for Yu-Gi-Oh, an anime cartoon series, pictures and games. Other
software programs installed on the computers can also serve as a distraction to the
13
students. I had to tell students in both Mr. Cho’s and Ms. Liu’s class to stop using
KidPix, a kid’s painting program, on numerous occasions. These kinds of distractions
along with other behavior problems specific to the computer lab can be managed and
teachers should have a plan in place for dealing with these issues to improve time in the
lab.
The LEGO robotics software, ROBOLAB, and infrared towers that connect to the
computers add some complexity to the computer management for the teachers. First, a
teacher must be able to install the software on the computers. One survey respondent
expressed their concern, “I don't have a lot of authority in the computer lab when it
comes to installing software or fixing hardware/software problems.” Often times, the
computer labs don’t allow you to install software unless you have an administrator
password, which can be difficult to get in the middle of a class session. Once you have
the software loaded and working there can be difficulties using the infrared tower that
connects to the computer and communicates with the LEGO RCX. One common
difficulty, which was evident at the Josiah Quincy Elementary School, was that the
infrared towers need to be plugged into the back of the computer. Accessing the back of
the computers can, in some labs, be very difficult. At the Josiah Quincy Elementary
School the computers were up against the wall or had the back of the computer in the
middle of two rows of computers that were back-to-back. Hooking the towers up to these
computers took about 15 minutes and they had to be removed at the end of each session
and replaced at the beginning of the next session.
The last frustrating issue with the LEGO robotics programming is that the LEGO
RCX needs battery replacement every so often, which can be a problem if you don’t have
14
spare batteries on hand. When you replace the batteries, it can reset the firmware
programmed onto the RCX and requires new firmware to be installed, which takes about
five minutes. This can leave an impatient student anxious to get started again.
Clearly, anyone planning to use LEGO robotics will need to have a plan in place
when it comes to the computers they will use. It is often desirable to have another
teacher or computer savvy person assisting in sessions where you will be using the
computers. As with most computer problems, when all else fails, reboot!
Conclusions
I set out to explore the question: what does the LEGO robotics technology
actually look like when it is implemented into the classroom setting? I attempted to apply
the ideas of innovation-focused vs. social system-focused discourse and idealization vs.
realization to LEGO robotics in the classroom. In this, some of the unattractive or less
desirable issues of implementing LEGO robotics into the classroom were exposed. My
intention is not to discourage teachers and educators from considering the use of LEGO
robotics in their schools, but to make them aware of some of the realities they may likely
encounter.
15
References
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Vera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as Designers:
Integrating Robotics in early Childhood education. Information Technology in
Childhood Education, 123-145.
Bers, M., & Urrea, C. (2000). Technological Prayers: Parents and Children Working
With Robotics and Values. In A. Druin & J. Hendler (Eds.), Robots for Kids:
Exploring New Technologies for Learning Experiences. New York: Morgan
Kaufman.
Bertram, B. (1993). Innovation and Social Change. In B. Bertram, T. W. Batson & J. K.
Peyton (Eds.), Network-based Classrooms: Promises and Realities (pp. 9-32).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking. Educational
Researcher, 16(I).
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing Engineering to Elementary School.
Journal of STEM Education, 5(3-4), 17-28.
16