Steve Coxon and Kim Chandler

LEGO WeDo

Steve Coxon and Kim Chandler

Overview

A robot is a machine that acts autonomously via computer programs written to use motors to respond to input from sensors. All LEGO robotics systems allow children to create working, autonomous robots using LEGO bricks, motors, and sensors.LEGO WeDo robotics system is similar to other LEGO robotics systems such as the NXT, but scaled down for ages 6-9. The WeDo includes one motor and two sensors along with hundreds of other LEGO elements and software.

Students can build any of 12 robots by using the step-by-step directions in WeDo’s software tutorial. However, because of the nature of LEGO bricks, possible student creations are only limited by children’s imaginations. The LEGO WeDo not only includes the usual bricks, but also has gears, wheels, rubber bands, string, sensors, and motors.Building provides many opportunities for learning about simple machines, especially gears, wedges, and pulleys. Otherphysics concepts can be incorporated, such as kinetic and potential energy, along with engineering principles including gear ratios, design processes, and creative problem solving activities.

Students write programs using an easy-to-learn, drag-and-drop block programming languageto tell their robot what to do. Student-written programs tell the WeDo motor how to react based on input from its sensors. The motor can be turned on and off, left or right, at multiple power settings for any desired length of time. LEGO WeDo has two sensors, one for motion and one for tilt, as well as a timer and random number generator. For example, a student can build an alligator that closes its mouth (i.e., the motor turns one direction for a short length of time) when the motion sensor detects motion. Computer programming provides opportunity for learning logical thinking skills.

The WeDo is now also part of an academic competition for children ages 6-9, the Junior FIRST LEGO League (JFLL). The JFLL is similar to the FIRST LEGO League (FLL) for ages 9-14 and the FIRST Robotics competition for high school students. The competitions all involve students building and program robots to compete with other teams while also studying an annually-determined real world science theme of current interest.

Research

The LEGO WeDo has only recently been released and there is no researchregarding its educational value has been conducted. However, as it is very similar to other LEGO robotics systems, such as the RCX and NXT, it is very likely that the more substantial research findings from those systems, particularly the research from the FLL which involves students of similar age, will be applicable to children using LEGO WeDo.The educational benefits of using LEGO robotics are numerous for children, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) domains. Melchior, Cutter, and Cohen (2004) conducted a survey of several hundred FLL participants, their parents, and their coaches and found that 94% or more of all students participating in FLL had increases in interest in STEM subjects, programming skills, problem-solving skills, teamwork skills, and leadership skills.Coxon (2010) reviewed the FLL competition and suggests thatstudents involved in the year’s science theme can become active researchers, turning it into a tangible and meaningful inquiry experience that can then be shared with a real world audience. Geeter, Golder, and Nordin (2002) conducted a study of middle school students competing in FLL gained a better understanding of engineering; improved creative thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills; and increased self-confidence levels, interest, and involvement in science and math.

LEGO robotics use is also potentially beneficial for enhancing students’ spatial abilities (Coxon, 2009), which are needed in many STEM fields including architecture, surgery, dentistry, engineering, design, and the physical sciences (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Verner (2004) has used pre- and post-measures of middle and high school students participating in a robotics curriculum using kinematics, point-to-point motion, rotation of objects, and robotic assembly of spatial puzzles and found significant student progress in the tasks related to spatial ability, suggesting that treatments with spatial tasks, such as LEGO robotics, can improve spatial ability. Oppliger (2002) suggests its use to increase the pool of future engineering students. Petre and Price (2004) conducted a qualitative study and determined that the use of LEGO robotics gave students aneffective understanding of programming and engineering principles. Most importantly, the researchers found that the skills they learned building and programming with LEGO robotics were transferable to other engineering and computer programming situations. Williams, Ma, Prejean, Ford, and Lai (2007)found that physics content knowledge was improved in a study of robotics in a middle school summer program. Waks and Merdler (2003) found that designing, building, and programming a LEGO robot pushes students’ spatial reasoning and creative problem solving abilities.

Educational Applications

The time for incorporating technology simply because it is available has passed. Despite “gee-wow” factors, teachers must ensure appropriate educational applications of any technology to be used in today’s standards-based classrooms with high-stakes testing. In the case of LEGO WeDo, there are many connections to national and state standards, particularly in science. While the correlations are sometimes not direct, they are sufficiently strong to justify the use of LEGO WeDo in an elementary science or math program, especially one for spatially gifted students who should be challenged daily in their areas of strength for positive academic and affective outcomes (Coleman & Cross, 2005; Rogers, 2007).

The Standards of Learning (SOLs) in the state of Virginia will be used for illustrative purposes in this paper. LEGO WeDo activities can be correlated directly to the science standards kindergarten through fourth grade. The teacher, however, must be capable of making strong, deliberate linkages between the science content and the LEGO activities.

Virginia standards related to force, motion, and energy (i.e., SOLs 1.2, 3.2, 4.2, and 4.5) are most relevant for utilizing WeDo in the science program. In particular, students can observe many of the characteristics of simple machines by constructing working robots. Wheel and axles (including gears), pulleys, wedges, screws, inclined planes, and levers can all be incorporated in WeDo creations.

The standards related to scientific investigation, reasoning, and logic, including the scientific method (Virginia SOLs K.1, 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1) may also be met through use of the WeDo materials. Teachers could instruct students to design and conduct experiments related to concepts such as force, motion, and energy. Many possibilities are also available for embedded measurement skills such as designing a car that will travel a specific distance.

Standards related to ecosystems (Virginia SOLs K.6, 1.4, 1.7, 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, and 3.10) may also be covered. As students construct various animals, their work could be extended through a study of an animal’s ecosystem. For example, students could build an alligator and study swamps, food webs, or natural resources.

Human senses can be understood through WeDo robotics. A teacher could have students investigate how robots sense the world and compare and contrast this to how human beings use their senses. This is often appropriate to kindergarten standards (e.g., Virginia SOL K.2).

Additional educational applications of LEGO WeDo that may or may not be incorporated in state standards are engineering, spatial skill building, and computer programming. The materials are ideal for introducing basic concepts of engineering and computer programming. Additionally, spatial skill building, which is seldom taught directly in school, but is necessary in many STEM fields (Wai, Lubinski, and Benbow, 2009), is easily reinforced through the use of LEGO (Coxon, 2009). For gifted education programs in which the identification protocol involves a spatial reasoning test, this offers an ideal solution for meeting the needs of those students who are highly able in regards to their spatial abilities.

Affordances and Constraints

There are numerous affordances and constraints that may be associated with the use of LEGO robotics in the instructional setting. The educational applications should be considered in view of these factors in order to make a judicious decision about the use of resources and instructional time.

A major affordance of the LEGO WeDo system is the hands-on, active nature of the learning that occurs. The program is highly engaging to students because it provides a real world experience that seems like play; as students participate in the tutorials, problem-solving, and building activities, they are practicing the skills of the discipline of science. Because students are typically working in pairs, they are also practicing the important skills of collaboration and cooperation.

The LEGO WeDo materials develop and challenge spatial abilities, which are correlated with STEM success. The building component requires students to view the figure in a two-dimensional drawing and then build using LEGO bricks in a three-dimensional setting. Such skills can be transferred to other spatial reasoning problems.

The LEGO WeDo materials lend themselves to an interdisciplinary approach, as students can integrate their knowledge from several subjects in order to resolve problems. Additionally, the teacher can craft an instructional unit so that multiple content areas are covered through the use of their creations. A case in point is the example mentioned previously where the students build an alligator and study swamps, food webs, or natural resources.In such a unit, the teacher could cover multiple science standards, geography standards related to the location and nature of the ecosystem, mathematics standards related to data collection and recording, and language arts standards related to writing, research, and oral presentation skills.

Another affordance is introducing children to the logic of computer programming in a simple and entertaining way. Through the use of drag-and-drop blocks, students can learn how programming works including the use of repeat loops, without having to worry about learning a complex language. The WeDo can also work with MIT’s Scratch programming language, allowing students to create computer games that interact with their WeDo robot. This understanding also allows students to “see behind the scenes” about how gaming works.

A final affordance of the LEGO WeDo materials is the support available in the form of tutorials included with the software. With little assistance, a young child can easily progress through the building process by viewing the step-by-step pictorial directions. Students view the figure in a two-dimensional drawing and then build using LEGO bricks.

One constraint of the LEGO WeDo materials relates to financial issues. The cost of each kit is currently about $140. Additionally, access to a computer is required to use each kit. Related to this is the fact that the program can only be done in the classroom; a student cannot generally take home work related to WeDo.

A second constraint concerns the instructional aspect of the program. The teacher must have at least a minimal background in basic tenets of computer programming; this may represent a significant learning curve for the teacher working with the materials for the first time. There is also a time factor, as initially a great deal of direct instruction and guided practice for the students must be built into the schedule. Although there are many connections to national and state standards, particularly in science, some teachers may feel that the program cannot be aligned sufficiently to justify the time commitment for the program.

A final constraint relates to classroom management issues. The affordance of promoting hands-on, active learning could also become a constraint, if the teacher has not carefully considered how to manage the classroom environment. Like any LEGO product, the WeDo system contains numerous bricks and other small pieces; this requires the teacher to be systematic in his organization of both instruction and materials.

References

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. R. (2005). Being gifted in school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Coxon, S. V. (2009). Challenging neglected spatially gifted students with FIRST LEGO League. Addendum to Leading Change in Gifted Education. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education. Retrieved from Supplement.pdf#page=25

Coxon, S. V. (2010). FIRST LEGO League, the sport of the mind. Teaching for High Potential, Winter, 6-8.

Geeter, D.D., Golder, J. E., & Nordin, T. A. (2002). Creating engineers for the future. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

Melchior, A., Cutter, T., & Cohen, F. (2004). Evaluation of FIRST LEGO League. Waltham, MA: Center for Youth and Communities, BrandeisUniversity. Retrieved from

Oppliger, D. (2002, Nov. 6-9). Using FIRST LEGO League to enhance engineering education and to increase the pool of future engineering students (work in progress). Boston: 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147-158.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.

Verner, I. M. (2004). Robot manipulations: A synergy of visualization, computation and action for spatial instruction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 213-234.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817-835.

Waks, S., & Merdler, M. (2003). Creative thinking of practical engineering students during a design project. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 101-121.

Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216.