Lego Robotic

Construct Knowledge and Nurture CreativityEducation Theory and Case Studies

2008-12-09T22:48:00.000-08:00

Construct Knowledge and Nurture Creativity

Education Theory and Case Studies

Eugene J. Zhang

Former NASA engineer, Author of "Young Robotics Engineer"

International Robot Olympiad Committee Member

Managing Director - Semia Technology Limited

I. INTRODUCTION

We are living in a time of deep structural change which brings with it tremendous promise and hope for possibilities never before realized. Technological advances in computing, telecommunications, medicine have changed our society in profound ways. This has enabled previously unthinkable concepts such as virtual corporations of one person, situated perhaps anywhere in the world, working and producing better quality products at lower cost than industrial giants.

Compared with such tremendous changes, most countries education systems have remained virtually static, they all face with similar challenges: How to keep students interested in learning? What skill sets are required for students to face future challenges? How to introduce new technology courses to students? With increasing demands for life-long learning, our rapidly changing society no longer asks for the reproduction of knowledge but for ideas, creativity and new ways of thinking. What worked in 1950s would not work nearly as well today and will not work at all in the next decade.

This paper will first introduce famous scientists and research organizations regarding their views on learning and their recommendations for education system reforms. Then it will outline the current problems experienced by students in Asia. Finally the paper will provide examples of how some countries plan to revamp their education systems, and specific case studies of how creativity is developed with innovative teaching methods and materials.

II. INTRODUCTION OF FAMOUS SCIENTISTS AND LEARNING CONCEPTS

Next Generation Forum (NGF)

NGF is a fully independent network of experts, knowledge and practice in the field of creativity and learning. It is an open platform where anyone with an interest in children’s development and imagination can share ideas and benefit from coordinated research and initiatives. NGF includes experts from all over the world, including Denmark, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, USA ... etc.

In 1999, NGF published its first annual report called "Toward a Creative Society". In the report NGF poses the central questions: How do we evolve into a Creative Society, in which imaginative individuals constantly invent new possibilities for themselves and their communities? How do we ensure that the natural curiosity to learn and divergent thinking of childhood extends long into adulthood? Beginning to answer them puts children, and the need to support their creativity, directly in the center of attention.

NGF defines the word "learning" in a broader sense to mean exploring and making sense of the world and the ability to do more things in it. In this sense we are all learning " not just in schools, but all the time. NGF suggests that children are born curious, with an instinct to learn, and unless something happens to them to stifle and deaden their curiosity, their desire to learn will last a lifetime. Thus, we must make learning a fun and interesting experience for children. NGF recommends schools to evaluate children’s "learn while play" method, and extend the practice into the classrooms in which play becomes integral part of formal learning.

NGF also recommends schools to put more emphasis on "learning how to learn", so that knowledge becomes less about acquiring information and facts and more about how to be creative in new and challenging situations. The 1999 report cites best practices examples from schools around the world.

Additional information: www.nextgenerationforum.org

Dr. Jean Piaget

Dr. Jean Piaget was a famous Swiss child psychologist. He was named by TIME magazine, along with Albert Einstein, one of the 20 most influential scientists in the 20th century. Dr. Piaget spent much of his life observing children, some barely old enough to speak, and through his studies he formulated a theory of how knowledge was developed in people’s minds. His theory inspired teachers around the world that children are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge (as traditional pedagogical theory had it) but active builders of knowledge, little scientists who are constantly creating and testing their own theories base on their experience of the world . In one of his famous experiments, Dr. Piaget ask 5-7 year old children on what makes the wind, and children would reply the trees because they have seen trees wave their "arms" when it is windy, also children knew that by waving their own arms they can also generate wind. Thus, in their mind trees generated the winds and many trees can generate strong winds. These experiments let Dr. Piaget to conclude that children are always constructing theories from what they have learned already, and the automatic correction of teaching the child the right answer maybe undesirable. If child’s theory is always greeted with "Nice try, but this is how it really is".", after a while the child may stop trying to make their own theories. As Dr. Piaget puts it, "Children have real understanding only of that which they invent themselves, and each time that we try to teach them something too quickly, we keep them for reinventing themselves."

Dr. Seymour Papert

Dr. Seymour Papert is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He worked with Dr. Piaget in Geneva in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Dr. Papert formed a theory of education called "Constructionism" based on Dr. Piaget’s theory of knowledge. Dr. Papert believed that since knowledge is actively constructed in the mind, then education should consist of providing opportunities for children to engage in creative activities that fuel this constructive process . As Dr. Papert has stated, "Better learning will not come from better ways for the teacher to instruct, but for giving the learner better opportunities to construct."

The details of Constructionism theory is as follows :

Learning happens especially well when children are engaged in constructing a meaning product, such as sand castle, a poem, a machine, a story, a piece of art work, a computer program, or a song.

When children are involved in creating something, making something, building something, they are simultaneously building knowledge in their minds. They are trying out ideas, making theories and testing them, making connections between them and reorganizing them " in short, they are building knowledge structures.

This newly formed knowledge enables chiLEGO Educational Division

LEGO Educational Division designs learning tools for optimal learning through hands-on experiences. Working with "Constructionism", LEGO learning tools allow students to construct projects that are meaningful and related to their own real world experiences, and the building process allow students to construct knowledge.

This "Learning by Making" method is based on the theory that things we experience with our body and hands are basis for developing our creativity and intelligence. LEGO Education defines "intelligence" is not something we possess, rather it is something we do. For example, if we think about an experiment of tying a bow in our shoelace, how did we do it? Can we take a piece of paper and adequately describe the process? How do children do it? In fact, children just do it without thinking about it in their minds, they think through their bodies. But adults forget how to do it. Adults have one system: first the head, then the body. Children, on the other hand, are equipped with an inclination to do the opposite: first the body, then the head. LEGO Educational Division ldren to build even more sophisticated constructions, which yields more knowledge" and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle.

In the 1970s, Dr. Papert designed a computer programming language called Logo, which enabled children to use mathematics as building material for creating pictures, animations, music, games and other things on the computer. In the mid-1980s, members of his M.I.T team developed LEGO® TC Logo, which combined the computer language Logo with the LEGO construction material. LEGO TC Logo enables children to control the structures they build out of LEGO elements, make them move, or walk, or light up, or respond to outside environment. All these innovative learning materials are based on Dr. Papert’s Constructionism theory, making tools for children to construct knowledge in the classroom environment.

Dr. Papert was also instrumental in advocating the use of technology in schools in United States. In a report for the United States Congress in 1995, Dr. Papert presented the topic: "Technology in Schools: Local fix or Global Transformation?" In which he recommends the US government to do establish model sites for far-reaching changes in education methodology, challenge the technology industry to produce radically innovative low cost educationally oriented computational devices, and encourage the "ideas industry" to produce radically innovative new concepts of intellectually rich curriculum.

LEGO Educational Division

LEGO Educational Division designs learning tools for optimal learning through hands-on experiences. Working with "Constructionism", LEGO learning tools allow students to construct projects that are meaningful and related to their own real world experiences, and the building process allow students to construct knowledge.

This "Learning by Making" method is based on the theory that things we experience with our body and hands are basis for developing our creativity and intelligence. LEGO Education defines "intelligence" is not something we possess, rather it is something we do. For example, if we think about an experiment of tying a bow in our shoelace, how did we do it? Can we take a piece of paper and adequately describe the process? How do children do it? In fact, children just do it without thinking about it in their minds, they think through their bodies. But adults forget how to do it. Adults have one system: first the head, then the body. Children, on the other hand, are equipped with an inclination to do the opposite: first the body, then the head. LEGO Educational Division

believes that children are right, the things children experience with their body and hands are the basis for their knowledge development .

Psychologist professor Howard Gardner at Harvard University believes that we have no less than five intelligences, one of these is Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence. The other four are Spatial, Musical, Linguistic and Logical/mathematical. All these intelligence are different ways of thinking, but they all work together. The things we learn with our Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence are the basis for developing the other four intelligences.

The five intelligence are both separate and interdependent. Put in another way, the development of one intelligent is based on the others. But there is an order of event in the development process. In begins, first and foremost, with Bodily-Kinesthetic, Spatial and Musical. It is through these that language derives its meaning . Thus, developing Bodily-Kinesthetic and Spatial Intelligence are key factors in developing students creativity. Here is an example how playing with LEGO bricks develops five different intelligence sequentially:

When playing with LEGO bricks, we are simultaneously developing our Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence.

When children put bricks on top, or behind the other, their hands move around in space, and that requires, and develops Spatial Intelligence.

This is also the child’s first encounter with situational words in language. Linguistic Intelligence such as action verbs are developed by first experiencing with Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence.

When children play with bricks, the process provides them with an awareness of numbers and quantity, thus developing Logical/Mathematical Intelligence.

Thus, LEGO Educational Division believes that education materials that best nurture creativity and optimize learning are those concrete materials that students can "feel", and must be meaningfully and closely connected to the student’s ordinary life. This building by hands of something meaningful to the students will in term construct the knowledge inside their minds.

III. CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT EDUCATION SYSTEMS

TIMES April 15, 2002 article on "School Daze" described the issues facing the Asian education system today - "What is wrong with Asia’s schools?" The TIMES articles notes that the foundation of East Asian economic miracle was built on hard work, high savings rate and belief in the value of education. And for years, Asia rest easy knowing that its school systems were producing the best and the brightest kids. Raising GDP were proof, so were national math and science test scores. All one has to do is walk into an Asian classroom, you can witness Asian students diligent, quiet, involving in copying down the daily lessons. It is nothing like the chaos, say, American schools .

However, the contrast isn’t so stark anymore. Recent math and science test scores show American students gaining ground on their counterparts in Asia. The Asian exam-based school systems are finding that even children who attend the very best public schools lack the creative skills to compete in the new economy. Researchers find that "Those students educated overseas are more independent, more aggressive, and more proactive in tackling problems". Also, in a poll of 20 countries, Asian students score 2nd lowest in enjoyment of math and science, even they score highest in these tests. No wonder so few Asians are willing to devote their lives into research when they graduate, they don’t want anything to do with the subjects that stifle their creativity when they were at school.

Even more alarming sign is that the drop-out rates have increased significantly in Asia: in 1999, a record 130,000 Japanese primary and junior high school students refused to attend school for more than a month. There is the towering degree of unhappiness among Asian Kids. In Hong Kong, 1 in 3 teens have had suicidal thoughts, up 28% from two years ago; Last October, seven-year-old Ng Dik-wai failed an exam in Chinese dictation, and went home and leaped out of his high-raise apartment, and became the youngest education victim in Asia . Similar kinds of situation can be found in Thailand and South Korea.

Parents in Asia are also taking their children out of the local education system. They no longer believe the education can provide them the secure job for life, hence they are dropping out of school all together or going aboard where countries invest more in education and classrooms sizes are smaller, and their children can obtain more attention ( See Tables Below)

Table 1.0 The Price of Education

Asia lags behind the rest of the world when it comes to spending on education ( % of GDP, 1999)

Table 2.0 The Class Room Size

Small classes, especially in early grades, lead to higher academic achievements, according to experts ( Number of students per teacher, primary school, 1998)

IV. SOLUTIONS TO THE EDUCATION CHALLENGES:

Top Level Policies:

Many governments and Ministries of Education are doing something about the current challenges. In April 2002, Japan will complete a radical restructuring, abolish Saturday classes, encouraging volunteerism and allowing schools to experiment with different curriculums. Later this year, Taiwan will scrap its university entrance exam in favor of an approach that considers grades, essays and extracurricular activities. In South Korea, up to a third of incoming college students will be picked not for their test scores but for their unique talents .

In a report for the United States Congress, famous MIT professor Dr. Seymour Papert presented the topic: Technology in Schools: Local fix or Global Transformation? In which he recommends the US government to do the following:

Turning educational institutions that are under federal control into model sites for far-reaching change.
Setting the sights higher in the formulation of national goals. For example,a minimal level for a significant national technology-in-schools goal should be more like "several networked computers in every classroom within three years and a computer for every student within six."
Having the courage to support the idea that all assumptions about the content of the curriculum, the modes of learning and the structure of School are open to re-examination and radical replacement as we move into the digital era.
Creating a challenge to the technology industry to produce radically innovative low cost (for example $200) high performance networked portable educationally oriented computational devices.
Creating a challenge to the "ideas industry" to produce radically innovative new concepts of intellectually rich curriculum without constraints imposed only because they have always been there such as inclusion of traditional topics (e.g. fractions or formal grammar), segregation of learners by age (K, 1, 2 etc.) or artificial traditional divisions such as "science vs. math vs. writing" or "vocational vs. academic."
Creating supportive conditions for visionary teachers (of which there are many) to "blow the whistle" about the deficiencies of "School as have known it" and join in the launching of a national debate about the future of the learning environment.

SPECIFIC CASE STUDIES

The following are innovative teaching methods and application of "Constructionism" theory to build knowledge and nourish creativity.

Case 1. -- Thailand

"Project Lighthouse, Guiding Pathways to Powerful Learning"

The Project Lighthouse was started in early 1997. A group of Thai industrialists, educators, and government officials had come to believe that the considerable economic success Thailand had achieved in the previous decade could not be sustained unless the education system could help develop students who could function productively in a global, knowledge-based economy . They furthered believed that trying to incrementally reform the school system would take too long, cost too much. Thus they approached Dr. Seymour Papert and his group at MIT Media labs to form a partnership in finding innovative ways of learning, ways that are radically different from the traditional teaching concepts.

Prior to the new partnership, Thai government has tried many directions of education reforms. Most started with some aspects of reforming schools, such as adding some computers or computer courses. But each suggestion had to fit within the existing format of school, with established culture, habits, measures, schedules, courses, texts, and way of life , thus the results were not significant. There also was the tendency to proceed with changes across the whole country.

The new partnership broke with these ways of thinking. MIT faculties believed that going deeper, concentrate on few locations as funding permits, is more important than going broadly across the country. The in depth changes could serve as examples for the broad changes in the future. Also, since schools are difficult to change from top down, the group try to create many small examples, and examples within examples. This way, Project Lighthouse hope that each small example would give rise to new and unexpected ideas, some even better than what could have been planned beforehand, providing opportunity for finding localized creative learning tools.

For instance, at the beginning of the Lighthouse Project, people believed the use of computers was a subject itself. That is, people advocating teaching the children the components of the computer, how to use it in the basic way, and teach how to use a few software packages. However, after introduction of Logo Language, people begin to embrace the view that technology and computers should be used as an expressive tool, as ubiquitous but more powerful than a pencil. Computers should be used as a means of exploring, learning about, and doing projects in other areas. Here are many creative and open projects developed by students using the computer:

A fifteen year old Buddhist monk using Logo and digital camera to trace the history of Buddhist history in the nearby temple, which he then placed on the web.

A multimedia study of traditional herbal medicine, using voice input, digital camera, and Logo to create a learning environment.

A program to create new variations on the local fabric pattern.

Case 2. -- Peru Ministry of Education Research Project

The Ministry of Education of Peru in 1998 conducted a research project on the cost/benefits of its education sector. The research projected involved students between 6 ad 11 years old from 130 Peruvian schools, and the research was done with the help of Pontificia University (PUC) in Peru and LEGO Education group.

The project introduced Peruvian teachers and students to apply the theory of "Constructionism" and "Learning by Making" using LEGO Education products - as opposed to traditional passive note taking, listening and repetition.

The results were exceptional: Significant improvement in self-esteem, creativity and problem solving capabilities. From independent verification and test, the student group which learning based the new learning concept of problem-solving and hands-on experience scored 100% higher on hands-on ability and mechanical construction skills. The result of the new learning concept was also seen in mathematics skills, where the LEGO student group scored higher by as much as 60%. The language skill and self-esteem also increased. Children became more active and attentive in classes, and learning become more pleasurable, and absenteeism was significantly reduced.

Why LEGO material is better?

Conventional instruction methods emphasize the memorization of facts and information. Students are tested if they can reproduce or memorize that is taught. Thus, students who are good at memorization often score well on such tests, but many of them forget as soon as the test is over. This activity is not truly Learning .

Rarely, if ever, do students get a chance to use what they are taught. Students are often told they will use this "in the future". The math and science problem sets do attempt to get students to use the subject matter presented, but such problems are geared toward getting the students to produce a specific, one "correct" answer. They are not open-ended problems, and do not encourage students to be creative. That’s why students find such problem sets BORING . Students typically quickly forget what they thought was boring subjects.

Even though the group of students in Traditional Teaching had access various scientific equipment (scales, magnifying glasses, test tubes, magnets...), these material were not used to construct anything of interest to students. Rather they are uses as cookbook-like exercise that were meant to demonstrate various scientific principles. While this approach maybe an improvement over memorization, it does not come close to that is doing science is actually like .

This is where LEGO Educational materials are different. Students in the LEGO Education Group are first presented with some very basic theoretical explanations, such as how a lever works. Then, as soon as possible, the students get a chance to use this lever, to play with it, to conduct some hands-on experiments and investigations with it, and to solve some simple problems . This is not all. Students are then asked to mobilize this new knowledge to solve several open-ended problems - problems that do not have just one answer. This is where students use their imagination and creativity, and we see real excitement and engagement on the part of students. And it is just these engagement that makes what students learned memorable. This is why the students group using LEGO Education material score higher than the traditional group: Their learning was personally meaningful, exciting, engaging, involved in producing tangible products, and tapped into their creative imaginations . As children would say, "it was hard, but it was fun!".

For older students, the open-ended question can be quite complex and sophisticated, involving computer programming and control with LEGO model building. For example, students can build a greenhouse with a door that open and close automatically if the temperature is too high. Or, a car manufacture assembly line using mechanical arms. These challenges allow students to pursue their own design, test the design, if it does not work, students need to research the books, or discuss with other students. This is what doing science is actually about. The mistakes students make and the process of making their projects work greatly develops students problem solving skills and creative thinking abilities.

Besides "Learning by Making" and the adoption of "Constructionism" teaching philosophy, the main reason LEGO Educational student group scored much higher than the Traditional Teaching group was the LEGO students Enjoyed Learning. Scientific and pedagogical research shows that being challenged to the limits of one’s ability provides the most enriching learning experience. When you are sufficiently challenged and doing something of your interest, learning becomes as natural as breathing - you don’t even realize you are doing it! The LEGO Education material can sufficiently challenge all students at different levels, you can use the same theory, for example, levers, and build a simple machine, or you could build a sophisticated factory model, all depending on your abilities.

Case 3. -- U.S.A

"Learning can be fun" - Dr. Pee Suat Hoon.

Infants and young children appear to be propelled by curiosity, driven by an intense need to explore and learn. Unfortunately, as they grow, their passion for learning often seem to shrink and learning becomes associated with drudgery instead of delight.

Dr. Pee Suat Hoon, an electrical engineering professors, describes why his Computer Programming and Application Laboratory course is popular among students, and there is high level of enthusiasm and engagement in his lab sessions .

During the period of adolescence, there is heightened awareness of and need for personal autonomy and control. While students want support and feedback, they do not want to be controlled. Most of the lessons in Dr. Pee Suat Hoon’s lab are structured in such a way that students do not need to follow any written instructions. They were simply given the problem statement: Write a program to generate random 4 digit number; write a program to find the FFT of a input wave, etc" Students have to devise the approach to solve the problem. This allows students to be creative and independent, they can use whatever methods to solve the problem.

Because many of students grow up with computers, they tend to like technology applications. Dr. Pee Suat Hoon uses Graphical Programming Language as the main programming tool for the lab questions, students are interested to learn the latest computer applications and development tools.

Students tend to expect immediate gratification, and require immediate answers and feedback. Thus, they want to see the results of their work. Graphical Programming Language provide very user-friendly development environment that students can pick up the programming skills instantaneously. However, more time and effort is required if they wish to be expert programmers.

Many students do not want to waste time doing a lot of school work. Although they like to do less work, they want work to be more meaningful to them. As learners, they want to know why they must learn something before they take time to learn it. Graphical Programming is a very useful software to learn as it is used extensively in many industries, universities, and research centers around the world. This software was used by Nobel Physicist and it is on board of the Mars Explorer for collecting data. Students are convinced that learning this software is beneficial to their future careers.

Conventional labs are very structured with all instructions clearly documented. Students simply follow instructions and carry out the procedure, write down the numbers. In contract, lab courses adopting problem solving approach allow students to be creative, and they must adventure and try different things to find the solution. The sense of achievement after finding the right solution on their own is gratifying, and the success also boosts students self-confidence.

Case 4 -- International Robot Competitions - China, Korea, Australia, USA, Japan, etc"

The International Robot Olympiad Committee was established in 1998. The purpose of IROC is to foster vision of science and technology to young students. The annual robotics competitions in more than 10 countries provide a fun and exciting learning environment for students to apply their knowledge of computers technology, and unleash their imagination and creativity.

Traditional teaching methods and materials tend to limit children’s natural ability to learn by establishing specific routes by which to reach a given solution. And instead of having a variety of choices for reaching a solution students are limited to, in most cases, just one. The result is that they simply reproduce knowledge with limited creativity.

By contract, when engaged in exciting Robotics Challenges, students are given tasks that are open-ended, encouraging creativity and imaginative solutions. Learning robotics provide students with an opportunity to:

Explore a topic that is most appealing and challenging

Acquire knowledge through hands-on activities.

Study multiple fields of science including mechanical design, electronics engineering, and information technology.

Each robotics challenge engages students in the same problem-solving process that is practiced in professional industry: research, strategize, design, build and test. Students work in teams use LEGO bricks, sensors, motors and gears to construct and program a fully autonomous robot capable of completing different missions while maneuvering around the Playing Field.

Working in an environment that encourages inquiry and hands-on experimentation, students obtain the thrill of discovery as they witness firsthand how abstract concepts become concrete solutions. Students also learn life skills such as respect for others, appreciation of different perspectives, cooperation, perseverance and time management. As a result, participants gain confidence, discover new skills and interests, and prepare them for the future challenges to come.

Conclusion

This paper briefly introduced to readers famous scientists and research organizations in the field of education. Through specific case studies and examples, the paper demonstrated different routes to more effective and better learning, especially applying Dr. Seymour Papert’s thoery of "Constructionism" and LEGO Education’s concept of "Learning by Making". The paper also emphasized on how computer technology can be used to create conditions for radically new ways of learning, including Graphical programming and robotic challenges.

Now Everyone can Make Robot, This is one of Robot that no need create from zero

2008-10-14T22:13:00.000-07:00

Robotics Hardware, Software and Curriculum for Your Classroom

IntelliBrain-Bot Deluxe Robot

* IntelliBrain-Bot educational robot

* Tutorials

* Robotics class library

* RoboJDE™Java™-enabled robotics software development environment

* Integrating Java Robotics into Your Curriculum

* Beginning Robotics Course Outline

* Java Robotics in Education

IntelliBrain-Bot Basic Robot

IntelliBrain™-Bot

The IntelliBrain-Bot educational robot is designed to bring computer science, robotics and engineering concepts alive for students.

A course outline, an extensive collection of tutorials, example programs and Java™ robotics classes provide the resources to integrate robotics into a wide range of curriculum from introductory computer science through advanced robotics courses.

The IntelliBrain-Bot educational robot is fully Java programmable and includes the RoboJDE™ Java-enabled robotics software development environment. RoboJDE provides an easy to use programming environment that enables students to focus on programming and robotics concepts without getting bogged down in a complex development environment.

The IntelliBrain-Bot educational robot is available in two models, the IntelliBrain-Bot Deluxe kit and the IntelliBrain-Bot Basic kit. Either model may be purchased assembled or unassembled. The IntelliBrain-Bot Deluxe educational robot includes an IntelliBrain 2 robotics controller, two wheel encoder sensors, two line sensors, two infrared range sensors and an ultrasonic range sensor. The IntelliBrain-Bot robot includes an IntelliBrain 2 robotics controller and two wheel encoder sensors. Both models include a chassis, wheels and two servo motors.

if you want to get more information about that robot you can visit this page

Interesting? visit this page :

Sofware for convert WAV to RSO (NXT sound format)

2008-10-10T03:22:00.001-07:00

RSO File

RSO is the default NXT sound format, every sound that you hear from NXT is RSO files format.

if you want to record your sound then insert it into NXT , you have to record your sound with SOUND RECORDER and save it in .WAV format, then you can use this software :

After you got your .RSO file, then you can paste it into your LEGO Mindstroms Edu NXT path , in my computer is : C:\Program Files\LEGO Software\LEGO MINDSTORMS Edu NXT\engine\Sounds

Now you can hear your own sound in NXT... :)

Software for Draw Image for NXT LCD Display

2008-10-10T03:07:00.000-07:00

Draw Image for NXT LCD Display

This Program is no need to install, you can double click it, and it will be run.. :)

After you create the image you can paste it at your NXT installation path , in my computer "C:\Program Files\LEGO Software\LEGO MINDSTORMS Edu NXT\engine\Pictures"

then your Mindstorms Edu NXT can read the picture that you just made.

just try it :)

Java Software for Control NXT Robot Through Mobile Phone

2008-10-10T01:56:00.000-07:00

Control NXT Through Mobile Phone

If you want to control your NXT robot through bluetooth connection in your Mobile Phone

LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXT
Mobile Application
User Guide

OVERVIEW

This software enables a number of specific mobile phones to control the NXT by Bluetooth. The list of
phones currently supporting the NXT Mobile Application is available are :

THE PHONES IN THIS COMPATIBILITY MATRIX HAVE ALL BEEN VERIFIED TO WORK WITH THE NXT MOBILE APPLICATION.

NOTE THAT NOT ALL PHONES SUPPORT ALL FEATURES.

Model	Remote Control	Program Control	Playing Sound	Taking Images	Datalogging	Firmware1	Notes
NOKIA Official website: http://www.nokia.com/
6680	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	4.04.07	-
3230	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	3.05.05.2	-
SONY ERICSSON Official website: http://www.sonyericsson.com
W800i	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	R1AA008	-
W550i	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	R4BA041	-
K610i	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	R1CB001	-
K800i	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	R1CB001	Screen resolution must be 176x208 pixels
K750i	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	R1N035	-
Z710i	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	R1DA018	-
Z550i	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	R6BA033	-
K510i	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	R4CH003	Screen resolution must be 128x128 pixels
BENQ-SIEMENS Official website: http://communications.siemens.com/
CX75	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	N/A	-
S65	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	N/A	-

DISCLAIMER

This software is provided as-is without any warranty of any kind. The entire risk arising out the use or
performance of the software remains with you. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in
no event shall the LEGO Group of Companies (including, but not limited to LEGO Systems A/S) and its
suppliers and licensors, be liable for any damages arising out of the use or inability to use the software.
To install and use the software, you must agree to the terms of the License Agreement included with the
software. Please be sure to read the License Agreement (EULA) before installing LEGO MINDSTORMS
NXT Mobile Application on your phone.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MINDSTORMS NXT
The NXT Mobile Application is supported by NXT bricks with the following versions or later:
FW 1.03

AVR 1.01

BC4 1.01

(You can find your version numbers on the NXT brick under 'Settings'...'NXT Version')

MOBILE PHONE
Your phone must be Bluetooth enabled and capable of running Java (JSR-82). Phones listed in the NXT
Mobile Application Compability Matrix currently supports the NXT Mobile Application:

Make sure that your operator allows third party applications and that your phone's settings allow
installation of java. You may have to change your phones settings to permit the use of Java applications
(consult your phone’s instructions manual).

Following the instructions in this document requires a Bluetooth enabled computer to install the NXT
Mobile Application on your phone.

DOWNLOAD AND INSTALLATION

First check that your phone supports the NXT Mobile Applications.

A more detailed Compatibility Matrix is included when you download the software.

Download the NXT Mobile Application software package and unpack the files on your computer.

Make sure Bluetooth is turned on your phone and the NXT

Locate the NXTmobile.jar file specific for your phone (make and model is indicated by folder names)
and install it on your phone:

PC: Find the downloaded application and right click the file. Choose 'Send to' in the context menu and
select 'Bluetooth unit'. Find and select your device and follow the instructions for your phone.

MAC: Click the Bluetooth icon in the top menu and choose 'Send file'. Find the NXTmobile.jar file in the
zip-file you have downloaded and click 'Send'. Find your phone on the devices list and click 'Send'.
Follow the instructions for your phone.

UNINSTALLING THE NXT MOBILE APPLICATION

Please refer to the instructions manual that came with your phone for detailed instructions on how to
uninstall programs. Usually you just need to delete the program file from your phone.

GET CONNECTED

1. Start the NXT Mobile Application on your phone by navigating to the folder where you saved it (most
commonly 'games' or 'applications') and choose the application. When launching the mobile application
it will automatically search for NXT devices during start-up. The first time you connect a new NXT you
need to pair the NXT and NXT Mobile Application:

- On the NXT: Accept the connection by choosing the checkmark (notice the passkey)

- On the Phone: Enter the passkey (default passkey from the NXT is 1, 2, 3, 4)

Next time you start up the NXT Mobile Application and it finds your NXT you just need to select it and
you are ready.

Tip: Personalize your NXT and your Phone by giving them unique names. This will help avoiding
confusion when other NXT's or phones when they are in range of the Bluetooth connection.

BASIC USAGE

When the NXT Mobile Application is started you have the following options from the Main Menu:

Info

A brief description of the NXT Mobile Application, where to find help and more information - and the
terms for using the software.

Remote Control

This enables you to control two motors on the NXT. Use the joystick/command wheel on your phone to
go forward, backwards, stop - or you can choose to control one motor at the time. If your NXT model
have wheels (like the Tribot) it will be much like a remote controlled car.
See ‘Advanced Usage and Program Examples’ for more advanced remote control.

Program Control

This mode enables you to control any of the programs on your NXT. First select the program you want
to control and then you can send command messages to your NXT by pressing the numeric keys on
your phone. What the NXT does when you press the keys depends entirely on your program.
Tip: Download the two program examples included with the NXT Mobile Application for an easy
introduction to program control (see the ‘Advanced Usage and Program Examples’)

Collected Data

If the NXT can make your phone take photos, this is where you can find them. Have you made a
program that sends data to your phone, this is where you can find it as well, for instance be readings
from the sensors.

Note: Collected data and images are deleted from the camera when you close the application.

MINDSTORMS NXT Bluetooth Compatibility Matrix

Bluetooth Device Name	Compatibility
Abe UB22S	YES
Belkin F8T003 ver. 2 (short range)	YES
BlueFRITZ! AVM BT adapter, BlueFRITZ! USB v2.0	YES
Cables Unlimited USB-1520	YES
Dell TrueMobile Bluetooth Module	YES
Dell Wireless 350 Bluetooth Internal Card	NO
Dlink DBT-120	YES
MSI Btoes	YES
MSI StartKey 3X-faster	YES
TDK GoBlue	YES
Qtrek, Bluetooth USB Adapter v2.0	YES

ADVANCED USAGE AND PROGRAM EXAMPLES

REMOTE CONTROL

In addition to using the joystick/command wheel to control the motors you can use the keys on your
phone:

[1] [4] [7] and [*] controls motor A

[2] [5] [8] and [0] controls motor B

[3] [6] [9] and [#] controls motor C

Using the keys will enable you to make finer adjustments to the motors than using the joystick. For
instance making a vehicle turn in greater curves or controlling all three motors at a time.

Example

Pressing [3] will activate forward movement of the motor on port C. Pressing [6] will start the motor on
port C and pressing [6] repeatedly will increase the speed. Pressing [9] will decrease the speed. To
stop the motor, press [3]

To activate backwards movement of the motor on port C press [#]. Again, pressing [6] will increase
speed and [9] will decrease the speed in backwards direction. Pressing [3] will stop the motor.

Tip: To stop and reset the motors press the joystick/command wheel.

You can change the default motor setup by choosing 'Options' in Remote Control mode. Default is
motor B+C but if your model is wired differently you can change the motors you control with Remote
Control.

PROGRAM CONTROL

During start-up the NXT Mobile Application retrieves all program names from your NXT so they are
available for controlling. You can activate a program on the NXT by selecting the 'Options' menu on your
phone or you can use the following shortcuts to activate programs:
On the joystick/command wheel: Up, Down, Left, Right
On the keypad: [*] [+] [#]

To customize the shortcuts:

1. Choose 'Options'

2. Highlight the program you want to move and press 'More' followed by 'Move Prg'

3. Highlight the key you want to assign to the program and choose 'More' followed by 'Place Prg'

When you have activated a program you can send messages to it by pressing the numeric keys from
[0] to [9]

Examples

Open the two test programs using with the MINDSTORMS NXT Software and transfer the programs to
your NXT by pressing the download button.

(See the NXT User Guide that came with your MINDSTORMS set for details on how to download
programs to the NXT)

SendMsg.rbt

Attach the touch sensor to port 1. If the sensor is pressed the NXT will send a message to your phone to
take a picture (this will only work if your phone has a build in camera)

Attach the touch sensor to port 2 and press it. This will make your Phone play a tune
On port 3, pressing the touch sensor will make the NXT send a text message to your Phone: ‘hello’

TIP: You can review the data your phone receives in 'Collected data'.

RecieveMsg.rbt

Pressing [1] [2] or [3] on the phone will make the NXT say the number pressed.

Tip: Try to customize the two test programs to learn more about how to make programs compatible with
the NXT Mobile Application.

source : www.lego.com

Robot Chess

2008-10-07T02:06:00.001-07:00

This Project is written with Visual Basic 2005 (VB.net) , Java , and Lego Mindstorms Edu NXT from 6 June 2008 - 20 December 2008

This robot can play chess with human automatically, it can think 6 step ahead with thousand of mathematic combination and calculation.

And the material is 100% Lego , except Webcam,Laptop,and Chess Components..

this is the video :

This Project is Created By :

Programmed By : Ali Sanjaya
Constructed By : William
Idea : Mr.Bambang Rusli

source : www.mikrobot.com

Rubic Solver Robot

2008-10-07T01:56:00.001-07:00

This Robot is 100% created with Lego , and The Program is written with Java, Visual Basic 2005 (VB.NET) and Lego Mindstorms Edu NXT

This Robot Created at 2007 (finish in 5 month)

this is the video :

Created By :
Programmed By : Ali Sanjaya
Constructed By : William
Idea : Mr.Bambang Rusli
source :www.mikrobot.com

GEARS COMBINATION

2008-10-07T01:41:00.000-07:00

GEARS

By Jim McGinn & Kristoph Minchau

Terms

Force: How hard something pushes.

Torque: How hard something that is turning, pushes.

So a force tries to push something, and a torque tries to turn something.

Uses of Gears in Robotics

Motors have low torque and high speed. Usually we need high torque and low speed. Gears are used:

To convert the motion from a fast electric motor that has low torque, to a slow motion with high torque (which is useful to push a robot).

To transfer motion from one shaft to another while keeping the shafts sychronized.

The white gear box above transfers the motion of the left shaft, to the right shaft, and keeps them synchronized. The motor/gearbox (in the lower left corner) is a Tamiya.

How Gear Work

If you turn the small gear, the big gear goes slower.

If you turn the big gear, the small gear goes faster.

The slow one has more torque (it can push harder). This is good for moving robots, arms, etc.

The fast one has less torque, but more speed. This is good for fans and anything where you need speed but not much torque.

By using a series of gears, called a "gear train," you can get speed reductions of 1 to several hundred (eg. 1:250).

Figuring Out The Gear Ratio

Gears work as if they were wheels rolling against each other, with the wheel diameter equal to the Pitch Circle Diameter. In other words, the "effective wheel diameter" of a gear is the Pitch Circle Diameter.

If you have two gears, the Speed of the slower (bigger) gear = the Diameter of the smaller gear / Diameter of the larger gear * the Speed of the smaller gear.

Choosing Gears

If you need to build a gearbox, you must use gears that "work together." This means they must have the same "diametral pitch" and "pressure angle."

Diametral Pitch

Diametral Pitch (or just "Pitch") P = Number of teeth / Pitch Diameter.

The Pitch Diameter Circle goes to approximately half way up the height of the teeth.

Common (diametral) pitches are 12 (big teeth), 24, 32, 48, 64 (fine teeth).

Knowing the pitch diameter is very useful. To figure out how far apart the shafts of two gears should be, add the pitch radius of the first gear with the pitch radius of the second gear.

The teeth of the gears actually roll against each other- they do not slide:

Putting the gears the correct distance from each other (not too close or too far), minimizes the stress and maximizes the life of the gears.

TIP: How To Figure Out The Exact Pitch Diameter of a Gear (Imperial)

When scrouging IMPERIAL gears, estimate the pitch diameter, count the number of teeth, then divide the number of teeth by the pitch diameter to get the approximate (diametral) pitch.

Figure out what pitch the gear is by assuming it is one of these 12, 24, 32, 48, 64. (Note: If it is not close to one of these, it may be a metric gear or a non-standard gear.)

Then take the number of teeth, and divide it by the exact pitch, to get the exact pitch diameter.

If you can't determine the exact pitch diameter, estimate it, and make sure the mating gears are not jammed tight together. In the diagram under Backlash below, note that the top of the teeth do not touch the base of the teeth in the other gear.

Pressure Angle

When the teeth of two gears touch, the point where they touch is at a bit of an angle (from the radius). Both teeth must touch at the same angle for the gears to work as they were designed.

In practice, if you are building a small robot (like a mini-sumo) with plastic gears that you have scrounged, don't worry about this. If two gears don't have the same pressure angle, they will wear out faster, but for small robots that are not used that much, this probably will not be a problem.

If you are building a big robot, or if you are buying the gears, make sure they have the same pressure angle. 20 degrees is the most common, but some gears are 14.5 degrees.

Types of Gears

Spur gears are the "normal" gears. You can also get rack, worm, and bevel (not shown) gears, as well as other uncommon gears.

Backlash

When your motor switches direction, the gears have to move slightly before they contact the other teeth. This called "backlash." With a gear train with lots of gears, it is quite noticeable. This can be a problem in robotic arms.

Recommendations

It is easiest to use a "gear head" motor. This is a motor with a built-in gearbox (or it comes with a gearbox that you have to put on it, like the Tamiya motor/gearboxes). The Tamiya motor/gearboxes available from HVW Tech are a good place for many beginners to start.

If you need to build a gearbox, make sure the holes for the shafts are placed precisely (see Diametral Pitch above). Don't jam them together.

Lego gears work very nicely.

PM Hobbies usually has a limited selection of general purpose plastic gears. Old printers and VCR's have gears. Never throw these out without scrounging the gears. (Keep the springs, also.)

If you want to learn more about gears, the Lego Mindstorms set is great for experimenting. You can build lots of different gear arrangements with this. Also check the Internet for Lego gear ideas.

*Diagrams are from Mechanisms and Dynamics of Machinery, by H.H. Mabie and F.W. Ocvirk, 1978.

LEGO LESSON PLAN

2008-10-06T00:39:00.000-07:00

Lego Amusement Park

LEGO®, Technic,Mindstorms, Robotics Invention System, and RCX are trademarks of the LEGO® Group of companies,which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site. Visit the official LEGO® website at http://www.LEGO.com.

5th Grade Lesson Plans

The following set of lesson plans were created by Mrs. Kenya Taylor-Wash and Mr. Alan Mays, 5th grade teachers at Otis E. Brown School #20, Indianapolis Public Schools. The plans utilize Lego Mindstorms and Robolab software and are the culmination of a format that was originally designed for use in a "camp" setting, where the children were allowed to work on projects for approximately 5 hours a day over a 1-week period. Mrs. Taylor-Wash and Mr. Mays reconfigured some of these projects, reducing them to a two-week set of lessons that require approximately 1.5 hours per day. All of the lessons integrate math, science, and language arts and cover numerous Indiana State Standards.

This project was funded by an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Foundation grant. The grant and the "camp" format were designed and taught by Professor William Conrad, School of Engineering and Technology, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). This particular class, Lego Robotics was offered to children in grades 5-8 through the IUPUI Young Scholars program, a summer program administered by the IUPUI School of Education. The Young Scholars Programs offer various educational opportunities for children in grades 1-12.

Day 1

Lego Construction Parts

Essential Skills: Students will be able to distinguish between a brick, beam, plate, bushing, axle, tire, hub, and pulley; utilize pieces in the kit to give outcomes of experimental probability; use journals to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

Place students in small groups (pairs if possible).

Using the pieces from both kits, each group will compete to create a free-standing tower.

Introduce vocabulary terms: brick, beam, plate, bushing, axle, tire, hub, and pulley. Students will match each picture to the appropriate term. Students will verbally explain the relationship between bricks, beams, and plates (Example: What is the difference between a 1 X 8 plate and a 1 X 8 beam?).

Present a mini lesson on probability. Students will verbally explain the ratio of certain pieces in comparison to the whole group. (Example: 4 red beams out of 22 beams, 4/22)

Present a mini quiz on vocabulary terms, relationship of pieces, and probability.

Students will write in their journals about what they have learned and what they would like to learn in the next lesson.

Allow time for students to clean their areas and put all parts away.

Assessment: teacher observation, mini quiz, journal writing

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software, attached pictures and worksheets

Math Standards: 5.4.9, 5.6.1, 5.6.4

Reading/LA Standards: 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.5.1, 5.2.7, 5.2.8

Construction Parts List

Paste the picture to match the words.

	Axle
Tire	Hub
1 x 4 Plate	2 x 6 Plate
1 x 10 Beam	2 x 8 Brick

Day 2

The RCX Box

Essential Skills: Students will be able to identify the RCX box and become familiar with the information on it; identify wires and recognize the differences in size; identify the motors and determine the direction the motor turns and how to reverse the direction it turns; use journals and handouts to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

In the same small groups introduce the students to the RCX box. Read through the Introduction to RCX with students.

Have students read through and complete handouts 3A-4A. Conduct a whole group discussion.

Students are to create a movable object using LEGOS and the RCX box.

Students will write in their journals about what they have learned.

Allow time for students to clean their areas and put all parts away.

Assessment: teacher observation, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; handouts attached

Math Standards: 5.4.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.4.5, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.5.1

Introduction to RCX

The RCX is a programmable LEGO brick which can control motors and lights and process input from sensors.

1. Open the RCX by pulling the back cover from the rest of the unit.

2. Insert 6 AA batteries then replace the back cover or use a transformer adapter.

3. Find two motors and two wires in your kit.

4. Attach one end of each wire to each of the motors.

5. Attach the other end of each wire to the RCX unit, to Ports A and C

A, B, & C are Output Ports which are connection points for LEGO motors and other peripherals such as lamps.

6. Find two of the smallest wheels in your kit and attach one to each end of the axle on the motor. (This makes it easier to watch the direction of rotation.)

The RCX can store 5 programs at time. The first 2 are demonstrations. You should use programs 3, 4, or 5 for your programs.

7. Press the red on-off button. What happens?

8. Press the Prgm button until a 1 appears. What do you think Prgm means?

9. Press Run to run built-in Program 1. What happens?

10. In which direction do the motors turn? (clockwise or counterclockwise)

11. Press the Run button again. What happens?

12. Switch the wire connection on Port A 180o. Run the program again. In which direction does the motor connected to Port A turn now?

13. Try the same with Port C. Explain what Program 1 can do.

Day 3

Constructing a Fan

Essential Skills: Students will identify the parts needed to construct a fan; problem solve by following appropriate directions; use visual cues to judge appropriate construction; select pre-programming options to set the fan in motion; use journals to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

Present handout Building a Fan and guide students to identify the parts needed for construction.

In small groups students will build a fan.

Once the fan is constructed, students will write in their journals. They are to explain the process of building a fan.

Students are to keep their fan intact for the next lesson.

Allow time for students to clean their areas and put all parts away.

Assessment: teacher observation, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and amusment park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; handouts attached.

Math Standards: 5.4.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.2.3, 5.2.7, 5.5.1, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.6.1, 5.6.4

Building a Fan

Day 4

Robolab Programming

Essential Skills: Students will be able to use visual clues to decide on appropriateness of desired icons; use reading strategies to understand material written for a specific purpose; write a simple program using icons; maintain written records; work cooperatively and collaboratively.

Engagement Activities:

In small groups students will return to their fans.

Present the visual icons from the pilot level. Students will read through and discuss the different icons and what they represent.

Students will follow instructions on handout pilot level 1 while recording their observations. Initiate whole group discussion.

Have students follow instructions on handout pilot level 2, while recording observations. Initiate whole group instruction.

Students are to disassemble the parts and clean up their areas.

Assessment: teacher observation, written observations, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers; handouts attached

Math Standards: 5.2.6, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.8, 5.5.1, 5.5.6

Icons from the Pilot Levels

Pilot Level 1

We are going to send instructions to the RCX to turn the fan's main sails.

Connect the sails motor to Output A on the RCX.

Load Pilot Level 1 by clicking on the main menu screen:

This is what you will see:

Don't change the icons! What do you think this program will do?
Place the RCX close to the IR Tower. Turn the RCX on. Click the arrow:

This sends your instructions to the RCX. Watch the screen to see it downloading.

Press Run on the RCX. What happens? Is this what you expected?

Click on the motor icon to change the direction in which the sails turn. Click on the timer to choose how long you want the motor to run for. Send your program to the RCX and press Run.

Describe what happens to the fan:

Change back to the original direction. Make the sails turn for 10 seconds. Draw the icons which are on the screen:

Pilot Level 2

Your activity is to write a program for the RCX to set the speed and direction of the fan's main sails, and turn the fantail.

Connect the sails motor to Output A on the RCX. Add a new motor (fantail motor) at the top of the base as shown below. Connect the fantail motor to Output C on the RCX.

Load Pilot Level 2 by clicking on the main menu screen:

This is what you will see:

Change the program to turn the fantail (connected to C). Click the lamp icon and change it to a motor.

Click on the touch sensor icon, and change it to a timer.

Place the RCX close to the IR Tower. Turn the RCX on. Click the arrow to download, then press Run on the RCX.

Change the program so that the sail motor (A) turns rapidly and the fantail motor (C) turns slowly. Download and press Run on the RCX.
Which speeds did you select for the sails and fantail?

Day 5

Build and Control a Basic Car

Lego Mindstorms for schools 9785, 9786 Lego Educational Division, pp7.

Essential Skills: Students will be able to identify parts needed to construct a basic car; use visual cues to judge appropriate construction; create a program to set the car in motion; write in journals to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

In small groups students will follow instructions to Build a Basic Car. Use booklet #9725 (steps 1-6, add wheels).

Using pilot 2, program the car to run at speed 5 for 2 seconds. Students will use a yard stick or tape measure to record the distance the car traveled. Discuss the differences in times and why the cars where not able to move the same distance.

Write a prediction as to how far the car will travel in half the time. Reprogram the car to run for 1 second. Record the distance. Discuss the results and possible reasons for inconsistency.

Use different wheels and repeat steps 2 and 3.

Disassemble car.

Write reflections in journals.

Clean work area.

Assessment: teacher observation, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; booklet number 9725; computers; yardstick or tape measure; handouts attached

Math Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.6, 5.4.9, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.5.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.5.1, 5.6.1

Day 6

Gears

Essential Skills: The student will be able to distinguish between several kinds of gears, develop ratio statements for speed variance vis-à-vis small gear (8-tooth gear) to larger gear (i.e., 24-tooth gear), construct a gear train from given directions, use multiplication to achieve ratios for the constructed gear train, write in journals to reflect on the lesson..

Engagement Activities:

Introduce the gear pages (following this lesson plan), and have the students identify and match each piece with a part in the Mindstorms Kit.

Discuss the different kinds of gears (as identified by the number of teeth).

Have the students record the number of times an 8-tooth gear has to turn to make a 24-tooth gear go around one time. (3 times)

Explain and demonstrate that adding an 8-tooth gear on the same axle as the 24-tooth gear means that both gears will turn at the same number of revolutions

Explain and demonstrate that adding a new axle with a 24-tooth gear has the same effect as in step 3. To prove this, have the student record the number of times each of the 8-tooth gears has to turn to make the new 24-tooth gear turn around only once. (1st one has to turn 9 times; 2nd has to turn 3)

Discuss and demonstrate the gear box (use picture) and how the ratio of 243:1 is achieved.

Have students build their own gear boxes (according to the picture).

Use journals to record the number of time the 1st gear has to turn to make the last gear go around once. Write reflections about these numbers.

Clean work area. Leave gear trains intact. Be sure to replace all other Lego parts in proper storage areas.

Assessment: teacher observation/gear boxes/journal entries and reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity/cooperative grouping/hands-on manipulative exercise

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers; handouts attached

Math Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.6, 5.4.9, 5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.5, 5.7.6, 5.7.7, 5.7.8, 5.7.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.4.1, 5.4.5, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.1.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.5.1, 5.6.4, 5.3.12

40 tooth gears

24 tooth gears

16 tooth gears

8 tooth gears

3 to 1 gear ratio

The 8 tooth gear must rotate 3 times to make the 24 tooth gear rotate once.

Two Gears on the same axle

Both the 24 tooth gear and the 8 tooth gear are on the same axle. Therefore both gears will rotate the same number of revolutions. This means that if the 8 tooth gear goes around 3 times, so does the 24 tooth gear.

Gear Trains

A group of gears connected together is called a gear train. This allows a much larger gear ratio.

Determine how many times that the small 8 tooth gear on the left has to turn to make the large 40 tooth gear on the right turn one revolution.

A 243 to 1 Gear Train using 8 and 24 tooth gears

Day 7

Snail Car

Essential Skills: The student will be able to identify parts needed to construct a snail car of their own design; use visual cues to judge appropriate design aspects; construct and attach a gear train to make the car go slowly; create a program to set the car in motion; compete against groups to see who has the slowest car; write in journals to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

In small groups students will design a basic car that will allow for the attachment of the gear train they built last time (see picture of gear train to gain ideas of motor and wheel attachment). For basic car constructions see booklet #9725.

Using pilot 1, build a program that will allow the motor to run for a specified length of time. Program the car to run for 500.00 (500 seconds). If the students use a gear ratio that is approximately 250/1 the car will take longer than 500 seconds to travel 12". In that case have them wire and program a push button sensor to input 2. Since the sensor will not be pressed the car will run forever.

Use additional pieces to decorate cars.

Hold a competition between the groups to see which car will travel the slowest. (Use electrical tape to display a start line and a finish line twelve inches apart).

Disassemble the car.

Write reflections in journals.

Clean work area.

Assessment: teacher observation/snail cars/competition/journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity/visual cues/manipulative exercises/cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers; handouts attached

Math Standards: 5.2.6, 5.4.9, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.2.3, 5.2.7, 5.5.1, 5.2.8, 5.6.1

Day 8

Merry-Go-Round (Enterprise)

Essential Skills: Students will identify parts needed to construct merry go round (part of the LEGO amusement park); describe the relationship between beams and axles; use problem solving skills and visual cues to judge appropriate construction; run a pre-existing program; write reflections in journals.

Engagement Activities:

With students in groups, conduct a discussion of all the steps necessary to build the merry go round (student booklet 9725).

Verbally quiz students on the relationship between axles and beams. (Example: a size 10 axle will have the same length as a 10 unit beam)

Follow the steps in booklet 9725 to build the merry go round.

Use program pilot level 3 (amusement park, merry go round 1) to set the creation into motion.

Leave the merry go round in tact.

Clean area.

Write reflections in journals. Prompts: Which part of the lesson did you enjoy the most? Explain. Which park of the lesson did you like the least? Explain.

Assessment: teacher observation, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms for Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers
;
Math Standards: 5.2.6, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.7, 5.7.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.1.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.5.1, 5.6.4

Day 9

Merry-Go-Round Part 2

Essential Skills: The student will be able to write and run a program; build and program a creation using an additional motor; record new discoveries; write in journals to reflect on the lesson.

Engagement Activities:

Use pilot level 4 to program the merry go round to tilt up and down, and turn right and left.

Test the program.

Program the merry go round to turn right and at the same time tilt up, then turn left and at the same time tilt down. Test the program.

Use another motor to create an additional amusement park ride.

Record the directions needed to build the new creation

Place the new ride on the same plane as the merry go round.

Disassemble the parts.

Clean the area.

Use journals to write reflections.

Assessment: teacher observation, journal reflections

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers

Math Standards: 5.2.6, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.7, 5.7.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.1.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.5.1, 5.6.4

Day 10

Design Project

Essential Skills: The student will be able to work cooperatively in groups; construct a final project, using a pre-determined design or a design of their own creation; create a computer program to motivate their design; use writing skills to produce a written document, specifying "how-to" directions on building their group’s project.

Engagement Activities:

Each group will decide on a final project (They may choose items from previous activities, items from other LEGO booklets, or items of their own creation).

Students will build their project.

Each group will write a program to make their project move.

Teacher will collect all directions (from students who constructed pre-designed projects).

Each individual student will write step-by-step, "how-to" directions for constructing the group project.

Keep projects intact for school-wide sharing.

Assessment: teacher observation, how-to directions

Adaptations: teacher proximity, cooperative grouping

Materials: Mindstorms For Schools, Robo Technology Set and Amusement park set, Robolab 2.5 Software; computers, LEGO instruction booklets

Math Standards: 5.2.6, 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.7, 5.7.9

Reading/LA Standards: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.5.6

Science Standards: 5.1.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.5.1, 5.6.4

source : www.lego.com

Using Lego to integrate Mathematics and Science in an Outcomes Based Syllabus

2008-09-24T23:05:00.000-07:00

Using Lego to integrate Mathematics and Science in an Outcomes Based Syllabus.
Stephen Norton
QUT

Abstract

Integrated learning has been put forward in curriculum documents as a means
to add meaning and context to mathematics and science learning. However,
few models of practice exist to guide teachers’ in implementing this process.
This paper examines an educational researcher’s and a practicing teacher’s
challenge to use student construction of Lego artefacts as a tool for the
learning of mathematics and science concepts through technology practice. It
was found that the activities afforded opportunities for students to
demonstrate numerous outcomes, that explicit scaffolding was needed by
some students and that some students achieved at outcome levels beyond
those expected of their Year. The findings have implications for the use of
activity in the teaching of mathematics and science where syllabus
documents demand specific outcomes.

Introduction

Papert, (1980) coined "constructionism" and defined it as "Giving children good things to do so that
they can learn by doing much better than before." What Papert had in mind was that children could
learn mathematics effectively by building artefacts and programming simulations. The work of
Vygotsky (1987) and von Glaserfeld, (1987) have further informed the move towards viewing
knowledge as something that individuals construct via interactions with the environment and the
learning paradigm they described was termed "constructivism". Thus, in essence, constructionism is
an extension of constructivism in that like constructivism it emphasises the building of knowledge
structures, but then adds to this that the learner is learning in a context of constructing a public entity
(Papert & Harel, 1991).

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993), through Project 2061, actively
promoted the inclusion of technology in the school curriculum and also recommended that technology
could be used as a vehicle for learning science and mathematics. Likewise there has been a shift in
mathematics teaching and learning in the last two decades towards increased emphasis on powerful
ideas associated with mathematical processes (Jones, Langrall, Thorton, & Nisbet, 2002). National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards (2004) has encapsulated this trend world wide
by giving pre-eminence to five process standards: problem solving, reasoning and proof, connections,
communication and representation. This shift in curriculum approach towards communication of
reasoning, contextual problem based learning and integration (both within the subject domain and
across subjects) has found expression in attempts to integrate science and technology with
mathematics. For example, the New Basics curriculum documents (Education Queensland, 2001) has a
strong emphasis on integrated learning. This document encourages teachers to use integrated
community based activities, where the role of the teacher is one of mentoring while students engage in
tasks that are relevant and authentic to the students. Other curriculum documents have recommended
an approach to mathematics teaching and learning that is integrated or transdisciplinary and where the
mathematics is embedded in authentic contexts (e.g., Queensland Studies Authority, 2003). The use of
authentic contexts tends to enable students to develop modelling capacities that need greater
mathematizing and the conceptual use of mathematics (e.g., Nason & Woodruf, 2003).

Part of the reason for the integration of mathematics and science is the perception that falling student
enrolment in "hard sciences" can be attributed to the isolated and fragmented curriculum where
students see these subjects as not relevant (Malcolm, 2002).
McRobbie, Stein, and Ginns (2001) have
suggested that science set in a technological setting is worth examination since technology is part of the
world lived in and experienced by students. Papert and Harel (1991) recommended Lego construction
combined with programming (Lego Robotics) so that students could engage in the building of active
models. In contrast to the view that students ought to construct knowledge, is that students can learn
effectively from direct instruction where the teacher’s primary role is to deliver careful explanations
that take account of cognitive load (e.g., Cooper, 1998; Pollock, Chandler, & Sweller, 2002).

Several studies (e.g., Bergen, 2001; Mauch, 2001, McRobbie, Norton, & Ginns, 2003)
have reported the strong motivational potential and development of problem solving
strategies through working with Lego Robotics. In addition, Levien and Rochefort
(2002) commented on Lego Robotics as a suitable medium to explore engineering
principles with tertiary students. Recent research into Lego Robotics in middle school
years indicates that many opportunities for extracting science and mathematics
principles from technology-based activities are not capitalised on, the science and
mathematics remaining implicit (e.g, McRobbie, Norton & Ginns, 2003). A particular
concern has been teachers’ difficulties in making the links between the technology
activity of Robotics and other syllabus outcomes. McRobbie et al, (2003) also showed
how the programming feature of Lego Robotics had the potential to absorb most of
the students’ problem solving endeavours and thus the science and mathematics
associated with the construction and mechanical operation of the robots became a
secondary concern of both students and teacher.

The mixed results of using Lego Robotics as a medium for the learning of science and
mathematics has prompted this research to investigate the potential of using Lego
construction as a tool to facilitate science and mathematics learning within the context
of technology practice, without programming. Of particular interest was what types
of scaffolding needed in order for students to learn science and mathematics. Thus
this paper focuses on the planning for learning, enacted pedagogies, types of student
outcomes and assessing student learning.

Design and Methods

The method used is participant observation. A rationale for this method is described
by Glesne and Peshkin (1992, p. 39):

Through participant observation, through being part of the social setting – you
will learn first hand how actions of your and others correspond to their words,
see patterns of behaviour, experience the unexpected, as well as the expected,
and develop a quality of trust with others that motives them to tell you what
otherwise they may not.

In this process of participation the researcher and the usual classroom teachers
collaborated in planning, while the researcher taught most of the 2 hours lessons over
a 10 week period as an intervention. Prior to beginning the intervention the researcher
and Jill (main collaborative teacher) matched science outcomes (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 1999) and mathematics outcomes (Queensland Studies
Authority, 2003) with construction activities related to the "Simple and Powered
Mechanisms" kits (Lego Educational Division, 2003) that were designed to help
students learn engineering concepts. The kits contained a motor, various cogs and
pulleys, various blocks, axles, connecting pieces as well as instruction booklets.

Subjects:

The subjects were 46 Year 7 students in two classes in a State middle school in
Brisbane. The school was a trial school for New Basics Curriculum (Education
Queensland, 2001) that attempts to integrate the teaching of subject domains of
science and mathematics through authentic project based tasks. The classroom
teachers were also part of the study. Jill and Tony (all names are pseudonyms) were

experienced primary school teachers who had a passion for science. Unfortunately,
Tony replaced the original classroom teacher of the second class half way through the
study, thus Jill was more involved in the planning and evaluation and the balance of
evidence reported reflects this situation.

Data collection

The collection of data included a reflective journal written by the researcher and on
going tape-recorded interviews with the teacher and student construction and
presentations as well and digital photographs of artefacts. In addition, the students’
interactions with objects, peers and teachers, student planning and construction of
artefacts, and their explanations of how things worked were recorded on video tape.
Students’ artefacts including their planning sheets, written explanations and their
explanations on written tests were also collected. In the second week of the study the
students were given the task of planning and constructing an artefact that either served
a practical need or modelled a useful product. At the end of the study students
repeated the planning and construction activity. Students’ plans and artefacts were
compared. The students were also given pre-intervention and post-intervention pencil
and paper tests on science and mathematics concepts. Throughout the study the
teachers acted as observers and documented student activity that indicated an outcome
had been met.

Analysis:

A hermeneutic cycle (Guba, & Lincoln, 1994) was employed in developing and
testing assertions as the study progressed. Emerging assertions were discussed with
the teacher and colleagues and tested and refined in the light of further evidence. The
video and audio records of activity and interviews were listened to and key elements
transcribed and categorised according to emerging assertions. Triangulation involved
the use of multiple data sources identified above and this maximised the probability
that emergent assertions were consistent with a variety of data.

In seeking an analytic frame to help the assessment criteria the author used the Payne
and Rathmell (1977) triangle that shows two way interactions between representations
(concrete and pictorial), language and symbolism. To guide the assessment process
the author devised a series of indicators associated with each outcome. For example,
in relation to the mathematics outcome associated with ratio Level 5 "Students
identify and solve multiplication and division problems involving positive rational
numbers, rates, ratios and direct proportions using a range of strategies" (QSA, 2003,
p. 21 the following indicators for ratio were developed:

Level 4: Students construct gearing but can not articulate the relationship that
exists in terms of magnitude (e.g., "The motor is connected to the gears which
makes the wheels turn"). This statement does not attempt to describe the
relationships that exist between the gear sizes nor how this effects their
functioning. In essence the student’s understanding is confined to the concrete
level and this is reflected in the language used. The statement does not give
explicit recognition to the concept of ratio.

Level 5: Qualitative explanations: Students construct appropriate gearing and
can explain it in qualitative terms (e.g., "The small driver goes around lots of
times and this makes the bigger follower go around a few times, this is good
for power"). In this instance the student was able to articulate the nature of the
relationship in terms of direction and magnitude but only in a qualitative way.

There was evidence of stronger understanding of the concrete representation
and the connections between concrete representation and language reflect this.

Level 5: Quantitative explanations: Student has used the gearing and can
explain it in a quantitative way (e.g., "The drive has 8 teeth, it needs to go
around 5 times to make the follower with 40 teeth go around once. This is
good for a tractor to pull loads"). In this example, the connections between
the material model, language and symbolism are all present and the nature of
the relationship is accurately described quantitatively. This would indicate
relational thinking (Skemp, 1978).

Level 6: Students have used gearing in a novel problem solving context that
illustrates understanding and can explain it in a quantitative way. Students
who use a series of gears to amplify the effect of gearing is one such example
and can quantity this relationship would be and example of this. Thus,
construction and explanation illustrate the students can correctly connect the
representations, language and symbolism associated with ratio concepts.

The mathematics Level 6 indicator above was developed for the outcome statement
Students identify and solve multiplication and division problems involving rational
numbers, rates, ratios and direct and inverse proportions using a range of
computational methods and strategies," (QSA, 2003, p. 22). Similar frameworks
needed to be developed to assess science based thinking.

Results and Analysis

The results are presented as a series of assertions followed by supporting evidence.

Assertion 1: Construction activities give the potential for students to achieve many learning outcomes
in science, mathematics and technology.

In the process of identifying those outcomes that might be developed through the construction activities
the researcher constructed from the Lego plans various levers, pullies, draw bridges, conveyor belts,
drummers, model windscreen wipers, cars, conveyors, merry-go-rounds, turnstile, crane and worm gear
winch. What became apparent was the great amount of mathematics and science understanding
underpinning the construction and explanation of the operation of these artefacts. This work lead to the
identification of syllabus outcomes associated with the Lego activities. In the current Queensland
Syllabuses outcomes are expressed at levels from one to six. One being entry to school level, level 3
outcomes ought to be demonstrated by the end of Year 5, level 4 outcomes at the end of Year 7 and
level 6 outcomes at the end of Year 10. Some focus outcomes are presented in table 1 below. There
were numerous outcomes associates with the activities in the Science Syllabus (Queensland Schools
Curriculum Council, 1999) within the strands of science and society, energy and change over a range
of levels from level 2 to 6. Similarly, in the Mathematics Years 1 to 10 Syllabus (QSA, 2003)
activities were matched to outcomes in the strands of number, patterns and algebra, measurement,
chance and data and space, again across a range of levels. The technology embedded in the activities
was mostly in the strands of technology practice, materials and systems within the Technology Years 1
to 10 Syllabus (QSA, 2003).

Table 1

Sample of syllabus outcomes related to construction activities

Mathematics	Students identify and solve multiplication and division problems involving whole numbers, decimal fractions, percentages, rates, selecting from a range of computational methods, strategies and known number facts (Number 4.3). Students analyse experimental data and compare numerical results with predicted results to inform judgements about the likelihood of particular outcomes (Chance and data 4.1).
Science	Students collect and present information about the transfer and transformation of energy (including potential and kinetic energy, Energy and Change 4.2)
Technology	Students generate design ideas through consultation and communicate these in detailed design proposal (Technology Practice 4.2)

Clearly, the proposed activities provided a rich opportunity for students to demonstrate achievement of
a number of core learning outcomes identified in the three syllabus documents. The problem for the
researcher and Jill was in deciding how to plan, carry out lessons and assess learning such that
outcomes might be documented. Faced with the almost overwhelming planning task of integrating the
outcomes Jill commented:

I guess I am lucky that I am a fairly experienced teacher and I know a fair bit of
science, other wise you would not know what science was in the construction. I do
not think that everyone has that love of science and maths and it is extremely
important (in order to integrate the two).

That is, Jill considered many teachers would not find it easy to link syllabus outcomes with the
construction activities. She commented on the researcher’s teaching plans with respect to the focus on
particular outcomes.

When I do my planning I specifically think of what major point I want to get across
to my kids? What do I want every child to understand? I have to decide what is
pertinent to Year 7 and at what level do I need them to understand. Then before the
actual lesson can begin you have to recap the information that is needed. This can be
a real problem because not everyone in Year 7 is up the "correct" level. I have to test
them first to see where the gaps are and then I have to teach at a Year 7 level but
scaffold the less able students more. I have to help them with the underpinning
knowledge that is missing.

Both the mathematics and science syllabuses (Queensland Schools Curriculum Council, 1999;
Queensland Studies Authority, 2003) are spiral curriculum documents that assume prerequisite
outcomes have been attained. In fact, it may well be argued that they reflect the notion that
mathematics and science are structured and hierarchical bodies of knowledge. Thus, in the sequencing
of outcomes reflect an image of knowledge consistent with Ernest’s (1991) view of mathematical
knowledge as a set of truths and body of structured knowledge consistent with absolutist images of the
nature of mathematics and usually associated with instructivist (Cooper, 1998; Marsh, 2004) teaching
practices. Essentially the same view was described by Galbraith (1993) as the "conventional
paradigm." This view is in contrast to fallibist images of mathematics and science usually associated
with constructivists pedagogies. For Jill this created a tension. She acknowledged that the way current
syllabus documents were enacted was not motivating many students, but at the same time the structure
of the syllabus needed to be reflected in teaching.

They hated it because they felt that they were no good at it (mathematics), and it was
boring. But, on the other hand, many kids in this group need the structure.
Somewhere along the line they have missed out on the structural approaches to all
the concepts including fractions for example.

This statement reflects her view that many students had experienced predominantly instructivist
pedagogy that fostered a negative image of mathematics and science and affected their ability,
however, at the same time she acknowledged that students had missed explicit structuring that they
needed in order to understand difficult concepts. In attempting to account for the need to provide a
focus for student learning so that essential scaffolding was afforded to students, the researcher and Jill
decided to focus on the concept of ratio that had been identified as challenging (e.g, Lamon, 1995),
and science concepts associated with energy and change. Consequently, the lesson planning and
implementation refected this focus.

Assertion 2: Scaffolding in the form of explicit details was needed for some students to make links
between activities and outcomes.

In the early lessons the researcher adopted a relatively unstructured construtionism approach to teaching,
in that the students were asked to construct various artefacts (e.g., "make me a car that can go fast") and
he attempted to hold class discussions towards the end of the lessons to make explicit the underlying
mathematical and science concepts. This approach was an attempt to have the students demonstrates
level 4 of technology practice and level 5 mathematics explanation of ratio. Lesson observations
indicated that to a considerable degree this approach lead to less able students becoming frustrated and

the class discussions were dominated by the few students who had the prior knowledge to link the
activity of construction explicitly to the science and mathematics. In behavioural terms this was
manifested by a few students engaging in off task behaviour and others expressed bewilderment and
disenchantment as one less able student commented; "I just do not know what is going on." For other
students the activities offered an opportunity for cognitive conflict and rich learning. For example when
exploring levers one student commented:

It does not make sense, I am all muddled up". A see-saw is constructed with a
pivot, load and effort. The pivot is in the middle of the lever, but if it was closer, the
other child would go boong. If it was even, then nothing would happen. If the pivot
was close to a light child it would make an easier effort.

Such a statement illustrates an accounting of proportional thinking and the relationships between
leverage, mass and forces. Jill’s comment on the problem of students having different level of
engagement was:

The good kids understand it, but it (ratio) is a concept that needs to be teased out,
you have to bring it down to simplest terms, you have to have a diagram.

In essence what Jill was recommending was alternative representations (a diagram) to
accompany the concrete material and explicit scaffolding to focus students’ attention to the
links between the material models and the underlying science and mathematics concepts.
The researcher’s diary acknowledged the tension between construction and attempting to
teach to specific outcomes:

It is very difficult to use the Lego to set up the science learning, because you are
always struggling with the conflict of them wanting to build and you wanting to
formalise.

Over the course of the study Jill and the researcher consulted after each lesson and as a result of their
reflections and negotiations the pedagogy enacted by the researcher evolved. For example three weeks
into the project Jill commented:

You need to build in more structure, give them structure, but let them explore as well"The
higher end kids, they can do a lot of investigative work, but some in this group have missed out
so you need to simplify it. I did that with fractions, you know, I brought something in and we
would cut it up, a pie or a cake, whatever.

Following this advice, the author attempted to provide more structure in the lessons. The first 15 to 20
minutes of each lesson was spent clearly defining the purposes of the construction task. For example, if
the task was to explore the nature of ratio by having students design build and explain the gearing of a
tractor this task was made explicit and the students were provided with planning sheets to facilitate
their thinking about ratio. In addition, it was considered that the concept of ratio (pre-requisite
knowledge) ought to be revised in contexts that ought to have been familiar to them such as identifying
the ratio relationship present when there were 2 while balls and 6 green ones. The students were also
asked to reflect on ratios that they were likely to be familiar with in the course of their daily life such as
bicycle gears. Unfortunately, this was a "post activity" thought and the revision of ratio did not occur in
this study.

The author attempted to hold debriefing discussions at the conclusion of each class and this was used as
an opportunity to link the formality of science and mathematics outcomes with the construction
activities. Jill noted that student involvement in classroom discussion was "patchy, that is some
students consistently contributed to class discussion while other appeared disengaged." The author and
Jill agreed that in future investigations each group would be asked to give a class presentation
explaining their artefact and would be graded according to the scientific and mathematical thinking
they demonstrated.

Jill expressed her approval for a mix of board work with standard revision of concepts and practice on
ratio questions and construction of artefacts. While students worked in pairs or in groups of three to
design, make and explain, the author walked between groups and much of his scaffolding was directed
towards eliciting student explanations of their artefacts.

The practice of the formal setting out of mathematical problems was to happen in homework time or in
subsequent non construction lessons. Jill stated that although she believed this ought to happen, over
the life of the study it occurred to a very limited degree, simply because Jill had other curriculum

material to be covered in mathematics and science. This failure to utilise the homework time to support
the learning that occurred during the construction activities was noted by Jill and the author as a factor
that limited the potential to make connections between the activity occurring during the construction
and planning phases and specific outcomes in mathematics and science.

In conclusion, in catering for the needs of different students, teachers needs to be aware of students’
perquisite knowledge and provide the level of scaffolding that different students need in-order to
engage in concept related discussion and to forge the links between the various representations. Such
scaffolding includes clearly setting tasks requirements, class discussions based on student
presentations, a mix of board work and book work, the use of homework to revise concepts and
questioning of students about how their constructions operated. While such an observation has been
noted previously, in the case of technology mediated activities, appropriate scaffolding may take on
additional significance. Put simply there are more opportunities for students to be cognitively
disengaged and more ways to fail to make appropriate links between representations. On the other
hand, it could be argued that when learning within a technology practice setting there are more ways to
be cognitively engaged and more opportunities to make links between representations and thus develop
powerful understandings.

Assertion 3: Year 7 students are expected to achieve outcomes at level 4, but a number achieved at
levels beyond this.

There were two main ways the author attempted to assess and document student
learning. The first was via pencil and paper pre and post-tests on the mathematics and
science concepts under study. Some questions were simply definitions while other
questions required quantitative expressions of proportional reasoning to gain full
marks, for example:

Examine the diagram of pulleys (diagram included in script). If the circumference of pulley A
is 20 cm, the circumference of pulley B is 40 cm and the circumference of pulley C is 10 cm
and pulley B I spun twice, describe how pulleys A and C will spin. Explain why this will
occur.

The correct answer to such question would be an indication that the student understood ratio at level 5
(Quantitative). Other questions were more open, for example, students were given the number of teeth
on various gear cogs and asked to use their knowledge of bicycles to create a matching pair that would
help the bike go fast, and to give a possible explanation that would be correct and complete (level 6).
Scoring was on the basis of correctness and completeness of explanations, and each item was allocated
2 marks. Answers that had correct quantitative responses as well as their explanations were allocated
full marks. The results for the pre-test and post-tests for science and mathematics are presented in
Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: Pre-Post Test Results in Science

f
The box plot gives a visual expression of the pre-test and post-test results for science, the pre-test
results being on the left and the post-test on the right. The box plots indicate that the median and in
particular top 75% of scores improved considerably. A number of students performed poorly in both
pre and post-tests. The paired samples correlation coefficient between pre-test and post-test results was
low, (r(42)=.30, p=.047) indicating that a high score on the pre-test was not a good predictor of
performance on the post-test for science.
Box plots of the mathematics pre-test and post-tests indicated that the scores were
generally higher in the post-test. The pre and post test results indicated that the pretest
score in mathematics was a reasonable predictor of the post-test score, (for
example r(34)=.64, p<.000).

Figure 2: Pre-Post Test Results in Mathematics

As with science there were some students who improved in their rest results and some who made
minimal improvements on the test.

In the initial construction phase almost all student constructions did not take account of mathematics
principles such as ratio and science associated principles including friction and leverage (the exceptions
being those four groups of boys who had extensive Lego kits at home) and for all groups the
explanations were not connected to science or mathematics principles. For example, a pair of girls
constructed the following helicopter in week 4.

Figure 3: Week 4 Helicopter

This helicopter has a simple direct drive to one set of blades. Their explanation of the
mechanics was as follows:

The motor makes the propellers go round and they make the helicopter work. The propeller on
the top gives off a large amount of wind and the helicopter nearly flies. The tail is for balance
and it has another propeller attached to it. When the ‘copter’ vibrates this propeller nearly turns
around, we are still re working it.

This description conforms to Level 3 of the Energy and Change strand of the syllabus
"Students understand the effects of forces on the shape, motion and energy of
objects." (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999, p. 79) but does not contain
evidence of mathematical outcomes. The figure below is a later construct.

Figure 4: Week 8 aeroplane

The girls’ second artefact used a series of gears to drive both the propeller blades and
bevel gears to the back wheels of the plane "for taxiing up the runway." While able to
construct in a more sophisticated way their explanations on the working remained one
of describing the cause and effect and they did not try to quantify their explanation
not even to qualify the relationship in terms of more or less turns needed to drive a
following gear. In this regard, the explanation remains at level 3 and certainly the did
not show evidence of attaining level 5 of the number strand "students identify and
solve multiplications and division problems involving positive rational numbers,
rates, ratio and direct proportion" (QSA, 2003, p. 21). That is, it did not attempt to
describe the artefact in terms of rates or ratio and there was no evidence in the
students’ explanations that this concept had been developed over the life of the study.

The motor turns the shaft that turns the propeller, and the middle gear turns the
second propeller, which turns the axle which turns the wheels. The back gear is a
bevel gear. It is pretty slow. If the propellers could go fast it might fly, but it can’t.

The students’ explanation does not account for the science principles that are involved (force, friction,
& energy transformations) and the science outcome remains at Level 3. Thus, while the construct was
mechanically more sophisticated than the helicopter, their explanations of the artefact had not met a
higher outcome indicator.

Other students did account for science principles in their final artefacts. Three boys made a game of
shooting a target.

Figure 5: Target shooter.

Their written explanation was as follows:

The target practice machine can be motorised or you can make it launch manually,
the missile is made of two small boxes and some teeth that grip onto the gear
connected to the motor. The flat surface allows a missile to slide and if it was
enough velocity it will shoot off and hit the target. The wall at the back stops the
missile as far back as it goes, where the missile stops it’s the fastest it can go.

This statement indicates a level of understanding at the level 4 of the science syllabus "Students
understand that there are different forces which affect the motion, behaviour and energy of objects."
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999, p. 79). Their original explanations of the non
motorised quad chair was rich in a description on how it was made but not how it functioned, thus in
terms of science outcomes their explanation was level 3. The boys did not attempt to describe the
shooter in mathematical terms, they did not discuss the relationship between the diameter of the driver
cog and missile velocity or describe the trajectory in quantitative terms, such reasoning would have
equated to a level 5 outcome (QSA, 2003, p. 25);

Students identify when relationships exist between two sets of data and use functions expressed
in words or symbols, or represented in tables and graphs to describe these relationships that are
linear and express these using equations.

Some students improved markedly in their ability to explain their products in
mathematical terms. In week 2, two female students who had been identified by the
teacher as mathematically very capable had designed a car for all terrain travel. It
featured (Figure 6) the use of a simple pulley system to drive a four wheel drive
"tractor" using a 40 tooth cog gear for rear wheels to "help with grip."

Figure 6: All terrain car, week 2.

The design illustrates that the students did not understand the relationship between
wheel diameter and circumference. When they tested the car, it would run on a desk
where slippage negated the lack of synchronisation between the front and back
wheels, but would not run on carpet where the front wheels acted as a brake on the
back wheels. In this instance the students did not recognise the significance of the
relationship between the different diameters and the distance each wheel would
travel. The misconceptions the students manifested in terms of circumference, rates,
ratio and direct proportion indicate that the students were operating at with error at
level 3 of the number strand. The critical issue here is they could not apply their
number skills to in this situation. (They had just recently demonstrated computational
competency in the attributes of circles, ratio relationship between diameter and
circumference, in their normal mathematics class. In this regard their mathematical
knowledge might be described as "instrumental" (Skemp, 1978). In contrast their

construction of a tractor in week 8 demonstrated a much better use of the concepts of
ratio (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Low geared tractor, week 8.

The students’ description of a tractor several weeks later was an excellent display of
mastery of ratio.

The 8 teeth gear on the motor (driver) will turn the 40 teeth gear underneath it, (the
driver) will turn 5 times, then 8 gear on the same bar as the 40 teeth gear will also
turn 5 times, when the 8 gear turns 5 times, the gear with 40 teeth will turn once,
making the 24 teeth gear that is behind the wheel turn around about 1 and ¾ times.

The students were aware that the driver gear had to turn 25 times to effect an outcome of "about 1 and
¾ times," this is remarkably accurate. This explanation is consistent with Level 6 of Number strand
(QSA, 2003, p. 22):

Students identify and solve multiplication and division problems involving rational
numbers, rates, ratios and direct and inverse proportions using a range of
computation methods and strategies.

The students’ abilities to apply the knowledge to unfamiliar contexts indicates an understanding of
ratio as described by Skemp (1978) as relational. The author does not imply that the students could not
do multiplication and division previously, but there is strong evidence in the final product that their
thinking about ratio had progressed and that they could apply this knowledge to authentic situations.

In summary, the degree to which students made progress on pencil and paper tests varied considerably,
as did their demonstration of outcome indicators and they had attained better outcomes in science and
mathematics. Some students demonstrated thinking which indicated that they were achieving at levels
well in advance of what was expected in Year 7.

Assertion 4: Student manifestation of science and mathematics outcomes were
directly related to the technology activities.

Jill commented favourably on the activities as a means of teaching science and
mathematics, for example she stated:

I do believe that they have a far better idea of ratio. I think that the activities really cemented
ratio. The practical application with the gearing that was really good, because they had a
visual as well a practical application and it helped them to put it all together. It was a great
grounding and is going to stand by them for year eight and beyond, they will always recall
this.

Further, Jill noted lack of student motivation in the traditional way mathematics was
taught to this class:

They were very de-motivated in terms of maths. They hated it, because they felt that they
were not good at it. That is why I have adopted a thematic approach.

Jill commented on student motivation over the course of the study:

By and large, with the exception of probably about four people in the class, I believe that each
child valued it. Clearly, to me learning took place. They loved playing with it, you know, the
actual building of it. I think there was a sense of commitment there, the commitment to keep
working for so many weeks.

Clearly, Jill considered that student motivation during the construction activities was a
factor that contributed to their mathematics learning. However, she recommended that
increasing the connections between the activities and outside experiences of the
children such as "thrill rides and roller coasters and computer programs about how
thing work." The importance of linking various representations of the ratio concept
has been noted in research literature (e.g., Ben-Chaim, Fey, Fitzgerald, Benedetto, &
Miller, (1998); Lamon, 1995). Jill further recommended that links between
construction activities and formal mathematics be made.

I would keep them in the same sort of structure because this group needs structure, structure
but let the kids explore and talk as well. You need to make links to board work, to set time
limits, have set class discussion. They need a bit more time to absorb the information and
build the artefacts because some are thinking, "am I doing this right?"

The second teacher, Cameron supported the Jill’s evaluation of students learning and
like Jill he recommended that the links between the activities and formal mathematics
be made more explicit:

It is definitely more hands on (than a normal mathematics lesson) and appeals to a student
who likes to see things in their hands and count gears and so on. But, maybe some students
didn’t see the structure (underlying mathematics concept)"For that to happen maybe some
needed more direction, a bit more board work. Do the ratio with board work and then tell
them, "OK lets apply that knowledge to building with this Lego now."

In summary, both teachers believed that the gains in student achievement of specific mathematics and
science outcomes were mostly related to student engagement with the Lego technologies. Both
teachers also recommend more structure and scaffolding so that students could more readily make the
links between construction and other representations including formal mathematics and science
language and symbols.

Discussion and Conclusions

In the introduction, a rationale for using problem solving and reasoning associated
with personal context was given (e.g., Education Queensland, 2001; Jones et al.,
2002; NCTM, 2004). A number of authors (e.g., McRobbie, Norton & Ginns, 2003)
expressed a concern that the powerful ideas associated with construction activities,
including Lego construction and robotics could remain latent. With this in mind the
author made every effort to make the links between syllabus outcomes and activities
in the planning of lessons. The data presented in assertion 1 indicated that the Lego
construction activities are rich in opportunities to achieve outcomes listed in the
Queensland Mathematics, Science and Technology Syllabuses. In the case of
technology most of the outcomes were associated with the technology practice of
planning, constructing and evaluating artefacts. The study indicated that explicit
links between specific syllabus outcomes and construction activities could be made;
however, making such links was not a trivial task. A major problem for the author
was to recognise the mathematics and science embedded in the activities and to link
these to specific outcomes. The finding that there were so many potential outcomes,
that the author ultimately had to choose a few to make explicit. Thus, in this study
much of the underpinning science was never made explicit in class discussions. This
was reflected in the relatively limited use of science explanations that many students
gave in relation to the functioning of their artefacts, while other students made their
own connections between their constructs and the science that they knew.

Related to the challenge of identifying outcomes was that of assessing the levels of
outcomes, the challenges in identifying student thinking in mathematics been noted
previously (e.g., Gailbraith, 1993). It is a problem when operation within the
educational paradigm of conventional paradigm of scientific enquiry and the
intructivism teaching approaches associated with it. This study indicates that
evaluating student thinking in constructivism paradigms is a difficult task and not
made easier by an outcomes approach to reporting. The task of collecting and
evaluation students thinking associated with their construction and explanations of
their constructs was an ongoing interpretive process that involved the teachers
collecting and recording multiple sources of data. The framework based on the degree
of connections that students made between the different representations of the
mathematics and science concepts presented in the analysis section of Design and
Methods was a useful means to match student explanations and constructs to specific
syllabus outcomes. However, refinement of this tool for use on different outcomes is
needed. The difficulties were compounded by the group nature of the construction
tasks, in particular how was a mark for the group to be allocated to the individuals
within the group?

The results summarised in assertion 2 illustrate that the author and Jill were aware that
there was a danger of key concepts remaining implicit and Jill encouraged the author
to move his pedagogy away from some sort of lassie faire constructionism and
towards "directed constructionism." This was evidenced in her repeated
recommendation for more structure in the lessons. While the pedagogy that Jill was
recommending and the author was attempting to implement was not "traditional
teaching," it had many of the elements of instructivism (Marsh, 2004) including
careful verbal instruction at the beginning of the lesson, orientation of students in
relation to key concepts and expected outcomes and there were to be opportunities to
reinforce via practice. Jill’s concern was most apparent in relation to those students
who struggled to make the links between the construction tasks and the abstraction of
mathematical ideas. The idea that teachers believed that students who struggle need
more direct instruction pedagogy has been noted previously, (e.g., Norton, McRobbie
& Cooper, 2002). To take account of the differing needs of students of different
abilities and with different prerequisite knowledge the author allocated increasing
time to the processes of abstracting mathematics and science principles. While, the
major part of each lesson was still in the context of students working in groups to
design, make and explain their products, teacher intervention increased over the life of
the study. In order to encourage students to make the links between various
representations (e.g., the machines, plans and the formal language of mathematics and
science) the author and Jill agreed to further emphasise student explanations. It was
recommended that each group would present their product and be rated on the quality
of their explanations on how it worked. In this way the author was attempting to add
focus and structure to student discourse. In short, the activities provided ample
opportunity and stimulus for student discussion, the challenge for the teaching team
was how to scaffold the lesson such that the discussion was purposeful.

The results of this study presented in assertion 3 indicate that the use of concrete
materials in the context of design, construction and evaluation activity provides rich
opportunity to connect mathematics and science concepts and to promote the learning
of powerful ideas such as ratio, force and energy transfer. The student results on
pencil and paper tests, the student constructions and explanations indicated that some
students made considerable progress on specific science and mathematics outcomes.
On the other hand other students did not demonstrate improved outcomes. The
teachers’ comments suggested that the learning gains were mostly due to student
involvement in the intervention, rather than some other factor such as maturation or
alternative learning activities. Given the difficulty level of these concepts such has
ratio, (Karplus, Pulos, & Stage, 1998; Resnick & Singer, 1993) and rate (velocity)
such improvement in results supports the suggestions of those authors who
recommend multi representations of mathematics and science concepts, including the
use of manipulative material (e.g., Ben-Chaim, et al. 2002; Lamon, 1995). The results
encourage the adoption of an integrated approach to teaching powerful ideas, as
reflected in reform curriculum documents (e.g., Education Queensland, 2001) and
situated learning contexts (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). More specifically, the
results support the suggestion that Lego is a very useful manipulative for the learning
of mathematics and science.

The study illustrates that there were challenges in attempting to meet varying student
needs for scaffolding, and these were manifested in difficulties in planning and lesson
conduct. There were also substantial challenges in assessing student progress and to a
degree these remain unresolved. However, the study adds to our capital of
pedagogical knowledge about how the use of tools such as Lego can be used to foster
the kinds of social relationships and engagements with authentic and contextual
problems learning. As noted by Papert (1980) "giving children good things to do" "
can foster powerful learning, but the task of achieving connected learning is by no
means simple. The study also indicates that significant professional development may
be needed to help teachers to plan, conduct and evaluate lessons.

How to Build a Lego Robot

2008-09-23T22:52:00.001-07:00

How to Build a Lego Robot

Legos are a classic toy for children that encourage creative thinking and help children to learn basic construction skills. Those colorful blocks are a wonderful way to access your own inner child, no matter what your age. Many people can recall building Lego robots as children, but maybe forgot how now they've aged. Follow these steps to help you build a Lego robot and relive the magic of Lego construction.

Instruction

Step 1.

Gather Legos together, if you haven't done anything with Legos in a while visit the store and buy a new set of basic Legos. Look for the Legos especially built for robot construction as it may come with some accessories to aide in your robot making.

Step 2.
Learn the difference between Lego bricks, plates and beams. Decide whether you want your robot to have legs or whether it will work on a wheel or pulley system before construction and if you will use the newest Lego Mindstorm technology to make your robot more technologically advanced..

Step 3.
Look online for a tutorial on how to build specific kinds of Lego robots. Search for a robot template that best fits what your imagination has dreamed and then tweak your robot from that skeleton construction.

Step 4.
Start with the base of your robot, since it will most likely be the most intricate part of your Lego robot. Secure all the pieces so that your robot will stand up to interaction and can support the weight of the rest of the robot. Remember your robot can take car or aircraft shape.

Step 5.
Be creative. Rely on your own sense of judgment about how you want your robot to look. Take a look at some Lego robots you admire and borrow some of the building techniques of those Lego builders. Remember to have fun.

Using Lego Construction to Develop Ratio Understanding

2008-09-23T22:19:00.000-07:00

Using Lego Construction to Develop Ratio Understanding.

Stephen Norton

Queensland University of Technology

<sj.norton@qut.edu.au>

This paper examines Year 7 students use and learning of ratio concepts while engaged in
the technology practice of designing, constructing and evaluating simple machines, that
used cogs and pulleys. It was found that most students made considerable progress in
accounting for ratio concepts in their constructions and some constructed sophisticated
machines and provided explicit and quantitative descriptions involving ratio reasoning.
The findings have implications for the study of mathematics in integrated and contextual
settings.

One of the critical questions facing mathematics education today relates to learning
contexts. In particular what kinds of mathematical tools and representations are needed to
promote mathematical learning and how these tools should be used (English, 2002). New
technologies are giving rise to major changes in mathematics education. There are now
numerous opportunities for students and teachers to engage in mathematical experiences
that were scarcely contemplated a decade ago. However, the effective use of new
technologies neither happens automatically, nor will the use of technology lead to
improvements in mathematics learning without changes to the curriculum (Niss, 1999).
Equally important is what pedagogical changes become associated with learning, with new
learning contexts and tools (Kaput & Roschelle, 1999).

In terms of changes in curriculum there has been a shift in the content of mathematics,
the most important shift in the last two decades has been towards increased emphasis on
powerful ideas associated with mathematical processes (Jones, Langrall, Thorton, &
Nisbet, 2002). NCTM Standards (2004) has encapsulated this trend world wide by giving
pre-eminence to five process standards: problem solving, reasoning and proof,
connections, communication and representation. This shift in curriculum approach towards
communication of reasoning and integration, or contextual problem based learning
reasoning has found expression in attempts to integrate science and technology with
mathematics. For example, the New Basics curriculum documents (Education Queensland,
2001) has a strong emphasis on integrated learning. This document encourages teachers to
use integrated community based activities, where the role of the teacher is one of
mentoring while students engage in tasks that are relevant and authentic to the students.
Other curriculum documents have recommended an approach to mathematics teaching and
learning that is integrated or transdisciplinary and were the mathematics is embedded in
authentic contexts (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2004; Queensland
Studies Authority, 2003). Such tasks tend to enable students to develop modelling
capacities that need greater mathematizing and the conceptual use of mathematics (e.g.,
Nason & Woodruf, 2003).

In the middle school years of mathematics, many topics require ratio reasoning skills. It
is required for example, in applications of percentages, rate, ratio, the study of
trigonometry and proportion applications. Lamon (1995, p. 169) defines ratio "as a
comparative index that conveys the abstract notion of relative magnitude." The difficulties
in teaching ratio are further illustrated by the very small fraction of early adolescents, who
can apply numerical approaches meaningfully in addition, the critical importance of ratio
(and proportional understanding) has been noted previously (e.g., Karplus, Pulos, & Stage,

1983). Resnick and Singe (1993) put forward the hypothesis that early abilities to reason
non numerically about the relations among amounts of physical material, provide the child
with a set of relational schema that eventually apply to numerically quantified material,
and later to numbers as mathematical objects. In the process of teaching ratio it has been
recommended students be given time to explore and discuss authentic ratio and
proportional situations/problems and not to be placed in the situation where
algorithmisation and automatisation clogs the process of insight development (e.g., Ben-
Chaim, Fey, Fitzgerald, Benedetto, & Miller 1998). Thus the purpose of this paper is to
explore the learning of ratio when students design, make and appraise artefacts in which
ratio thinking is embedded.

Approach and Methodology

This paper reports on students learning of ratio concepts within the context of a larger
study involving the integration of mathematics, science and technology syllabus outcomes.
The research approach was one of participatory collaborative action research (Kemmis &
McTaggart, 2000). The researcher established a working relationship with the teachers and
taught most of the 2 hour lessons over a 10 week period. The collection of data included
observations of students’ interactions with objects, peers and teachers, students planned
and constructed artefacts, their explanations of how things worked, and written tests.
Subjects

The subjects were 56 Year 7 students in two classes in a State primary school in
Brisbane. The school was a trial school for New Basics Curriculum (Education
Queensland, 2001) that attempts to integrate the teaching of subject domains of science and
mathematics into authentic project based tasks. The two classroom teachers were also part
of the study. Jill (all names are pseudonyms) was a very experienced primary school
teacher who also had extensive tertiary teaching experience and a passion for science. The
second teacher, Cameron was also experienced in teaching this year level. In addition he
had completed a science degree.

Procedure and Instruments

For most lessons the students worked on constructions in groups of two or three and
the researcher moved between groups facilitating construction of artefacts and encouraging
them to explain their artefacts in terms of science and mathematics principles. In some
lessons, 10 to 15 minutes was spent in whole group discussion of the underlying theories.

Prior to beginning teaching the researcher and Jill matched science outcomes
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999) and mathematics outcomes (Queensland
Studies Authority, 2003) with construction activities related to the "Simple and Powered
Mechanisms" kits (Lego Educational Division, 2003) that were designed to help students
learn engineering concepts. The kits contains a motor, various cogs and pulleys, various
blocks, axles, connecting pieces as well as instruction booklets. In the first half of the
intervention, students constructed artefacts with the assistance of the Lego plans (Lego
Educational Division, 2003). Thereafter they increasingly constructed from their own
plans.

The principal mathematics concepts were; velocity, revolutions, linear measurement,
circumference (with radius, and pi), quantification of gear ratios and quantification of
pulley mechanisms (ratio and proportional reasoning). Combined with the technology and

science outcomes, the intervention covered a considerable range learning outcomes. This
report focuses on student development of ratio.

Prior to the implementation of the study, the students were pre-tested for knowledge
related to ratio and proportional reasoning - mathematics concepts associated with the
planned activities. The pencil and paper tests had 11 questions that examined ratio. Some
questions were simply definitions, for example: "A small car motored across the room.
What is this motion called and what units were used to measure it?" (rate). Further
questions required quantitative expressions of proportional reasoning to gain full marks
for- example:

Examine the diagram of pulleys below. If the circumference of pulley A is 20cm, the circumference
of pulley B is 40cm and the circumference of pulley C is 10cm and pulley B I spun twice, describe
how pulleys A and C will spin. Explain why this will occur.

Other questions were more open, for example, students were given the number of teeth on
various gear cogs and asked to use their knowledge of bicycles to create a matching pair
that would help the bike go fast, and to give a possible explanation that would be correct
and complete. Scoring was on the basis of correctness and completeness of explanations,
and each item was allocated 2 marks. Answers that had correct quantitative responses as
well as their explanations were allocated full marks. In the second week of the study the
students also planned and constructed an artefact that either served a practical need or
modelled a useful product. At the end of the study students repeated the planning and
construction activity, and the science and mathematics tests. Throughout the study the
teachers acted as observers and documented student activity that indicated that outcome
had been meet.

Analysis

The written pre and post test data were converted to percentages. The pre and post tests
are compared using simple paired t tests. Student artefacts were examined for the
application of engineering principles such as leverage and gear ratio that reflected ratio
concepts. In assessing the artefacts and assessing the associated explanations the
descriptions of ratio cited above (Lamon,1995) was used. Thus, student explanations and
constructions were examined with respect to the correctness and completeness in terms of
the application and articulation of ratio principles. Throughout the study students were
asked a number of times to explain their artefacts. A hermeneutic cycle (Guba & Lincoln,
1994) was employed in developing and testing assertions as the study progressed.
Emerging assertions were discussed with the teachers and colleagues and tested and
refined in the light of further evidence. Triangulation involved the use of multiple data
sources identified above and this maximised the probability that emergent assertions were
consistent with a variety of data.

Results

The results are presented as a number of assertions.

Assertion One: Most students improved in their ability to explain science and
mathematics concepts on pencil and paper tests.

Descriptive statistics and mean comparisons are contained in Table 1 below.
Descriptive statistics indicate that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not
violated. All tests had approximately normal distributions of scores. There was a

significant difference in the mean scores for science as indicated by the paired t test result,
[t(55)=10.26, p < 0.000}, with the students scoring higher on the post-test. A number of
students performed poorly in both pre- and post-tests. A few students made hardly any
progress at all, supporting earlier findings that ratio is a concept that some students find
very difficult to grasp (e.g., Resnick & Singer, 1993).

Table 1

Pre and Post-Test Paired Results on Ratio Questions as Percentage of Total.

Test	N	Mean	SD
Maths pre-test	56	33.04	17.59
Maths post-test	56	60.59**	21.37

**Significance level at p < 0.01

Some students gave correct quantitative answers as well as correct qualitative
explanations. For example students were shown a picture of two meshing cogs- a small one
B and a larger one A, and asked to explain the effect of turning A twice on the smaller gear
B. Some students counted the teeth of the cogs (13 on B and 24 on A) and responded "A
turns 1.846 times while B turns once." Most students responded with qualitative answers
such as "A turns about twice for each turn of B." While these responses take account of the
ratio, a few students gave responses that took account to proportional reasoning to suggest
"B will turn about 4 times to make A turn twice."

The data indicate that most students’ ability to answer pencil and paper tests based on
ratio concepts improved over the course of the study. Still, it is somewhat disappointing
that despite some 16 hours of engagement on construction activities associated with ratio
the mean final score was only about 60%. On the other hand, students are not expected to
demonstrate an understanding of ratio concepts until Level 5 (Queensland Studies
Authority, 2003) which equates to junior secondary school but is often introduced in Year
7. Thus, students who were able to demonstrate an understanding of ratio were operating in
advance of what was expected of them. Further, ratio was not the only focus concepts,
because as noted earlier, science and technology outcomes were also being developed.

Assertion Two: Most students improved in their ability to use and explain ratio and
proportional reasoning in their construction of artefacts.

Selected students described in this discussion are exemplars of those who made
representative gains in ability to use and explain science and mathematics principles
associated with their artefacts. All groups made considerable improvement in the quality of
the plans and constructions they created. Most notable was the use of gearing to effect an
outcome, improved application and explanation of ratio and a better application and
explanation of the mathematical principles inherent in circles and understanding of
velocity. Perhaps the best example is of the pair of girls (Sarah and Mary), who designed
and constructed the car shown in Figure 1 in week two. Sarah explained that this car was
designed for all terrain travel. It featured the use of a simple pulley system to drive a four
wheel drive "tractor" using a 40 tooth cog gear for rear wheels to "help with grip." The
design illustrates that the students did not understand the relationship between wheel
diameter and circumference. When they tested the car, it would run on a desk where
slippage negated the lack of synchronization between the front and back wheels, but would
not run on carpet where the front wheels acted as a brake on the back wheels. Despite
prompting, the girls could not diagnose the problem without explicit scaffolding that

directed them to consider how far each wheel would turn for each revolution of the motor.
In this instance, not only did the students not recognise the significance of the relationship
between the different diameters and the distance each wheel would travel, they assumed
the ratio of front and rear wheel travel was equivalent. Interestingly, the students had very
recently studied the relationship between diameter and circumference, but were unable to
use this knowledge in a novel context, that is, they had instrumental rather than relational
understandings (Skemp, 1987) of this concept.

In contrast, in week 8 Sarah and Mary had designed the tractor illustrated in Figure 2.
This tractor won a tug of war competition against other student constructed tractors. Sarah
and Mary could now both explain the use of multiple cogs to create an overall gearing ratio
of 15:1. Their diagrammatic explanation of the gearing is seen on the planning sheet below
the tractor in Figure 2. Their written explanation included:

The 8 teeth gear on the motor (driver) will turn the 40 teeth gear underneath it, (the driver) will turn
5 times, then 8 gear on the same bar as the 40 teeth gear will also turn 5 times, when the 8 gear turns
5 times, the gear with 40 teeth will turn once, making the 24 teeth gear that is behind the wheel turn
around about 1 and ¾ times.

The students were aware that the drive had to turn 25 times to effect an outcome of "about
1 and ¾ times." The girls had initially tried to use a 40 tooth cog on the final drive but used
a 24 tooth cog on this model. They used a 24 tooth cog to solve a construction difficulty
(cog matching). Had the girls not used the 24 teeth cog the final ratio would have been
25:1. Clearly, the girls have presented very strong evidence that they had progressed in
their ability to use ratio, and their description of the final ratio-25 is to "about 1 and ¾," is
remarkably accurate. These girls also made considerable advances in their pre and posttests
on ratio and proportion related questions (Sarah, 43% to 77%; Mary, 58 to 84%).
Consistent with the test data, not all students made such gains in their ability to apply and
explain ratio concepts in the construction and explanation of their artefacts. For example,
the boys who constructed the racer in Figure 3 below were able to give a qualitative
explanation for their gearing:

Well the big pulley will go round once, but it will make the driver pulley go round lots and
make the car go really fast.

This explanation demonstrated a qualitative understanding between the diameter and the
circumference of each pulley and the relative circumferences of each pulley.

Figure 3: Pulley racer.

Even students who made very limited gains in the written test produced products that at
least accounted for 1:1 drive ratios, although they did not make these relationships explicit.
For example, in describing the workings of a 4 wheel drive with all pulleys of 1cm
diameter, the following description was offered:

The motor is connected to the wheels with a rubber band, when the motor makes the first wheels
turn, the others turn and that makes it work.

This statement makes no attempt to describe the relationships that exist between the pulley
sizes nor how this effects their functioning. None the less, the car was functional.

Assertion Three: Most students made gains in their ratio and proportional
reasoning abilities over the life of the study and this was directly related to the
technology activities.

Jill commented favourably on the activities as a means of teaching science and
mathematics, for example she stated:

I do believe that they have a far better idea of ratio. I think that the activities really cemented ratio.
The practical application with the gearing that was really good, because they had a visual as well a
practical application and it helped them to put it all together. It was a great grounding and is going
to stand by them for year eight and beyond, they will always recall this.

Further she noted lack of student motivation in the traditional way mathematics was taught
to this class:

They were very de-motivated in terms of maths. They hated it, because they felt that they were not
good at it. That is why I have adopted a thematic approach.

Jill commented on student motivation:

By and large, with the exception of probably about four people in the class, I believe that each child
valued it. Clearly to me learning took place. They loved playing with it, you know, the actual
building of it. I think there was a sense of commitment there, the commitment to keep working for
so many weeks.

Clearly, Jill considered that student motivation during the construction activities was a
factor that contributed to their mathematics learning. However, she recommended
increasing the connections between the activities and outside experiences of the children
such as "thrill rides and roller coasters and computer programs and about how thing work."
The importance of linking various representations of the ratio concept has been noted in
research literature (e.g., Ben-Chaim et al., 1998; Lamon, 1995). Jill further recommended
that links between construction activities and formal mathematics be made.

I would keep them in the same sort of structure because this group needs structure, structure but let
the kids explore and talk as well. You need to make links to board work, to set time limits, have set

class discussion. They need a bit more time to absorb the information and build the artefacts
because some are thinking, "am I doing this right?"

The second teacher, Cameron, supported Jill’s evaluation of students learning and like
Jill he recommended that the links between the activities and formal mathematics be made
more explicit:

It is definitely more hands on (than a normal mathematics lesson) and appeals to a student who likes
to see things in their hands and count gears and so on. But, maybe some students didn’t see the
structure (underlying mathematics concept)…For that to happen maybe some needed more
direction, a bit more board work. Do the ratio with board work and then tell them, "OK lets apply
that knowledge to building with this Lego now."

Discussion

It has been previously noted that the traditional way that ratio has been taught, lead to a
lack of transferability of that knowledge (e.g., Ben Chaim et al. 1998). This study
demonstrates that use of concrete materials such as Lego offer a mathematically rich
environment where the powerful idea of ratio is used by students in problem solving and
reasoning contexts that have personal meaning to them as has been recommended (e.g.,
Education Queensland, 2001; Jones et al. 2002; NCTM, 2004). The student results on
pencil and paper tests, the student constructions and explanations indicated that the
activities were rich in opportunities to promote the learning of ratio. The teachers’
comments suggested that the learning gains were mostly due to student involvement in the
intervention, rather than some other factor such as maturation or alternative learning
activities. Given the difficulty level of these concepts, (Karplus et al., 1998; Resnick &
Singer, 1993) such an improvement in results supports the suggestions of those authors
who recommend a multi representational of mathematical concepts, including the use of
manipulative material as an approach to teaching ratio (e.g., Ben-Chaim, et al. 2002;
Lamon, 1995). The results also encourage the adoption of an integrated approach to
teaching powerful ideas, as reflected in reform curriculum documents (e.g., Education
Queensland, 2001) and situated learning contexts (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). It
also supports the suggestion that the use of Lego is a very useful manipulative for the
learning of mathematical ideas. A number of authors (e.g., McRobbie, Norton & Ginns,
2003) expressed a concern that the powerful ideas associated with such activities,
including Lego construction and robotics could remain latent. Both classroom teachers in
this study recognised this as a potential issue for some students. The comments of the
teachers indicated that they believed that at least, to some degree, the learning of ratio
could have been better, with more explicit linking of the mathematical ideas and the
construction activities. This was especially recommended for students who struggled to
make the links between the construction tasks and the abstraction of mathematical ideas.
The number of students who did not make ratio a part of their description of their artefacts
supports this suggestion. This study adds to our capital of pedagogical knowledge about
how the use of such tools can foster learning. In particular, it indicates that a clear focus on
specific mathematics outcomes may be necessary. It is recommended that teachers
undertake professional development that includes learning to identify specific mathematics
outcomes inherent in construction activities, and ways of using Lego materials in the
classroom.

CONSTRUCTOPEDIA

2008-09-23T01:41:00.000-07:00

A reference work containing articles on different aspects of construction. This is the place to learn all about how things work!

This section is an ideal supplement for teachers using the LEGO Education Science & Technology range of products, helping youngsters understand principles of machines and mechanisms.

Changing Direction Of Pulley Rotation

Main Idea:
Two pulleys connected by a crossed belt turn in opposite directions.

Additional Information:
Two pulleys connected by a straight belt turn in the same direction. If you want the pulleys to turn in opposite directions, you have to cross the belt and make a figure-eight shape. In this model, the belt is crossed so the driver and follower pulleys turn in opposite directions. As in any pulley model, the belt has a small amount of slippage, which keeps the belt loose so it won't break if the wheels are forced to stop.

Compound Belt Drives

Main Idea:
Pulley wheels of two different sizes on the same axle can be connected to other pulley wheels to build more extensive gearing down (and gearing up) arrangements.

Additional Information:
If you need to have even more force or speed than you can get from a two-pulley arrangement, you can combine pulleys and belt drives to create a more extensive gearing combination. In this model, we see another axle and pulley added to gear down to an even greater extent. The first follower wheel turns slowly - the second turns even slower. You can also build larger gearing up arrangements.

Compound Gearing

Main Idea:
Gears of different sizes on the same axle can be connected to other gears to build more extensive gearing down (and gearing up) arrangements.

Additional Information:
Compound gearing gives you the ability to use even more force by adding more gears to the arrangement. You can connect more gears on the same axle to build more complicated arrangements. In this model, we see two separate 5:1 gearing down arrangements, connected to each other by the axle passing through the first 40-tooth gear and the second 8-tooth gear. The first 40-tooth gear turns slowly. The second 40-tooth gear turns even slower. This connection increases the gearing down ratio to 25:1.

Decreasing Pulley Speed

Main Idea:
If you use a small pulley wheel to drive a large pulley wheel, the large one will turn slower.

Additional Information:
With this model, we have a pulley with a small driver wheel and a large follower wheel. It's really hard to make a wheel like the big one turn - it would take a lot of force. But with a smaller wheel, we can use a process called gearing down to help. Gearing down decreases speed but increases force. Since it's easy to turn a small wheel at a fast speed, we use it to move the large one. A small driver wheel makes a large follower wheel turn more slowly. Since this is a pulley model, both wheels turn in the same direction.

Direction Of Pulley Rotation

Main Idea:
Two pulleys connected by a belt turn in the same direction.

Additional Information:
Here we see two wheels connected by a belt. When you turn the driver wheel, the belt causes the follower wheel to turn. This is a pulley system. The two pulley wheels connected this way will turn in the same direction. As in any pulley model, the belt has a small amount of slippage, which keeps the belt loose so it won't break if the wheels are forced to stop.

Direction Of Rotation

Main Idea:
Two gears which are meshed together turn in opposite directions.

Additional Information:
Here we see two gears meshed together. When you mesh two gears, turning the driver gear makes the follower gear turn in the opposite direction.

Gearing Down

Main Idea:
If you use a small gear to drive a large gear, the large one will turn slower.

Additional Information:
Here we see a small driver gear and a large follower. It's really hard to make a gear like the big one turn - we'd have to use a lot of force. But with a smaller gear, we can use a process called gearing down to help us out. Gearing down decreases speed but increases force. Since it's easy to turn a small gear at a fast speed, we use it to move the large one. A small driver gear makes a large follower gear turn more slowly. For this model, five turns of the 8-tooth driver produce one turn of the 40-tooth follower. This ratio of 5:1 is called the gearing down ratio.

Gearing Up

Main Idea:
If you use a large gear to drive a small gear, the small one will turn faster.

Additional Information:
Here we see a large driver gear and a small follower. We can move the small gear pretty fast on our own, but we can use a process called gearing up to move it even faster. Gearing up increases speed, but decreases force. A good example of a gearing-up system in real life is a 10-speed bike - when you shift into 10th gear, you turn a large gear with the pedals, which drives a small gear attached to the rear wheel. For this model, one turn of the 40-tooth driver produce five turns of the 8-tooth follower. This ratio of 1:5 is called the gearing up ratio.

Idler Gearing

Main Idea:
An idler gear is used to make a driver gear and a follower gear turn in the same direction.

Additional Information:
Additional Information:
Sometimes you need to have gears turn in the same direction. Since a driver gear and a follower gear turn in opposite directions, an idler gear is placed in between the two gears. The idler gear rotates in the opposite direction as the driver gear, and the follower gear rotates in the opposite direction of the idler - i.e. the same direction as the driver!

Increasing Pulley Speed

Main Idea:
If you use a large pulley wheel to drive a small pulley wheel, the small one will turn faster.

Additional Information:
Additional Information:
In this pulley model we have a large driver wheel and a small follower. We can move the small wheel pretty fast on our own, but these pulleys use a process called gearing up to move it even faster. Gearing up increases speed, but decreases force. A large driver wheel makes a small follower wheel turn faster. However, unlike gears, in this pulley model both wheels turn in the same direction.

Pulley At An Angle

Main Idea:
A belt drive can be used to change the direction of rotation by 90 degrees.

Additional Information:
If you need to change the direction that an axle is facing, you can place your pulley at an angle. In this model, the driver gear is at a 90 degree angle to the follower. The direction of rotation changes 90 degrees when the driver is turned. The driver pulley and the follower both turn in the same direction. This model also shows a gearing down arrangement, as the driver pulley is smaller than the follower.

source : www.lego.com

LEGO DESIGN

2008-09-23T00:06:00.000-07:00

LEGO Design

LEGO Technics are fun to play with and allow the construction of interesting structures, but they are not always easy to use. In fact, it is often quite challenging to build a LEGO device that does not fall apart at the slightest provocation. A well-designed LEGO device should be reliable, compact, and sturdy. If it makes extensive use of gears, the geartrain should be able to rotate cleanly and easily. If it is a structural element, it should hold together squarely and resist falling apart. This chapter discusses some ideas for creating a well-designed LEGO structure, as well as some properties of the LEGO Technic system that may not be obvious at first glance. Keep in mind that sometimes the best way to discover LEGO is to explore, focus on the brick, and try new things.

Fundamental LEGO Lengths

Figure 8.1: The Unit LEGO Brick

LEGO pieces have standard sizes so LEGO structures are usually multiples of those dimensions. The Fundamental LEGO Unit (FLU) refers to the height of a simple brick, and can be expressed in standard units, such as the millimeter: the vertical FLU is 9.6 mm. Interestingly, the ratio between the length or width of a brick and its height is not an integer, but a ratio of two small integers: 6 to 5 (see Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.2: Perfect 2-Unit Vertical LEGO Spacing

The 6:5 ratio, coupled with one-third height flat pieces, allows the creation of vertical spacings that perfectly match unit horizontal spacings, the spacing between the holes in LEGO beams (see Figure 8.2). By using these perfect LEGO spacings, vertical stacks of bricks can be reinforced with cross-beams, forming sturdy structures that should not fall apart.

Figure 8.3: Clamping Two Beams at Perfect Vertical Spacing

Figure 8.3 shows an example of two 8-long LEGO beams (separated by a two-unit perfect spacing) braced at the ends by two 4-long LEGO beams; this structure is extremely sturdy. Other combinations of perfect vertical spacings are possible with the one-third height bricks; in fact, all of them can be computed. Let a represent the number of full-height vertical units and b the number of one-third height vertical units; then the height of a LEGO assembly (in mm) would be

9.6(a + {13}b) (4)

since a full vertical unit is 9.6 mm high.

The length between holes in a LEGO beam is 8 mm, so if c represents the number of horizontal units between the two holes, then the holes are spaced by 8c mm. To find a match of vertical and horizontal spacings, we need to find values of a , b , and c that make these two quantities equal, with the restriction that a , b , and c are integers (since we cannot use fractional pieces of a LEGO:

9.6(a + {13}b) = 8c (5)

which reduces to

2(3a + b) = 5c (6)

The following table lists some solutions to this integer equation: Bracing LEGO structures using perfect vertical spacings is a key method of building a structurally sturdy machine.

Figure 8.3: Clamping Two Beams at Perfect Vertical Spacing

Full Height	One-Third	Horizontal
Units	Units	Units

1	2	2
3	1	4
5		6
6	2	8
8	1	10

LEGO Gearing

Making a good LEGO geartrain is, some may say, an art. However, this art can be learned and having some simple information can make a big difference. One of the first things to notice about LEGO gears is their diameter, which indicates at what spacings they can be meshed together.

The natural units for the sizes of LEGO gears is the horizontal LEGO spacing unit. The following table shows the radii of the various LEGO gears:

Gear Teeth	Gear Radius
(number)	(horizontal units)
8	0.5
16	1
24	1.5
40	2.5

Notice that three of the gears (namely, the 8-tooth, 24-tooth, and 40-tooth) have radii that, when used together in pairs, result in axle spacings that are integer multiples of the fundamental LEGO horizontal unit spacing. For example, the 8-tooth gear may be used with the 24-tooth or the 40-tooth gear, but not the 16-tooth gear.

Figure 8.4: Meshing of an 8-Tooth Gear and a 24-Tooth Gear

Figure 8.4 shows how an 8-tooth gear would mesh with a 24-tooth gear along a LEGO beam. The 16-tooth gears only mesh with each other according to this logic.

Gears may be meshed together at odd diagonals. However, this requires great care, as it is difficult to achieve a spacing that is close enough to the optimal spacing (which can be computed by adding the gears' radii). If the gears are too close, they will bind or operate with high frictional loss; if they are too far apart, they will slip. Figures 8.5 and 8.6 show some (but not all) examples of diagonal gearing that have been tested to work well.

Figure 8.5: Diagonal Meshing of an 8-Tooth Gear and a 16-Tooth Gear

Figure 8.6: Diagonal Meshing of a 16-Tooth Gear and a 24-Tooth Gear

When constructing any gearbox, especially those that involve gears meshing at odd diagonals, it is important to keep in mind that although the LEGO gears are very functional in terms of experimenting with various designs, their performance over time is not ideal. Gears meshing in even the most thoughtfully constructed gearbox may begin to wear, and might have a greater tendency to slip under stress. While it is important to develop a sturdy gearbox, it might be wise to keep its parts accessible in the event that a gear needs to be replaced after the robot has been constructed.

A very high performance geartrain will be necessary for driving a robot. For this type of geartrain, the following rules are suggested:

8-tooth and 24-tooth gears should be used. The 40-tooth gears are also good, if they can be fit in despite their large size.

The worm gear can be used to quickly assemble a good geartrain, although worm gears will cause more power loss due to friction than other types of geartrains.

The axles should be spaced at perfect LEGO spacing, or a close diagonal approximation. This is easy to do if the axles are mounted adjacent on the same beam, or across beams using perfect LEGO spacing.

Each axle should be supported at two points by going through at least two girders or beams. These support girders should be separated from each other. If these two rules are followed, the axles will stay straight and not bind up inside the girders, creating a lot of friction.

When multiple girders support the same axle, these girders should be firmly attached to each other. If they are not perfectly aligned, the same binding problem described above may happen, and the gear train could lose a lot of power.

The axles can bend. Gears should not be dangling at the end of an unsupported axle. Gears should either be put between the girders supporting the axles or very close to the girders on the outside of the girders. Both cases are illustrated on the example gear train. If the gear is two or more LEGO units away from the outside of the girders, problems may arise.

Axles should not fit too tightly. After gears and spacers are put on an axle, the axle should be able to slide back and forth a little bit. It is very easy to lose a lot of power if spacers or gears are pressing up against the girders.

Gear Reduction

Gearing serves two main purposes: transmitting and transforming mechanical energy. For the purposes of a drive train, the gears will change the high speed and low torque of a DC electric motor to the low speed and high torque that is required to move a robot. Experimentation with different gear ratios is important. The gear ratio determines the important tradeoff between speed and torque.

Figure 8.7 illustrates a sample LEGO geartrain that achieves a gear ratio of 243:1 through the use of five ganged pairs of 8-tooth to 24-tooth gear combinations (this gear ratio may be overly high for a robot drive). It is suggested that a copy of this geartrain be built for evaluation -- it is an efficient design and follows the rules presented here.

Figure 8.7: LEGO Gearbox Example

Chain Drives

Use of chain drives requires a fair bit of patience. To find gear spacings that will work for the chain requires a lot of trial and error design. If the chain is too loose, it may skip under heavy load; if it is too tight, it will lose power. Experimentation is required. The chains tend to work better on the larger gears and with fundamental LEGO spacing between the axles. See Appendix A for more information about building a good chain drive.

Differentials

The differential gear is used to help cars turn corners. The differential gear (placed midway between the two wheels) allows one wheel to turn at a greater speed than the other. Even though the wheels may be turning at different speeds, the action of the differential means that the torque generated by the motor is distributed equally between the half-axles upon which the wheels are mounted. Assuming the robot's weight is sufficient and distributed properly, the robot should be able to turn with its drive motors at full power without causing either wheel to slip. In terms of robot construction, this means that one wheel could be completely stalled, while the other would continue to revolve. Because slipping of the wheels is avoided, static friction between the surface and the robot is maintained providing a better translation of rotational force to linear force.

The LEGO kit provided has both simple differential gears as well as two gear differentials. The two gear differentials allow the option of either a 16 tooth or 24 tooth spur gear as the final gear in the drivetrain. The regular differential has a cross between a spur and crown gear with 28 teeth, which requires some creative but not impossible spacing in order to achieve a gear reduction that meshes well.

Though you may decide not to use a differential as a means of transmitting motor force to the drive axles; this does not mean the differential is useless. When placed directly between the wheels of two independently driven drive axles, a differential gear, coupled with a shaft encoder, could potentially be used as a supplementary directional sensor without significantly affecting the operation of the drive wheels. For example, if a vehicle with a differential gear had a drive axle spinning at X revolutions per minute(rpm), the differential housing would be rotating at X rpm as well, so long as the vehicle is moving directly forward or backward. If the vehicle were to pivot about the point exactly in the middle of the drive axles, the differential housing would not rotate, as the bevel gears within the housing would then be operating at full speed. Based on these endpoints and some experimentation, a program could be written to determine the radius of curvature of the vehicle's motion. This method could also be applied to a differential used directly in the drivetrain, but it would be unlikely that the differential housing could be motionless while the drive motor is in action.

Figure 8.8 shows a simple LEGO differential gearbox.

Figure 8.8: A Simple Differential Gear

Testing a Geartrain

Back-driving is a good way to test a geartrain. The motor should be removed (if it is attached) and a wheel placed on the slow output shaft. When the wheel is rotated by hand make all the gears should spin freely. If the geartrain is very well-designed, the gears will continue spinning for a second or two after the output shaft is released.

Low-Force Geartrains

When building geartrains that will transmit only small forces, many of the design rules do not apply. Some of the usual problems may turn out to be advantages. For example, it may be desirable to have a transmission that "slips" when it is stuck, so that the motors do not stall and then a rubber band and pulley drive would be appropriate. The 24-tooth crown gear -- in addition to being perfectly usable as a normal 24-tooth gear -- will function at the intended 90 degree angle, as long as it is only transmitting small forces.

Rack and Pinion Steering

Rack and pinion steering uses a motor to turn a pinion (a LEGO gear), which then shifts a rack (a flat LEGO piece with grooves corresponding to gear tooth spacing) to the right or left. This allows very precise and smooth steering, especially when using a stepper motor. Figures 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11 show the top, side and front views of a simple LEGO steering mechanism that uses a rack and pinion. It is unlikely that this exact structure would be directly applicable to a working robot; however, it should provide a start.

Figure 8.9: Rack and Pinion Steering (Top View)

Figure 8.10: Rack and Pinion Steering (Side View)

Figure 8.11: Rack and Pinion Steering (Front View)

Multi-tasking Motors

At times, a robot may need to perform seven or more different mechanical maneuvers. This can be a problem as each robot is only able to power six different motors. However, there are ways of exploiting motors to perform multiple functions. Obviously, one motor could be used to drive two separate geartrains simultaneously, but then both geartrains are dependent on each other. If one stalls, then they both stall and it's impossible to turn one off without losing the other one.

One possible strategy for multi-tasking motors is to place the axle off center. Now the gear is acting like a cam. The drive train will be intermittently broken as the "camgear" and the drive train come in and out of contact. Figure 8.12 shows an example of a LEGO gear cam. One motor could be used to power two gear trains by setting up a "camgear" to intermittently drive one gear then the other (8.13). This approach would be most practical if a gear needed to repeatedly turn part of a revolution and then retract. The cam would turn the gear a partial revolution and a rubber band could be used to restore the original position. It would be a waste of a motor to turn a short distance forward then reverse over and over, and the motion is bound to be inconsistent. Thus if such a motion is desired, using a cam driven by another gear train can be a useful solution.

Figure 8.12: "Camgear"

Figure 8.13: Cam driving Two Gears Intermittently

Another possibility for multi-tasking a motor would be to use forward and reverse for different functions. It is possible to drive a motor in just one rotational direction and still be able to travel in reverse. The solution is a mechanical transmission. In Figure 8.14 the drive shaft can be made to turn either clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on which of the large gears is being turned by the motor. One way of selecting which large gear is turning is by using a mechanical transmission like the one shown in Figure 8.15. It is useful to note that the same gear reductions may be achieved for the forward and reverse motions by inserting a gear on a free-spinning axle into the gear reduction. The size of the extra gear is immaterial with regards to the gear reduction, so the appropriate gear size would depend only on convenience and a proper meshing distance between gears.

Figure 8.14: Bi-directional Drive Train

Figure 8.15: Mechanical Transmission Prototype

The manual transmission shown in Figure 8.15 is only a prototype. The idea is to be able to use forward and reverse from a single motor for separate tasks. The details of an actual implementation are left up to you. In the setup shown, driving into a wall moves a gear from one gear train to another, perhaps allowing the robot to change direction without changing the direction in which the motor rotates. One problem is how to move forward again. Simply using a rubber band or spring to return to the original gear train, not enough time will have passed to allow the robot to back away from the wall very far. With a bit of ingenuity and mechanical experimentation, it is possible to multi-task motors.

source : www.owlnet.rice.edu

Lego Robotic

Construct Knowledge and Nurture CreativityEducation Theory and Case Studies

Construct Knowledge and Nurture CreativityEducation Theory and Case Studies

I. INTRODUCTION

II. INTRODUCTION OF FAMOUS SCIENTISTS AND LEARNING CONCEPTS

III. CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT EDUCATION SYSTEMS

IV. SOLUTIONS TO THE EDUCATION CHALLENGES:

Conclusion

Now Everyone can Make Robot, This is one of Robot that no need create from zero

Robotics Hardware, Software and Curriculum for Your Classroom

IntelliBrain™-Bot

Sofware for convert WAV to RSO (NXT sound format)

RSO File

Software for Draw Image for NXT LCD Display

Draw Image for NXT LCD Display

Java Software for Control NXT Robot Through Mobile Phone

Control NXT Through Mobile Phone

LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXTMobile ApplicationUser Guide

OVERVIEW

DISCLAIMER

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

DOWNLOAD AND INSTALLATION

BASIC USAGE

ADVANCED USAGE AND PROGRAM EXAMPLES

Robot Chess

Rubic Solver Robot

GEARS COMBINATION

GEARSBy Jim McGinn & Kristoph Minchau

Terms

Uses of Gears in Robotics

How Gear Work

Figuring Out The Gear Ratio

Choosing Gears

Types of Gears

Backlash

Recommendations

LEGO LESSON PLAN

Lego Amusement Park

5th Grade Lesson Plans

Day 1Lego Construction Parts

Day 2The RCX Box

Introduction to RCX

Day 3Constructing a Fan

Day 4Robolab Programming

Day 5Build and Control a Basic Car

Day 6Gears

Day 7Snail Car

Day 8Merry-Go-Round (Enterprise)

Day 9Merry-Go-Round Part 2

Day 10Design Project

Using Lego to integrate Mathematics and Science in an Outcomes Based Syllabus

Using Lego to integrate Mathematics and Science in an Outcomes Based Syllabus.Stephen NortonQUT

Abstract

Introduction

Design and Methods

Results and Analysis

Discussion and Conclusions

How to Build a Lego Robot

How to Build a Lego Robot

Instruction

Using Lego Construction to Develop Ratio Understanding

Using Lego Construction to Develop Ratio Understanding.

Approach and Methodology

Procedure and Instruments

Analysis

Results

Discussion

CONSTRUCTOPEDIA

Changing Direction Of Pulley Rotation

Compound Belt Drives

Compound Gearing

Decreasing Pulley Speed

Direction Of Pulley Rotation

Direction Of Rotation

Gearing Down

Gearing Up

Idler Gearing

Increasing Pulley Speed

Pulley At An Angle

LEGO DESIGN

Construct Knowledge and Nurture Creativity

Education Theory and Case Studies

LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXT
Mobile Application
User Guide

GEARS

By Jim McGinn & Kristoph Minchau

Day 1

Lego Construction Parts

Day 2

The RCX Box

Day 3

Constructing a Fan

Day 4

Robolab Programming

Day 5

Build and Control a Basic Car

Day 6

Gears

Day 7

Snail Car

Day 8

Merry-Go-Round (Enterprise)

Day 9

Merry-Go-Round Part 2

Day 10

Design Project

Using Lego to integrate Mathematics and Science in an Outcomes Based Syllabus.
Stephen Norton
QUT