Teaching Teacher’s Robotics: NETS-T in a “Smart” Context

Robotics: A “Smart” Context for Addressing National

Educational Technology Standards for Teachers

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference

Atlanta, GA, March 1-6, 2004

Mary Hopper, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Technology in Education

Lesley University

What is going to be shown or demonstrated or offered:

This presentation is about the results of an effort to redesign of a robotics course offered in a national program for teacher education. It includes a description of how and why the course was restructured to address the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) while emphasizing and illustrating ways to integrate robotics topics, technologies and processes to address the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) across the curriculum (ISTE, 2000, 2002). There will be an explanation and illustration of how the actual content and technologies were expanded to emphasize the evolution from robotics to “smart” technologies that are becoming prevalent. Finally, this presentation includes a description of the process and results of broadening the range of robotics materials and products used to meet the revised goals of the course.

The context or motivation:

It has been common to include exposure to educational robotics within teacher preparation courses for more than a decade (Resnick & Ocko, 1991). This has often involved units or courses built around LEGO/Logo, and some teachers have gone on to include these ideas and products in their classrooms or programs with great success (Sargent, Resnick, Martin & Silverman, 1996). The technology boom of the last decade made including and funding these activities a relatively popular downhill battle in some educational contexts. However, the technology bust and mounting pressure to focus on traditional curriculum areas such as math and science are now making it much more of an uphill battle for teachers and the programs that prepare them to continue to find room to include what are now considered relatively exotic and expensive robotics units or courses.

At the same time, it is also widely recognized that we already live in a world where we are increasingly dependent upon robotics and related “smart technologies” in our day-to-day lives (Davis & Kanarick, 2001). Therefore, the same programs and teachers that are under pressure to focus on traditional curriculum areas are also under pressure to empower teachers and students to master a 21^st Century “smart” world where robotics related “smart” technologies are ubiquitous (NCREL, 2003). One way to address this dilemma is to systematically map how robotics concepts, content and processes can be integrated with traditional curriculum areas while simultaneously explicitly highlighting how they already address emerging technology standards that actual cover exactly the same skills that have always been the focus and strength of most robotics curriculums. Finally, in today’s fiscal environment, It is also essential to broaden the range of educational robotics materials and products to include cheaper options so that it is realistic to include them within tight budgetary constraints.

The major aspects:

This presentation describes the results of one effort to address this challenge through the redesign of a robotics course offered in a national program for teacher education. It will include an outline of how the course was restructured around addressing the national technology standards for teachers while emphasizing and illustrating ways to integrate robotics topics, technologies and processes to address technology standards for students across the curriculum. There will be a brief explanation of how the content and technologies used in the course were expanded to emphasize the evolution from robotics to the extensive “smart” technologies that are becoming prevalent. There will also be a description of the process and results of broadening the range of materials and products used to meet the revised goals and objectives.

The restructured course still includes activities, exercises and projects with extensive hands-on experience with educational robotics kits and models, and a highlight of the course remains the opportunity to participate in robot construction competitions that illustrate how these can be used to foster the 21^st Century skills of team work, higher-order thinking, problem solving and creativity (Flowers, 2001). Teachers who take the course can not only explain, build and use the essential mechanical, electronic, computing systems that make up “smart” technologies (Resnick, Berg, Eisenberg, 2000)--they can also incorporate those technologies and topics into their classrooms with activities that connect content standards with student technology standards and meets the diverse needs of learners; discuss the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of robotics technology in general and particularly in educational contexts; and evaluate educational robotics products for classroom use for suitability relative to learner, curriculum and other factors. Most importantly, teachers who complete the course are also prepared and encouraged to participate in continued professional development and leadership activities beyond the course.

Relevant URLs or literature references:

Davis, B. H. & Kanarick, C. (eds) (2001). When Everything Learns, Razorfish.

[http://www.digitaleverything.com/wheneverythinglearns2.pdf]

Flowers, W. (2001). FIRST Robotics Competition. FIRST.

[http://web.mit.edu/6.270/www/about/history.html]

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR.

[http://cnets.iste.org/students/]

International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers: Establishing Performance-based Standards and Assessments for Improving Technology Competence in Preservice Education. Eugene, OR.

[http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/]

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2003. enGauge 21^st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age, NCREL.

[http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm]

Resnick, M., Berg, R. & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-30.

[http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/bbb-jls/]

Resnick, M. & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning Through and About Design. In Constructionism, Harel, I & Papert, S. (eds). Norword, NJ: Ablex Pubishing.

Sargent, R., Resnick, M. Martin, F. & Silverman, B. (1996). Building and Learning with Programmable Bricks. In Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (eds.), Constructionism in Practice, pp. 161-173. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.