Session F3A
`
`USING LEGOS TO INTEREST HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND IMPROVE
`
`K12 STEM EDUCATION
`
`Lawrence E. Whitman] and Tonya L. Witherspoon
`
`2
`
`Abstract - Wichita State University is actively using LEGOs
`to encourage science math engineering and technology
`(SMET). There are two major thrusts in our ejforts. The
`college of engineering uses LEGO blocks to simulate a
`factory environment in the building ofLEGO airplanes. This
`participative demonstration has been used at middle school,
`high school, and college classes. LEGOs are used to present
`four manufacturing scenarios of traditional, cellular, pull,
`and single piece flow manufacturing. The demonstration
`presents to students how the design of a factory has
`significant impact on the success of the company. It also
`encourages students to pursue engineering careers. The
`college of education uses robotics as a vehicle to integrate
`technology
`and engineering into math
`and science
`preservice and inservice teacher education.. The purpose is
`to develop technologically astute and conwetent teachers
`who are capable of integrating technology into their
`curriculum to improve the teaching and learning of their
`students.
`This paper will discuss
`each
`ejfort,
`the
`collaboration between the two, and provide examples of
`success.
`
`Index Terms — K-I2 initiatives, Legos, Manufacturing
`
`M OTIVATION
`
`“Are we providing students with the intellectual skills and
`background they will need to appreciate and continue
`learr1ing about SME&T [Science, Mathematics, Engineering
`and Technology] throughout their lives?” [1]. Much effort is
`underway to encourage students to pursue careers in science,
`technology, engineering, and mathematics. There is a
`growing base of infusing these necessary skills and attitudes
`to pursue these avenues as careers. There is also much effort
`aimed at addressing the diminishing skills in math and many
`of the sciences. Technology is becoming pervasive in many
`US classrooms. The skills and knowledge necessary to
`utilize this
`technology is being provided to students.
`However,
`there is little effort
`to build a broad base of
`understanding and appreciation of engineering principles
`that lies behind much of our technology today.
`business
`Much
`has
`been made
`of
`building
`understanding, communication skills, and the ability to work
`in teams into engineering undergraduates. At a recent
`conference of industry leaders, one CEO stated that he
`
`wanted engineers with business knowledge (“that know how
`to calculate a rate of retum”). But, he also wanted business
`graduates to have a basic grasp of engineering principles (“to
`understand and appreciate the engineering design process”).
`van der Vink [1], stated that we need our politicians and
`business managers to consider engineering concepts in their
`decision making process, “...Our long-terrn future depends
`on citizens understanding and appreciating the role of
`science in our society.”
`The College of Engineering has been presenting
`engineering concepts to students for five years. The College
`of Education has been teaching how to use LEGO
`Mindstorms to Science and Math Teachers for three years.
`The Colleges of Education and Engineering have co-hosted
`a LEGO Mindstorms challenge for middle school students
`for three years. These efforts strengthen and encourage the
`skills our society needs for the future.
`
`LEGOS AND EDUCATION
`
`LEGOS have long been the favorite of many children.
`LEGOS provide a mechanism to understand and do for many
`concepts.
`Similarly,
`Seymour Papert
`introduced
`the
`“Mindstorms” concept which revolutionized much of the
`way computers were used in teaching [2]. This same book
`was the inspiration for those at LEGO to develop what is
`now called, ‘LEGO Mindstorms.’ LEGO has been used in
`many classes to teach a wide variety of concepts from spatial
`relationships [3] to embedded computer control of mobile
`robotics platforms and data acquisition [4]. There is even a
`national competitive event using LEGO Mindstorms called
`the First LEGO League [5].
`Much of the pedagogical approach of these efforts is to
`use a constructionist approach to learning [6], which has
`been used extensively in computer-based education. This
`approach works well to perform experiments that are time-
`consuming as the process can be “sped-up” to allow multiple
`observations. However,
`learning is greatly improved with
`“hands-on”
`activities. LEGO Mindstorms provides an
`excellent tool to combine both computer-based education
`and hands -on learning [7].
`The popular press has numerous books on using LEGO
`Mindstorms from basic ideas to construct robots that enable
`
`thoughtful and creative modification [8], to books that deal
`with using programming languages [9] and interfacing [10].
`
`1 Lawrence E. Whitman, Wichita State University, Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Department, 120G Engineering Building, Wichita, KS 67260-
`0035 larry.whitrnan@wichita.edu
`2 Tonya A. Witherspoon, Wichita State University, College of Education, 156C Corbin Education Center, Wichita, KS 67260-0131
`tonya.witl1erspoon@wichita.edu
`0-7803-7961-6/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
`November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, CO
`33'” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
`F3A-6
`
`Rubicon Communications, LP — Exh. 1027
`Rubicon Communications, LP v. Lego AIS
`|PR2016-01187
`
`

`
`Session F3A
`
`Turbak and Berg have developed a “Robotic Design
`Studio,” to introduce Engineering to Liberal Arts Students
`[11]. Nickels and Giolrna [12], use LEGO Mindstorrns to
`teach non-engineers about science and technology. Several
`use LEGO Mindstorrns to teach engineering to engineering
`freshmen and to integrate engineers of different disciplines
`[13]-[15]. Garcia and Patterson-McNeill
`[16] use LEGO
`Mindstorrns
`to teach software development. There is,
`therefore, a broad base of knowledge using LEGOs to
`expose students to a wide variety of concepts. The remainder
`of the paper presents efforts at Wichita State University m
`using LEGOs
`to broaden the
`science, mathematics,
`engineering, and technology base.
`
`LEGO AIRPLANE FACTORY
`
`The LEGO airplane factory simulation presents a mythical
`aircraft manufacturer.
`Participants assemble toy size
`airplanes from LEGOs. The goal of the participants is to
`build as many airplanes as possible within their six-mir1ute
`workir1g day. The factory consists of five workstations: four
`assembly workstations and one inspection workstation. The
`simulation consists of four different phases. During these
`phases, the simulation is changed to illustrate new concepts.
`Participants will experience supplier problems, deadlines,
`quality control issues, and other real life situations.
`The demonstration first begins with an overview of
`engineering, bringing the students to a working knowledge
`of what engineers do ir1 general, as well as understanding the
`different engineering disciplines. Then, the mythical aircraft
`manufacturer is described as having a high rate of late
`deliveries, a large number of customer complaints about
`quality, and a decreasing profit margin. The operational
`policies of the company are described: participants are told
`not to communicate with their peers, not to break the chain
`of command with work related issues, not to work as a team,
`and other rules that describe a traditional command and
`
`control work environment. These instructions are given to
`
`With these instructions in mind, participants are ready
`to start
`the first phase of the simulation. The rules of
`assembly reflect those commonly found in facilities that
`have a functional layout, a strict material control department,
`a traditional batch production flow, a central quality control
`function, and a workforce that does not work as a team.
`Participants are separated nto five workstations that are
`spread across the room to simulate the long travel distances
`commonly found in functional
`layouts.
`Airplanes are
`assembled ir1 batches of five. As participants deplete their
`raw material supply, they must travel a long distance to the
`raw material warehouse to emphasize the importance of
`travel distance ir1 manufacturing. An inspector examines the
`airplanes after they have been produced. Participants are not
`allowed to improve quality or correct problems. With these
`rules i1 place, participants practice making airplanes for a
`few minutes to reduce the learning curve effect. After
`everyone knows how to assemble their portion of the
`airplane, Phase 1 begins. Participants build airplanes for 6
`minutes. At 4 minutes into Phase 1, a material problem is
`discovered that requires stations 1 and 2 to remove all work-
`in-process, thus illustrating a problem with poor suppliers.
`At the conclusion of Phase 1, the results are recorded. See
`sample results ir1 table 1.
`Phase 2 begins with several improvements. First, the
`separated workstations are brought close together
`in a
`logical sequence. Second, raw material is brought to the
`individual workstations. Third, the quality control inspector
`can now armounce where problems occur to the participants.
`Another
`six minutes of assembly follows with similar
`supplier problems. Results are recorded.
`Phase 3 introduces more improvements. Batches are
`reduced from 5 to 1 and inventory is moved with a pull
`system. Six minutes of production follows and results are
`recorded.
`Finally, Phase 4 introduces the concepts of
`teamwork and balanced work-load.
`
`At the conclusion of the fourth phase, the participants
`
`TABLE 1
`SAMPLE SIMULATION RESULTS
`
`—j Simulation Averaes 2—
`Number of
`Planes
`
`Produced first plane
`
`Methodology
`
`“X3 No
`
`“IX
`
`3
`
`14
`
`1:05
`
`2
`
`2
`
`Cellular
`
`Pull S stem
`
`4
`
`22
`
`:56
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Workforce
`
`emphasize the importance of teamwork and communication
`later m the simulation.
`
`discuss the results they produced and how the changes in
`each phase influenced those
`results.
`At
`this point,
`
`0-7803-7961-6/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
`November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, CO
`33” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
`F3A-7
`
`

`
`ir1
`increase
`the dramatic
`amazed at
`are
`participants
`production over the four phases. Most participants quickly
`see the benefit of arranging the workstations into a cellular
`layout and building airplanes in batches of one rather than
`five.
`The value of teamwork and making everyone
`responsible for quality are also evident from the reduction of
`rework and scrap.
`Addressing a wide variety of learnir1g styles is a benefit
`of this simulation. Participants engage their hands and their
`minds
`in the learning experience.
`This combination
`increases retention of the teaching points and motivation to
`learn more about the topic. This is a flmdamental concept
`underlying all laboratory experiences. Participants generate
`data themselves. They know how much effort was put into
`building the airplanes and therefore do not doubt the results.
`If students just observe the simulation, they may perceive
`that
`the participants are not giving their best effort.
`Involving people in the simulation avoids that problem.
`The simulation is extremely flexible in the level of
`teaching desired. Students in elementary, junior high or high
`school
`can learn about
`an application of
`Industrial
`Engineering and gain an understanding of the purpose of the
`discipline.
`Undergraduate
`and
`graduate
`Industrial
`Engineering students can learn concepts ir1 detail with the
`additional sophistication added to the simulation, such as
`adding values for cost, process times, on-tirne delivery,
`quality, and productivity. Executives, middle managers and
`operational people can learn about concepts to change their
`enterprise.
`involved in several
`Wichita State University is
`programs designed to increase community involvement and
`educate kids about what the university has to offer. We have
`presented programs to expose grade school students to
`engineering and science. Our role in these programs is to
`demonstrate
`the
`ftm and
`excitement
`of
`Industrial
`
`Engineering. We use the simulation as our vehicle for
`reaching these students.
`They are familiar with plastic
`blocks. Most have hundreds of blocks at home. With all
`
`they are by far the
`this experience working with blocks,
`fastest airplane assemblers we encounter! It is amazing how
`well these students spot the problems associated with a
`traditional plant.
`They are not biased with years of
`experience in the real world and are not constrained with the
`realities of budgets and time limitations. As a result, they
`suggest almost all of the improvements we normally
`introduce for phase four. We implement most of their
`suggestions for the next run of the simulation and record the
`results. Using their ideas validates their participation and
`holds
`their attention for discussion afterwards. Most
`
`students seem to enjoy their experience with our simulation
`as evidenced by their comments at the conclusion of the
`simulation and the requests for future demonstrations by
`their teachers and sponsors. These students walk out of the
`room with an awareness of what Ir1dustrial Engineers do and
`the f11n we have solving problems. More details can be found
`at: http://enteng.wichita.edu/legos/
`
`Session F3A
`
`ROBOTICS IN THE CLASSROOM
`
`The Robotics in the Classroom project at Wichita State
`University started two and a half years ago with an initial
`seed grant from the Boeing Charitable Co., and instructional
`support from Project M3, a Department of Education PT3
`grant to prepare teachers to use technology. The initial
`effort, designed to provide teachers with trair1ing and
`equipment to integrate technology into their classrooms, has
`grown, with continued support from Boeing and the College
`of Education,
`into a program that provides
`teachers
`technology trair1ing and equipment, an armual competition
`and showcase for students (through a collaboration between
`the Colleges of Education and Engineering), and an annual
`summer camp that serves both as a curriculum development
`and practicum experience for teachers, and a hands-on
`robotics invention opportunity for students. This project has
`served over 150 teachers and their students and involved
`
`education and engineering faculty, the Engineering Council
`— a student engineering group at WSU, distance experts from
`NASA and MIT, and industry professionals from Boeing,
`Raytheon, Cessna, among other notable corporations. This
`broad and diverse group has been successful in creating an
`environment of experimentation that allows for collaboration
`and development to integrate robotics into STEM curricula.
`The College of Education’s pre-service teacher education
`also includes robotics units in science and math methods
`courses.
`
`recently completed the Third Armual WSU
`We
`Mindstorrns Robotics Challenge (March 2003). This event
`provided young students with the opportunity for practical
`application and exhibition of math, science, programming,
`and engineering skills, as well as promoting teamwork,
`dedication, and sportsmanship. Teams of fourth through
`eighth grade students from across the state of Kansas had the
`opportunity to complete five Mission Challenges designed
`by Shocker Student Engineers, and demonstrate what they
`have learned to professional engineers and educators in oral
`presentations, table displays, and notebooks. Sportsmanship
`and spirit were judged throughout
`the day to promote
`collaboration and teamwork. Figure 1 shows a group of
`students working on their entry. This event complements the
`Kansas BEST Robotics Competition also hosted by WSU.
`The second armual Robotics summer camp plarmed for July
`2003, MER (Mars Exploration Rover) Robotics, is designed
`to teach students about Mars exploration and robotics.
`Teachers and students work in teams to construct a Mars-
`
`like terrain and build robotic rovers to traverse the landscape
`taking digital pictures and collecting samples that will be
`analyzed. Students will use the images and sample analyses
`to learn more about Mars exploration. Distance experts
`from NASA and MIT will be utilized as well as engineering
`and education faculty to deepen the content focus and
`technology
`skills. More
`details
`can
`be
`found
`at:
`http://education.wichita.edu/mindstorrns .
`
`0-7803-7961-6/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
`November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, CO
`33” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
`F3A-8
`
`

`
`
`
`FIGURE l . M_lNDSTORM COMPETITION
`
`the authors are working on
`A new initiative that
`together is to add a global perspective to their efforts. A
`distance learning robotics class is being created to be
`delivered Fall 2003 over the internet to teachers around the
`
`country using Mindstorrns in their classrooms. How math,
`science,
`technology, and engineering is taught
`in these
`different countries and the importance it is given will be
`explored as well as cultural differences. A similar global
`perspective is being pursued by developing a Lego factory
`for web use.
`
`Session F3A
`
`may be studied. Another project could consist of building a
`city transportation system. Robotic trains, subways, traffic
`lights, and other systems can be created and then studied to
`observe the functions of these systems on transportation
`traffic and flow. Students might design an aerial tram to
`traverse a canyon or a drawbridge that draws up when it
`senses a boat approaching. Each of these examples infuses
`appropriate
`IT through investigation and inquiry into
`standards-based SMT core curricula while encouraging
`collaborative
`teamwork,
`systems
`thinking,
`and career
`connections. As part of the CALEM module teachers and
`students will videoconference with distance experts at MIT
`and NASA for information and advice on their projects.
`College
`of Education, Liberal Arts
`and
`Sciences,
`Engineering professors and IT specialists will advise and
`direct the team as the module is defined. Finally, the team
`will meet with industry experts to see how robotics is used in
`real world applications.
`These efforts demonstrate the wide variety of ways that
`LEGOs and LEGOs Mindstorrns have been used at Wichita
`
`science,
`in
`interest
`stimulate
`to
`State University
`mathematics, engineering, and technology. By presenting
`these concepts to students directly, as well as to their
`teachers, a broader exposure to these concepts is achieved.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`LEGOs have been used in many different classes with many
`different objectives. Society benefits when younger students
`understand and appreciate, science, technology, engineering
`and math. LEGOs have been shown to be a useful tool in
`
`achieving this appreciation and understanding. Our primary
`goal
`in this effort
`is
`to stimulate the awareness and
`appreciation for science, technology, engineering, and math.
`Our approach has been to use LEGOs in the classrooms as
`well as in workshops, competitions, and summer camps.
`This paper has demonstrated multiple different uses: to teach
`how some engineers work and to teach some basic science
`and engineering concepts.
`Our approach has been successful in achieving interest
`in these areas. Students request these demonstrations and the
`summer camps fill up quickly. Many K-12 faculty are using
`these methods in the classes themselves. We have built a
`
`strong foundation for f11rther efforts and these are underway.
`The joint effort between the colleges of Engineering and
`Education makes the team effort greater than the sum of its
`parts.
`
`ACKNOVVLEDGNIENT
`
`in part, due to a
`The Mindstorrns Challenge is funded,
`generous grant from The Boeing Company.
`
`(Tonya
`Studio
`Systems Design
`The Robotic
`Witherspoon, Larry Whitman, Cathy Yeotis, Karen
`Reynolds, Lisa Johns, Sherri Reeves) allows students to
`solve a series of problems using a systems approach that
`reflects real world problem solving. Students will work with
`robotic
`equipment
`including a microcontroller, gears,
`wheels, axles, sensors, motors,
`lights, cameras, and other
`building components. Each project has a similar focus of
`inquiry, problem solving, teamwork and systems thinking
`necessary to design, build, program, and test robots to
`complete a specific purpose or job. What specific job or
`purpose the robot
`is designed for will determine the
`curriculum content focus. For instance, if the project purpose
`is to build a Mars rover that will carry a camera designed to
`send images back to Earth including an arm to collect
`samples and sensors to conduct analysis, then the curriculum
`content will
`focus on Earth/Space science and mapping
`while integrating key technology components. The same
`type of project could be used to study areas of earth where it
`is difficult for humans to go, such as Antarctica, inside a
`volcano, deep in a cave, or another planet. If the project is to
`create a robotic controlled intelligent house that would keep
`the temperature, lighting, air, etc. at pre-deterrnined levels
`then the curriculum focus might be on design, invention, and
`engineering systems. Another project might be to create
`robotic animals in an ecosystem such as an ocean, a jungle,
`or a rain forest. Each animal would be programmed to act
`and respond appropriately so that systems and behaviors
`0-7803-7961-6/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
`November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, CO
`33” ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
`F3A-9
`
`REFERENCES
`
`[1] National Research Coun cil, “Transforming undergraduate education
`in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology”, National
`Academy Press, Washington, DC. 1999.
`
`

`
`Session F3A
`
`[2]
`
`Papert, S., “Mindstorms - Children, computers, and powerful ideas”,
`Basic Boolcs, New York, NY. 1993.
`
`[3] Martin, F.G, "The art of Lego design," The Journal ofRobot Builders,
`Vol. 1 No. 2, pg. 1-19. 1995.
`
`[4] Nagchaudhuri, A., Sir1gh, G., Ka11r, M., and George, S., "Lego
`robotics products boost student creativity ir1 pre-college programs at
`UMES," Proc. ofthe 32nd ASEE/IEEEFrontiers in Education
`Conference, Boston, MA, S4D- 1-6. 2002.
`
`[5] Oppliger, D., "Using first Lego league to enhance engineering
`education and to increase the pool of future engineering students
`(work ir1 progress)," Proc. ofthe 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in
`Eduaztion Conference, Boston, MA, S4D-11-5. 2002.
`
`[6] Wilson, B.G., “Constructivist learning environments: Case studies ir1
`instructional design,” Educational Technology Publications,
`Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1996.
`
`[7] Resnick, M., Berg, R., and Eisenberg, M., Beyond black boxes:
`Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation,
`Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7-30.
`
`[8]
`
`Ferrari, M., Ferrari, G., and Hempel, R., “Building robots with Lego
`Mindstorms - The ultimate tool for Mir1dstorms maniacsl,” Syngress
`Publishing, Inc., Rockland, MA. 2002.
`
`[9] Erwin, B., “Creative projects with Lego Mindstorms,” Addison-
`Wesley, 2001.
`
`[10] Wilcher, D., “Lego mindstorms interfacing,” The McGraw-Hill
`Companies, Inc., 2003.
`
`[11] Turbak, F., and Berg, R., "Robotic design studio: Exploring the big
`ideas of engineering ir1 a liberal arts environment," Journal ofScience
`Education and Technology, 2002.
`
`[12] McNamara, S., Cyr, M., Rogers, C., and Bratzel, B., "LEGO brick
`sculptures and robotics ir1 education," Proc. ofthe American Society
`for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 1999.
`
`[13] Shih, A.C., and Hudspeth, M.C., "Using the Lego robotics kit as a
`teaching tool ir1 a project -based freshman course," Proc. ofthe
`American Societyfor Engineering Education Annual Conference &
`Exposition, 2001
`
`[14] Hwang, D.J., and Blandford, D., K., “A multidisciplinary team project
`for electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer
`science majors”, 2000.
`
`[15] Otto, K., Bezdek, J., Wood, K., Jensen, D., and Murphy, M.,
`"Building better mousetrap builders: Courses to incrementally and
`systematically teach design," Proc. ofthe American Societyfor
`Engineering Education Annual Conference. 1998
`
`[16] Garcia, M.A., and Patterson-McNeill, H., "Learn how to develop
`software using the toy Lego Mir1dstorms," Proc. ofthe 32nd
`ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA., 2002.
`
`November 5-8, 2003, Boulder, CO
`0-7803-7961-6/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
`33'" ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
`F3A-1 0