Would you consider any of the following fun to learn?
Most people consider these as boring things that would only interest a nerd. What if I told you students of all ages from third grade to college are excited about learning hard core science and math? Unbelievable, but true, thanks to robotics. Robotics is an exciting field. It fascinates and engages people of all ages. It is truly a multidisciplinary area which combines mechanical, electrical, electronics and control engineering and computer science. Robotics is being increasingly considered as the Fourth essential "R" after the 3 Rs: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. In this competitive world, STEM education defines the underpinning of an advanced society. U.S. students have been consistently performing low in STEM education and one way to make STEM education engaging and meaningful is to use Robotics as the basic platform because all major STEM concepts can be taught through robotics.
What is interesting is the fact that even though robots are complex machines, today's technology makes it possible for even children to design, build and program robots. Building robots makes learning engaging, fun and meaningful. It provides a highly practical, hands-on experience. It helps to develop much needed critical thinking skills and problem solving strategies. Building robots help to understand abstract concepts in math and science. Robotics gives meaning to formulas and laws that students usually memorize without any understanding.
When working with robotics, students are immersed in the experience. Real learning occurs when learners are immersed in an activity, required to perform, and take corrective actions. Learner engagement, satisfaction, knowledge retention and competency mastery are achieved when students are involved and led through a guided discovery process rather than being "told" how to get the right answers. With robotics students learn difficult STEM concepts without realizing that they are intensively engaged in the learning process. Learning becomes a natural, fun process.
There have been many successful initiatives such as First Lego League, VEX Robotics World Championship and FIRST Robotics in the past decade. In order to make a real difference, robotics should be taught as a subject starting from third grade onwards. National Robotic week is celebrated from April 9-17, 2011. Celebrate this week to inspire students of all ages to pursue careers in STEM areas.
Don't get me wrong, I think that somebody without a bit of literature, history, mathematics, biology, geology, chemistry, AND physics is not truly educated and I'm a high school student considering studying engineering in something related to robotics, but robotics is to specialized.
Hello there. I'm curious how you, and FIRST/PLTW/VEX define "successful." There is little peer-reviewed quantitative research for the above programs on their "success" despite the programs' claims of it. TrueOutcomes, SREB, Brandeis, etc. are examples of the program-hired "research" done. What is this "real difference?" Yes, anecdotal motivational and interest changes are lovely and certainly worthwhile, but I'd love to see a robust, quantitative study done on the effectiveness of these programs in promoting interest in critical thinking skills, STEM major choice, and persistence to college and career. Anyone working on this? Thanks.
The only studies to my knowledge that have quantitatively researched PLTW include:
-A couple of studies spearheaded by the Southern Regional Education Board and funded by PLTW, and therefore introducing a natural amount of bias.
-A study by Doug Walcerz from TrueOutcomes, also hired by PLTW, that was initially extensive, but not scalable.
-A handful doctoral theses not in print.
For FIRST (an organization certainly not concerned with data collection or "Inspiration & Recognition" as they do not have even a formal registration or number count for participants):
-A study by Brandeis
-A handful of doctoral theses not in print
This could be seen as an accusatory post towards these organizations, but I don't want it to be viewed in that light. I personally think these organizations are valuable, do inspire students, and effectively prepare them for college. What I don't like is their unfounded and publicized claims of success.
As you hit upon, there are multiple school districts signing on to the pricy PLTW and even pricier FIRST with the two organizations claiming results they haven't even attempted to verify. PLTW is better at collecting/analyzing data than FIRST, as it's a curriculum, and I'm unaware of VEX as it is not widespread in my region. Thoughts?