Robotics-Driven Activities: Can They Improve Middle School Science Learning?

Abstract

This study used case studies from three science teachers to compare three groups of students studying Grade 8 physics using Robolab instead of traditional lab materials. The three teachers represented an English as a second language class, a regular class with many English language learner students, and a Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement class of afterschool volunteer students. The teachers responded to nine questions regarding issues such as how robotics addresses the middle school physics standards, promotes inquiry learning and science literacy in students, increases applications and connection of science to everyday life, and provides the scaffolding for more discussion of everyday English and science academic language through the use of robotics materials and lab groups. The results indicated that robotics can promote inquiry, make physics more interesting, and help students learn and practice new words in English, among others.

Keywords

robotics ESL middle school science science standards

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Borg, W. , & Gall, M. (1983). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Longman.

Case, R. (2002). The intersection of language, education and content: Science instruction for ESL students. Clearinghouse, 76(2), 71-74.

Cyr, M. (2002). Mindstorms for schools, using Robolab. Boston: Tufts University, Lego Educational Division.

Donata, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotsky approaches in second language learning research(pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Abex.

Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL student in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-272.

Hardiman, M. (2001). Connecting brain research with dimensions of learning. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 52-55.

Lontolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

National Resource Council . (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nevada Department of Education . (1998). Nevada science standards. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Education.

10.

Ohta, A. (1995). Applying socioculture theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-121.

11.

Trowbridge, L. , & Bybee, R. (1996). Teaching secondary school science. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

12.

Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genius of higher mental functions. In J. Wortsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology(pp. 144-188). White Plains, NY: Sharpe.

13.

Wang, E. (2002). Engineering with LEGO bricks and Robolab. Knoxville, TN: College House Enterprises.

14.

Yager, R. , & Rostum, R. (1993). STS: Most pervasive and most radical of reform approaches to “science” education. In R. Yager (Ed.), The science, technology society movement(pp. 7-13). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.