Subject:
|
Elem./Middle School Robotics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.edu, lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 May 2001 02:44:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7235 times
|
| |
|
|
I posted the following under "Dear Lego" a few days back but in retrospect
it should have been referenced here as well.
I've finished this semester's lunchtime courses and am in the process of
re-thinking this approach for next year. It strikes me that the same hour
course would also work well with Cub Scout Summer Camp's week long sessions.
An hour session on powered cars or elementary robotics each day for 5 days
sure beats some of the crafts classes.
After teaching a "Simple Machines Class" using the DACTA Levers, Pulleys and
Gears sets, I'm inclined to lower the age group for that to 2nd and 3rd
grade and limit class size to 12. Use the same DACTA sets and close the
session with simple unmotorized cars using flywheel, rubber band and maybe
balloon power.
I think I have to reformat the robotics curriculum by having 3 stages:
A motorized car/intro to robotics class for the 3rd and 4th grade level
using the Droid Development Kits to build cars - dealing with gearing and
tires moving on to simple "Droid" robots - perhaps using some of the
Darkside plans - especially for the walker. This class would focus more on
the mechanics end - making things work. Given the recent $29 Droid Dev. Kit
price at TRU, this actually becomes feasible and affordable.
An intermediate Robotics class for 4th and 5th grade using the Robotics
Discovery Set. This would expand on the sample robots and include tracked
vehicles - again the focus being on the mechanics and function.
An advanced class using the Robotics Invention system where actual
programming on the PC is introduced.
In the back of my head I have the thought of building up a cadre of kids who
- besides having the interest, also have the skills to really do something
with this background either in a Robotics Club (maybe a First Lego League
Team) or prepared to REALLY do something once they take the Middle School
Tech Class.
The thought of "Battlebots" HAS entered my head but I'm truly wary of the
damage that could be done. I'm thinking that a "simple" approach where a
robot competes against a course instead of against other robots might work.
I caught one show on Cable where a robot had to navigate an obstacle course
before moving on to a "battle." The challenge course seems like a good
idea. You could incorporate weaponry in a different way. If the robot were
equipped with a "Dart Shooter" Cannon, it could go after targets (light
sensor, vision???). I built a prototype turret equipped with 4 shooters
that tracks, elevates and fires sequentially (with cams) off a RCX and
controlled with the Remote Control. It was fun mounted on the Lego Radio
Control Car, but that approach gets away from the Robotics aspect.
Anyway, the irony is that I'm way ahead of the Middle School - and my 5 year
old is far beyond many of those students in building his "vehicles" ....lol.
Still, I think there is great potential for a formal curriculum here. The
"Dear Lego" post follows:
<<I had an interesting conversation with one of the Middle School Tech
teachers today. As background - I'm a stay-at-home Dad with an engineering
degreee. I use Mindstorm kits (heavily supplemented with Technic parts) to
teach lunchtime enrichment courses at my son's elementary school. Over
time, I've built up a substantial collection of parts and assembled some
standard parts assortments (by color when possible) in toolboxes. While the
Tech Curriculum makes limited use of ROBOLAB and DACTA RCX kits, there has
been some impetus to expand their offerings.
I had brought in various items to the program in the past so I've gotten to
know the tech classes well. I had talked about Lego Robotics with this
particular teacher in the past - another engineer, now teacher. She had
noted that programming was the major hang-up her kids had with the intro
level robotics. Having picked up some more Mindstorm kits for relatively
reasonable prices ( a Robotics Discovery Set through eBay at about 30% off
and a couple Droid Development sets at TRU clearance prices) I brought them
in for her to try in class.
The Robotics Discovery Set was a big hit as were the Droid kits. This
teacher was actually unaware of the Discovery Set when we first met a couple
months ago. Lego only markets the RCX through DACTA to the educational
market, but they may be missing some opportunities here. The Micro-Scout -
while limited does offer a good entry level experience. I've used it to
make basic cars to explain gearing and wheel sizes. The Scout is a good
interim experience - it lets students learn how to build robots without
having to sort through the programming end. The RCX introduces programming
and a higher level of functionality. Frankly, my opinion of the Micro-Scout
has gone up in this context. As a home product (especially as originally
priced) it has limited value, but as a first step teaching tool, it works
well (though a more conventional, brick-like shape may have been better).
While these items are NOT marketed to educators, this is just part of the
problem. Even if aware of these products, it is difficult for a teacher to
buy them - unless paying for them out of pocket - an option not available to
any teacher I know. The educational establishment is hamstrung by overly
complex and bureaucratic purchasing procedures. I showed this teacher MY
class resources (only part of the total - about 15 trays of parts) and she
was astounded. The problem is, there is NO way that she - or anyone else
in a school environment - could ever assemble this collection using school
Purchase Orders. Schools are NOT going to pay for TECHNIC kits just to
obtain parts. Frankly, many of the parts I've accummulated are no longer
available in current TECHNIC kits. The transition away from beams and
plates has spurred my interest in older kits for parts.
The ONLY real recourse this teacher has in obtaining what she wants for her
class is to apply for a grant from a parent sponsored foundation. She and I
could then - outside of the usual purchasing channels - buy TECHNIC, Droid
Kits, RDS kits and even RIS kits along with parts from Shop-at-home and
Pitsco DACTA to set up a decent robotics lab.
Lego could make this much easier in a few ways. As a suggestion:
Have the Micro-Scout, Scout and RCX kits available to the educational market
individually and as kits (reasonably priced). The RIS kit prices dropped
but NOT the brick price. I suspect that the secondary market (eBay, etc.)
sells RCX's Scouts and Micro-Scouts at lower prices that would STILL give
Lego a decent profit. How about quantity discounts?
Lego could provide a prepackaged assortment of beams, plates, bricks, wheel
hubs, gears, axles, pulleys and such in a variety of colors to make up
working sets.
Black, White, Blue, Yellow, Red, Lt. Grey, Dk. Grey, Green and even Orange,
Purple, Teal and such. Having basic parts available in colors makes it FAR
easier for kids to pick-up and maintain separate workgroup trays - and
identify "Their" robots.
It is important to have a wide assortment of wheel/tires available - items
VERY difficult to accumulate by ANY method. The larger tires (20x30) are
difficult to obtain in quantity and color. The super large tires are not
sold at all through shop at home and I've only gotten minimal supplies
through lucky eBay purchases.
At the same point, having instruction cards for different mechanisms -
claws, shovels, grabbers, etc. helps kids. They NEED examples to learn FROM
before they can start coming up with their own designs. Robotics
"sub-themes" - sports, "battle-bots", explorers (aka the Mars explorer
theme) with example building instructions would be a good idea as well.
While you want kids to find their own solutions, many of these kids have not
had exposure to this type of construction and need examples to get them
thinking.
Lego really needs to address the price issue. K'NEX stuff is being used for
basic cars and such at this school because it is cheaper. I saw an amazing
web site on tech curriculums using K'NEX - again chosen BECAUSE it is
cheaper. Of course, this is not just a DACTA issue, it is a major retail
problem.
Given the amount of Lego product sold at a discount or clearance, it would
seem smarter to lower prices somewhat and sell more at list. Lego actually
has devalued their original niche BECAUSE you KNOW that stuff will end up on
clearance. You'd sell ALOT more - and have MORE kids exposed to their
product - if the prices were better. I recall that in ECONOMICS class, you
can often make MORE money by cutting prices. It CAN'T be good to sell some
stuff at full price and then clear out a ton of it at half price. How many
Droid Development Kits got sold at $29 in TRU or $25 at Target? I'm sure
that demand dropped after the initial surge at $99. Too many people would
not spend the $99 but would have spent $49 or $59. I won't buy more Dark
Side Kits because I KNOW the price will be coming down. I still feel stupid
for ponying up the $100 for the first fw Droid Kits. Even now, the add-on
kits for RIS are really over priced and sit on the shelves. I'm sure stores
just LOVE abused shelf-worn stuff. And then Lego really shoots itself in
the foot sometimes, proving how overpriced some stuff is. Let's be real,
the 9V motors are a bit overpriced in $39 add-on sets - especially after the
ZNAP clearance flooded the market. I've got more than enough motors bought
at $14, $9 and even $7 (extra parts included) to last a lifetime, and am not
alone.
Ignoring normal retail, the DACTA stuff is even more expensive. One is left
with the feeling that they're really abusing the purchasers. The solar
panels were $35 last year - now with a few wires thrown in, PITSCO wants
$49. Their 20x30 tire prices are higher than SAH's too high prices. C'mon.
The shop-at-home prices run lower - though rarely bargains, but then not all
of the items are available there. These may be schools but you know what -
if it costs too much, it doesn't get bought. AND if it costs TOO much, well
things get abused and broken, so..... something cheaper is alot more
appealing. Schools are under TIGHT budget constraints. You can't gouge
like you used to.
I think Lego has enormous potential here but seems to be missing the point.
Lego HAS the "better" product here but doesn't quite seem to know what to do
with it. Think XEROX with PARC. I personally think chain marketers are the
WORST possible outlets for Mindstorms (though I sure can pick up a bunch of
really mauled sets cheap there). Kids exposed to these products through
class get the support needed to overcome their own feelings of "inadequacy"
and move on to do some "really cool" things. BUT if the product isn't in
schools kids don't see it. And ironically, the Mindstorm line is a great
match for tech curriculum needs. It's just too limited in selection, too
few parts support it and it's all overpriced.
It's ironic that you CAN put together a REALLY GOOD robotics curriculum
using Lego parts - and even at an almost reasonable price. It just
shouldn't be so hard to do so. Schools should be able to buy sets at
something comparable to the prices I can find - which is to say LOWER than
normal retail. They SHOULD be able to buy at marginally over wholesale in
my opinion - I think exposure in schools would spur retail sales (it has
with the kids I've taught). Schools should also be able to buy parts in
bulk without scrounging (and overpaying).
Think about an intro set based on the Micro-Scout, an intermediate kit based
on the Scout and an advanced kit based on the RCX as a logical, progressive
curriculum. Think about themes and options that are appealing to kids and
managable to teachers.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
