Group Reflection
The objective of this project was to produce, as part of a group, an artefact that would interact with it's environment and that could be used as part of a learning experience for a third party. We were each given a Lego Mindstorms Kit from which we had to construct the robots that would aid the learning experience. The main requirement was that the final experience should involve at least 2 Lego RCXs interacting with each other and with their environment. We also had to produce a digital presentation with a group reflection and individual personal reflections.
At our first group meeting, we discussed ideas for a topic, which, over time, and after many changes and numerous discussions, evolved into Daisie in the Maze. While this may seem like a simple process, don't be fooled - it was not! Having left geography and geometry behind, we settled on arithmetic for Daisie. We fond the whole process of deciding on a topic and how to use the lego to facilitate the learning of this topic very difficult. We found ouselves going through the school curriculum to find a learning topic. We did toy with the idea of teaching logic gates but felt that would benefit us as creators more that it would benefit the learner. We now feel that maybe we could have included the construction of the whole learning experience as part of the actual learning. This may give a more inclusive experience to the student. Anyway, we decided on arithmetic for Dasie who would manoeuvre her way around a maze with instructions from a remote control. We were happy with this because we had our technology (Daisie and the remote control) and we also had our learning (Maths). We were fulfilling what we saw as the criteria of the assignment. Our idea was to facilitate this through a game and guiding Daisie through the maze would make learning more fun and would engage the student.
Having made this decision and having formulated ideas as to what our outcome was going to be, we happily went off with our Lego. Nicola built a robot and we named her Daisie. Terri and Mary T were delighted with this as this was not something they particularly wanted to do. However, they were forced into it later. Terri took home two RCXs and figured out to program them to send and receive messages to/from each other. MaryT worked on the movements of Daisie, enabling her to move around the maze in a manner that suited our game. We were all adding our reflections as we felt this would be important when it came to writing up the final reflection. This was also a good way to keep track ourselves of what we had done and to let the others in the group know what each other had done. We initially thought the wiki would be a good place to store our thoughts and even considered using it for our digital reflection. However, none of us really took to it and we soon reverted back to the WebCT discussion forum and email. Towards the end, email and phone were our primary methods of communication but WebCT continued to play an important role. We used whichever medium suited best based on time limitations.
We now had a robot built, two RCXs communicating and the robot moving between lines. We then came together to merge it all together. At this point, we encountered problems and the limitations became obvious. Daisie looked great but her design did not suit the way we wanted her to move. The wheels were too large and we could not get her to turn at a right angle. The first rebuild took place. Problems with the axle necessitated another rebuild. We spent a lot of time pulling parts off, putting them on again, testing, changing and retesting until we had a robot that would move smoothly and not fall apart. We often felt that it would have been much easier just to write a programme in C or VB. The physical design was proving to be limiting. However, we persisted because we had to and because we realised that a robot that worked was important and we knew that having a physical artefact that a child could interact with was going to be much better from the learning viewpoint. Merely writing a software program would not benefit the learner as much as having the robot. Even though we realised the value of the robot, it did not stop us getting frustrated. We seemed to be going in circles. When something did not work, was it the code or the design. It was at this stage that we realised the importance of the group work. The interaction between us all was very important here as it was very frustrating and we needed help, guidance and support from each other. Everybody contributed to all tasks and provided emotional support when confidence and enthusiasm was ebbing. While individual tasks were important, contribution to the group really won out at this stage. The collaborative experience was essential at this stage as each one of us could not always see our own mistakes. We were very lucky with the rapport that had developed between us. We were all very conscious of the work that the others had done but were very honest with each other when we thought changes needed to be made. This was sometimes difficult as we did not want one person to feel that we were criticising their work. Luckily this was never the case and we were all very eager to learn from each other. This was fundamental to the success of the group.
Although we all had natural "talents" and it would have been easier to divide up the workload at an early stage, we decided not to. We had been in groups before where this had happened and found that we only improved on the skills we already had and the "group" assignment ended up being three individual assignments presented together. We felt it was important to challenge ourselves and do something outside our "norm". We also felt that just because the learning experience each of us was having (e.g. programming or lego building) was new did not mean that a worthwhile contribution could not be made. Eventually, however, due to time constraints and geographical diversity, we each reverted to what we were most comfortable with in terms of the tasks that had to be completed. This involved a lot of face-to-face collaboration between Mary and Terri, working on the robots and remote controls, and communicating with Nicola via our various digital media. We all lived in the general vicinity of north Dublin and thought this proximity would help to make group-work easier. It did to a point, but it was sometimes inconvenient as we worked in different locations and had to meet at weekends and evenings. Communication was vital to the group dynamic and to our successful completion of the project. The face to face collaboration was necessary for the interaction between remote controls but the on line communication was great for ideas and keeping each other up to date. It was also the discussion forum for many ideas. We found that it was an added bonus that we got on well as a group, both personally and professionally, and this became evident through the high level of communication.
Eventually, we got Daisie moving the way we wanted, we got the communication between the three RCXs sorted out and we were very happy. We had thought initially about what the learning experience would be but became so focused on trying to come up something that met the criteria of the assignment that we sometimes lost sight of the meaningful learning outcomes that may be gained from our artefacts. While we thought we were focussed on our target learner, we now think that we may have been more focussed on our own objectives of getting the Lego to work and completing the assignment. We were always conscious of the learning that may be achieved and were worried that we might not be on the right track, but did feel that it would be worthwhile. We had already dismissed our co-ordinate geometry plans as we felt that we not be able to come up with an accurate enough robot that would engage the relevant age group. We aimed to the younger learner and felt there were a number of benefits to be had from Daisie; improvement of mental arithmetic, distinguishing between left and right, improvement of hand eye co-ordination and memory recall. This is all wrapped up in a game which young children love and there is a "toy" involved, which has to be a bonus. Getting the learner to engage with this part of the curriculum in this way must be beneficial. We are happy that the aim of getting to the other side with the least number of moves and there is no negative penalty for wrong answers. There is merely a delay by having to go sideways. There is also the advantage of a new form of communication between the student and teacher. No matter how hard we tried, we could not find children to test this out on so we imagined ourselves in the roles and this was very worthwhile for us. Imagining ourselves as young children constantly gave us new insights. Indeed, we will be role playing the parts in the demonstration.
Only now that we have almost finished our assignment are we wondering did we approach this task from the right direction at all. We were completely focused on using the technology to aid a traditional and established learning. We wonder should we have tried to think a little more like Papert and design a learning to suit the technology rather than a technology to suit the learning. We also feel that maybe the best thing we could do is break up our robot and our remote controls and give the Lego pieces to the students. We have had a good learning experience and this could be used to guide and structure the learning for the children. Let them come up with ideas or at least have a contribution in the process. Let them learn through technology as well as learning with it. Have we got the best learning out of it that there is to be had? We have learned ourselves through doing and we have benefited through collaboration. Should we not encourage this for our learners?
Kevin, we will keep these thoughts and ideas in mind for our next Lego Project?!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have kept a reflection diary of our group meetings. Please see below:
This was our first official meeting. Our only pre-requesite for this meeting was that we all have some sort of an idea of what we would do for our project.
There were a number of suggestions including:
- Teaching Logic gates
- Around the world
- Geometry Lesson
- Maths in the Maze
We are, for the moment going with the Maths in the Maze.
The task ahead is very daunting and we had a number of obstacles to overcome but we were very happy with the interaction of the group. There was some discussion as to the different roles that could be allocated but we feel that this could be left till later as we need to get a good idea of what can work.
We were constrained by the lack of components in the lego boxes but made sure that Nicola went home with enough parts so that she could build a car and get started. We also need to work out how two cars interact so Terri went home with two cars. Another decision is to use the discussion board daily just to get in to the habit of communicating with each other and for idea generation. It was agreed by group members to keep minutes of each meeting and post them to our WIKI.
By the end of the meeting, there was a sense of satisfaction that we made a start on the assignment. Hopefully we will all do what we said we'd do this week, which may be hard with the Research Paper assignment due at the end of the week. Working in a group is good because we can encourage each other and share skills and resources. Successfull group work depends on all members of the group working well to deadlines and roles set. Each member has a responsibility to the other group members to do what has been assigned. We realise that communication is a very important tool at this point as we do not know each other very well and therefore are not familiar with the skills and qualities of each member.
Wed 7th December 2005
We needed to meet again as a group but this was not possible. Terri and Mary T met up in Terris house and they spoke with Nicola on the phone. Ideas generation included coordinate geometry. But this is geared towards an older age group than the group wanted to focus on and the workings of the robot would need to be very sophisticated. It was decided by the group that the maze is still a viable option. Terri had programmed the two RCXs to communicate data but no responses. Eventually, after new batteries and a few crashes and re-builds, we decided to use one RCX as the robot and one RCX as the remote contol. We were very excited that this worked out.
This gave us renewed enthusiasm and a feeling that we were actually making headway. Next, we began working on the concept of using more than one click to generate different responses. However, this needs more work. It was agreed by members that Nicola would build a robot and see if she could build a programme to keep the robot between the black lines (for the purpose of the maze).
It was a great feeling of satisfaction to see our ideas starting to take shape, even though it was a slow process of trying to programme the RCX's to do as we wanted. We feel like we are begining to know each other better, we are more comfortable with each other and can start to see whose talents lie where.
Saturday 10th December 2005
We met today briefly before the class christmas dinner. We all decided to meet at Terri's house tomorrow. We need a group session where all three of us got together with Daisie the robot to see how our project is coming along. During the week we had all assigned roles to ourselves to contribute towards the completion of this project and we needed to see how everything was coming together. It was imperative that the robot worked so we could finally decide on the digital presentation.
Mary decided to look at keeping the robot between the black lines and drawing the maze while Nicola decided to look at group reflection and making a start on the digital presentation. Terri agreed to keep the two robots and continue to work on the interaction between the two. We all agreed to meet tomorrow at 2pm. No one minds working on a sunday when the deadline for the project is so near. We are all desperaately hoping for great things! We are genuinely happy with the progress we have made but at the same time we are terrified in case it is still not enough. Back to top 
Sunday 11th December 2005
This was one of the rare occasions when all three of us met up as a group. Mary took Daisie the robot home last night to see how she would navigate the maze. Mary found it extremely hard as the robot was quite large in width so she was not able to navigate the maze. Then poor Daisie fell apart and Mary had the task of re-building her, and a more slimline model appeared. This is essential if we are to build a good sized maze and keep Daisie between the black lines.
After hours of working on the newer slimmer robot we have decided to have two remote controls to communicate with Daisie; one for teacher and one for student. The Teacher will input the mathematical question into the remote control which will be transmitted to the student remote control. The students inputs the answer and sends it back to the teacher via remote control. The teacher will inform the student whether to proceed left or right based on whether the student answered the question correctly or not. We decided that a correct answer makes Daisie go "right" while an incorrect answer makes daisie go "left". We would like a situation where both student and teacher can send the answer to the robot and if both results are the same (assuming that both teacher and student have input the correct answer), the robot will proceed right.
We discussed the possibility of attaching a timer to record the lenth of time it takes the student to complete the maze. Obviously, the shorter the time it takes for Daisie to complete the maze, the better it is for the student as it means the student has answered all mathematical equations successfully. Our main worry at this point is making Daisie stay between the black lines of the maze.
Although, each day and each group meeting brings results, we realise that time is running out and we are still modifying our project. So although we seem to be making progress in one sense, the finishing line still seems to be in the distance. We need to have the aims and objectives of this project finished by next week as we are presenting it on saturday to the class. We are all worried that things won't go well on the day, we are all worried about letting each other and the group down so there will be a few frantic meetings next week !
Wednesday 14th December 2005This was a practical session. It involved us all getting involved in the re-building and re-sizing of Daisie. We fitted new cogs to make the wheels more secure, changed sensors, replaced batteries, replaced some bricks and created new programming permutations to make Daisie turn right and left. We realised that we didnt have enough sensors for what we now wanted to do which was quite frustrating and there was a frantic message posted to the noticeboards asking if anyone had any sensors. We realised that the "maze" idea was proving too complex to programme so we gave up on that idea. We knew that time was of the essence and there was still loads to do. There were general feelings of helplessness and together we all wondered would we make it to the finishing line intact!
This called for us putting our heads together and coming up with another interactive game based on constructivist principles. Mary T came up with the idea of a game based on the old TV gameshow of blockbusters. We would make a grid and use Daisie the robot to navigate through it. This meant that all our previous programming would not be wasted, we didnt have to start from scratch again so near to the deadline. The relief was enormous! However, that was shortlived as now we had to get Daisie to move left and right into squares on the grid, which was not easy, especially as her motors kept falling off.
This called for a complete overhaul of Daisie, we removed the original big wheels and attached much smaller manageable wheels and this seemed to make a difference. We dealt with problems by actively trying to find solutions to what each of us perceived to be the problem. This seemed to work as we all had different views of what the problem could be and it meant that Daisie got a huge overhaul which seems to have solved naviagtion problems.
Thursday 15th December 2005
Our final group meeting was met with much relief as this signalled that our work for the last number of weeks was nearing completion. There was general consensus that we would be very proactive tonight in putting the finishing touches to our project so we could attend lectures tomorrow feeling confident in our work.
Home| Overview | Aims & Objectives |Group Reflection |Individual Reflection