What is a Placemat?

Research has shown that open-ended design-based inquiry is in some ways more effective than traditional lecture-based instruction [1]. K–12 classrooms have begun to incorporate more open-ended learning instruction combined with educational technology to empower their students to learn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics by doing instead of simply by watching and listening [2-4]. This has proven, in many cases, to have a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards learning as well as their overall academic achievement [4]. However, there are many challenges that make open-ended robotics learning experiences difficult to implement [5-8].

In general, the problem-based learning environment is structured differently than a traditional classroom environment. This means that students and teachers are fulfilling different roles than they are used to in a more traditional learning setup [5]. This transition can be difficult for students, and it sometimes brings out coping behaviors that hinder their ability to extract full value from the learning experience. Some students assume a passive role and simply do not participate in the activity, or require frequent one-on-one support from the teacher. Other students engage in distracting and off-task behaviors, while still others seize control of the problem and refuse to cooperate with groupmates [6]. The different coping behaviors that students exhibit when engaging in problem-based learning puts added strain on the teacher as they try to motivate students, all with unique needs, to meaningfully engage with an open-ended task.

Teachers are also faced with adjusting to a new role during open-ended activities, as well as dealing with additional issues related to using robotics technologies with their students [6]. Lack of teacher training for the technologies being used, high student–teacher ratios, and poor classroom infrastructure are just some of the logistical challenges many teachers face when trying to use technology in classrooms [7]. Open-ended problem-based learning requires teachers to create different types of scaffolds and supports for students than are typically used [8]. Teachers understand that scaffolds are beneficial, and in some cases necessary, for students to be successful in a problem-based learning environment, but creating a scaffold that is useful without being too constraining is a major challenge. While using step-by-step instructions that come with many robotics kits might alleviate some of the challenges of using technology in the classroom, it eliminates the benefits of allowing students to come up with their own ideas and explore multiple solutions to one problem [9].

Finding this balance between showing and telling vs. inspiring and supporting is challenging, especially in a classroom context. Often times, any examples shown to students will wind up being internalized as a “correct” answer and be replicated by the majority of a class. Paulo Blikstein [10] describes his experience teaching students how to use a laser cutter. His introductory activity was to have students design and fabricate a personalized key chain. He was excited about the open-ended nature of the challenge, and while students did enjoy making their own keychains, they then became stuck on the idea that the laser cutter was only for making keychains and couldn’t come up with anything else for which they wanted to use it. This “keychain syndrome” can happen with open-ended design challenges too [10]. As soon as students see one solution to a problem, even if they are told that they can and should come up with their own idea, it will be much harder for them to see outside of the initial idea that their teacher has presented. This is problematic, as the most important kinds of engineering and critical thinking happen when students stop trying to replicate the knowledge of others and start thinking for themselves [11].

The question then becomes: What kinds of support resources for open-ended challenges can educators use with their students that won’t hinder independent thinking? Placemat instructions were designed with that purpose in mind: to help students get started and give them ideas (both for coding and constructing their robot), without dictating one “correct” answer. Educators and education companies have long been designing their own scaffolds for open ended learning in classrooms using robotics [12]. One example is the LEGO Subassembly Constructopedia which was a one-hundred page document providing inspirations and hints on building with the original LEGO Robotics platform (the LEGO MINDSTORMS RCX) [13]. However, despite the availability of these resources, research on teacher perceptions still shows that a lack of instructional resources is a major barrier faced by teachers trying to bring robotics into their classrooms [14]. While literature analyzing the benefits and shortcomings of using existing open-ended robotics scaffolds is limited, we believe that the placemat instructions are of a novel format and length and have the potential to lower barriers to entry for conducting open ended robotics challenges in the classroom. One goal of our research is to investigate what type of learning experiences unfold when placemat instructions are used to facilitate open-ended robotics challenges in K–12 classrooms and how these learning experiences differ from those where no placemat instructions are used. We are particularly interested in investigating how placemat instructions (1) facilitate students quickly and easily getting started with open-ended design challenges, (2) support students and teachers when issues or questions arise during an activity, and (3) inspire a diverse set of solutions to single challenge.

This excerpt was taken from a paper accepted to the International Conference on Robotics in Education

REFERENCES:
[1] “Middle-School Science Through Design- Based Learning versus Scripted Inquiry: Better Overall Science Concept Learning,” J. Eng. Educ, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 71–85, 2008.
[2] G. S. Stager and D. Ph, “A Constructionist Approach to Teaching with Robotics Four Case Studies of Robotics Projects,” in Constructionism 2010.
[3] F. Barreto and V. Benitti, “Computers & Education Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools : A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 978–988, 2012.
[4] Ö. Korkmaz, “The Effect of Lego Mindstorms Ev3 Based Design Activities on Students ’ Attitudes towards Learning Computer Programming, Self-efficacy Beliefs and Levels of Academic Achievement,” Balt. J. Mod. Comput., Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 994–1007, 2016.
[5] M. Liu, S. Lee, and H. M. Chang, “Examining How Middle School Science Teachers Implement a Multimedia-enriched Problem-based Learning Environment,” Interdiscip. J. Probl. Learn., vol. 6, no. 2, 2012.
[6] A. D. Gertzman, “A Case Study of Problem-Based Learning in a Middle School Science Classroom : Lessons Learned,” in Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences, 1995.
[7] A. M. Johnson, M. E. Jacovina, D. G. Russell, and C. M. Soto, “Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom,” in Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction, 2016, pp. 13–29.
[8] P. A. Ertmer, K. D. Simons, and K. D. Simons, “Jumping the PBL Implementation Hurdle : Supporting the Efforts of K – 12 Teachers,” Interdiscip. J. Probl. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, 2006.
[9] T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, “Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct,” Sci. Educ., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 187–205, 2019.
[10] P. Blikstein, “Digital Fabrication and ‘ Making ’ in Education The Democratization of Invention,” in FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, no. September, 2015, pp. 203–221.
[11] C. Rogers, “Learning STEM in the Classroom,” LEGO Engineering, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.legoengineering.com/learning-stem-in-theclassroom/. [Accessed: 06-Jan-2020].
[12] J. Chambers, M. Carbonaro, M. Rex, and S. Grove, “Scaffolding knowledge construction through robotic technology: A middle school case study,” Electron.J. Integr. Technol. Educ., vol. 6, pp. 55–70, 2007.
[13] The LEGO Group, “Subassembly Constructopedia” In LEGO Group (1999), LEGO MINDSTORMSTM set for Schools # 9790. Billund, Denmark, pp. 1–109, 1999.

• Check out our Placemat Instructions Templates

  • LEGO EDUCATION SPIKE Prime Template

  • LEGO MINDSTROMS EV3 Template

• Check out this Placemat Instruction about how to make a Placemat Instruction