CHAPTER 19

P–12 ROBOTICS COMPETITIONS: BUILDING MORE THAN JUST ROBOTS—BUILDING 21ST-CENTURY THINKING SKILLS

Anita G. Welch1 and Douglas Huffman2

North Dakota State University, 2University of Kansas

ABSTRACT

As shown in the previous chapters, informal learning manifests itself in a variety of ways. This is especially true with science and engineering. In this chapter, we will explore how robotics competitions build awareness and interest in science and engineering in middle and high school students by providing challenging and engaging learning opportunities in a setting that inspires students to pursue careers in science and technology in the same way professional sports inspire young people to pursue careers as professional athletes. We will then examine how the competitions engage students in the engineering design process and in the application of mechanical and electrical engineering skills. The chapter ends with a discussion of how participation in robotics competitions goes beyond just building robots by showing the impact of these competitions on the development of 21st-century skills, such as creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.

OVERVIEW OF P–12 ROBOTICS COMPETITIONS

Robotics competitions provide opportunities for students to engage in interactive environments in which science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are transformed from what are often viewed as artificial principles in the classroom into authentic and stimulating learning experiences. While some teachers organize robotics programs as extracurricular activities, teachers can integrate elements of the competitions into STEM-related courses, as well as into a variety of other courses, such as finance and marketing.

Participation in robotics competitions also engages students in a team environment, requiring members to work together toward common goals. Limitations of time, money, and resources simulate real-world pressures, add additional learning opportunities.

TODAY’S CONCERNS

One of the key challenges facing the field of science education is recruiting, educating, and retaining students in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In a report from the Merrill Advanced Studies Center, Ortega stated, that graduation rates for students in graduate programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs was on a serious decline nationwide. This decline was especially significant at the doctoral level (Ortega, 2003). In addition, student interest in science, mathematics, and engineering fields continues to be a concern. A national study on trends in undergraduate education revealed a steady decline in student interest in the physical sciences and mathematics over the past 30 years (Astin, 1997). Female, African American, and Hispanic students have lower levels of interest in the sciences than do male, Asian, and Caucasian students (National Science Board, 2002). Therefore, the challenge today is twofold. First, we must successfully prepare students for careers in science and mathematics, and, second, we must increase students’ interest in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, especially among students from diverse backgrounds.

INQUIRY

Competitive robotics programs, using hands-on, real-life, problem-solving challenges, embody the ideals of inquiry-based learning. The philosophical origins of these programs can be related to the science teachings of John Dewey. The first half of the 20th century marked a period of great change in many areas, education included. Dewey, the most pragmatic figure in education during this period, brought together his ideas of interaction, reflection, and experience to form a unique concept of education (Smith, 2001). Dewey provided the framework for not only cooperative learning, but also for inquiry itself. He emphasized the necessity of building authentic educational experiences. This is not to be confused with vocational training, but rather was a call to establish educational practices in which educational partnerships are developed throughout all aspects of the business community. In Dewey’s school, gardening developed knowledge of farming and horticulture; chemistry developed out of the processes of drying, bleaching, and metalworking; physics was learned from the use of tools and machines (Hickman, 1984).

Authentic learning environments are one of the key elements in inquiry-based learning, which is the driving force behind robotic competitions. Inquiry-based learning is a strategy in which facts and observations are used to answer questions and solve problems (Kauchak & Eggen, 2001). Inquiry is a type of problem-solving learning and includes identification of a question or problem, formation a hypothesis to answer the question or solve the problem, data collection, and development of conclusions (Kauchak & Eggen, 2001). Inquiry-based activities are designed to bring the students into the scientific process and to engage them in a series of procedures in which they must organize information and generate solutions. Based on a conception of scientific method, it attempts to teach students some of the skills and language of scholarly inquiry (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2004).

The U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation endorsed science and mathematics curricula that were deigned to motivate students through active learning and engagement using project and problem based learning strategies, as well as other instructional methods (National Science Foundation, 1996). In addition, the National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment stated that science taught in schools should provide real-world applications of the science and that a goal of science education is prepare students to understand who scientific inquiry is meaningful to their lives (National Academy of Sciences, 1992). This signaled a major shift in pedagogical design. Although inquiry-based techniques had been used with some success for over 30 years, the 1990s were a period a rapid curriculum development and implementation.

Perhaps some of the most convincing evidence showing the power of inquiry-based learning appears in a report from the National Research Council titled How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). This report is related to the various aspects of the learning process, including cognition, child development, and brain functioning. Six of the findings related to inquiry are as follows:

• Understanding science is more than knowing facts.

• Students build new knowledge and understanding on what they already know and believe.

• Students formulate new knowledge by modifying and refining their current concepts and by adding new concepts to what they already know.

• Learning is mediated by the social environment in which learners interact with others.

• Effective learning requires that students take control of their own learning.

• The ability to apply knowledge to novel situations, that is, transfer of learning, is affected by the degree to which students learn with understanding. (National Research Council, 2000)

FACTORS AFFECTING STEM CAREER CHOICES

The National Association of Manufactures estimates that by the second decade of this millennium, over 10 million jobs will be unfilled due to lack of qualified applicants. These jobs will require at least some degree of postsecondary education or technology training (National Association of Manufacturers, 2003). Scientific and engineering occupations are expected to continue to grow more rapidly than occupations in general, with a projected 70% greater increase by 2012, which equates to 1.25 million additional science and engineering jobs.

Long-term growth in science and engineering occupations has exceeded that of the general workforce at nearly four times the annual growth rate of all occupations since 1980 (National Science Board, 2006).

The development of positive attitudes toward science has long been viewed as a legitimate goal of science education and is the primary goal of the organizers of robotics competitions. In a telephone interview with Dean Kamen, founder of FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition in Science and Technology), he emphasized that FIRST is designed to inspire youth toward fields in science and technology. It is through inspiration that Kamen sees FIRST as having the greatest impact on its predicates (Kamen, 2006). This sentiment is echoed by all organizations hosting robotics competitions.

The term attitude encompasses a wide variety of affective behaviors, such as prefer, accept, appreciate, and commit. In most studies, the term attitudes is used to refer to the intrinsic values or interests of the students toward science and mathematics (Dethlefs, 2002). In 2000, Dethlefs conducted a study on the relationship of constructivist learning to students’ attitudes and achievement in high school science and mathematics. His findings showed that constructivist learning environments are positively associated with student attitudes in high school biology and algebra, and that deeper cognitive processing strategies were present when students were allowed to exercise more control in their learning activities. In addition, there was a strong relationship between cooperative group work and students’ interest in school.

Research has also been conducted to investigate the relationship of individual interest to situational interest (Dethlefs, 2002). Situational interest has been shown to enhance students’ individual interest (Mitchell & Gilson, 1997). Situational interest manifests itself in the classroom as authentic engagement. Students who are authentically engaged experience understanding in what they are doing and are able to make meaningful connections. These students may participate in the tasks because they can see a link between what is being done and the significance of the outcome of their work. Student engagement relates to the meaningfulness of the activities, rather than the time and physical effort expended on it. It is critical to focus on the meaning of the work, rather than the amount of “activity” involved (Schlechty, 2002).

Empirical studies have found that inquiry-based learning environments have a positive impact on student achievement in science and mathematics. In a study of a second-grade problem-centered mathematics project, it was shown that students who participated in classes using project-centered curricula showed higher levels of conceptual understanding and had stronger beliefs about the importance of working hard and being interested in mathematics (Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Perlwitz, 1992). Kamii and Lewis studied the differences between the problem-centered classroom and the traditional classroom, and found that while there was little difference in standardized test scores, there was a dramatic difference in responses when the students were interviewed. They interviewed second-grade students and found that those who had inquiry learning environments were far better at explaining why an answer was correct than those students who had a traditional learning model (Kamii & Lewis, 1991). Another program, MathWings, which uses real-world problem-solving applications, was found to provide significant gains on standardized state tests, such as the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills and the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (Madden, Slavin, & Simons, 1999).

Nichols and Miller examined the effect of cooperative learning on students’ motivation and achievement in Algebra II. Using a pre- and post-test design, they found that students in the cooperative classroom exhibited significantly greater gains than the control group in algebra achievement, efficacy, intrinsic valuing of algebra, and learning goal orientation (Nichols & Miller, 1994).

In a study of laboratory and lecture teaching in science, it was found that although high-achieving students in two groups had identical achievement, low achievers who were in the laboratory group scored higher than their counterparts in the lecture group. The study also showed that males preferred the laboratory environment (Odubunmi & Balogun, 1991). In addition, Dethlefs found that several constructivist learning environment dimensions were positively related to student attitudes (Dethlefs, 2002). Empirical studies provide evidence that inquiry-based learning environments in science and mathematics have a positive impact on students’ attitudes in both science and mathematics (Nichols & Miller, 1994; Ross, 1983; Shymansky, Hedges, & Woodworth, 1990).

Although various learning environments have been shown to have a positive impact on students’ attitudes in science and engineering, other factors are also present that may relate to one’s ultimate selection of careers in science and engineering. These include issues of gender, ethnicity, and outside influences, such as personal beliefs and family expectations. Issues related to gender and career selection are well documented. In 1983, Eccles devised a model of achievement-related choices in an attempt to explain educational and career choices of women. The model links the relationships among achievement-related beliefs, outcomes, and goals to interpretative systems, such as involvement with parents and teacher, to gender role beliefs and ultimately to career choices (Eccles, 1994). A longitudinal study of factors related to persistence in a science-related career supported many aspects of the Eccles model. In a 10-year study, men and women who had aspirations toward careers in science and technology were surveyed beginning in high school. Ten years later, only 36% of the women and 46% of the men had persisted in a science-related career (Farmer, Wardrop, Anderson, & Risinger, 1995). This study found that women who had a higher number of elective high school science courses were more likely to have achieved a science-related career. In addition, the study found factors related to family support, impact on society, and personal aspirations as contributing factors to achieving science-related careers for women (Farmer et. al, 1995). Researchers at the University of Michigan found that women make career choices based strongly on the encouragement received from their families and personal values, and may not select a career in science or engineering if it does not have the potential for helping others or influencing the community (Davis-Kean, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2007). These findings support those from an earlier study, which examined why women do not remain in male-dominated professions, such as science and engineering. The study reported that the “desire for a flexible job, high time demands of an occupation, and low intrinsic value of physical science were the best predictors of women changing their occupational aspirations out of male-dominated fields” (Frome, Alfeld, Eccles, & Barber, 2006, p. 359).

Race and ethnic barriers also exist for those desiring careers in science-related fields. As of 1999, African Americans made up approximately 3% of physical scientists and engineers, versus 7% of the college-educated U.S. workforce and 12% of the overall U.S. population; Latinos composed approximately 3% of physical scientists and engineers, versus 4% of the college-educated U.S. workforce and 13% of the overall U.S. population (National Science Board, 2004; National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics, 2004). The issue of financial resources appears to be an especially important factor for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds who major in science and engineering. African American and Latino students enrolled as science and engineering majors are more likely to leave college because of family obligations and financial hardship than White and Asian American students (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). Today, the disparity between genders and various races/ethnicities still exists in science and engineering fields.

MAJOR ROBOTICS PROGRAMS

Robotics competitions designed for students in P-12 vary widely in their level of organization, cost, and complexity, yet all the programs offer students an interactive experience that research has shown to increase student participation in STEM-related courses, to encourage STEM-related careers, and to alter students’ attitudes toward engineers and scientists in general (Goodman Research Group, 2000; Welch, 2010; Welch and Huffman, 2011; White Mountain Research Associates, 2001). Robotics competitions can be used as supplements to existing course material or used as extracurricular activities, both of which add a competitive element to technology education.

The competitive robotic programs described in this chapter illustrate the variety of characteristics and opportunities within each program: BEST Robotics, Botball Educational Robotics, FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC), FIRST Tech Challenge, and FIRST Lego League (FLL). All the programs require some amount of adult involvement, typically in the form of a teacher and/or technical mentor from local industry. The cost of participation varies widely, depending in the program and the amount of travel involved to participate in the local and national events. Each program is dedicated to making science, technology, engineering, and mathematics exciting through competition. In addition, students become active participants in abstract thinking, self-directed learning, teamwork, project management, decision making, problem solving, and leadership. Table 19.1 provides a comparison of the major robotics competitions available to P–12 students.

Table 19.1. Comparison of major robotics competitions for P–12 students.

  BEST Botball FRC FTC FLL
School/Team Information
School Level Middle & High School Middle & High School High School High School Grades 4–9
Open to All Schools images images images images images
School-based Only images images No No No
Students Per Team No Limit No Limit No Limit 3–10 Up to 10
Competition Information
Primary Competition Categories/Awards
Robotics images images images images images
Engineering Design Notebook images images No images No
Oral Presentation images images images images images
Educational Exhibit images images images images No
Sportsmanship images No images No images
CAD Design images No images images No
Website Design images images images No No
Engineering Design Award images images images images images
Competition Levels
Local/In-state Competition Districts Oct. No Only in MI Nov. to March Nov. to Feb.
Regional Competition/Championship Dec. March to April March to Apri Nov. to March Nov. to Feb.
National Championship April July April April April
Season Kick-Off Sept. Sept. Jan. Sept. Sept.
Design & Build Length 6 weeks 7–9 weeks 6 Weeks 6 Weeks n/a

BEST Robotics

BEST Robotics (Boosting Engineering, Science & Technology) is a project-based robotics competition in which students learn to analyze and solve problems using the engineering design process. In 2010, over 850 middle and high schools and over 12,500 students participated in BEST Robotics (About BEST, n.d.). BEST teams compete at local competitions called “hubs” that support 10–30 teams each. Teams are provided with a kit from which to build their robot during the six-week build period starting in September. Teams that win at the hub level in the fall advance to one of three regional competitions.

There are two primary divisions in which BEST teams compete: Robotics and the BEST Award. To compete in the Robotics division, each participating school must build a robot and submit a project-engineering notebook that describes how the engineering design process was used in the design of the robot. For the BEST Award, the highest achievement in BEST, teams are judged on their oral presentation, educational exhibit, engineering notebook, sprit and sportsmanship, and robot performance.

Botball Educational Robotics

The Botball Educational Robotics program is based on the national science education standards and is designed for middle and high school students. In the Botball program, students use science, engineering, technology, math, and writing skills to reinforce their learning by designing, building, programming, and documenting the building of their robots. In 2011, 306 teams registered, from 13 states and the District of Columbia, including 29 teams from Qatar (About Botball, n.d.).

Teams have seven weeks to design, build, document, and program their robots. Botball robots use LEGO and iRobot products and require no machine shop. Students program their robots to run autonomously. Regional competitions begin in spring and culminate with the Global Conference held each summer.

FIRST

FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) is a nonprofit, multinational organization located in Manchester, New Hampshire. The driving goal of FIRST is to transform the culture of the world to make science, mathematics, engineering, and technology as “cool for kids as sports are today” (FIRST, About FIRST, 2011). FIRST has several programs, including the Lego League for elementary students, the FIRST Tech Challenge for junior high and high school students, and the FIRST Robotics Competition designed exclusively for high school students ages 14 and above.

The FIRST competitions were patterned after MIT professor Woodie Flowers’s engineering design course. Flowers, who acts as a national advisor to FIRST, believes the key to the competition is that “it celebrates the efforts that came before the actual competition, as well as the gracious professionalism displayed at the competition; and the kids know that we still accept them even if their robots don’t work” (Bowden, 1998, p. 18). Schools cannot provide a structure as intense as the FIRST’s six-week build season, in which students devote 20–40 hours a week on a single project. This intensity provides students a sense of understanding of what engineers do as they learn about design through deployment (Murphy, 1998).

FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC)

FIRST Robotics Competitions help high school-age young people discover the rewarding and engaging world of innovation and engineering. In 2011, over 51,875 young people participated in the FIRST Robotics Competition. Currently there are over 2,075 teams from almost every U.S. state, as well as from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Israel, Mexico, and the UK (FIRST, About FIRST, 2011).

Each FRC team, typically consisting of 10–25 students, plus technical mentors and faculty advisors, has just six weeks to design and build a robot for the given task out of a common set of basic parts. They must follow rules limiting the size, weight, and cost of their robots. Typically, the robots weigh between 100 and 120 pounds. Colleges, universities, corporations, businesses, and individuals provide technical mentors who work alongside the students, who gain real-world engineering experience, technological literacy, and teamwork skills.

Regional competitions and the World Championship are held in spring. Teams compete for a variety of awards, including those related to the robot, such as Innovation in Control, Creativity, Engineering Excellence, Excellence in Design, and Quality, and those related to team effort, such as Industrial Safety, Team Spirit, Rookie Inspiration, Rookie All Star, Website, Gracious Professionalism, and the most prestigious award, the Chairman’s Award.

Throughout this process, students are actively engaged in an experience that will have real consequences. Students make discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves, instead of hearing or reading about the experiences of others (Stevens & Richards, 1992). It is this real-life experience that FIRST attempts to replicate. “Experiential learning is learning through doing” (Luckner & Nadler, 1997, p. 3). In this sense, learning as an experience has real consequences and involves relatively permanent change in behavior (Ormond, 1990). The Association of Experiential Education describes experiential learning as a process through which individuals construct knowledge, acquire skills, and enhance values from direct experience (Association of Experiential Education Board of Directors, 1995).

FIRST Tech Challenge

Introduced in 2005 as a pilot program and officially approved for the 2007 season, FIRST Tech Challenge is designed to give students a continuum of experiences with robotics and the application of real-world math and science concepts; develop problem-solving, organization, and team-building skills; and provide an opportunity to compete and cooperate in tournaments. The FIRST Tech Challenge program is geared toward high school-age students and can be part of a school, home-school, or afterschool activity, such as a youth organization. Teams consist of 3–10 students.

The challenge is revealed to the teams each September during Kick-off.

Teams must determine strategy and build, program, and test their robot by working through the engineering design process. Teams compete in regional competitions in fall and spring in hopes of advancing to the World Championship in April (FIRST, About FIRST, 2011).

FIRST Lego League (FLL)

FIRST Lego League introduces young people to real-world engineering challenges by building LEGO-based robots to achieve a given objective. In 2011, over 171,000 students, ages 9 to 16, participated in the FIRST Lego League. Currently there are over 17,100 teams from almost every U.S. state, as well as more than 50 countries (FIRST, About FIRST, 2011).

FLL teams, composed of up to 10 students, do not have to be associated with a school; they can be associated with a pre-existing club or organization, or home-schooled. The competition, or Challenge, has two elements: the Robot Game and the Project. For the Robot Game, students must build and program an autonomous robot to score points on a thematic playing surface. For the Project, the team must create an innovative solution to a problem as part of their research presentation. FLL teams compete in regional competitions the fall with the hopes of advancing to the World Championship in the spring.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Independent research studies to evaluate the effectiveness of robotic competitions in increasing student participation in STEM careers, improving attitudes toward STEM-related fields, or improving achievement in STEM-related coursework is limited. Most studies are in the form of self-conducted program evaluations and personal accounts of student achievement written by teachers and mentors. To date, there has not been a large-scale comparative study of these programs.

In 2008, an independent study was conducted to assess the impact of participation in BEST Robotics on students’ attitudes toward science (Welch, 2011). The study found that students who participated in BEST Robotics had a more positive attitude toward the social implications of science than they did prior to participation in the program. In 2010, a follow-up study showed that after participation in BEST Robotics, students reported an increased understanding of scientists and engineers and had more positive attitudes toward STEM-related activities (Welch, 2011). In their 2009 annual report, BEST Robotics reported that 58% of students participating in in the program stated they were likely to pursue STEM careers. Of those who were likely to pursue STEM careers, 72% were male and 28% were female; this is consistent with the typical team demographic ratio.

The FIRST Robotics program has been the focus of several research studies and dissertation research projects since 1996 in order to evaluate effectiveness of the program toward meeting its goals (Goodman Research Group, 2000; Welch, 2007; Webb, 2009; Notter, 2010). The Goodman Research Group conducted a survey of the FIRST teams during the 2000 FIRST Robotics Competition season. This survey used pre and post data, with 3,123 students from 150 FIRST teams responding to the pre-survey and 400 responding to the post-survey. Even though the response rate was only 13%, the evaluation did provide a foundation for understanding the student participants’ background, attitudes, interest in science and mathematics, and interest in pursuing engineering careers (White Mountain Research Associates, 2001). According to the results of the survey, FIRST attracts boys and girls of all different grade levels, with each group having different levels of interest and commitment to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. While the results showed little change between most responses, it did show that “students decided to participate in the FIRST Robotics Competition mostly for academic reasons. They sought a challenging and educational science and mathematics experience and they expected that the experience would help them get into a better college” (Goodman Research Group, 2000, p. 52). Pre-and post-survey analysis also showed statistically significant increases in participants’ attitudes toward teamwork and positive self-image (Goodman Research Group, 2000). In 2001, White Mountain Research Associates reported that FIRST had strong potential to influence the career choices of students. It also showed that interest in mathematics and science was strengthened because of the partnerships with various universities and sponsors (White Mountain Research Associates, 2001).

Brandeis University has conducted a systematic study of the longer-term impacts of the FIRST Robotics Competition on participants. The major finding of the study revealed that the FIRST Robotics Competition “does appear to be successful in meeting the goals of promoting a positive academic trajectory for its students and a sustaining interest in science and technology-related education and careers” (Melchior, Cohen, Cutter, & Leavitt, 2005, p. 57). Nearly 90% of the alumni of the program attended college, a rate substantially above the national average. Once in college, FIRST alumni were much more likely than nonparticipants to pursue courses and careers in science and technology-related fields. Forty-one% of FIRST participants listed engineering as their primary major, a number seven times the national average (Melchior, Cohen, Cutter, & Leavitt, 2005). FIRST alumni were also more likely to attend college full-time, to have an internship or co-op job in their first year of college, and to expect to attain some form of postgraduate degree. The study noted that while it cannot control for the initial motivation of the FIRST students, the degree to which they were already interested in science and technology, the use of the matched comparison group of students with similar background in science in high school lends credence to the conclusion that FIRST did make a difference in students’ choice of college careers and that, without FIRST, they would have been less likely to go into a science or technology-related field. Although the study showed that the overall impact on individual participants was strong, the impact of FIRST on local schools was more modest. The participation in FIRST did help some schools to introduce new courses, such as robotics, and increased school spirit. The final report notes that if great school impacts are desired, then a more “deliberate, school-focused strategy may be needed” (Melchior, Cohen, Cutter, & Leavitt, 2005, p. 58).

21ST-CENTURY SKILLS

The robotics programs described in this chapter are particularly well suited to helping students develop such engineering skills as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration. In March 2007, the Partnership for 21st-Century Skills developed a framework that describes the outcomes and support systems needed to prepare students for 21st-century life (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010).

• Digital-Age Literacy

○ Basic, Scientific, Economic, and Technological Literacies

○ Visual and Information Literacies

○ Multicultural Literacy and Global Awareness

• Inventive Thinking

○ Adaptability, Managing Complexity, and Self-Direction

○ Curiosity, Creativity, and Risk Taking

○ Higher-Order Thinking and Sound Reasoning

• Effective Communication

○ Teaming, Collaboration, and Interpersonal Skills

○ Personal, Social, and Civic Responsibility

○ Interactive Communication

• High Productivity

○ Prioritizing, Planning, and Managing for Results

○ Effective Use of Real-World Tools

○ Ability to Produce Relevant, High-Quality Products

The Partnership for 21st-Century Skills advocates, among other things, for the development of such skills as creativity, innovation, inventive thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration. Unfortunately, these skills are not always the focus of instruction in our classrooms. In the last decade, U.S. schools have experienced a dramatic shift and emphasis on accountability and state content testing. The focus on measuring students’ content understanding has placed more emphasis on content knowledge, rather than on important skills. The majority of class time is spent on content, rather than such engineering skills as creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and collaboration and communication. The emphasis on content knowledge is disconcerting for those who have a broader view of the purpose of education and seek to help students develop important skills such as creativity, inventive thinking, and problem solving. Advocate of robotics program have a difficult time infusing the skills into the regular school curriculum. Robotics programs are largely afterschool programs; but shouldn’t all students have the opportunity to engage in programs that focus on creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and problem solving? As long as content testing is driving the curriculum, it will be difficult to justify the class time for robotics, but we would argue that the skills learned through robotics are some of the most important types of learning. These are life skills. Collaboration, communication, problem solving, and critical thinking are essential for practical workplace reasons, but also for basic literacy of all citizens.

The Partnership for 21st-Century Skills uses the term inventive thinking to describe the capacity of active investigative thinking that involves evaluative reasoning and thinking processes in making an analytical decision. It is also important to note that inventive thinking is a skill that can and should be taught. Conley (2007) states that thinking skills such as analysis, interpretation, precision and accuracy, problem solving, and reasoning can be more important than content knowledge in determining success in college courses.

Inventive thinking is an essential skill outside the classroom, too. Today’s citizens must be active inventive thinkers in order to compare evidence, evaluate competing claims, and make sensible decisions. It’s an important skill for everyone. Problem solving is also an important skill that can be developed through robotics programs. Problem solving can be described as a process of defining and describing a confounding situation, generating a potential solution, implementing a solution, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. Problem solving uses critical-thinking processes, and like other thinking skills it can and should be taught in schools.

Creativity and innovation are two other important skills that should be included in the school curriculum. All too often classrooms focus on content knowledge and leave off creativity and innovation, despite the need for students to develop and use these skills in today’s competitive global marketplace. Robotics programs seem particularly well suited to help develop creativity and innovation in students.

Finally, communication and collaboration are two 21st-century skills that are essential for students to develop. Learning how to communicate and work together cooperatively is imperative in today’s interrelated workplace. Robotics programs are able to place students in situations where the team must clearly articulate ideas, negotiate, and make compromises to accomplish a common goal and assume shared responsibility for collaborative work.

The accountability movement in P–12 schools has unfortunately had the unintended effect of focusing the school curriculum on content knowledge, rather than helping students expand and develop important engineering skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, innovation, communication, and collaboration. Robotics programs have emphasized these engineering skills, but unfortunately these programs are often viewed as extracurricular or afterschool activities for select students. We must advocate for engineering skills throughout the curriculum to ensure that students will develop the skills they need to succeed in the worlds of work and higher education, as well as in their personal lives. Robotics is an engaging and motivating way to help students develop engineering skills, but we must provide more opportunities to all students for these types of experiences.

Robotics is one way to help students develop the skills of critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, innovation, communication, and collaboration, and we would argue that we must find a way to infuse these experiences in the everyday school curriculum to insure that such opportunities are available to all students.

REFERENCES

About B. E. S. T. (2014). Retrieved from http://best.eng.auburn.edu/

About Botball. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.botball.org/

Association of Experiential Education Board of Directors (1995). AEE definition of experiential education. AEE Horizon, 15(1), 21.

Astin, A. (1997). How “good” is your institution’s retention rate? Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 647–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024903702810

Bellanca, J. & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bowden, T. (1998). Robotics: The ultimate mind sport. Tech Directions, 57(10), 18–20.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Perlwitz, M. (1992). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/749551

Conley, D. (2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Davis-Kean, P., Malanchuk, O., & Eccles, J. (2007). Constructing the pipeline: Barriers in the creation of a STEM workforce. Educating a STEM Workforce: New Strategies for U-M and the State of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI.

Dethlefs, T. M. (2002). Relationship of constructivist learning environment to student attitudes and achievement in high school mathematics and science. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(07), 2455.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x

Farmer, H. S., Wardrop, J. L., Anderson, M. Z., & Risinger, R. (1995). Women’s career choices: Focus on science, mathematics, and technology careers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.155

FIRST. (2011). About FIRST. Retrieved from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/scholarship-row-at-the-2011-first-championship

Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don’t they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 359–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765786

Goodman Research Group. (2000). Final report to FIRST. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.

Hickman, J. (1984). Dewey’s concepts of pragmatism as applied to the secondary science classroom. Clearing House, 58(4), 182–185.

Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. NCES 2000–061. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of teaching (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Kamen, Dean. (2006, June 20). Phone interview.

Kamii, C., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Achievement tests in primary mathematics: Perpetuating lower-order thinking. Arithmetic Teacher, 38, 4–9.

Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P. D. (2001). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997). Processing the experiences. Strategies to enhance and generalize learning (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Simons, K. (1999). Effects of MathWings on student math performance. Baltimore: John Hopkins University and Success for All Foundation, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Melchior, A., Cohen, F., Cutter, T., & Leavitt, T. (2005). More than robots: An evaluation of the FIRST robotics competition participant and institutional impacts. Waltham, MS: Brandeis University Center for Youth and Communities.

Mitchell, M., & Gilson, J. (1997). Interest and anxiety in mathematics. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. March 27.

Murphy, P. (1998). Everyone finishes FIRST. Technos, 7(1), 27–30.

National Academy of Sciences. (1992). National Science Education Standards Project Update. Prepared for the Secretary’s Invitational Conference, October, 1992. ED359043.

National Association of Manufacturers. (2003). Keeping America competitive: How a talent shortage threatens U.S. manufacturing. Washington, DC: Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte & Touche.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicators 2002 (Volume 1, NSB-02–1; Volume 2, NSB-02–1A). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004 (Volume 1, NSB 04–1; Volume 2, NSB 04–1A). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2006). America’s pressing challenge: Building a stronger foundation: A companion to science and engineering indicators–2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation. (1996). Curricular development in the analytical sciences: A report from the workshops (October 1996 and March 1997). Retrieved from www.asdlib.org/files/curricularDevelopment_report.pdf

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. NSF 04–317. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Nichols, J. E., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1015

Notter, K. B. (2010). Is competition making a comeback? Discovering methods to keep female adolescents engaged in STEM: A phenomenological approach. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/748170858?accountid=6766

Odubunmi, O., & Balogun, T. A. (1991). The effect of laboratory and lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 213–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280303

Ormond, J. E. (1990). Human learning: Theories, principles, and educational applications. Columbus: Merrill Publishing.

Ortega, S. (2003). Projects, process and pipelines: Challenges to enhancing the scientific labor force. Reprinted from M. L. Rice (Ed.). Recruiting and training future scientists: How policy shapes the mission of graduate education. (MASC Report No. 107). Lawrence: University of Kansas Merrill Advanced Studies Center.

Ross, S. M. (1983). Increasing the meaningfulness of quantitative material by adapting context to student background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 519–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.4.519

Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270205

Smith, M. K. (2001). John Dewey. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/john-dewey-on-education-experience-and-community/

Stevens, P. W., & Richards, A. (1992). Changing schools through experiential education. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Education Laboratory.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. NCES 2000-061, by G. Huang, N. Taddese, & E. Walter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Webb, H. P. (2009). Factors affecting construction of science discourse in the context of an extracurricular science and technology project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from EBSCO.

Welch, A. (2007). The effect of the FIRST robotics competition on high school students’ attitudes toward science. Doctoral dissertation. (UMI No. 304858217).

Welch, A. (2010). Using the TOSRA to assess high school students’ attitudes toward science after competing in the FIRST robotics competition: An exploratory study. EURASIA, 6(2), 101–110.

Welch, A. (2011). The effect of participation in BEST Robotics on students’ attitudes toward science. Manuscript in preparation.

Welch, A., & Huffman, D. (2011). The effect of robotics competition on high school students’ attitudes toward. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 416–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00107.x

White Mountain Research Associates. (2001). Monitoring the long-term impact of FIRST robotics: Initial assessment of FIRST databases to track participants. Plainsboro, NJ: White Mountain Research Associates.