TRANSCENDING STANDARDS: CURRICULUM DEVELOP= MENT WITHIN THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

West, N.W., College of William & Mary<= /o:p>

Matkins, J. J., College of William & Mary

Spencer, T.L., College of William & Mary

Hardinge, G.B., College of William & Mary

Introduction

The Virginia Demonstration Project (VDP[1]) uses LEGO^® MINDS= TORMS^™ robotics in classes to interest students in careers in science, engineering, and mathematics. Robotics in classes engages almost= all students. Many have played wi= th LEGO^® but few have constructed a LEGO<= /span>^® device that follows commands or responds autonomously to the environment—especially in school. Robotics is beneficial to all stud= ents, including English language learners (Robinson, 2005). Instruction using robotics problem= s can have long-term benefits such as a willingness to engage in technology-relat= ed projects and developing interest and skills for success in technology and science (Nourbakhsk, et al., 2005).

Robotics helps make science= and other core content more interesting—it transcends state-mandated standards and objectives. A principal has commented that “it puts the fun back in school”.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Students do learn conventional con= tent via lessons connecting standards in science and other core subjects to the project’s problem-based learning scenarios. But they also enjoy the chance to “own” a project, to experience inquiry, to be curious and creat= ive, and to work with other students, and to work at something until they get it right, aspects reported by students in post-participation focus groups.

Background

The VDP serv= es three school systems in northern Virginia: King George Public Schools, Stafford County Public Schools, and Spotsylvania County Public Schools. An allied project, Supporting Teacher Advancement through Robotics (STAR), provides similar opportunities to students in Portsmouth Public Sch= ools and Accomack County Public School, in the Tidewater area and Eastern Shore = of Virginia, respectively.

VDP is funded through the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWC-DD). = STAR is funded primarily through the State Council of Higher Education of Virgin= ia, with support by NSWC-Dam Neck. In both projects, the College of William and Mary supports curriculum developm= ent and professional development. Both projects are extensively evaluated. Evaluation informs adjustments to curriculum and to professional development.

VDP began in spring 2005 with Stafford Public S= chool seventh grade students using a broad problem-based learning scenario develo= ped by all constituents, but with a small group of teachers developing specific lessons for math and science classes. The faculty and staff of the College of William & Mary developed= a research component to accompany the robotics challenges, and led the develo= pment of evaluation rubrics for student team success. A second scenario for class= room teaching has been developed, and additional activities involving science and engineering principles and practices has been developed [2] for one-week summer camps.

Problem-B= ased Learning Scenarios in VDP and STAR

All schools = in VDP and STAR use one of the two problem-based learning scenarios, depending on = the grade level involved. Within = the context of the VDP scenario, students learn content specified in the Virginia’s Standards of Learning.&nb= sp; The scenarios however transcend the standards: Students learn deeper lessons of persistence, flexible thinking, creative solutions to problems, three-dimensional design, following directions, modifying instructions, sequencing steps, precision of commands, teamwork, research, potential care= er options, and ways they can positively affect society.

Students in the five school systems design, build, and program robots and conduct research as they participate in the VDP in their math and scien= ce classes. In Stafford County, students also work on the VDP lessons in their Reading/Language Arts and So= cial Studies classes. <= /span>

The seventh grade problem-based learning scenario revolves around an= oil spill, from a shi,p which threatens the ecosystem of a coral reef. At a minimum, students learn about= coral reef organisms and ecosystems in their research. Some also learn about the economic benefits on local communities of fisheries and tourism. All are challenged to use robots to solve specific problems on an illustrated mat with props. For example, students program and = build a robot to deliver supplies to clean up the oil spill. Robotics challenges include instru= ctions to use light or touch sensors for satisfactory completion of a task. Refer to Appendix A for coral reef= oil spill challenges.

In the eighth grade scenario, students in math and science classes research landmines and use robots to find and collect landmine props on a m= at which simulates an environment containing a minefield. Students research the conflicts wh= ich prompt agencies to set minefields, the carnage in human casualties, and the technology of landmines and minefield clearing. Some students also choose to learn= about the use of robotics in prosthetic devices for people who have been wounded = by mines.

Robotics challenges for eighth graders are similar to the seventh gr= ade problems but require a greater sophistication in design and programming. For example, students detect hidden landmines by deflecting a magnet downward, thereby activating a touch sensor. At the same time, the= robot sweeps out a pattern on the illustrated mat by following a black line.

In both scenarios, students also participate in a service-learning component. This has been impo= rtant to the project developers from the start.&= nbsp; In many classes students learn ways to be active members of society = in order to avoid harm to fragile ecosystems or to minimize harm to individuals from landmines.

Process of Curriculum Development

Curriculum development began as VDP began. There was no lead time to decide upon what “curriculum” meant for this project and then to create and fine-tune it before students participated. In fact, for the first 18 months, there were recurring philosophical discussions that includ= ed two essential questions:

How involved must teachers be in the creat= ion of the curriculum? Is the pr= ocess as important as the product? Will teachers be engaged if they are handed inalterable materia= ls?
What does “curriculum” mean in= this context? Is it a sequence of lessons carefully spel= led out for teachers to follow day by day? Or is it a flexible framework= with examples for them to use or adapt?
What does “transcending the standards” mean? Does the project merely offer= an engaging time for students and teachers, a break from conventional instruction? Does it do = more?

Teacher Involvement=

Research indicates that involving teachers in designing engineering projects decreases their concerns about the value of = the activities (McRobbie, et al., 2001). This process was very interactive and collaborative, and it continues to be so.&= nbsp; Twelve teachers were involved from the earliest stages of curriculum development. They, with unive= rsity and Navy staff, developed the landmine scenario. A teacher[3] proposed the coral reef/oil spill scenario. Teachers initially developed daily lessons within the landmine scenario, and many continue to craft their own lessons. All VDP teachers are invited to contribute their lessons for other= VDP teachers to use. William and = Mary staff members compile the teacher-generated lessons and distribute them as Microsoft Word documents so that teachers can modify them to meet the needs= of their students.

In Spotsylva= nia County Public Schools, district-level administrators brought together a core group of teachers to lead planning for all VDP teachers. The core group met before implemen= ting the project in both years to design a skeleton of lessons for Spotsylvania teachers to use. In the secon= d year, the core teachers also led professional development on curriculum, presenti= ng sample lessons for all to consider using.&= nbsp; Spotsylvania teachers start with a common starting framework which t= hey can then adapt to their own needs.

Evolution of Curriculum—Problem= Based Learning Scenarios

Project staf= f agreed from the beginning that VDP should employ problem-based learning because of= its student-centered, open-ended characteristics (Gallagher, et al., 1995, and Greenwald, 2000). Staff from Stafford Public Schools, William and Mary, and NSWC, DD developed the landm= ine scenario initially. The idea = that robots can find and clear fields of landmines allows students to explore the application of science and engineering to real problems. Students can and have learned that landmines can be a significant danger to students their age who are unfortu= nate enough to live in war-torn areas.

Within the problem-based learning scenarios are four components: robotics challenges, research proj= ects, service-learning, and embedded math and science lessons. All have evolved during the projec= t and continue to change as teachers experiment with lessons.

Staff at NWSC, DD[4] led the development of robotics challenges, with significant contributions = by teachers in all school districts. The challenges are similar to those used by First LEGO League, but s= tem from the coral reef oil spill scenario or the landmine scenario. Teachers have also developed their= own challenges as needed, creating simplified robotics challenges as instructio= nal time ran short[5]. NWSC, DD staff members have writte= n a Student Robotics Manual as a reference or resource for participating studen= ts and teacher (Kramer, et al., 2006).

The research= part varies from class to class. A= ll teachers have students learn about some aspect of the scenarios—speci= fic species on coral reefs, symbiotic relationships among reef organisms, hostilities which have led to the emplacement of landmines, types of landmines. Evaluators have se= en variation in how much teachers have embraced problem-based learning in the research part: Some teachers = have dictated which students learn about which species, while other teachers have allowed students to identify research topics.

Service lear= ning also varies from class to class, depending on how much choice students have= in selecting research topics. Evaluators have observed classes in which students learn about legislative processes using the coral reef oil spill scenario as an example. In other classes stu= dents write articles for the press, often persuasive pieces, about some aspect of their research.

Embedded wit= hin the broader scenario, students learn mathematics and science content and processes. For example, teach= ers have developed lessons using the grid printed on the robotics mat to teach Cartesian coordinates (Anonymous, A.G. Wright Middle School, 2006). They have taught about proportional reasoning using the time and distance a robot travels on the mat scaled so = that one inch on the mat represents two miles on the ground (Zinger, M., 2005).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Example Lesson Sets=

To further t= he goals of the project, a Curriculum Committee at William and Mary has developed example lessons sets. The sta= ff has worked through drafts of lesson sets with teachers in professional developm= ent sessions. The lessons are mea= nt to be:

· examples o= f best instructional practices;

· friendly to students;

· useable by novice teachers;

· tied to na= tional and Virginia state standards;

· consistent= and logical in format;

· flexible or adaptable; and

· revised as= the Curriculum Committee receives feedback.

Project staf= f also agreed from the beginning the project would be most effective if students worked in cooperative learning groups.&nbs= p; Scientists and engineers at NWSC, DD repeatedly reported that they s= olve problems as groups--they rarely work in isolation. Lessons designed as example lesson= s are therefore based on students working in cooperative learning groups.

Basic tenets of constructivist learning have be= en kept in mind, particularly the ideas of

· = Engaging students in the problem;

· = Exploring solutions or concepts; and then

· = Explaining or formalizing the content

The learning cycle lesson plan structure is followed for the William & Mary lessons.

The committe= e has developed nine lesson sets to date (December, 2006) for VDP and STAR teache= rs to teach. All lesson sets inc= lude multiple days of lessons, based on 45-minute periods. Most are science or mathematics le= ssons, although not all. Two, “Delivering Doggie Treats” and “Collecting a Water Sample” were developed from a teacher-created lesson, “Passing a Note” (McGehee, 2005). = Others were developed to take advantage of the implicit engagement students have w= ith robotics and to teach science or mathematics content or process. A member of the committee drafts t= he lesson, the entire committee reviews it, the author revises it, the committ= ee reviews again as needed, and then teachers are invited to try using the les= son and are encouraged to provide candid feedback. Teachers customize the sample lesson sets as needed or use them as a model to design their own sets.

To accommoda= te teachers and administrators who are planning to include VDP in instruction,= the committee has also developed supporting documents. One is a matrix which correlates l= essons (teacher generated) and lesson sets (William and Mary generated) to Virginia Standards of Learning (see Appendix B).&nb= sp; The other is a sequence of lessons in chart form for both seventh and eighth grade (see Appendix C).

Curriculum

A working de= finition of “curriculum” in VDP has emerged to be a product developed collaboratively with teachers, university staff, and NWSC, DD staff. The product’s documents incl= ude:

a sequence for planning,
example lesson = sets,
teacher-generat= ed lessons, and
a document which correlates lessons and lesson sets with Virginia Standards of Learning.

Within this product, this curriculum, teachers have support and flexibility to teach the content and processes of their disciplines as well as address the goals of = the Virginia Demonstration Project.

Transcending the Standards=

In the case of the VDP, transcending standards = means 1)meeting the content standards; 2) exceeding them by teaching deeper lesso= ns which arise from success with problem-based learning; and 3) explicitly learning about careers in science, mathematics, and engineering. Students work with career scientis= ts, mathematicians, and engineers from NWSC-DD and NWSCC-Dam Neck on the roboti= cs scenarios. They collaborate to solve problems. They get to k= now each other over the challenge board with MINDSTORMS^™= robots scurrying ar= ound, saving sea turtles or collecting land mines. The students have informal convers= ations at will with the adults, and the adults are encouraged during professional development to make more intentional presentations to students about what t= hey do, why they like it, and how they became the professionals that they are.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Engineers have made presentations = which range from simple two-slide Powerpoint talks to elaborate—and amusing—conversations about famous scientists and engineers from dive= rse backgrounds as well as how they, the engineers, relate simulated swarms of “trilobot” models of Cambrian trilobites to modern defense systems. For students whose parents or guar= dians have not had the advantages of college educations, regular conversations wi= th scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, can open up the world of potenti= al careers. That transcendence i= s a fundamental component of the VDP.<= o:p>

References

Anonymous. (2006). NSTAR math worksheet. Unpublished manuscript.=

Gallagher, S., Stepien, W.J., Sher, T.T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 95, No. 3, 136-146.

Greenwald, N. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teacher, Vol. 6., No. 4, 28-32.<= /span>

Kream= er, J., Bachman, J., and Zinger, M. ed. (2006). Student Robotics Manual, v. 3.2. Unpublished manuscript.

McGehee, K. (2005). Passing a note. Unpublished manuscript.

McRob= bie, C.J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I.S. (2001). Exploring designerly thinking= of students as novice designers. Research in Science Education, Vol. 31, 91-116.=

Nourbakhsh, I.R., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., Hamne= r, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., et al. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: Robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous Robots, Vol.= 18, 103-127.

Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-driven activities= : Can they improve middle school sci= ence learning. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No.1, 73-84.

Zinger, M. (2005). Activity 1 – Scale new. Unpublished manuscript.

Appendix A. NSTAR Mis= sion Checklist

N-STAR<= span style=3D'font-size:20.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%'> Miss= ion Checklist

Team _______________________

An oil tanker is grounded on a coral reef in the Intertidal Zone of a warm water ecosystem in the ocean. Oil is flowing from the Intertidal= Zone close to the surface out to the Oceanic Zone. A significant piece or pieces of t= he tanker may have broken off and may be submerged underwater. The prevailing winds are East to W= est creating a current that runs parallel to the coast and then out to the Ocea= nic Zone.

For each mission your robot must depart from home base, complete the mission and return to home base.
You must demonstrate your success to a Consultant= and document your success.
All Intermediate Level Missions must by accomplis= hed before moving to Advanced Level. Missions within a level may be accomplished in any order.

INTERMEDIATE LEVEL MISSIONS

Remove the stranded oil t= anker from the coral reef and return it to home base.

Remove the stranded oil tanker from the coral reef by returning it to home base through the defined channel to minimize environmental damage.

Rescue at least one stran= ded animal and return it to home base.

Rescue all stranded anima= ls, either in one pass or using multiple passes.

Rescue all stranded animals, either in one pass or using multiple passes, returnin= g to home base through the channel.

Drop off oil spill cleani= ng equipment and supplies at the oil spill.

ADVANCED LEVEL MISSIONS

Locate a submerged piece = of the oil tanker using a magnetic sensor, mark its location using audio and/or li= ghts and document its location on the coordinate plane.

Locate multiple submerged pieces of the oil tanker, mark the location of each of t= hem using audio and/or lights and document their locations on the coordinate pl= ane.

Using the robot and its light sensor locate the oil slick and follow its perimeter. Using a stopwatch determine the time it takes to circle the slick. Determine the speed (inches

per minute) of your robot following a line and estimate the perimete= r of the oil slick.

Remove the stranded oil tanker by lifting it off the c= oral reef and returning it through the defined channel to minimize further damag= e to the reef and surrounding

environment.

Remove the stranded oil tanker by lifting it off the coral reef setting it on a pre-positioned salvage platform.

Remove the stranded oil tanker by lifting it off the coral reef and setting it on a pre-positioned salvage platform. Return the salvage platform and tanker through the

defined channel to minimize further damage to the reef, the surround= ing environment,

and to avoid further spillage. (M= ay be completed using two programs.)

Appendix B. Draft Correlation of Lessons with Mathematics and Science Standards of Learning

Lesson	Mathemati= cs SOL	Science S= OL	Source
DRT	7.5, 7.22, 8.3, 8.4, 8.17	PS 10	A.G. Wright
NStar Lessons	7.4, 7.6, 7.12, 7.22, 8.3, 8.8, 8.10, 8.17		A.G. Wright
Nstar Life science lesson		LS 1, 9, 10, 11, 12	A.G. Wright
N-STAR Math Lsn Plan	7.21, 7.26, 8.4, 8.11, 8.19		A.G. Wright
NSTAR Math Worksheet	7.6, 7.12, 7.22, 8.3, 8.10, 8.17		A.G. Wright
Scale Conversion W.S.	7.6, 7.22, 8.17		A.G. Wright
Activity 1 - Scale	7.4, 7.6, 7.22, 8.3, 8.8 8.17		M. Zinger, Thompson M.S.
Activity 1 – Scale new	7.4, 7.6, 7.22, 8.3, 8.8 8.17		M. Zinger, Thompson M.S.
Activity 4 – Pythagorean Theorem	8.3, 8.10		M. Zinger, Thompson M.S.
Coral reef research Gayle		LS5, 7, and 12	A. Adams, Gayle M.S.
Hand out for Rotation to distance	7.4 7.22 8.3, 8.17		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Lesson 3 Plotting a Course	7.12, 7.19, 7.20, 8.14, 8.16		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Lesson 4 graphing a path	7.12, 8.14, 8.16		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Lesson Plan for Rotation to distance	7.4, 7.5, 7.22, 8.3		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Math booklet	7.4, 7.6, 7.12, 7.19, 7.20, 8.3, 8.6, 8.8, 8.14, 8= .16, 8.17		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Notes 2 variable relationship	8.14, 8.17, 8.18
Notes graphing 2-var rel	8.14, 8.16
N-STAR Lesson Plans LS.4, 5, 6		LS1, 4, 5, 6	L. Lovelace, Thompson M.S.
Nstar life science lesson		LS9, 10, 11, 12
N-STAR Math Lesson Plan	7.4, 7.6, 8.3, 8.8, 8.10, 8.17
Oil Spill Lab		LS4, 12, PS2	K. Hamilton, Stafford M.S.
Plotting a course	7.4, 7.6, , 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 8.6, 8.8, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14		Ms. Snavely, Ms. Orcutt, Gayle M.S.
Protractor navigation	8.6		K. Gnadt, Drew M.S.
Team Liberty coral reef research		LS3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12	Team Liberty, Gayle M.S.
DV exploration	7.7, 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 7.22, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14	LS 1, PS1
DV warmup	7.7, 7.17, 7.22, 8.12, 8.14, 8.17
lesson_2_ process	7.7, 7.17, 7.18, 8.12, 8.14, 8.17S
Robotics	7.9	PS 11	W and M
Collecting a Water Sample	6.9, 7.5, 7.6, 7.18, 8.3, 8.6, 8.17	LS 4, 10