See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362941284

Engineering Design Thinking in LEGO Robot Projects: An Experimental Study

Chapter · August 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-15273-3_36

CITATIONS READS

0 153

2 authors, including:

Pao-Nan Chou
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
75 PUBLICATIONS 1,239 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pao-Nan Chou on 28 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Design Thinking in LEGO Robot Projects:
An Experimental Study

Pao-Nan Chou1, Ru-Chu Shih1

1 Graduate Institute of Technological and Vocational Education National Pingtung University
of Science and Technology, Taiwan
pnchou@g4e.npust.edu.tw

Abstract. Pedagogy issues regarding the LEGO Spike kit remains unknown. The
study aimed to investigate students’ engineering design thinking in robot pro-
jects. A quasi-experimental posttest with control group was used to answer the
research purpose. Participants were two groups of students who participated in
the Maker Program at different semesters (experimental: 2021 Fall; control: 2021
Spring). Students were 30 second graders from a public elementary school in
Taiwan. The same teacher delivered 8-week program instruction for those stu-
dents. In the experimental group, some well-performing students were encour-
aged to orally demonstrate their robot projects whereas students in the control
group only focused on creating their projects without a need for a peer demon-
stration. Upon completion of the experiment, all students received programming
and electrical engineering tests. Students’ weekly engineering design behaviors
were cumulated to define engineering design performances. The findings indi-
cated that all students achieved a medium-high level on the content knowledge
of programming and electrical engineering. In addition, students immersing in
peer oral presentation increased engineering design thinking behaviors morn than
their counterparts in class.

Keywords: Educational robotics, Engineering design thinking, Programming,

LEGO kits, Electrical engineering, sustainable development education

1 Introduction

LEGO Robot kits have been incorporated in various types of instructional activities to
support students in learning content knowledge or developing specific thinking skills.
At an entry level of educational training, the LEGO WeDo kit is regarded as a useful
tool to introduce basic programming knowledge for young kids. For example, May-
erove and Veselovska [1] developed eight LEGO WeDo learning units, and suggested
that elementary school students might obtain an understanding of introductory pro-
gramming through those robotic projects. Polishuk and Verner [2] integrated the LEGO
WeDo to a museum workshop and evaluated participants’ (elementary students) learn-
ing performance. They found that learning by doing through robot education greatly
improved students’ progress in the systems thinking skills. Veselovska and Mayerova
2

[3] developed several LEGO WeDo learning rubrics, and suggested the instructor might
adopt the assessments to observe students’ learning behaviors. However, of those past
studies, none have analyzed students’ engineering design thinking.
Compared to the LEGO WeDo kit, because of advanced electronic sensors, the
LEGO Mindstorm kit is widely used for a medium-high level of robotic training for
students. For instance, Williams et al. [4] investigated the effect of the LEGO Mind-
storm robot on middle-school students’ learning performances and scientific inquiry
skills. The findings indicated a significant growth on students’ content knowledge but
not on scientific inquiry skills. Barker and Ansorge [5] evaluated how the LEGO Mind-
storm robot influenced students’ learning outcomes at the after-school program, and
identified that students’ achievement test scores were significantly increased. In
Hussain et al.’ [6] study, students with good math skills might excel in LEGO robot
activities. However, past research tended to focus on middle school students.
The LEGO Spike kit is a new robotic tool, which combines the basic programming
platform in the LEGO WeDo with technological features in the LEGO Mindstorm. In
other words, young kids might use simplified block-based programming language to
control advanced electronic sensors. Because of being as a new learning tool in the
education market, the LEGO Spike kit is only adopted for robot construction projects
[7]. Pedagogy issues regarding the LEGO Spike kit remains unknown.
Based on the background information abovementioned, the purpose of the study
was to investigate students’ engineering design thinking in robot projects. Participants
were two groups of second-grade students at an after-school maker program, where the
LEGO Spike kit was a major learning tool for building varied types of educational ro-
bots. Specifically, research questions were threefold:

1. What were students’ engineering design thinking patterns in robot projects?

2. Did different types of learning strategies influence students’ engineering design
thinking?
3. What was a relationship between students’ engineering design thinking and learning
performances?

2 Engineering Design Thinking Models

Our previous study developed two engineering design thinking models for different
ages of elementary students. The first model [8] is a three-stage instructional frame-
work, consisting of pre-design, in-design, and post-design stages. This model fits in the
cognitive development of upper elementary students. In the pre-design stage, students
experiment the learning material created by the instructor; In the in-design stage, stu-
dents begin to engage in engineering design process from their own ideas; In the final
stage, students evaluate their works by sharing ideas.
Another model [9] is also a three-stage instructional framework but with simplified
learning elements: copy, tinker, and create stages. This model is cognitively suitable
for lower elementary students. In the copy stage, young children directly copy the in-
structor’s ideas; In the tinker stage, students begin to modify examples in the learning
 3

material; In the create stage, students attempt to create a whole new project. Table 1
summarizes the differences between two engineering design models.

Table 1. Differences between two engineering design models.

Model 1 Model 2
Types
Pre-Design, In-Design, and Copy, Tinker, and Create
Framework Post-Design

1. Pre-design: copy ideas 1. Copy: directly copy

Instructional elements and try out ideas
2. In-design: imagine, re- 2. Tinker: modify ideas
design, and build, and 3. Create: develop a
test whole new idea
3. Post-design: review
and self-reflect

Upper elementary students Lower elementary stu-

Suitable for learners dents

3 Research Method

3.1 Research Design

A quasi-experimental posttest with control group was used to answer the research ques-
tions. Two groups of students participated in the Maker Program at different semesters
(experimental: 2021 Fall; control: 2021 Spring). The same teacher delivered 8-week
program instruction for those students. A major difference for two groups was the stu-
dent presentation in class. In the experimental group, some well-performing students
took turn to demonstrate their robot projects. Table 2 shows the research design of the
study. Prior to the program, all students had no experiences of doing programming and
building robots. Upon completion of the experiment, all students received programming
and electrical engineering tests. In addition, students’ weekly engineering design be-
haviors were cumulated to define engineering design performances.

Table. 2 The research design of the study.

Group Intervention Post-test

Experimental
𝑋𝑋 𝑂𝑂1 , 𝑂𝑂3
(2021 Fall)
Control
𝑂𝑂2 , 𝑂𝑂4
(2021 Spring)
𝑂𝑂1 , 𝑂𝑂2 : Total Engineering Design Performances
4

𝑂𝑂3 , 𝑂𝑂4 : Content Knowledge on Programming and Electrical Engineering

3.2 Research participant

30 second graders from a public elementary school in Taiwan voluntarily participated

in the study. Two experimental groups had the equal number of students. The male to
female ratio is almost 1. Table 3 provides a profile of research participants.

Table. 3 Research participant.

Group n Male Female

Experimental
15 8 7
(2021 Fall)
Control
15 7 8
(2021 Spring)

3.3 Technology tool

Student participants in the study learned to code by using LEGO Spike App in the tablet
computer. The App offers a simplified block-based programming platform (See Fig.1).
The robot kit contains several sensors (e.g., a color sensor) and motors, which allow
students to engage in engineering design projects. Once young children completed as-
signments, Bluetooth connection between the LEGO Spike and the tablet computer en-
abled students to verify coding results. Fig. 2 presents one student building his robot
project.

Fig. 1. Programming platform in LEGO Spike App.

 5

Fig. 2. One student building the LEGO robot.

3.4 Assessment tool

The study adopted a simplified engineering design model [9] to measure students’ en-
gineering design thinking. A successful completion of each stage obtains specific
points. Scoring 6 points represents a completion of full cycle of engineering design for
one robot project (see Table 4). By following this scoring metric, the instructor ob-
served students’ performances, and then assigned points for them.

Table 4. Engineering design model.

Score Point Definition

0 Failing to do anything
1 Completing the first stage (copy)
2 Completing the second stage (tinker)
3 Completing the third stage (create)

Chou [10] suggested a video demonstration test might be suitable for assessing
young children’s programming knowledge. Thus, the study developed 20 multi-choice
questions regarding basic programming. Each question item is accompanied by one
short video clip. Students needed to choose one answer on a sheet of test paper after
observing the test item in the video clip. Two computer teachers were invited to exam-
ine the test items to ensure the validity. In addition, KR-21 test was performed to ana-
lyze the reliability of the test, yielding a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.8.
In addition, an achievement test was developed to measure students’ electrical engi-
neering knowledge. The test contained 10 matching items. Several electrical gadgets
appeared in the paper. Students needed to choose an appropriate description for the
gadget. To ensure the content validity, the test was examined by two elementary science
teachers.
6

3.5 Instructional strategy

Student oral presentation was used as an instructional intervention in the study.

1. Control group (no presentation): During class instruction, students fully engaged in
robot projects. Student oral presentation was not required in the control group.
2. Experimental group (oral presentation): At class, when the instructor identified some
students who performed well on project building, the students were invited to
demonstrate their works and share their design thinking. (See Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 One well-performing student demonstrating his robot project

3.6 Instructional content

Educational experiment in the study lasted for 8 weeks. Various themes were presented
in weekly 3-h learning session at one science classroom. All instructional contents were
identical at two experimental groups. A curriculum design was summarized in Table 5.
Fig. 4 shows one student testing his sixth-week project (robot bicycle).

Table 5. Curriculum design of the maker program.

Week Learning Unit

1 Introduction to Lego Spike/Programming training
2 Programming training
3 Engineering Project1: Dancing Robot
4 Engineering Project2: Bionic Robot
5 Engineering Project3: Robot Car
6 Engineering Project4: Robot Bicycle
7 Engineering Project5: Robot Hand
8 Engineering Project6: Walking Robot

During project development, the instructional procedure based on copy-tinker-create

principle. Initially, students were asked to use the template provided by the instructor
 7

to practice what they learned. Subsequently, the instructor encouraged students to mod-
ify the template. Finally, students need to create a whole new project.

Fig. 3 One student testing his robot bicycle

4 Findings

Table 6 reports the results of descriptive statistics on programming, electrical engineer-

ing, and engineering design performances. The findings showed that students in the
experimental group outperformed their counterparts on programming and engineering
design.

Table 6. Results of descriptive statistics for three posttests.

Item Control Group (M/SD) Experimental Group

(M/SD)
Programming 12.47 (2.62) 13.20 (3.23)
Electrical Engineering 7.67 (0.90) 7.00 (1.19)
Engineering Design 22.20 (5.41) 29.60 (3.18)
Note: Programming (0~20), Electrical Engineering (0~10), Engineering Design
(0~36)

Frequency of engineering design thinking is summarized in Table 7. The information

indicated that all students fulfilled requirements in the copy and tinker stages. However,
a major difference between two experimental groups appeared in the create stage.

Table 7. Frequency of engineering design thinking.

Group Copy Tinker Create

8

Experimental 90 90 21
Control 90 90 58
Note: Copy, Tinker, and Create (0~90)

Tables 8 to 10 summarize the results of one-way ANOVA for three posttests. The
findings indicated that no significant difference was found in the programming test
(F=6.47, p > 0.05) and the electrical engineering test (F=2.98, p > 0.05) between the
control and experimental groups. However, a significant difference (F=20.83, p < 0.01)
existed in the engineering design performance between the control and experimental
groups.

Table 8. Results of One-Way ANOVA for the programming test.

Type Sum of df Mean F p

Square Square
Between 4.03 1 4.03 6.47 0.5
Groups 242.13 28 8.65
Within Groups 246.17 29
Total

Table 9. Results of One-Way ANOVA for the electrical engineering test.

Type Sum of df Mean F p

Square Square
Between 3.33 1 3.33 2.98
Groups 31.33 28 1.12 0.10
Within Groups 34.67 29
Total

Table 10. Results of One-Way ANOVA for the engineering design performance.

Type Sum of df Mean F p

Square Square
Between 410.7 1 410.7 20.83
Groups 552.0 28 10.71 0.00**
Within Groups 962.7 29
Total
** p < 0.01

Table 11 presents the results of Pearson correlation among three posttests. It was found
that no significant relationship was identified between engineering design and program-
ming performances (r= 0.13, p > 0.05) and between engineering design and electrical
engineering performances (r= -3.01, p > 0.05).
 9

Table 11. Results of Pearson correlation.

Engineering Design Programming Engineering

r 0.13 -3.01
sig. 0.49 0.11
n 30 30

5 Conclusion

Through 8-week robotic training, all students achieved a medium-high level on the con-
tent knowledge of programming and electrical engineering. In addition, students im-
mersing in peer oral presentation increased engineering design thinking behaviors more
than their counterparts did in class. In other words, the project demonstration by well-
performing students might stimulate other students’ willingness to create a whole new
robot project. However, students’ engineering design performances did not relate to
their achievements on programming and electrical engineering knowledge. Because of
the limited sample size, the findings may not be generalized into other learning scenar-
ios. Our ongoing project is to qualitatively examine the effect of the project demonstra-
tion on students’ engineering design performances.

References
1. Mayerove, K., Veselovska, M.: How to teach with LEGO WeDo at primary school. In:
Merdan M. et al. (eds.), Robotics in Education, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Com-
puting, 457, pp. 55-62. Springer (2017). DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_5
2. Polishuk, A., Verner, I.: Student-robot interactions in museum workshops: Learning activi-
ties and outcomes. In: Merdan M. et al. (eds.), Robotics in Education. Advances in Intelli-
gent Systems and Computing, 457, pp. 233-244. Springer (2017). DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-
42975-5_21
3. Mayerove, K., Veselovska, M.: Assessment of lower secondary school pupils’ work at edu-
cational robotics classes. In: Alimisis D. et al. (eds.), Educational Robotics in the Makers
Era, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 560, pp. 170-179. Springer (2017).
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_13
4. Williams, D. C. et al.: Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills
in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-
216 (2007).
5. Barker, B. S., Ansorge, J.: Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal
learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243
(2007).
6. Hussain, S. et al.: The effect of LEGO training on pupils’ school performance in mathemat-
ics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society,
9(3), 182-194 (2006).
7. Gervais, O., Patrosio, T.: Developing an introduction to ROS and Gazebo through
8. the LEGO SPIKE Prime. In: Merdan M. (eds.), Robotics in Education. Advances in Intelli-
gent Systems and Computing, 1359, pp. 201-209. Springer (2021). DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-
82544-7_19.
 10

9. Chou, P.-N.: Skill development and knowledge acquisition cultivated by maker education:
Evidence from Arduino-based educational robotics. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Sci-
ence and Technology Education, 14(10), em1600 (2018).
10. Chou, P.-N.: Smart technology for sustainable curriculum: Using drone to support young
students’ learning. Sustainability,10(10), 3819 (2018).
11. Chou, P.-N.: Using ScratchJr to foster young children’s computational thinking competence:
A case study in a third-grade computer class. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
58(3), 570-595 (2020).

View publication stats