I am interviewing for a Physics position that includes a robotics course. The teacher who planned it for this upcoming year resigned quite suddenly. So I need to come to the interview with some ideas for the course.
This is the current write up:
Welcome to the inaugural year of the brand new Robotics Class. This year we will introduce STEM (the interaction of science, technology, engineering and mathematics) through exploration of the world of contemporary robotics. We will be using Vex components and other equipment to integrate the STEM disciplines and engage students in investigations designed to help them come to a greater understanding of how these fields feed off each other.
The first half of the year in Robotics will focus on understanding the history of technologies used in the field and how scientific and mathematical principles lay the foundations upon which technological and engineering advancements are made. The second half of the year will consist primarily of hand-on applications from conception to design implementation focused on task-oriented in-class competitive objectives.
Now, first thing I notice is half a year of not touching a robot. I think that’s insane. The school does have a FIRST team but it’s fairly new. I think I’d probably be expected to coach the team as well, but the course doesn’t seem to directly tie into it.
Anyway, does someone have a well done course outline/timeline that might help me come into the interview with ideas?
My own experience is as a volunteer assistant coach to a fairly new team. So fairly low but more than none. My electronics experience is not much beyond simple circuits, potentiometers, etc, but I can pick things up quick. I did build my own PC, but that was mostly snapping things in and hooking up to PSU.
At our school we have a similar program to the proposal. Thru December we teach engineering and shop. This includes design and building challenges from day one. The first was machine to pop a balloon three feet away with some “random” parts. The mousetrap makes a great power source. As the fall goes on the students have 2 more design challenges and then make a robotic haunted house with elementary school students. This include pneumatics and programing. Then we have build and competition with the students doing the work. The rest of spring is training the next years leaders. Most students take this class for 2 years so the veterans help teach the course the second year. This way they get teaching and management skills to go along with the engineering skills. Our program started in 1995. Good luck in finding away that works for you.
Yes, that part of the course description caught my eye too. If I was a student in that class as written, I’d probably want out by the third week. In my Intro to Engineering class, we’re building robots and learning CAD in the second week. Why wait?
You can teach all the concepts and theory and history of engineering and robotics for a semester, but it won’t be engaging, and it won’t stick. Students need to be DOing something not just listening to the teacher talk and looking at powerpoints. They do that plenty enough in other classes. In a STEM class, they need hands-on project-based engagement. That’s not to say there won’t be writing and tests, but it should be less of the instructor speaking and more of the students working. There’s a big difference between learning about something and learning how to do something.
The design of a class really depends on the equipment and classroom environment available. If there’s enough of it, Vex is an excellent way to go, and the Autodesk Vex Curriculum is pretty turn-key. It takes a lot of the overhead off the (new) instructor. Throw in programming with easyC or RobotC and add in some in-class competitions, a little bit of job skills training, and you pretty much have a year class. And, it’s standards-based if anyone is asking.
There’s no reason the first half of the year can’t include robotics. But perhaps a better idea would be to start with the basics: This is a screwdriver. This is a sprocket. And so on. A little of each ag a time, then a practical application of all of it. Early practical stuff can be non-robotics, since the students need to understand principles first, but using Vex to get a point across (like motor stall, i.e. why you can only get so much from a motor).
There are number of physics concepts that you can use vex or similar parts to easily explore without going into whole robot systems. This is especially true if you want to make sure students understand torque and efficiency when it comes to the limits of the motors of whatever platform you have chosen.
A quick use of this website’s search function using the term curriculum shows numerous posts with relevant information/links regarding curriculum…there is even a whole forum dedicated to Robotics Education and Curriculum;) Here are just a few…
Our education team is actively updating the content and mapping to the ever changing world of US Education Standards so the content is fresh and relevant.
More detailed (unit by unit) and automated education standards info is currently in the works as is an overall course syllabus. As Paul says we’re working hard at making our education materials as accessible as possible.
Also note, that while it’s geared to a younger audience thus content is more simplified, We’re nearly complete with our first iteration of our VEX IQ Curriculum, here: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexiq/education/iq-curriculum
This curriculum, in a lot of ways, is a “younger sibling” to the Autodesk VEX Curriculum, but there are some unique items as well.