barnacle wrote:
the deep oil-well drill steering mechanisms I designed for a few years probably count as robots; it's just that they're three miles underground trying to hit a six inch target with a six inch drill through solid rock (and did it, too).
I'd say so! Impressive!
Alarm Siren wrote:
I've heard they changed the project a few years later and it is now greatly simplified, for example it now uses an off-the-shelf "maze runner" chassis, so no mechanical construction or freedom of design there any more. This was done 1. to make it cheaper and 2. so that they could enter the students into an inter-university challenge that required the use of these components. I understand why they changed it, but for the purposes of actual education I think the original version of the project as described above was superior, because the students had more creative input and had to engage in a greater variety of skills to build it.
Very interesting! Yes, building your own and just figuring it out is very important. I guess there are different levels of 'aid' possible. Starting from the robot being already pre-assembled for you, down to the exact components fitting into the exact spots, down to different components possible in different places, down to just a lot of components and you need to figure it out.
BigEd wrote:
I think it's very difficult, when you're grown, to remember how it is when you didn't know what you know now. And even if you do remember, teaching is different from reliving your own journey. This is why there are courses to teach people to be teachers, or at least to start them off on the journey.
Very true. Being a teacher myself I relive those early moments often so that I don't have my students making the same mistakes I did. But that's only in math
BigEd wrote:
And so any of us here can look at something simple and dismiss it, because it wouldn't tell us anything. Nor would it inspire us, because we're already greatly interested. We have to take a different perspective to see the value in it - and of course, some offerings are going to have more value than others. Lego has merits, Meccano has merits, and they are different.
Sure, everything has some merit to some degree. But there are certainly more optimum paths to learning. For example, I make a LOT of recorded lecture videos for my math classes (check out my youtube channel!) because I know that reading the darned book is just terrible. If someone is a math-book-reader, then they will gravitate to that without my help. Certainly one style does not fit all people, but I do think it can fit most people. Not everyone can wear the same size shoes, but we can all probably wear the same ball cap.
drogon wrote:
Why robots? Simple. Engagement and instant feedback and that's what you need to hook some kids into the world of computing (electronics, and so on).
Yes. In our math classes we use an online homework platform that gives immediate feedback. It helps in learning. Getting blinky LED lights on a breadboard is definitely immediate feedback. Getting wheels spinning or an arm moving is immediate feedback. But when do we need to shift our focus and allow the student to create their own "small victories" without our help anymore? Hm.
drogon wrote:
But make it high level - give kids a 6502 and assembly language manual to start with and you'll lose them a second later.
Is that why they used BASIC?
BillG wrote:
Hobby rocketry has grown up from when we were kids
That's awesome! Is that... allowed by the govt?
Thanks everyone.
Chad