Recently, I read a short Wall Street Journal article about a startup creating toys aimed at getting girls interested in tinkering and engineering. Given that we are implementing a science curriculum in our Middle and Lower Schools using the Lego Robotics platform, I wondered what we needed to do to make sure that all of our students are engaged and learning as much as possible from the program.
I sent an email to our staff involved in the program voicing my concern, and I received a very thoughtful and enlightening response from Patti Strout, our Lower School Technology Specialist.
Here’s my email:
After reading this article, I’m really interested if there are any differences in how the girls and boys respond to the Lego Robotics in the near and long term.
Like the Roominate toys mentioned in the article, more “engineering” toys are being aimed at girls. GoldieBlox is another. If these toys are indeed drawing girls into STEM, is it because the toys have pastel colors and slogan’s like “A building toy for girls?” Or is it simply because parents are buying their girls something other than dolls, tea sets, etc., that is, the girls actually have access to the toys?
If it’s because the toys are made to appear more appealing to girls, then do we need to find a similar way to compensate to make sure girls are interested in the Lego Robotics?
My gut tells me it’s simply an access issue, but I’m not well-informed on the topic. Hopefully some of you can help me learn more about it.
And here’s Patti’s response:
I’ve been thinking about that too, Bryan.
Our robotics workshop last week was interesting to me… always good to be a learner once in awhile and remember what that feels like. Although I am a person who loves Legos and uses them to teach, I am not a person who ever really played with Legos. Therefore, during our workshop I realized that the Lego masters in the group would have their robot built and programmed while I was still trying to figure out which piece was which. It wasn’t that I couldn’t build with the Legos – and I could program the robot once it was built… but it took me much longer to build. All the pieces looked a little bit the same and I was not adept at reading the visual directions. I was slow!
My mind immediately jumped to [a student], who will be in that group – knowing that [student] would love working with robots and doing the programming, but that the building may be a challenge.
But as I reflected on it more, I realized I was [student]…. [student] has some serious small motor coordination issues – but while working with the Legos, so did I! Given time, I could do it….but the teacher moved ahead with the “fast kids” – and I as a “slow kid” I was not given the time I needed to build and have a longer learning curve. My guess is that there are probably other kids who did not play with Legos as young kids who would feel that same frustration. Are they more likely female? Probably…but not necessarily.
I think we really need to be aware of that…..not everyone will be adept at building and may need more time…and may feel frustrated with the direction sheets. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do it. They may need more time…and having an “expert” come help them doesn’t really help. There is a learning curve and we need to allow for it. Something we need to consider. Otherwise we are just creating a program to reward geeks.
I have taught computer classes a very long time and gender-use has always been an issue. The generalization I can make is that some people want to know how it works and enjoy the technology for the sake of technology — and some people want to know how can it work for me?…..what does it offer? I am a woman working with technology…but my interest is not in the “technology” of how it works…wires, hubs, connectors. My interest is in what it can do. Over the years I notice girls become more interested in computers when they are printing, writing, creating art, and communicating…..maybe areas more girls gravitate to anyway. As we explore robotics I think some people, maybe more often females, will be more interested in what this technology can do than just in the geeky part. I think a conscious link on how technology connects to people will help engage more young women. I think an emphasis on creating something to help others is a great approach…but even within that, the emphasis may be different. Some people will see the need to create a “thing” to solve a problem. Others will see the need to create community or to develop ways to express themselves. We need to make sure our view of technology is broad enough to include different paths for embracing it. That’s our challenge…and I love it!
Having our makerspace so close to the art room is a fantastic link for us…it gives us a chance to embrace STEAM not just STEM. I think that will help involve more girls too. I don’t think it is the pastel colors per say, as the article mentioned, that involved the girls……it was the chance to make something personally meaningful….something they would use, something for their room (which was probably pastel). Jan [our Lower School Art Facilitator] uses saws – and sewing machines– both engineering tools! A connection with the growth of the DIY movement and the Maker Movement is obvious! Lots to explore!
Patti’s response is bursting with great points, but there are a couple she made in her email that embody what we do at Garden Street Academy.
We need to make sure our view of technology is broad enough to include different paths for embracing it.
Patti really hits home our philosophy of child-centered and child-directed learning. We try very hard to recognize and embrace the differences in every one of our students. It’s easy to get lost in the technology for technology’s sake rat race (see LAUSD and their iPad program). As a geek, I’m sometimes guilty of that as well. To ensure the success of our Lego Robotics program, it’s crucial that we don’t blindly stick to the script of the Lego curriculum. We must be open to innovation and tailor the curriculum to the interests and sensibilities of our students, which ties into another point Patti made.
…it was the chance to make something personally meaningful…
We know that students learn more effectively when they are personally invested in their learning. I can imagine some students thinking, “Okay, programming this robot just helped me learn mathematical concepts X, Y, Z. So what?” What if learning to program a robot inspires them to write a story and create a movie featuring the programmed robot? Now the student is motivated to learn more programming in order to fulfill a passion of his/hers.
Ultimately, Patti’s email reassures me that as long as we keep doing what we “do,” by being sensitive to the abilities and interests of our students, our Lego Robotics program will be a valuable addition to our curriculum.