Robot systems are defined as machines consisting of three basic functions; data acquisition, program execution and motion control (Sierra Rativa, Lepuschitz, Wedan, Koppensteiner, Balogh & Obdržálek, 2018). Data acquisition refers to sensors which provides information to affect the robot’s actuators (motors, speakers, lights etc). Program execution gives operators control via buttons, controls or an interface. Motion control involves the output of the actuators of the robot. Robots allow students to experiment and explore concepts in order to gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter (Almimisis, 2012) and as a result of this, are being utilised more and more as an effective teaching tool.
Dash and Dot are a robotic duo which have a wide range of easily programmable features. Dash can rotate within 360°, move forwards and backwards, make/receive sounds and words, lights, detect obstacles and move his ‘head’ independently. Dot is a completely static robot with similar functions (without the movement). Dot is also programmable to be able to ‘direct’ Dash once an input condition had been satisfied (e.g shaking, clapping, programmed button press etc).
The features of these robots, especially in tandem, allow students to explore different, creative ways of demonstrating and creating understanding. Role-play (English/drama) could be used as a teaching tool where students give Dash and Dot unique vocal cues to act a scene, or respond as if they’re another character. Creating shapes/patterns (maths) through movement allows a visual element to involve instant feedback of their understanding. Programming (computer science) is utilised in any/all activities as a cross curricular aspect. Dash and Dot would best employed in a constructivist, problem based learning pedagogy (Sierra Rativa et al, 2018) as Dash and Dot activities allow students to learn by making (Papert & Harel, 1991) through its process oriented design (Jung & Won, 2018).
Dash and Dot, as any robotics, have their limitations. In this case, a classroom is not a completely physically controlled environment. Sensors may not work properly due to small objects on the floor, sound inputs could be hard to record or discern from the background noise. Karim, Lemaigan & Mondala (2015) state that robotics will require a standardised method of evaluative assessment in schools to facilitate confidence from all teachers. Furthermore, robotics should, as any activity, have close links with the traditional curricula in order to be effective (Karim et al, 2015).
References:
Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education (pp. 7-14).
Jung, S., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education?. In 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1-11.
Sierra Rativa, A., Lepuschitz, W., Werdan, M., Koppensteiner, G., Balogh, R., & Obdržálek, D. (2018). How can we teach educational robotics to foster 21st learning skills through PBL, Arduino and S4A?.
Technology in Education 
Hi Adam,
I really enjoyed reading your post about teaching robotics using Dash and Dot. You provided clear useful information on how Dash and Dot operate as well as its limitations in a classroom context. Have you perhaps considered what KLA’s you would use Dash and Dot in? I think that Dash and Dot’s affordances really benefit the STEM and STEAM learning experiences and are worth looking into?
LikeLike