"Engineering Toy Project and Initiative" by Julia Ceglenski
Introduction Our study focused on evaluating and assessing ten different engineering toys for their educational quality and functional use in a classroom setting. Toys are typically used in a household setting as entertainment outlets for kids, but we wanted to see if these particular toys could be used for teaching purposes in STEM fields. Because of their educational value and low cost, these toys are potential educational resources, not only in education systems throughout the country, but also in developing nations. One particular country we are interested in expanding a toy based lesson plan is Haiti. We were first introduced to the needs in Haiti through an organization based in Cap-Haitian, Haiti. Meds and Food for Kids, is non-profit organization that provides peanut based nutrition bars designed to battle malnutrition affecting children in Haiti, and more recently through their partnering with UNICEF, with children around the world. Through their connections to local schools and with some help from Haitian friends currently living in the United States, we hope to eventually implement select toys as educational tools in order to introduce the students to STEM subjects and foster an early foundational interest in engineering.
Set-up Our project spanned approximately three months and we first began by conducting our own team assessment of each toy. Once we reached a consensus for each of our evaluation categories, our team of ten worked with about three upperclassmen to determine certain logistics and to contact local public schools. Once a date of implementation was determined, we went to the school and observed the use of these toys in the classroom and evaluated the feedback from the students. The criteria for evaluating each toy consisted of appropriate age, interest in engineering as well as what type of engineering, language barriers, and whether or not the toy can be played in groups. This criteria was designed to test the toys on their ability to embody scientific concepts at an easily interpreted level and the ease of transferring them to country where English is not the main language. After combining all 10 individual assessments, we formulated a complete profile for each toy based on the evaluation criteria. Altogether, 9 out of the 10 toys fit the target age group, 5 of the 10 toys can be played individually, and 8 of the 10 toys can be used in groups with an average group size of 3 students. All of the toys were determined to spark an interest in engineering, but mostly towards mechanical, electrical, or civil engineering. Our initial target age group was 8-10 years old, but as the toys were evaluated, this age range seemed to be on the lower end for most of the toys, so as the project developed, we decided to test the toys on an older age range of 11-13 year olds. Almost all of the toys came with instruction manuals or practice workbooks that would need to be translated in order to fully understand the material being communicated by the toy and to properly use the toy as a teaching supplement. This causes a severe language barrier for students in countries where English is not a primary language. Thankfully most of the manufacturers can print the instructions and workbooks in other languages, though we are particularly interested in printing them in French because of our interest in implementing the toys in Haiti. The main language spoken in Haiti is Creole; however, French can be understood depending on the amount of education received and the home life of each student.
Toy Profiles The 10 toys were chosen based on outside reviews and also their ability to encourage productive teamwork between students. The 10 toys decided on were: Levers, Motors and Generators, Solar Power, K'nex, Cams and Cranks, Goldie Blox, Snap Circuits Jr., Gears, Cranial Model, and Wind Power 2.0. Levers: Levers is a toy manufactured by Engino Toys International, which is a company that prides itself on creating toys that are centralized on basic physical concepts and engineering. This particular toy allows kids to create simple machines such as a scale, wheelbarrow, or parking gate. Because the toy is so structured, we found that there is not much flexibility when playing with the toy without following instructions. We determined that the toy emphasizes mechanical engineering specifically and that an appropriate age range is between 10-13 years old, while the box says ages 6+. The toy comes with an interactive instruction and activity booklet with practice problems and conceptual explanations. The inclusion of such a booklet makes the toy ideal for classroom use, even though the toy is not specifically marketed towards teachers and schools. We also found that Levers is best if assembled in a group along with a discussion component in order to achieve optimal learning.
Motors & Generators: Motors & Generators is an educational kit manufactured by Thames and Kosmos, which produces over 120 science and experimental kits in all fields of science. This toy is designed for individual use and does not teach about engineering as much as it does about electricity and magnetism. The company does do a great amount distribution to educational distributors, but mostly home-school suppliers. We determined the age range to be between 8-14 years old, which is consistent with the manufacturer’s suggestion. The toy also comes with a manual that is set up experimentally and guides students through different experiments using magnets, batteries, and a hand-cranked transparent generator, stimulating an interest in electrical engineering. We determined that this toy would be most beneficial if played alone or in pairs, but teaching such concepts must include a discussion component that follows the guide book.
Solar Power Solar Power is another experimental kit designed by Thames and Kosmos. It focuses on electrical and mechanical engineering, as well as environmental science and alternative energy, and we determined the appropriate ages would be 12+ instead of 8+ as suggested. While the kit again seems more directed to individuals, because of the assembly and difficulty level, we believe that instructor led group discussion would be the most beneficial teaching method. The toy constructs 20 different models, such as cars or airplanes, which are powered by solar cells converting solar energy into mechanical energy. They kit comes with a guided experimental booklet that allows students to see how factors such as placement angles, and different light sources affect the amount of energy available.
K’nex: K’nex are a very well known construction toy, and are even the namesake of the company. The company also manufactures Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys, but mostly advertises the educational value of K’nex and its various extension packets. We only evaluated a basic 52 model building set of K’nex, which includes 600 rods and connectors with pictorial instructions for building each model, and the toy does encourage free building. Most of the models are simple machines, such as a wheelbarrow, that lean towards mechanical engineering, but because the toy is so unstructured and simplistic, there is virtually no discussion component that can be factored into presenting the toy. We also determined the age range to be between 5-11 years old, which extends slightly younger than the manufacturer’s suggestion of 7+. Even though the company does not include an educational activity booklet in most of its toys, it does offer lesson plans for teachers on its website for both elementary and middle schools; however, none of them were based on the specific building set we evaluated.
Cams & Cranks: Cams and Cranks is also manufactured by Engino Toys, and is set up almost exactly the same as Levers, it simply focuses on a different mechanical concept. Students can build a pumpjack, fishing crane, or moving figure. The toy also comes with an activity and instructional booklet, that includes detailed explanations and practice problems. The inclusion of such a booklet makes the toy ideal for classroom use, and is best if assembled in a group along with a discussion component in order to achieve maximum learning. Because of the booklet and assembly required for the toy, we determined the age range to be 10-12 years old, which is a large difference from the 6+ age advertised by the company.
GoldieBlox & The Spinning Machine: GoldieBlox is a brand new company with an incredible goal: to spark interest in engineering in young girls across the nation, inspiring them to become future engineers by having a positive female engineering character to look up to. The design of this toy is very much directed to little girls, with pastel colors and animal figurines, and the instructions for building different models is even set up in a story book format. Our determined age range for the toy to be 4-9 years old, with focuses on mechanical and civil engineering through pulleys, levers, and spatial skills. The toy is not really designed for use in a classroom setting. Because of its format and younger age range, we believe that the toy is best used at home either individually, or between child and parent.
Snap Circuits Jr. Snap Circuits Jr. is created by Elenco Electronics and is one of the most highly awarded educational toys, and we believe one of the best toys on the market in introducing electrical engineering concepts, such as circuits and Ohm’s Law, to students. The toy comes with a building manual with over 100 different models that can be constructed and each contains experimental elements. There are many different models of Snap Circuits available, they simply become more complex circuits as the student advances. We chose Snap Circuits Jr. because its age range of 8+ coincides with our evaluation. The toy is structured enough that electrical concepts can be communicated effectively, yet flexible enough to allow students to build their own models and conduct experiments freely without following a guide. While the toy is mostly sold and advertised towards parents and children at home, we believe that it is a great toy to have in a classroom as well. Gears: Gears is another toy manufactured by Engino, and is in the same mechanical science series as Levers and Cams and Cranks. It focuses on a mechanism central to almost all engineering designs. Using the durable building blocks, a hand drill, helicopter, and carousel can all be built following an included instruction manual. As with the other Engino toys, it comes with a detailed activity booklet that provides explanations of the different technological principals applied and also seems too advanced for the 6+ age suggested by the manufacturer. We believe that the best age range for such a toy is 9-14 years old. The toy would also be best if used in a classroom setting, and assembled in groups with a discussion component so that there can be optimal learning about engineering.
Cranial Model: The cranial model is a 4D modeling kit and is retailed by many different suppliers. The toy is in a puzzle format and allows students to build a mental image of the skull and brain by putting together individual pieces. The model did not come with any instructions, only small pictures, and can be a little complicated for students to put together. We determined a decent age range to be between 8-12 years old. The toy does not really teach any engineering concepts, only anatomy of the skull. The model is also very small and does not allow for any free-play and best if constructed individually.
Wind Power 2.0: Wind Power 2.0 is also another kit manufactured by Thames and Kosmos as part of their Alternative Energy and Environmental Science series. Two different styles of windmills can be constructed using a detailed instructional manual set up in an experimental format. The gears and connecting windmill blades are quite large, and they are all constructed by the student, while attaching to a transparent generator. The toy is appropriate for students older than 8 years old and is a great model to demonstrate alternative energy concepts, because it provides a fantastic visual aid and stimulates discussion between students and teachers.
Ladue Implementation After each toy had been evaluated by a majority of the group members, the initial group of 10 freshmen expanded to include a few BME upperclassmen who were interested in the future prospects of our study. Because of faculty connections and raising our target age group, we chose to implement the toys at Ladue Middle School, which is located in a nearby suburb of St. Louis. We implemented the toys in two different classes, Ms. Murphy’s 6th grade science class, and Ms. Peterson’s 7th grade science class. Based on our evaluations, we felt the best way to implement the toys was to begin the class period by asking the students to verbally identify a definition of what they believed engineering involved. They were then split into groups of 3-4 students per toy, and either a junior or freshman led a teamwork centered discussion about physical and engineering concepts using the toy as a visual and instructional tool. As the discussion concluded the students were asked to fill out a simple evaluation sheet created by the juniors involved. Because of time limitations and class schedules, each group of students was only able to play with two of the toys for twenty minutes each. Besides creating the middle school evaluation criteria sheets and leading group discussions, the juniors involved also coordinated with the middle school teachers about possible dates of implementation and how the toys could fit into their predetermined syllabi. An eventual date of November 24th was decided. In the 6th grade age range of 11-12 years old, we decided to implement Cams and Cranks, Goldieblox, K’nex, Cranial Model, and Legos. We chose these toys, because each of them leaned a little more towards the younger end of our age range. We added Legos to act as a baseline for the experimental toys. Legos are classically cited as inspiring interest in engineering, so we thought it would be interesting to compare them with our toys. Legos are also known for instituting creativity, so we did not include a discussion component nor instructions with the Legos, we simply asked the students to build whatever they liked as long as the finished product could do some sort of motion or task. In the 7th grade age range of 12-13 years old, we decided to implement Wind Power 2.0, Snap Circuits Jr., Motors and Generators, Levers, and Solar Power. We chose these toys because they went into more depth about scientific principles, but were still appropriate for the age range. The small groups were also more focused on using verbal group participation to discuss the science behind each toy and to exemplify different experiments rather than assembling the toy. The middle school student evaluation forms were written by a few of the upper classmen, and each form was specific to the toy that the students had just finished playing with. The form included four questions that asked what the students liked and disliked about the games, what are other applications of [levers, gears, etc.], and one other specific question about the scientific concepts covered in the discussion. Most of the students were able to understand the questions and come up with the desired answers. While the likes and dislikes varied by toy, the majority of students liked working in groups and playing with the toys that were not already pre-assembled. The students were also very responsive to the discussions led by the college students and actively participated in all components.
Conclusion Based on our collective observations, the 6th graders seemed to really enjoy playing with the engineering toys. The toys encouraged group work and communication between students when conducting experiments with the toys. In general the students felt that the more structured a toy was, the more they learned from it. The Legos seemed too independent. At the Lego station, there was no discussion between the students and most of their structures were very basic and did not fully satisfy our instructions. At the experimental toy stations, there was a lot of discussion and debate amongst the students and they would walk around to try to get better views of the toy and to participate in constructing it. The students also seemed to appreciate playing with new toys that they had not seen before, or did not have in their homes. The unfamiliarity of the toys and the teamwork encouraged by the toy and the discussion leader worked well together to establish an innovative teaching method. Also based on collective observation, the 7th graders also seemed to really enjoy playing with the engineering toys and the challenges they asserted. Certain physical concepts that are frequently used in engineering core classes are often not introduced until very late in a student’s career. The toys that we tested on the 7th graders cover a wide range of these topics. Because the toys were more science-based, the discussions led by the college students went into more depth on the specific topic, and this allowed the students to make better applications of the concepts to things that they have seen in everyday life. In order to have time for these thorough lectures, some of the toys were pre-assembled and used more as visual demonstrations. Surprisingly, based on the student’s responses on the evaluations, not constructing the toys was what the students disliked the most. This revealed that a critical element of fun as well as learning comes from actually building the toy. Which shows that the instructional value of the engineering toys is two-part: using a team to assemble the toy and discussing with the group members the scientific concepts demonstrated by the toy. Our study supports that not only can engineering-based toys be used in a classroom setting, they are actually the most beneficial to learning and understanding STEM foundations when used in such a setting. Using the format of small groups and discussion based learning allows students to simulate how engineering projects are accomplished in the work place. These toys provide valuable interactive and demonstrative visual aids for teachers across all STEM fields. These conclusions are consistent with our pre-evaluations and hopefully these unique toys and specific teaching method can be implemented in schools throughout the nation and even to our hopeful expansion in Haiti.
Education in Haiti According to the CIA World Factbook, the overall literacy rate in Haiti is only at 47%, comparable to the 99% rate in the United States, ranking it in the bottom 10 countries in the world for overall literacy. The education sector in Haiti is run by a division of the government known as the Ministre de l'Éducation Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP). International private schools run by Canada, France, or the United States, as well as religiously affiliated schools educate 90% of Haitian students.[1] Haiti has 15,200 primary schools, of which 90% are non-public and managed by communities, religious organizations or NGOs (non-governmental organizations).[2] As a result, the private sector has become a substitute for governmental public investment in education as opposed to an addition. The Ministry provides very little funds to support public education and is limited in its ability to improve the quality of education in Haiti.[3] There are several problems facing the education system in Haiti. In regards to the private sector, three-fourths of all private schools operate with no certification or license from the Ministry of Education.[4] This literally means that anyone can open a school at any level of education, recruit students and hire teachers, without having to meet any minimum standards. At all levels of education, Haiti faces severe shortages in educational supplies and qualified teachers. The majority of schools in Haiti do not have adequate facilities and are under-equipped. According to the 2003 school survey, 5% of schools were housed in a church or an open-air shaded area. Some 58% do not have toilets and 23% have no running water.[5] The majority of workers, about 80%, do not meet the existing criteria for the selection of training programs or are not accepted in these programs because of the lack of space in professional schools.5 Six out of every 1,000 workers in the labor market have a diploma or certificate in a technical or professional field.5 In addition, only 15% of teachers at the elementary level have basic teaching qualifications, including university degrees, and nearly 25% have not attended secondary school.5 Many teachers leave their profession for alternative better paying jobs, and sometimes they are not paid due to insufficient government funds. This can create a very vicious cycle, causing more and more private schools to fill what they see as a large vacancy in the Haitian education system, and filling educational positions with unqualified instructors. Haiti has the highest percentage of private schools in the world. A number of schools are run by religious organizations but many more are run as a business to make a profit. The consequence of the privatization of education is that private households must carrying the economic burden of both the real cost of education and the private actor’s profit. Because the government-run public schools are vastly outnumbered by private schools, it is unable to enforce its desired policies with respect to education. This inability has a myriad of ramifications. Often teachers are only a few grades ahead of the students they are teaching. Public school teachers typically are more qualified than private school teachers, but there are no laws or regulations with respect to setting up a private school so anyone can begin a school and start teaching. At a more detailed glance, the Haitian educational system has two exams that the government requires for a student to be promoted to the next grade. These exams are taken at the end of the 5th and 7th grades; however, many schools require exams at the end of every school year. A passing score results in promotion to the next grade. Students are required to pay a fee to take these exams, and if the fee is not paid, the student does not pass to the next grade regardless of how well they did during the school year. In rural areas, family income is greatest at the beginning of the school year when the harvest has been cultivated, creating an imbalance and causing it to be easier for children to start school than to finish it.[6] For families whose children do not get promoted, school fees must still be paid for the grade that is being repeated. This doubles the cost per grade or even more if the exam fees are once again not paid at the end of the year. Repeating grades leads to a wider range of abilities in the classroom, making it that much more difficult and taxing on an already unqualified teacher’s abilities. This flaw is reflected in the enrollment and retention rate between primary and secondary schools in Haiti. The enrollment rate for primary school is 88%, while secondary schools only enroll 20% of eligible-age children.[7] The cost of attending private school beyond primary school age is just not a feasible possibility for low-income families. During our time in Haiti, we met with three different schools in the region. Two of them were higher education facilities, one of them being the University of Haiti in Limonade. When discussing the issues facing the university with the President of the University of Haiti, he brought up many specifics that focus primarily on retention of teachers and financial concerns. According to the President, less populated areas, such as Limonade, have a harder time keeping professors because of the low pay associated with the position. If a professor has a Master’s degree, a salary of $1,000 U.S. dollars per month is distributed, and if that same professor has a PhD, the salary increase is $2,000 U.S. dollars per month. In more populated areas, professors are able to subsidize this income with another form of employment, but in more rural areas, it is harder to find other means of work. This fact alone, deters most teachers from accepting a position. The teacher’s incomes would be higher, but the government does not subsidize the university enough. The university thankfully, has all the amenities needed to function, including plumbing, air conditioning, electricity, and internet connection. The one thing missing is housing for students. The cost of attendance to the university is $50 U.S. dollars per year, and students from all over the country attend, despite the lack of university housing available. While tuition might seem extremely affordable to most Americans, many Haitian families still have trouble affording it after years of paying private school tuition to prepare for university. The World Bank estimates that 8 out of 10 college educated Haitians live outside the country. A way to attract them back to Haiti to teach at both university and lower education levels would be to offer dual citizenship or type of give-back program. Expenses such as tuition and housing could be waived if the student agrees to teach for a determined number of years as a part of paying back the cost of their education with a few years of teaching service. A possible solution to the issue of less family funds at the end of the school year proposed by the Ministry of Education is a change in the banking system. Access to loans at the end of the year based on anticipated harvest of the next year may help farming families to be able to afford the yearly tuition and exam fees. Another proposed solution is for the government to mold with certain private sectors and to provide subsidized funding allowing tuition costs to go down, and allow more students to attend. Fusing private schools into the public system would also raise standards imposed on educators and raise teacher quality in Haiti.
Haiti Implementation After further review and consultation with our Haitian guide, Westenior, our chosen school was a rural public elementary school in the Nord region just outside of Cap-Haitian in northern Haiti. The design of the Haiti implementation would have to be drastically different from the Ladue implementation, because of specific foreseen and unforeseen obstacles. A large obstacle that we were expecting would be the language barrier between the Haitian students and the American tutors. Because we were visiting a rural, public school, almost none of the students could speak or understand French, and none of the American students could speak Creole. This gap eliminated a key feedback mechanism used in the Ladue implementation. We could not communicate fully with the students to fully and effectively convey the engineering concepts rooted in the toys. We could also not have the students fill out a written evaluation at the end of the lesson. This meant that for the Haiti implementation, our only form qualitative data would come from observations and interaction with the students. To combat this barrier, we decided to take a more casual approach when teaching the Haitian students. Students would not be assigned to a group and could move freely between toys without a time limit. We would only take toys that could be used and understood with minimal instruction and whose assembly could be done using pictures. These toys were decided to be: the Engino series (Cams & Cranks, Gears, and Levers), Goldie Blox, Snap Circuits Jr., K’nex, Motors & Generators, Wind Power 2.0, and Solar Power. In the mornings when we would first arrive, we planned on starting with the engineering toys by assigning an American student a toy station and allowing the Haitian students to walk from station to station. Each American student’s agenda would be to make sure the students are working together and that as much of the math and science concepts were communicated as possible. After approximately two hours of the engineering toys, we decided to bring a few more “toys” that were to be used as an introduction to more complex science advancements. These items were: stethoscopes, a quadcopter (remote controlled helicopter), and a computer microscope. We decided to bring these items to show the Haitian students a more advanced side of the basic engineering concepts they were learning. After the students were completely finished with the toys, we decided that an interesting way to close the day and our time with the students would be to have a quick English lesson. Simple words and phrases, such as “How are you?” and the days of the week would be the extent of the lesson. Through Westenior, we arranged to be at the school for a total of three consecutive days from June 14, 2015 – June 21, 2015. This timing would be towards the end of the Haitian school year. Upon arrival at the school, some unforeseen challenges arose as we began our predetermined lesson plan. The school building was simply a concrete structure with no running water of air-conditioning and an outdoor pavilion that also served as an instructional space. For school supplies, the only items provided were two dozen folding chairs and one rolling chalk board. After walking around and introducing ourselves to the students present, we noticed that one very important person was missing—the teacher. No one had presented themselves as the teacher, so our guide, Westenior, had to serve as our interpreter and tell the students what we were doing there. Westenior explained to us that because the school was public and the end of the school year was approaching, many students simply attend whenever it is convenient or they are not needed at home. Because of this, we had very skewed age groups present at the school. There were many students present between the ages of 6-10 years old, with very few older than 12, which is much younger than our assessed and targeted age group of 11-13 years of age. Despite the language barriers, lack of organization, and the below target age group, we decided to proceed with the study. We asked the students to follow the pictures as much as possible and helped them when necessary. A common practice used was the repetition of steps and taking apart and rebuilding certain components of the toy multiple times to show the students how something was working without using verbal explanations.
Impressions As the each morning progressed throughout the three days, more and more students began to arrive at the school. The few older students who arrived and were between the ages of our original target age group were more content to watch the younger students play with the toys than to actually interact with them and us. The younger students between the ages of 7-10 years old, were highly engaged by the engineering toys. They mostly worked in silence and did not verbally communicate with their fellow students often. They naturally tended to work independently or in pairs. Occasionally they would not allow a fellow student to help or even touch to toy or project they were working on. Some students traveled from station to station and interacted with every toy, while some students stayed with one toy for almost the entire time. The students who stayed with only one toy showed apparent signs of learning and comprehension. These students would be able to fully assemble and disassemble different models and structures they had constructed from previous initial instruction. It was apparent that none of the students had ever seen or interacted with organized or structured toys such as these. The toys that were brought to Haiti were chosen with this structure in mind, so that the students would always have a finished project that they would be working to build. They were also chosen because of the durability of their pieces. Throughout the next three days, different students attended each day, creating an enormous data pool and an uncertain final assessment. After our three days with the students, we left behind 5 of the 9 engineering toys with the school, (Cams & Cranks, Gears, Levers, Goldie Blox, and K’nex). The other toys all required batteries to be operational, which the school would not have access to and could not replace. Therefore, we thought it best not to leave this toys with the students. While the extent of the scientific knowledge gained or understood by the Haitian students was immeasurable, it was obvious that the Haitian students highly enjoyed their time with the American students and with the toys. They were able to be exposed to a different style of learning, and they probably did not even realize they were learning anything. Because we had to use an altered approach to presenting the toys to the Haitian students, the teaching method of group work and discussion could not be properly tested or conclusively supported from the Haiti study and provided an inaccurate comparison between a rural public school in a third world country, to one of the best performing school districts in the St. Louis area. However, any scientific comprehension that the Haitian students experienced can be directly attributed to the engineering toys themselves, because of the limited group work and explanation offered with the toys. The Haiti study cannot effectively support our findings from the Ladue study, but our impressions, observations, and experiences add promising data to an auspicious theory in early STEM education and its successful implementation in underdeveloped and under-resourced countries.
Works Cited
[1] Haiti country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (May 2006). [2] Education: Overview". United States Agency for International Development. Archived from the original on 17 October 2007. Retrieved 22 July 2015. [3] Salmi, Jamil. 2000. "Equity and Quality in Private Education: the Haitian paradox." A Journal of Comparative Education 30:163-178. [4] Wolff, L. 2008. Education in Haiti: The Way Forward. Washington, DC: PREAL. Retrieved 21 July 2015. [5] Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. 2008-2010. Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation. The Republic of Haiti. Retrieved 23 July 2015. [6]Lunde, Henriette (2008). Youth and Education in Haiti: Disincentives, Vulnerabilities and Constraints (ebook ed.). Oslo, Norway: Fafo Institute of Applied International Studies (Oslo). p. 38. [7] "Haiti boosts health and education in the past decade, says new UNDP report". United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 22 July 2015.