Kindergarteners investigate forces and use

engineering to corral an unpredictable robot.

By Pamela Lottero-Perdue, Kathryn Grabia, and Cody Sandifer

46 Science and Children

 I
n a kindergarten classroom, exclamations like “Oh
no!” may be causes for concern. However, when the
students in Mrs. Grabia’s classroom shouted “Oh no!”
and “Uh oh!” during an engineering-infused 5E lesson, it
meant that a persistent little robot had pushed its way out
of the fences they had created. It also meant that students
had an opportunity to learn by discussing the problem, re-
creating their fence, and gaining a deeper understanding
of big ideas in kindergarten physics.
In this article, we describe this engineering-infused
lesson for kindergarten learners that follows a 5E format
(Bybee 1997). The 70-minute lesson, which was aligned
with the science and engineering practices, crosscutting
concepts, and disciplinary core ideas within the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013),
consisted of a read-aloud engagement, a student-centered
physics investigation, an engineering design extension
(Lottero-Perdue et al. 2015), and multiple evaluation mea-
sures. Prior to this lesson, students had learned how dif-
ferent strengths of pushes affect the motion of objects; for
example, a stronger push on a hockey puck made it slide
further. They also observed how the direction of an object
can change when it collides with something else. Two edu-
cators—Mrs. Grabia and Mrs. Lottero-Perdue—worked
PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE AUTHORS
Students explore what happens when objects collide.
together to develop and teach this engineering-infused 5E
lesson, with input from Mr. Sandifer on lesson content.
Engage
The read-aloud engagement involved reading the first 10
pages of Oscar and the Cricket (Waring 2006) in an inter-
active way, supporting speaking and listening standards
within the Common Core State Standards in English Lan-
guage Arts (CCSS; NGAC and CCSSO 2010). Students
learned about how Oscar, a cat, pushed a ball, causing it
to roll on different surfaces. Mrs. Grabia emphasized the
pushes and pulls in the story, and paused to ask questions
like: “What will happen to the ball now?” or “Why did
that happen?” Near the end of the book, the ball was mov-
ing toward a tree. Mrs. Grabia asked students to predict:
“What do you think will happen when the ball hits the
tree?” Some predicted that the ball would stop, but most
thought it might bounce off. They learned with a turn of
the page that the ball bounced off, changing its direction.
Mrs. Grabia asked: “Why didn’t the tree move when the
ball bounced into it?” Students shared that the tree was
“a lot bigger” and had “roots stuck into the ground.” The
ball, in comparison, was “light” and had “nothing to hold
it down.” These ideas prepared students for what was to
come in their exploration.
Explore
For the exploration part of the activity, students were al-
lowed to figure out for themselves what happens when
objects collide. To do this, students conducted tests and
collectively made sense of their findings. First, however,
Mrs. Lottero-Perdue explained the setup of the apparatus
and the testing procedures.
F IGU RE 1.
Track setup.
December 2017 47

F IG URE 2 .
Materials list.
Materials for the Entire Activity:
Block sets:
• An EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) foam block set
(one set of 131 blocks, enough for 18 groups, is
about $23)
• Two wooden block sets (two 60-piece sets,
enough for 12 groups, is about $100)
Exploration Materials:
Track Apparatus and Car:
• Two sections of Hot Wheels or similar track and
a track connector (one 15-piece track set, with
connectors and a car, costs about $10)
• One toy car (e.g., Hot Wheels or Matchbox)
Two Blocks:
• Wooden block (from block set) that fits on the
track (e.g., 3.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 7 cm)
• Foam block (from block set) with same
dimensions as the wooden block
Tape:
• One roll of masking tape (about $2 from home
improvement store)
• One roll of painter’s tape or decorative craft
tape (color should match foam block; about $3
from home improvement or craft store)
Preparation note: Cut each piece of tape to be as
long as the longest dimension of the block. Cut one
piece for each test.
Engineering Extension Materials:
• 10 wooden blocks (from block sets, above) of
various shapes and sizes
• 10 foam blocks (from block sets, above) of
various shapes and sizes
• One Hexbug Nano robot per group ($5-$7)
Examples of Where to Purchase:
• Blocks and Hexbugs are available from online
and brick-and-mortar superstores (e.g., Amazon.
com, Walmart) and at toy stores (e.g., ToysRUs).
• Masking, painter’s, and colored tape are
available at most craft and home improvement
stores (e.g., Home Depot, Lowes, Michaels,
JoAnn Fabrics).
48 Science and Children
Mrs. Lottero-Perdue directed students’ attention to-
ward a simple Hot Wheels track that had one angled
piece of track attached to a horizontal piece along the floor
(see Figure 1, p. 47). She showed the students how a Hot
Wheels car rolled down the angled ramp onto the hori-
zontal piece of track and then continued on the floor (See
Figure 2 for materials list.) Mrs. Lottero-Perdue then re-
vealed that students would allow the car to roll down the
angled track to collide with a block sitting on the horizon-
tal part of the track. In the first trial, the car would collide
with a wooden block. In the second trial, the car would
collide with a foam block, which was the same size as the
wooden block. She had students pass around the wooden
and foam blocks and asked students to describe the blocks.
They said the wooden block was heavy and hard and that
the foam block was light and soft. She asked students to
predict: “What will happen to the wooden block when the
car rolls into it? The foam block?” Students predicted that
the wooden block would stop the car or that the car would
push the wooden block a little bit; they predicted that the
car would push the foam block a lot farther. This process
of describing and predicting further supported speaking
and listening standards with regard to the presentation of
knowledge and ideas (NGAC and CCSSO 2010).
Mrs. Grabia and Mrs. Lottero-Perdue had previously
assigned half of the students to be “wooden block testers”
by placing a piece of standard masking tape on their shirts
when they entered the room earlier. The other half had
been similarly assigned to be “foam block testers” with
tape matching the color of the foam block placed on their
shirts.
Mrs. Lottero-Perdue called up the first wooden block
tester and asked her to release the car from the top of the
track and observe how far the block moved. Stu-
dents should sit a safe distance away and keep their
fingers away from the car-block collision point. She
then asked the student to take the tape from her shirt and
stick it on the floor to indicate where the wooden block
came to rest. Mrs. Lottero-Perdue helped her determine
where to place the tape. This process was repeated for all
of the wooden and foam block testers.
Explain
In keeping with the Explain section of a 5E lesson, Mrs.
Lottero-Perdue asked the students to explain their find-
ings, this time emphasizing comprehension and col-
laboration related to speaking and listening (NGAC and
CCSSO 2010). She asked: “What did we learn from our
investigation?” Students explained that the car always
pushed the blue foam block farther than the wooden block.
Mrs. Grabia and Mrs. Lottero-Perdue asked the students
how they knew this, and in response the students referred

to the data on the floor. In this way, students demonstrat-
ed their ability to make a claim (i.e., that the foam blocks
traveled farther than the wooden blocks) and to support
that claim with evidence (i.e., the tape on the floor), ad-
dressing NGSS Practice 7 – Engaging in Argument From
Evidence.
Students said that the blue block went farther because
it was “softer” or “lighter.” Similarly, students shared
that the wooden block did not go very far because it was
“harder” or “heavier.” Mrs. Grabia prompted them to ex-
plain what “softer” and “harder” meant, and guided them
toward the terms lighter and heavier.
From the investigation, students were able to observe
that the toy car was able to change the motion of the foam
or wooden block, both of which were initially sitting still and
then moved as a result of the collision. This supported stu-
dents’ developing knowledge of DCIs: (1) PS2.A Forces and
Motion, i.e., that “pushing … an object can start or stop it;”
and (2) PS2.B Types of Interactions, i.e., that “when objects
… collide, they push on one another and can change motion.”
Tape indicated distances traveled.
Oh No, Henrietta Got Out!
F IGU RE 3.
Hexbug Nano mini robots.
Engineering Extension
Next, Mrs. Lottero-Perdue shared that she had a challenge
for the students involving a very small robot, which we
named Henrietta. She took out a Hexbug Nano mini robot
(Figure 3), turned it on, and allowed it to move for about
20 seconds on the non-carpeted floor. Mrs. Lottero-Perdue
asked: “Does Henrietta move in a straight line?” Students
responded that she did not—she moved all around. Indeed,
Henrietta moved in relatively random way.
Mrs. Lottero-Perdue asked the students, many of
whom live on or near farms in their rural community, how
farmers keep animals from wandering off. Students re-
sponded enthusiastically: “a fence!” Mrs. Lottero-Perdue
shared that each team would create a fence to try to keep
Henrietta from wandering off. They could try and try
again to create their fence. In this way, students would be
addressing NGSS PE K-PS-2: “analyzing data to deter-
mine if a design solution works as intended to change the
… direction of an object [Henrietta] with a push or a pull.”
Mrs. Grabia placed students into teams of two or three,
and teams went to their stations around the room. At each
station was a basket of blocks and a Hexbug Nano (a Hen-
rietta). The blocks were of a variety of shapes. We found
that it is ideal for each team to have 10 wooden and 10
foam blocks for use in this activity. Students should be re-
minded to be careful when walking so as not to trip
over other students’ fences. Also, students should
be told not to put the mini robots in their mouths.
Mrs. Lottero-Perdue and Mrs. Grabia watched closely
as students communicated, collaborated, and created their
fences (NGAC and CCSSO 2010). For their first try,
many teams lined up their foam and the wooden blocks in
December 2017 49
a single layer. Others did some stacking but still had fence
sections that were only made of foam blocks. Henrietta
quickly broke through the foam blocks, followed by cries
of: “She got out!” Mrs. Lottero-Perdue and Mrs. Grabia
approached the teams and asked why that might be, refer-
ring to the earlier toy car investigation: “Which kind of
blocks are easier to move? How do you know?” Gradually,
students’ second and third attempts used more wooden
blocks than foam blocks as fence materials. Learning from
multiple tries is evidence of DCI ETS1.C: Optimizing the
Design Solution: “Because there is always more than one
possible solution to a problem, it is useful to compare and
test designs.” One team weighed down the foam blocks
by stacking wooden blocks on top; other teams used foam
blocks to adorn the top of their wooden blocks. All teams
eventually met the challenge and were able to fence Hen-
rietta in, showing and telling us that while Henrietta could
push the foam blocks around, she could not push wooden
blocks around. Instead, the wooden blocks kept her inside.
To assess students’ understanding, we asked one stu-
dent in each team to draw her or his team’s successful
fence and another student in the team to draw a fence that
could not contain Henrietta. We explained that both draw-
ings were very important! Although some drawings were
difficult to interpret, some clearly showed successful or
unsuccessful aspects of the fences. For example, Henri-
etta’s escape route by a foam block was evident in Figure 4.
The following day, Mrs. Grabia reviewed the previous
day’s investigation and design challenge. She had created
a slide show containing digital photos of students’ fences
and drawings. When a photo was displayed, Mrs. Gra- Students compared wooden blocks to foam blocks.
bia asked the corresponding team to describe what hap-
pened. In response to one photo of an unsuccessful fence,
a student said: “Henrietta came out!” Mrs. Grabia asked,
F IG URE 4 . “Where?” The student pointed to a foam block. Mrs. Gra-
bia then asked: “What did you do to fix it?” The student
Student drawing of how the robot replied that she and her partner “struggled two times,”
escaped. but “we kept trying!” Ultimately, this team used wooden
blocks as a base for their fence.
Conversations like these continued as the class ana-
lyzed other photos. Throughout these conversations, Mrs.
Grabia encouraged students to connect fence results to the
investigation where they learned that the car could easily
push and move foam blocks but not wooden blocks. This
supported the NGSS crosscutting concept Cause and Ef-
fect. Mrs. Grabia also applauded students for their per-
severance and elicited from students that each fence was
unique and ultimately effective.

Evaluation
This engineering-infused lesson included multiple types
of formative assessment, such as when the teachers deter-

50 Science and Children


Students work together to create the enclosure.
mined whether the students understood proper testing
procedures for the (Exploration); could articulate their
claims and evidence (Explanation); and incorporated
what they had learned from the investigation into their
initial and later fence designs (Engineering Extension).
The lesson also contained multiple forms of summative
assessment. The fence challenge served as a performance-
based summative assessment of the science knowledge
learned earlier in the lesson (Flynn 2008). Additionally,
students’ final drawings of fences that did and did not
work—enhanced with their explanations of those draw-
ings—further demonstrated their understanding.
We have developed a summative assessment and rubric
for evaluating individual student learning. This involves
constructing two fences: Fence 1, which contains foam
blocks that would allow Henrietta to escape; and Fence
2, constructed entirely of wooden blocks that would keep
Henrietta contained. Each student is asked: (1) “Which
fence would allow Henrietta to escape? Why do you think
that?” and (2) “Which fence would keep Henrietta in-
side? Why do you think that?” We have shared the rubric,
which evaluates the quality of students’ claims and evi-
dence-based reasoning, online (see NSTA Connection).
Teaching Tips
We have tips about timing, stations, teams, and evaluation
for those interested in teaching this engineering-infused 5E
lesson. First, this lesson can be divided into two 35-minute
segments: Segment 1 = Engage, Explore, and Explain; and
Segment 2 = Extend and Summative Evaluation. Second,
in the the Explore section, consider that it takes about one
minute per test. If possible, allow each student to do one
test. If time is a concern, and for larger classes, call stu-
dents up in pairs, with one student releasing the car and
Oh No, Henrietta Got Out!
the other marking the end location of the block.
Third, the stations in the Engineering Extension
should be on non-carpeted sections of floor. Hexbug Nano
mini robots do not work well on carpet. If your classroom
is fully carpeted, you might use the hallway, cafeteria, or
another room. You might also use large, smooth tables as
stations; however, the mini robots are likely to fall off the
tables. Although the mini robots are durable, you might
want to avoid repeated drops—in part to protect the ro-
bots, and in part to reduce the distraction of students
needing to pick up the robots. Fourth, we recommend that
students work in teams of two or three on their fences, al-
lowing all team members to contribute to construction. If
you must use teams of four, increase the number of blocks
per team so that each child can participate.
Finally, in the Evaluation section, you might video record
student responses using an iPad or similar device and evaluate
student responses using the rubric at a later time. Be sure to
check student/parent permissions regarding video recording.
More With Henrietta
To extend students’ learning even further beyond the
70-minute 5E lesson, Mrs. Lottero-Perdue and Mrs. Gra-
bia presented students with an additional engineering chal-
lenge. This second challenge was more structured than the
fence challenge, as it explicitly taught an engineering de-
sign process: Ask, Imagine, Try, and Try Again (Lottero-
Perdue et al. 2016). In this challenge, students used blocks
to create a maze for Henrietta (see NSTA Connection for
the design brief, which describes the problem, goal, and
rules for the challenge). Students’ participation in this ex-
tension further reinforced the need to use wooden blocks
as the primary means to change Henrietta’s direction and
keep her moving through the maze.
Henrietta is trapped inside!
December 2017 51
 Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013):
K-PS2 Motion and Stability
www.nextgenscience.org/kps2-motion-stability-forces-interactions
The chart below makes one set of connections between the instruction outlined in this article and the NGSS.
Other valid connections are likely; however, space restrictions prevent us from listing all possibilities. The
materials, lessons, and activities outlined in the article are just one step toward reaching the performance
expectation listed below.
Performance Expectation Connections to Classroom Activity
Students:
K-PS2-2. Analyze data to determine if a design • designed, created, tested, and redesigned fences to
solution works as intended to change the speed or the keep Henrietta contained as direction changed.
direction of an object with a push or a pull
Science and Engineering Practices
Engaging in Argument From Evidence • made claims about which blocks were easier for the
Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions car to move and supported this claim with evidence
from the investigation.
Disciplinary Core Idea
PS2.A: Forces and Motion • observed that the toy car could push the heavier
• Pushing or pulling on an object can change the wooden block farther than the lighter foam block.
speed or direction of its motion and can start or • observed that when Henrietta pushed into a foam
stop it. block, it would move, and when Henrietta pushed
PS2.B: Types of Interactions into a wooden block, the wooden block would not
• When objects touch or collide, they push on one move, causing Henrietta to change direction.
another and can change motion. • tested, improved, and retested fences; observed
ETS1.C: Optimizing the Design Solution different fence designs were able to contain
• Because there is always more than one possible Henrietta.
solution to a problem, it is useful to compare and
test designs.
Crosscutting Concept
Cause and Effect • observed that foam blocks are easier to move than
• Events have causes, some simple and some wooden blocks in the toy car investigation and in
multifaceted. Mechanisms can be tested across a new context with Henrietta and the fence design
given contexts and used to predict and explain challenge.
events in new contexts.

Connecting to the Common Core State Standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010):
English Language Arts—Kindergarten: Speaking and Listening Standards
Comprehension and Collaboration
• Participate in collaborative conversations with diverse partners about kindergarten topics and texts with peers
and adults in small and larger groups.
• Confirm understanding of a text read aloud or information presented orally or through other media by asking
and answering questions about key details and requesting clarification if something is not understood.
• Ask and answer questions in order to seek help, get information, or clarify something that is not understood.
Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas
• Describe familiar people, places, things, and events, and with prompting and support, provide additional
detail.
• Speak audibly and express thoughts, feelings, and ideas clearly.

52 Science and Children

 Oh No, Henrietta Got Out!

(8): 32–35.
Lottero-Perdue, P.S., S. Bolotin, R. Benyameen, E. Brock, and E.
Metzger. 2015. The EDP-5E: A rethinking of the 5E replaces
exploration with engineering design. Science and Children
53 (1): 60–66.
Lottero-Perdue, P.S., M. Bowditch, M. Kagan, L. Robinson-Cheek, T.
Webb, M. Meller, and T. Nosek. 2016. An engineering design
process for early childhood: Trying (again) to engineer an egg
package. Science and Children 54 (3): 70–76.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and
Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO).
2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC:
NGAC and CCSSO.
NGSS Lead States 2013. Next Generation Science Standards:
For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies
Students recorded results with drawings. Press.

Conclusion
This engineering-infused 5E lesson was rooted in the
NGSS practices, ideas, and concepts, and exemplified
best practices in 5E instruction. Students were engaged via
a read-aloud, and then they explored and explained scien-
tific ideas about the difference between pushing foam and
wooden blocks. Importantly, while teachers facilitated the
learning process, it was the students who conducted the
investigation and explained the results. To extend learn-
ing, students worked in teams to create a fence for Henri-
etta, considering which blocks to use and how to use them
to keep Henrietta from escaping. Student learning was
evaluated via formative and summative assessments, the
latter of which demonstrated that most students were able
to apply their scientific understandings to the engineer-
ing task. Finally, we must share that the students in Mrs.
Grabia’s room were genuinely excited to participate in the
ramp and block investigation, to share their ideas, and to
try and try again to create a fence for Henrietta. ■

Pamela Lottero-Perdue (plottero@towson.edu) is a

professor in the Department of Physics, Astronomy, and
Geosciences at Towson University in Towson, Mary-
land. Kathryn Grabia (kathryn.grabia@hcps.org) is a
kindergarten teacher at Darlington Elementary School
in Darlington, Maryland. Cody Sandifer (csandifer@
towson.edu) is a professor in the Department of Phys-
ics, Astronomy, and Geosciences at Towson University.

References
Bybee, R. 1997. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to
practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. NSTA Connection
Flynn, L.A. 2008. In praise of performance-based assessments: Download a rubric and the maze design brief at
A teacher’s outlook on testing is changed after students are www.nsta.org/SC1712.
assessed through hands-on tasks. Science and Children 45

December 2017 53