The use of LEGO robotics equipment in educational settings has been around for a number of years, long before the debate regarding pedagogical underpinnings. LEGO Education launched the original Mindstorms in 1998 providing a hands-on approach to learning for many students.

McIntyre (2012) explains how many students may have played with LEGO when they were younger, using their creative and critical thinking skills to design, create and test multiple different builds and structure strengths. LEGO robotics lends itself to a constructivist approach to learning, encouraging students to explore new possibilities, test these and then redesign as needed (Leonard et al., 2016). This active learning approach includes the use of hands on and authentic activities that include experimental learning, collaborative and context-based learning (Keengwe & Georgina, 2013). Constructivism is firmly grounded in the believe that the most effective learning comes out of the active construction of all types of things (Mayes & de Freitas, 2007).

Robotics encourages the use of collaborative learning whilst tackling tasks and this can be both rewarding and problematic for students (Leonard et al., 2016). Through my own teaching with LEGO robotics equipment I have found the need to ensure that my students are placed into allocated groups. In this way I have been able to ensure that every student gets to engage with the technology as well as contribute to the task. This predetermined grouping assists to scaffold and support the learning and reduce any negative associations that students may form towards using the technology based on their peer interactions (Leonard et al., 2016).

Thus, ultimately again the teacher and pedagogy are brought to the fore, outweighing the technological tool. Without a solid understanding of the pedagogical underpinnings of LEGO robotics and the ability to create meaningful and real-world linked learning sequences, the use of LEGO robotics would not have the same impact (Gura, 2012).