Using Robots as Teaching Aids in Early Secondary In-

formatics Education
Bernhard Wiesner, bernhard.wiesner@cs.fau.de
(University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Informatics 2/Didactics of Informatics,
Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany)

Torsten Brinda, torsten.brinda@cs.fau.de

(University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Informatics 2/Didactics of Informatics,
Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany)

Abstract
In secondary informatics education methods for teaching the basic ideas of informat-
ics have changed in recent years. Because programming in high-level languages is
no longer focussed, there is a need for tools that can be used as applications to
demonstrate some of the basic concepts of informatics. Educational robotic systems
not only meet these requirements, they also proofed to be motivating and easy to
handle, what makes them suitable especially for early secondary education. In this
paper two lesson sequences are described and evaluated, in which basic concepts
of informatics are taught using the educational robotic system LEGO Mindstorms as
teaching aid. The first sequence focuses on teaching the basic structures of algo-
rithms, the second one introduces essential ideas of state-oriented modelling. Ex-
periences made with these sequences in a 9th grade informatics course of a Ger-
man “Realschule” (a secondary school type with general educational and vocational
learning objectives, learners of age 11 to 16) are described.

Keywords
Secondary informatics education, didactics of informatics, educational robot sys-
tems, algorithms, state-oriented modelling, general education, vocational education

MOTIVATION
For many years programming in a high level language played an important role
when teaching informatics in secondary education. Basic ideas of informatics could
be explained while programming small exemplary functions. With the growing com-
plexity of programming languages and especially their development environments,
this approach did not seem to be adequate any longer for secondary school learners
(e. g. Brinda/Schubert, 2003). Additionally, special programming knowledge is not
considered to be an appropriate content of general informatics education (e. g.
Hubwieser et al., 1997). Therefore, new methods had to be developed that are suit-
able for imparting basic concepts of informatics, especially in early secondary edu-
cation. Examples for that are teaching the basic concepts of informatics using stan-
dard software applications or didactic learning and programming environments,
e. g. Kara, Karel, etc. (Kelleher/Pausch, 2005). When striving for a maximum of ac-
tive learning and orientation to practical experiences in the classroom, solutions that
use real objects as media seem to be of value. In this context, robotic systems are
of specific interest, especially those using a didactically oriented development envi-
ronment.

OBJECTIVES OF USING ROBOTS IN THE CLASSROOM

Various goals are pursued with the use of robotic systems in education. They serve
as objects of exploration where students explore their parts and possibilities. In this
way learners get an overview of the functionality of robots and how such machines
are being programmed and controlled. Besides that they get access to technology in
a playful way, which could influence their decision for a later career in the technical
area (Schelhowe, 2005).
In university courses robots are used as application systems to demonstrate the in-
tegration of engineering and informatics using concrete examples and to construct
exemplarily project works in interdisciplinary teams (Kitts/Quinn, 2004). They are
also used to give students application systems for learning programming languages
(Powers et al., 2005). For this purpose robots are also used in higher secondary
level informatics courses.
Educational robotic systems can be used as tools to demonstrate informatic sub-
jects clearly and to have tangible applications for facts that otherwise could only be
explained in computer simulations. They serve as teaching aids for informatics,
bringing with them all the advantages that active learning is known for. Generally,
teaching aids are useful in every phase of the learning process: They may help to
draw learner’s attention to the subject, they may serve as working environment to
reach the target, and they may serve as applications for the (theoretical) content. In
this sense the following two examples use the robots in a slightly different way. In
the first one, the robots together with their programming environment serve as the
experimental tool with which the results are elaborated, in the second one they
serve as applications for some newly learned content.
The idea of using these systems as motivating experimental equipment is already
described for physics classes, where the Mindstorms robotic units
(http://mindstorms.lego.com) together with Robolab software are used. Finally, ro-
botic systems are well known through a large number of robot competitions for stu-
dents of all ages (e. g. robot soccer competitions). These contests encourage the
students to work intensively with the technology of the devices and also to perma-
nently optimize their robot programs. As an additional effect the contests foster
learning and working in teams. In the following two examples it is described how
teaching essential subjects of informatics in early secondary classes can be sup-
ported by the use of educational robotic systems.

TEACHING INFORMATICS WITH ROBOTS AS TEACHING AIDS

Selection of a Robot System

The objectives described so far influence the decision, which robotic system would
be best suitable for a specific learning purpose. In the following examples the LEGO
Mindstorms system was used together with the programming environment RIS 2.0.
This system is easy to set up, i. e. compared to robotic assembly kits the building
time is considerably short, no soldering is necessary and the mechanical stability
meets the conditions. There are several programming languages that can be used
with the Mindstorms system. But as mentioned above, the group of learners consid-
ered here is not expected to become familiar with a high level programming lan-
guage. Therefore the iconic language RCX-Code, which is part of the RIS 2.0 envi-
ronment, was used. It provides sufficent functionality for the intended tasks and is
easy to handle.
Even if the emphasis of the described examples did not lie on knowing the capabili-
ties and properties of robots and also not on designing and building individual ro-
botic vehicles, it was necessary for the learners to become acquainted with the pro-
gramming environment and to learn the basic steps of programming and handling
the robot controller. The time for this phase took about one hour, what is similar to
the time it takes to become familiar with other simple educational environments and
it is much less than the time to learn to program in a high-level language.
Both lesson sequences were planned in 2007 at the University of Erlangen-
Nuremberg in Germany with students teachers of informatics. They were held as
case studies at a so-called “Realschule”, a German secondary level school type be-
sides the grammar school, with general educational and also vocational objectives
for learners of ages 11-16. The classes (9th grade) had 14 pupils, approx. 1/4 fe-
male. Two observers attended the classes and evaluated each lesson together with
the teacher.

Sequence 1: Basic Structures of Algorithms

In secondary education algorithms are understood as descriptions of procedures
(Hubwieser et al., 1997) that can be related to every field of experience. They may
enclose cooking recipes as well as methods to calculate the greatest common divi-
sor (GCD) or controlling the moves of a robot.

Learning Objectives
The learners should know that algorithms can be built step by step from elementary
commands or structures like sequences, loops or branches. They should gain ex-
perience to describe simple procedures with these elements. In this context they
should be able to structure their ideas using graphic representations like Nassi-
Shneiderman diagrams (structograms) or flowcharts. To give an impression how
these objectives are represented in concrete conditions, here is an applicable ex-
ample of a problem the students should be able to solve: “A vehicle should follow for
1 min a road that is limited on the right and left side by white lines. Coming over a
line is signalled by two sensors on the car sides. The vehicle can execute the follow-
ing commands: drive forward for 0.1 sec; turn left for 0.1 sec; turn right for 0.1 sec.
And it can implement the control structures loop and branch. Give an appropriate
algorithm in a structogram.”

Learning Environment
Using the visual programming environment RIS 2.0 together with LEGO Mindstorms
turned out to be a helpful decision, because the icons of the RCX-Code look very
similar to the Nassi-Shneiderman blocks, and on screen they are aligned in the
same way just like them. Many of the exercises required the robots to move on col-
oured paper as driving field. Each robot was equipped with one light sensor for
measuring the brightness of the colours. The size of the driving field was about 1m².
For one task the driving field was taped on the floor (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Algorithm testing

Course
In the following table the first sequence is summarized. Only the parts are men-
tioned, in which the robot system was used. The table contains the content, the
amount of time used, and the relevant robot activities. Time is given in lesson units
(LU), which equals in Germany usually 45 min.
 #LU Content
1 Introduction into working with LEGO Mindstorms and RIS 2.0
Learners built the vehicle “Roverbot” and transferred a demo pro-
gram to the robot. They used and tested the commands for motor
control.
1 Splitting procedures into single steps; composing single steps into
a longer procedure; defining the terms “command”, ”statement”,
“sequence”
Learners programmed a procedure that caused the robot to drive a
square.
1 Count-controlled loops
To implement the procedure “Drive a square” learners used count-
controlled loops.
2 Condition-controlled loops
The robots were equipped with light sensors. Students pro-
grammed the procedure “Drive on the grey field until light sensor
signals black.”
2 Conditional Statements
Learners program the procedure “Stop driving and play a sound if
the light sensor signals black.”
2 Combination of control structures; structograms
Learners program procedures like “Drive on the grey field until the
light sensor signals white. Turn right if the light sensor signals
black.”
3 Practices
Learners designed, programmed and tested an algorithm which
led the robot out of a labyrinth.
Table 1: Lesson sequence "Basic structures of algorithms"

As a result of the sequence observers and teacher found that the intended objec-
tives (see above) could all be reached. The results in a written test showed that the
students were able to describe simple procedures from different subjects using the
algorithmic structures. About a half of the class was also able to handle more diffi-
cult structures, like conditions within loops.

In the course units (and the stated time) also other methods and exercises were in-
cluded that did not use robots. For instance there were two role-plays, one to pro-
vide an understanding for splitting procedures into “elementary commands” and a
second one to show the repetitive checking of the light sensors that is characteristic
for this kind of algorithmic procedures. This was all done to make sure that the
learners were able to apply their knowledge to any other situation beside the Mind-
storms system.

Sequence 2: States of Objects (Systems)

Based on the static object model the behaviour of objects and systems, respectively,
can be described with state-based modelling. It shows which events affect objects
and how these objects react. Objects are considered as finite state machines,
whose behaviour is described with states and state transitions. The didactic advan-
tage of this method is the seamless continuation of the object idea. Students occupy
themselves from the beginning of secondary education with objects and classes.
They are familiar with attributes and methods. State-based modelling allows elabo-
rating of these thoughts and it serves as a basis to reach very easy algorithmic solu-
tions, which can be used for program generation. With robotic systems it is possible
to build the complete way from a problem to the corresponding state model and from
there in a few mostly automated steps to a working robot program. In this way the
relevance of modelling for the software development process can be demonstrated.

Learning Objectives
According to the Model curriculum of ACM (ACM, 2003), a course in grade 9 to10
(level II) should include object-oriented design and tools for expressing design. In
this context it seems adequate that learners should know that the behaviour of ob-
jects and systems, respectively, can be visualized with state diagrams. They should
be able to transfer simple behaviour of objects from their environment, or behaviour
that is described in exercises, into state diagrams. They should understand how a
state transition table can be generated from a state diagram and how that state
transition table leads in appropriate cases to an executable program.

Learning Environment
To realize this lesson sequence the same robot vehicles and the same programming
environment RIS 2.0 were used as in the first example.

Figure 2: Driving Field

Course
For these lessons the abovementioned sequence 1 is needed as pre-knowledge,
because basic knowledge of algorithms is necessary to solve some of the problems
to come. This course started with the concept of variables, which was needed to
draw the bridge from state-oriented modelling to algorithm design. Due to the con-
struction of the robot vehicle with one light sensor the tasks deal with driving on a
coloured paper field (Figure 2). The states of the robot object are represented by the
grade of fulfilling the given task (which is not equal to the colours under the light
sensor). Table 2 shows the content of the sequence, the required time in lesson
units and the relevant robot activities.

#LU Content
1 Assigning values to variables; reading values of variables
Learners create variables and assign values. During program
execution these values can be shown on the RCX display.
1 Conditions and variables
Problem sample: “The robot drives on a grey field until the light
sensor signals white. After arriving it shows on its display a 1 if
it came across a black spot, otherwise a 0.”
 #LU Content
2 State, state transition, state diagrams; designing a robot behav-
iour problem
Problem example: “Robots sometimes have to dig soil samples
on a distant planet. Your robot should drive straight forward
over the coloured driving field until it came across one dark and
one light spot.”
2 Translation of a state diagram into a state transition table
Every state transition of the diagram becomes a row in a transi-
tion table. These rows will be transformed to conditional state-
ments in a program.
2 Designing more applications
Table 2: Lesson sequence „States of objects (systems)”

State-oriented modelling was more difficult to understand for the learners because
they were required to think in an unfamiliar way. By the help of examples from their
everyday lives (e. g. states of a mobile phone) they became aware of the state con-
cept. After that state-oriented tasks using robots were easier to handle for the learn-
ers and at the end of the sequence they were able to model the behaviour of a sim-
ple robot as well as the behaviour of a technical device (e. g. CD player) with the
techniques of state-oriented modelling.

RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS
There are several reports on the motivating value of robotic systems (Hartmann et
al., 2007) and it could be confirmed in the two described case studies as well. The
observers found the students working on the tasks all the time with enthusiasm.
They did not find any decrease of interest during the whole sequence. The goals of
the two case studies were to get information about appropriate teaching methods
and problems with organizing the robotic lessons. Teachers repeatedly tell about
pupils loosing small parts or disturbing the lessons because of malfunctioning ro-
bots. And they tell about time loss because of intricate handling and testing proce-
dures (Kumar, 2004; McNally, 2002).
The case studies showed that long phases of partner work (more than 1 hour) with
bigger tasks given, lead not only to unsystematic approaches but also to a big diver-
gence between the groups, with only few correct solutions at the end. Therefore,
tasks should lead in small steps to the desired goal. Finding a solution and testing it
with the robots should be possible in about 30 min, depending on the learners’ age.
This made exercise design an important work. Unexpected difficulties or inaccurate
phrases led to mistakes and loss of time. The case studies showed that following a
few directions eliminates the problems with handling the robotic sets in classroom:
- Students should build their robots according to a construction plan containing an
exact parts list. They have to get the exact amount of parts needed.
- Each learning group (1 - 4 persons) is responsible for one robot and has a place
(in an adjoining room) where to store their equipment.
The learning success of the two lesson sequences could only be gathered in a
summary way. One written test was held during each sequence. The first one con-
tained tasks like designing a structogram to a given workflow, or writing an algo-
rithmic description for a given cooking recipe. In the second one amongst others the
learners had to design a state diagram to a given issue and to translate a state dia-
gram into a state table. Only a small part of the questions referred to the program-
ming environment. The results of these tests were in both cases slightly better than
the average proficiency level of the two classes during the preceding months. In or-
der to get valid results on the influence of using educational robots in informatics
lessons these introductory case studies have to be followed by a number of well
evaluated comparative surveys on the competences of students, who learn some
content of informatics without robots and others who use them as teaching aid.

REFERENCES
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (Ed.) (2003): A Model Curriculum for
K-12 Computer Science. URL:
http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/k12final1022.pdf
Brinda, T.; Schubert, S. (2003): Exploration of Object-Oriented Models in Informatics
Education. In: van Weert, T. J.; Munro, R. K. (Eds.): Informatics and the digital
society. Social, ethical, and cognitive issues. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, pp. 109–118.
McNally, M.; Goldweber, M.; Fagin, B. S.; Klassner, F. (2005): Do lego mindstorms
robots have a future in CS education? In: Proceedings of the thirty-seventh SIG-
CSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006).
New York: ACM Press, pp. 61–62.
Hartmann, S.; Wiesner, H.; Wiesner-Steiner, A. (2007): Robotics and Gender: The
Use of Robotics for the Empowerment of Girls in the Classroom. In: Zorn, I.
(Ed.): Gender designs IT. Construction and deconstruction of information society
technology. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 175–189.
Hubwieser, P.; Broy, M.; Brauer, W. (1997): A new approach to teaching information
technologies: shifting emphasis from technology to information. In: Passey, D.;
Samways, B. (Eds.): Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 WG3.1/3.5 joint working con-
ference on Information technology. Supporting change through teacher educa-
tion. London: Chapman & Hall.
Kelleher, C.; Pausch, R. (2005): Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy
of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. In: ACM
Computing Surveys, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 83–137.
Kitts, C.; Quinn, N. (2004): An interdisciplinary field robotics program for under-
graduate computer science and engineering education. In: Journal on Educa-
tional Resources in Computing, Vol. 4, No. 2, Article No. 3. URL:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1071620.1071623.
Kumar, A. N. (2004): Three Years of Using Robots in an artificial Intelligence Course
- Lessons Learned. In: Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, Vol. 4,
No. 3, Article No. 1.
Powers, K.; Gross, P.; Cooper, S.; McNally, M.; Goldman, K. J.; Proulx, V.; Carlisle,
M. C. (2005): Tools for teaching introductory programming: what works? In: Pro-
ceedings of the thirty-seventh SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Sci-
ence Education (SIGCSE 2006). New York: ACM Press, pp. 560–561.
Schelhowe, Heidi (2005): Gender questions and computing science. In: Morrell, C.;
Sanders, J. (Eds.): Proceedings of the international symposium on Women and
ICT. Creating global transformation. New York: ACM Press, Article No. 10.
Biographies
Bernhard Wiesner studied Mathematics and Physics at the
Universities of Ulm and Munich (Germany). He worked as a
teacher until 2002 when he became lecturer at the Academy for
Teachers’ Advanced Training & Human Resources Manage-
ment, Dillingen (Germany). Since 2006 he works as a scientist in
the “Didactics of Informatics” group at the University of Erlan-
gen-Nuremberg. He is interested in concepts for teaching infor-
matics with robots as teaching aids.

Torsten Brinda studied Computer Science at the University of

Dortmund (Germany) from 1992 to 1998. From 1998 to 2005 he
worked as a scientist in the “Didactics of Informatics” groups at
the Universities of Dortmund (until 2002) and Siegen (2002 to
2005), where he 2004 finished his dissertation. In 2005 he be-
came a professor for “Didactics of Informatics” at the University
of Erlangen-Nuremberg. His current research interests are di-
dactic systems and educational standards of Informatics.

Copyright Statement
This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs2.5 License. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Com-
mons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.