This study developed a simple mechanical model for STEAM learning that links technology, science, and physical education classes in junior high school; the tabletop device uses two servomotors arranged like a hip and knee to mimic the kicking motion of a human leg. Students use a microcontroller to change the PWM command value and joint angles, perform a kick, film the trial with a tablet, and calculate ball speed by reading elapsed time on the video playback timeline, so coding and measurement happen in the same activity. By testing two PWM command value settings and two driving styles, using either one motor alone or both motors working together, the linked motor motion produced the fastest ball speeds, and clear differences also appeared between the higher and lower PWM command value settings. These results allow learners to observe how rotational speed and joint coordination increase the striker tip speed and, consequently, ball speed, turning formulas into observed motion. Because coding, testing, graphing, and discussion all happen in a short loop, the activity strengthens an inquiry cycle where students test ideas, obtain evidence, and improve their plans. Made from low-cost parts, the model can be rebuilt in ordinary schools and may serve as a platform that supports data literacy and evidence-based skill improvement.

1. [1] F. Ouyang and W. Xu, “The effects of educational robotics in STEM education: A multilevel meta-analysis,” Int. J. of STEM Education, Vol.11, No.1, Article No.7, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00469-4
2. [2] I. Trapero-González, F. J. Hinojo-Lucena, J.-M. Romero-Rodríguez, and A. Martínez-Menéndez, “Didactic impact of educational robotics on the development of STEM competence in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Front. Educ., Vol.9, Article No.1480908, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1480908
3. [3] K. Yamazaki and S. Yamazaki, “Project-based Learning that Combines ‘Technology of Nurturing Living Things,’ Science, and Mathematics and Transforming Students,” J. of the Japan Society of Technology Education, Vol.66, No.3, pp. 139-150, 2024 (in Japanese).
4. [4] K. Kadota, “Development of communication robot for STEM education by using digital fabrication,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 944-951, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0944
5. [5] H. Yamagata and T. Morita, “Design of contest for educational underwater robot for STEM: Learning applying modeling based on control engineering,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 957-968, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0957
6. [6] T. Noguchi, H. Kajiwara, K. Chida, and S. Inamori, “Development of a programming teaching-aid robot with intuitive motion instruction set,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 980-991, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0980
7. [7] K. Kawada and M. Ito, “Study on assist education of swing riding using a robot,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 999-1004, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2017.p0999
8. [8] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Educational guidelines for junior high school “2017 notification” commentary general explanation,” Higashiyama Shobo, 2018 (in Japanese).
9. [9] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Educational guidelines for junior high school “2017 notification” commentary technology/home,” Kairyudo Publishing, 2018 (in Japanese).
10. [10] L. Bryan and S. S. Guzey, “K-12 STEM education: An overview of perspectives and considerations,” Hellenic J. of STEM Education, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 5-15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v1i1.5
11. [11] D. A. Kolb, “Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development,” Prentice-Hall, 1984.
12. [12] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The role of tutoring in problem solving,” J. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol.17, No.2, pp. 89-100, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
13. [13] H. Wang, N. Luo, T. Zhou, and S. Yang, “Physical robots in education: A systematic review based on the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework,” Sustainability, Vol.16, No.12, Article No.4987, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124987
14. [14] Y. Takano and K. Kimura, “Robotics education for elementary and junior high school students using beauto balancer,” J. of Advances in Artificial Life Robotics, Vol.4, No.3, pp. 146-152, 2023.
15. [15] K. Kawada, M. Nagamatsu, and T. Yamamoto, “An approach to rescue robot workshops for kindergarten and primary school children,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.25, No.3, pp. 521-528, 2013. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2013.p0521
16. [16] T. Tamai, S. Takeuchi, Y. Ohnishi, and K. Kawada, “A study of experiential learning activities using model materials for the kicking motion,” Proc. of the 2023 Int. Conf. on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB 2023), pp. 560-563, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5954/ICAROB.2023.OS23-2
17. [17] S. Oh, “Arduino-based fine particulate matter STEM program: Enhancing problem-solving and collaboration in a post-pandemic blended high school setting,” Front. Psychol., Vol.16, Article No.1524777, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1524777
18. [18] N. D. Dat, N. V. Bien, N. T. T. Nguyen, N. T. V. Ha, H. T. T. An, and N. T. P. Anh, “Arduino-based experiments: Leveraging engineering design and scientific inquiry in STEM lessons,” Int. J. of STEM Education for Sustainability, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 38-53, 2024. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v4i1.317