In this study, we employed a proprietary programming robot in a university general education course that involved learners with varying levels of knowledge, and analyzed the results for FY2023 and FY2024. The courses were organized in the sequence of individual, pair, and group learning. In FY2024, students were additionally encouraged to use specialized tools for ball passing. Analysis of group project programs indicated that, in FY2024, learners more frequently employed conditional jump instructions involving computational results compared to FY2023. Furthermore, a confirmation question involving jump instructions was administered at the end of the course. The results indicated an overall improvement in learners’ understanding of jump instructions in FY2024. This improvement is attributed to the provision of the tools, which allowed learners to allocate more of their group work time to refining program content. The end-of-class questionnaire results indicated that learners in FY2024 exhibited a stronger inclination to create more complex programs than those in FY2023. The proportion of positive responses affirming the successful operation of the robot as intended was also significantly higher in FY2024. Moreover, although learners in both academic years developed an interest in the subject matter, those with programming experience exhibited greater interest in the robot’s hardware than their inexperienced counterparts, indicating a deeper engagement with the fundamental mechanisms of computing.

1. [1] H. Belmar, “Review on the teaching of programming and computational thinking in the world,” Frontiers in Computer Science, Vol.4, Article No.997222, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.997222
2. [2] T. Yasumoto, M. Isobe, K. Umeda, T. Kamada, H. Saito, and Y. Matsunaga, “Shogakko, chugako, kotogakko no setsuzoku wo koryo shita puroguramingu no jugyo no teian” [Proposal for programming lessons considering connections between elementary, junior high, and high schools], Proc. of the SSS2021, pp. 36-43, 2021 (in Japanese).
3. [3] E. Danahy, E. Wang, J. Brockman, A. Carberry, B. Shapiro, and C. B. Rogers, “LEGO-based robotics in higher education: 15 years of student creativity,” Int. J. of Advanced Robotic Systems, Vol.11, No.2, Article No.27, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5772/58249
4. [4] C. Qin, Y. Liu, and H. Zhang, “Scratch versus LEGO robots: Which engages undergraduates more in programming education?,” J. of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 935-953, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12778
5. [5] 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
6. [6] L. I. González-Pérez and M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, “Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: Systematic review,” Sustainability, Vol.14, No.3, Article No.1493, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
7. [7] Y. Dong, S. Marwan, V. Catete, T. Price, and T. Barnes, “Defining tinkering behavior in open-ended block-based programming assignments,” Proc. of the 50th ACM Technical Symp. on Computer Science Education, pp. 1204-1210, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287437