SUGISAKAMASANORI

Journal of Advances in Artificial Life Robotics
Vol. 4(3); December (2023), pp. 146–152
ON LINE ISSN 2435-8061; ISSN-L 2435-8061
https://alife-robotics.org/jallr.html

Research Article

Robotics Education for Elementary and Junior High SchoolStudents Using Beauto Balancer
Youta Takano1, Kenji Kimura2

Belair-systems, Inc, 20-8 Hina-minami-machi, Okazaki-shi, Aichi, 444-0915, Japan
Department of Control Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Matsue College, 14-4 Nishi-ikuma-cho, Matsue-shi, Shimane,690-8518, Japan

12ARTICLE INFO
Article History
Received 30 November 2023
Accepted 17 June 2024
Keywords
Robot education
Control engineering
Visual programming
Additional experiments

ABSTRACTIn recent years, it has become necessary to use programming in controlling robots. However, there
are few educational materials for elementary and junior high school students to understand andbe interested in the concepts of programming and control engineering. In the previous study, weplanned an educational program using "Beauto Balancer2", an educational robot developed byVstone Corporation, to explain the mechanism of inverted control and to allow students to actually
touch the robot, so that they can experience various technologies including control engineeringand become interested in mathematical subjects in general, which are the basis of thesetechnologies. The educational program was planned so that students could experience various
technologies including control engineering through hands-on experience with robots and develop
an interest in mathematical subjects in general. In addition, a craft class was conducted andevaluated using the results of questionnaires. In this study, mock classes were conducted using
the existing software for educational robots created in the previous study, and comparisons andverifications were made by focusing on three persons with similar characteristics.

© 2022 The Author. Published by Sugisaka Masanori at ALife Robotics Corporation Ltd.
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0
license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Hirata developed an experimental teaching material
that enables students to identify control objects in boththe time and frequency domains and to design control
systems while considering the relationship between them[3]. This teaching material is intended for beginning
students of control engineering.
Kimura designed a lesson design for elementary andmiddle school students using Vstone's "Beauto Rover"and genuine software, and executed a mock class [5]. The
focus of the mock class here was on the participants'
thinking about how they would complete the assigned
mission.
In the previous study, we used the educational robot"Beauto Balancer2" (Fig. 1, hereinafter referred to as "therobot") developed by Vstone Corporation (hereinafterreferred to as "Vstone") to explain the mechanism of
inverted control and to let the participants actually touch
the robot, aiming to help them understand the concept ofcontrol engineering. The educational program wasplanned so that the students could experience not only
control engineering but also basic programming

1. Introduction
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT) has made programming
education mandatory for elementary and junior highschools starting in FY2021 [1]. In the same year, MEXT
also recommended STEAM education [2].
Kato conducted an objective verification ofeducational effectiveness through robot building androbot contests. Here, as an objective method of measuring
effectiveness, criteria for behavior evaluation were
established and implemented, and the behavior of thesubjects was evaluated by TAs [3]. This study cites
education in the setting of a robotics class for elementaryand junior high school students.
Kawakita used a technique called jigsaw codes tovisualize programming processes and thoughts, andanalyzed their tendencies [4]. Jigsaw codes are completed
by rearranging randomly arranged lines of code into anorder that the player (programmer) considers appropriate.

Corresponding author’s E-mail: y8otaman@gmail.com, k-kimura@matsue-ct.jp

146techniques, etc., and become interested in mathematicalsubjects in general, which are the basis of control
engineering. In addition, we conducted an actual craft
workshop and evaluated the results of the questionnaire
survey [6].
In this study, using the existing software foreducational robots created in the previous study, classes
were planned and implemented so that elementary andjunior high school students would be interested in a wide
range of fields and be challenged in their learning. The
evaluation method was the same as in the previous study,
using a questionnaire. In addition, we focused on threestudents in the same grade at the same school forcomparison.

Fig.2 View of this experimentFig.3 Slide showing how to use (Step.1)
Each step is presented in turn.
Step.1Experience 1 (Operation Tutorial)
The use of Beauto Balancer 2 and the genuine
software were explained, and the participants
experienced the sensation of Beauto Balancer 2 inoperation (Fig. 3). The aim here was to make theparticipants feel familiar and comfortable with the robot.
In doing so, the subject was asked the question, "Whatis gain?" and asked them to answer the question whiletouching the genuine software (Fig. 4). We also gavethem hints as necessary (Fig. 5), because we thought itwould be very difficult for elementary and junior highschool students to derive the answer as it is. Incidentally,
we have tried to refrain from theoretical discussions
here.

Fig.1 Robot used in this project
2. Lesson Content
We designed an educational design consisting of a classand software, aiming to have the participants understandthe concept of control engineering, experience basic
programming techniques, etc., and become interested inmathematical subjects in general, which are the basis ofcontrol engineering. Based on this design, a mock class
was conducted. The instructor was assumed to be theauthor, and the number of participants was limited to five.
A teaching assistant (TA) was also provided. The classes
were held as part of a craft class sponsored by theNational Institute of Technology, Matsue College, andthe participants were recruited from the general public.
The experimental dates are shown in Table 1. Fig. 2
shows a scene of the experiment.
The simulation consisted of four steps. Step.4 is only asupplemental step and was excluded from the evaluation.
Step.1 Experience 1 (operation tutorial)
Step.2 Classroom lecture (explanation of operation)
Step.3 Experience 2 (Problem Solving)
Step.4 Classroom lecture(supplementary explanation)

Fig.4 Questioning (Step.1)

Fig.5 Hints for asking questions (Step.1)
147

Table 1 Schedule of experiments

Experimentnamecontrol
experiment
originalexperiment
Positiveexperiment*.

Date

participantAugust 6, 2023

3 persons

December 16, 2023

4 persons

December 24, 2023

4 persons*Sincethe number of participants wishing toparticipate in this experiment far exceeded themaximum number of participants, the same content
as in this experiment was used. In addition, threeeighth graders from the same school participated in
the course at that time.

Fig.8 Slide touching acceleration (Step.2)

Step.2 Classroom lecture (explanation of operation)
The concepts of mathematics and physics and control
engineering were explained to the subjects in a nutshell.
First, basic knowledge and concepts of mathematics
and arithmetic (functions, derivatives and integrals)
were explained; Fig. 6 shows a slide explaining
integrals. Next, velocity was explained as afundamental concept in physics. Fig. 7 shows a slideexplaining velocity, and Fig. 8 shows a slide explaining
acceleration. Finally, the two contents were used toexplain how to combine them into a single concept; Fig.
9 shows how this was done, with the slide explaining
velocity and acceleration (physics) using knowledge ofcalculus (mathematics). When explaining with such
slides, we added movement to the slides using
animation and other techniques. This ensures visualclarity.

Fig. 9 Explaining velocity and acceleration withknowledge of calculus

Fig.10 Subjects working on problem solving
Step 3 Experience 2 (Problem Solving)First, the answers to the questions posed in Step.1
were revealed. Next, the cloth was distributed and thegain was adjusted, and the subject was given the task ofmaking Beauto Balancer2 stand inverted in a stablemanner. The subjects then defined the movements theywanted the robot to perform and asked it to execute
them in sequence (Fig. 10). In the control experiment,
the subject manually controlled the robot by writing out
the movements on a special form using the original
software (Fig. 11). In the main experiment and thefollow-up experiment, we used our own software.
Fig.12 shows the participants thinking about how tosolve the problem using the Scratch sprint, and Fig.13
shows the actual problem solving using the home-madeconsole application.

Fig.6 Explanatory slide for integration (Step.2)

Fig.7 Slide explaining speed (Step.2)

148

Fig.11 How to solve in a control experiment (Step.3)

Fig.14 Explanation of body tilting device (1)(Step.4)

Fig.12 Thinking about how to solve a problem(Step.3) with home-made software (Scratch

Fig.15 Explanation of body tilting device (2)(Step.4)

Fig.13 Actual problem solving with home-madesoftware (console application) (Step.3)

Fig.16 Front view of a car equipped with a bodytilting device (Step.4)

Step. 4 Classroom lecture 2 (supplementary explanation)
As one example of a technology that improves andbenefits as control engineering research advances, we
described a pendulum-type car body tilting device on arailroad (Fig. 14 and Fiq. 15). Various express trains in
the San-in region, including Shimane Prefecture, areequipped with various types of car body tilting devices,which were adopted because it is easy to explain
comparisons between generations; Figs. 16 and Fig. 17
illustrate the changes in behavior with and without car
body tilting devices through full views of each train
taken by the author.

Fig.17 Front view of a car without body tilting
device (Step.4)
3. Lesson Content
The robot used in this study comes with the original
software (Balancer 2 Programmer). However, in order toachieve the goal of having the robot embody the behavior149

4. Evaluation by questionnaire
4.1. Evaluation Method
In order to test the effectiveness of the program, a preand post-class questionnaire was administered to thesubjects. Subjects were asked 5 questions before and after
each class. The questionnaire was given on a 5-point
scale, with the higher the number, the more positive theevaluation. The contents of the questionnaires are shownin Table 2 for the pre-lesson and Table 3 for the postlesson. The purpose of the pre-class questionnaire was togauge the students' awareness and interest before theclass, and the post-class questionnaire was to see changes
in awareness and interest after the class.
Table 2 Pre-Class Questionnaire

envisioned by the subjects, it is necessary to developfunctions that are not included in the stock software. Fig.
18 shows the overall diagram of the system.

Q1 Do you like mathematics?
12
345(No.)(Yes)
Q2 Do you like science?
12345(No.)(Yes)
Q3 Can you visualize the control?
12345(No.)(Yes)
Q4: Are you concerned about what mathand arithmetic learned in school is usedfor?
1
2
345(No.)(Yes)
Q5 What science is used for in school
Are you curious?
12345(No.)(Yes)

Fig.18 Overall diagram of home-made software system

We describe the overall system flow, its use, and how
it works. First, a txt file was generated from the visualprogramming editor (Fig. 19). The students were thenasked to generate the list using the function to output thelist in a txt file. Next, ask participants to set up thecommunication software. To reduce the burden on theparticipants, we implemented the software in such a waythat it could be automatically loaded and executed bysimply clicking on the application and having it open.
When the communication software is opened, USB HID
communication is automatically established and the txt
file is read. At this time, we designed the software to readthe txt file sequentially and issue communicationcommands according to the contents of each line (Fig. 20).
Although the home-built software and the genuine
software coexist, the operation commands to the robot areexclusive.

Fig.19 Making txt fileFig.20 Reading txt file150

Table 3 Post-class questionnaire

Q1: Have you developed an interest inmathematics?

Survey Results Average

5.012345(No.)(Yes)
Q2 Were you interested in science?
12345(No.)(Yes)
Q3 Did you have an interest in control
engineering?
12345(No.)(Yes)
Q4 Did you want to know more about whatmath and arithmetic is used for in school?
12345(No.)(Yes)
Q5 What is the science you learn in school
usedfor?
Do you want to know more about it?
123
45(No.)(Yes)

Survey Results Average

Q5Pre-cl a s s
Pos t-cl a s s

Survey Results Average
Survey Results Average

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0Q2Q3Question

Q4Q5Pre-cl a s s
Pos t-cl a s s

3.0
2.0
1.0

Q1

Q2

Q3Q4

Q5Pre-cl a s s
Pos t-cl a s s

4.3. Discussion of Verification Results
As shown in Fig. 21 and Fig. 22, the number ofparticipants decreased or increased only slightly in someitems. However, in the mock class conducted in this study,
we were fortunate to be able to gather three students inthe same grade at the same school. Based on this, wefocus on Q4 and Q5 of the post-class questionnaire in Fig.
23. As Fig. 24 shows, we believe that the direction of theeducational design was correct.
In the free-entry column of the questionnaire, there were
negative comments such as "I could not understandmuch," positive comments such as "It looks difficult, but
I think I would enjoy it if I understood it," and a note thatthe participants became interested in technical colleges
through the mock class. Reading these comments, webelieve that there are several issues to be addressed. For
example, the content of the mock class may have been too
specialized for the participants. This is one of the issues.
We believe that changing the subject matter to a moregeneralized content may have changed the results
somewhat. We believe that changing the subject matter toa more generalized content may have changed the results
somewhat.
The self-made program used in the previous study andthe current study was designed to consist of three piecesof software in order to introduce the mechanism in aneasy-to-understand manner. However, some participants
and their parents commented that the program wasinconsistent and difficult to understand. Based on thesecomments, we decided that it would have been better tointegrate them into a single program. We believe that thisis a good idea. The solution to this problem is to create aC language application. However, some of theparticipants in this study were interested in theFig.21 Average scores of questionnaires in controliQ1

Q4

Fig.24 Score average of the questionnaire for the whole
it

1.0

0.0

Q3

Question

2.0

Q4

Q2

4.0

0.0

3.0

Q3

Q1

5.0

4.0

Question

1.0

Fig. 23 Average scores of questionnaires in thefollow-up experiment

5.0

Q2

2.0

QuestionFig. 21, Fig. 22, Fig. 23, and Fig. 24 show the averageof the results of the pre- and post-class surveys at eachsession, respectively. The horizontal axis represents eachquestion in the questionnaire, and the vertical axis
represents the average of the results of the responses. In
addition, Fig. 24 shows the resultant average of the sumof the results from each experiment.

Q1

3.0

0.0

4.2. Result

0.0

4.0

Q5
Pre-cl a s s
Pos t-cl a s s

Fig.22 Average score of the questionnaire in thisexperiment151

mechanism, so when creating a new version in the future,application specifications that make the mechanism easy
to understand should be defined with this in mind.

Authors Introduction
Mr. Youta Takano

5. Conclusion
In this study, mock classes were conducted using thesoftware and instructional design produced in theprevious study and validated by focusing on subjects withsimilar characteristics. The results of the validation
showed that mathematical interest was improved. It wasalso hypothesized that the designed educational design
and the content of the mock class may have been
misaligned with the objectives of the study.
We believe that in the future, a larger number ofsubjects should be prepared and grouped together toconduct the survey in a group setting. We also believethat the content of the educational design and mockclasses should be scrutinized to make the content moregeneral.

Dr. Kenji Kimura

He was student at the Department ofControl Engineering, National Instituteof Technology, Matsue College until
March 2024. His research interests
include educational materials for robots
and STEM education. Now, he isworking at Belair-systems, Inc.

He is a Lecturer at the Department ofControl Engineering, National Institute ofTechnology, Matsue College, and a
Visiting Associate Professor at Chuo
University. He received his ME(mathematics) from Kyushu University in2002 and his PhD (engineering) from theKyushu Institute of Technology in 2020.
His research interests are spherical mobile robots.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Mazda Foundation
Project Grant Related to the Promotion of Science andTechnology (23KJ-023).
We would also like to thank Kouju Tanaka (2nd student,
National Institute of Technology, Matsue College) for
assisting in the control experiment and this experiment,
and for providing the cloth.
References[1] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology. "Guide to Elementary School Programming
Education (Third Edition)." Heisei 30, no. 3 (2020).
[2] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology.
"Promotion of STEAM education and other crosscurricular learning". Ministry of Education, Culture,Sports,
ScienceandTechnology.2023-05-11.
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20230515mxt_kyouiku01-000016477.pdf (reference 2023-09-25).
[3] Kato, K., et al. On the Educational Effects of Robot
Making and Robot Contest. Bulletin of the Faculty ofEducation, Gunma University, Arts, Technology, Physical
Education and Life Science, 2011, 46: 125-147.
[4] K. Kawakita, Behavior Analysis and Trends during
Programming Based on Programming Thinking Process,521-522, 2019.
[5] K. Kimura, Y.Takano, Development of Teaching
Materials for Robot Programming for Junior High SchoolStudents:Student-Based
EducationalActivities,.
Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial
ALife and Robotics, pp. 607-610, 2024.
[6] Y. Takano, K. Kimura, Design and Software Production ofRobotics Educational Design for Elementary and JuniorHigh School Students, Proceedings of International
Conference on Artificial ALife and Robotics, pp. 611-614,
2024.

152