Foundation · 35 minutes · Instructions
How can we help a rover that does exactly what we say?
Our rover follows a list of instructions. Forward means one square in the direction its arrow points. Left and right turn the arrow without moving the rover. It does not know that we want to reach camp. When a route fails, we inspect the instructions and change them. This is an ordinary programmed machine, not a trained AI model. AI systems also depend on people specifying how their outputs become actions.
Open the route lab and reset it. Tape a 5 by 5 grid on the floor, mark a rock at row 3, column 3 and place a camp at the upper right. Prepare forward, left and right paper arrows. Check children can turn in place safely; use a toy if space is limited.
Point forward, then turn your body without moving your feet. Useful earlier investigations: none required Use pairs: one child chooses or points while the other traces or checks. Swap after one case. An adult records the child’s words; drawing and movement are equally valid evidence.
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies: AC9TDIFK01, AC9TDIFK02. Selected aspects only. This activity contributes evidence; it does not cover the full descriptor or achievement standard. A programming descriptor is not claimed for merely moving controls. ACARA AI curriculum connection · V9 Technologies These are planning connections, not ACARA endorsement or exhaustive descriptor alignment.
Ask a partner to get the toy to camp using only three instruction words. Execute literally, including turns in place.
Ask: “If I turn right, have I moved a square?”
Listen for: “No, but I am looking a different way.”
Read the default program without running it. Children draw an endpoint or point to a square; an adult records their words.
Ask: “Where will the rover stop, and which arrow makes you think that?”
Listen for: “It goes forward twice, then turns.”
Step the browser program one instruction at a time. Follow the highlighted instruction and mark visited squares on paper. Swap navigator and operator after four steps.
Ask: “Which instruction happened just before the rover hit the rock?”
Listen for: “That forward instruction; the turn was too late.”
Load the turned-start edge case with the same instructions. Compare endpoints.
Ask: “The words stayed the same. Why did the journey change?”
Listen for: “It started looking a different way.”
Edit the route to reach camp without crossing the rock. Save the original trace, reset the position and replay the revised program. Children dictate a reason for one edit.
Ask: “What will you change first, and what will you keep the same?”
Listen for: “I will move the turn earlier and keep the starting square.”
Each pair shows one predicted step, the failed step and its repair. Collect an annotated route.
Ask: “Did the rover guess what you meant?”
Listen for: “No; we had to change the instructions.”
The machine knows what I meant.
Draw where Forward, Forward, Right, Forward will finish from the marked start. Explain what Right does before running.
Keep the program fixed but turn the starting arrow. The same list reaches a different endpoint because initial direction is part of the state.
Write a route that reaches camp without the rock; then swap with a pair who must run it literally. Repair the first failing instruction.
Watch one child predict a turn without moving their counter. If they confuse a turn with a sideways step, replay only that instruction physically. Credit an accurate explanation of a failed route, even if the whole route is unfinished.
Use three instructions and a 3 by 3 paper grid; allow pointing and adult scribing. Use tactile arrows for children who cannot access the screen.
Find two safe routes and compare instruction counts. Ask whether the shorter program always makes the shorter physical journey.
An arrow program with a drawn prediction, marked failure and revised route.
No names or locations are needed. Keep the floor route clear and offer a seated equivalent. Ask a trusted adult if another application requests a photo or login.
Execute two route programs over every grid position and starting direction on MPS/CUDA; group failures by first blocked step. Repeated state sets increase workload, not independent evidence.
| Criterion | Beginning | Secure | Extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence reasoning | Names actions without an order | Predicts the next move correctly | Predicts the route including direction changes |
| Debugging | Changes several arrows without a reason | Identifies and repairs one failing step | Uses the trace to justify a minimal repair and retests |
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies
References: AC9TDIFK01, AC9TDIFK02. Read the current source (checked 2026-09-07).
Evidence to assess: An arrow program with a drawn prediction, marked failure and revised route.
Selected aspects only. This activity contributes evidence; it does not cover the full descriptor or achievement standard. A programming descriptor is not claimed for merely moving controls. Moderate the supplied illustrative responses against your school unit and current achievement standard.
These are planning estimates to test with your class. A short session develops one supported claim; it does not compress the whole senior project.
| Stage | 45 minute focus | 60 minute investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness and prediction | 0–5 | 0–5 |
| Trace the supplied example | 5–13 | 5–15 |
| Author and run cases | 13–25 | 15–35 |
| Counterexample and redesign | 25–35 | 35–45 |
| Explain and discuss | 35–42 | 45–55 |
| Export and handover | 42–45 | 55–60 |
For a longer project, use three 50-minute sessions. Session 1 (0–50): readiness, model, hypothesis and initial cases. Export a project and record the next test. Session 2 (50–100): reopen, check settings, author counterexamples and revise the design. Export the changed project and identify unresolved evidence. Session 3 (100–150): independent peer test, final artefact, individual explanation and moderation. If using two 60-minute sessions, stop at minute 60 after saving the first comparison; use 60–120 for redesign, independent test and defence.
Entry check: Point forward, then turn your body without moving your feet. Ask the learner to demonstrate it before choosing the level of support.
Preparation: allow about 10 minutes to run the starter, print the cards and check a project can be reopened. This estimate has not yet been measured in a classroom pilot.
For young learners, show one picture or case at a time. Accept pointing, movement, a drawing or adult transcription. Read the question aloud; explain the numeric model privately to the adult. Do not assess keyboard speed or independent reading.
For one device, use a projector: one pair predicts, one operates, and the class records on paper. Swap roles after the first comparison. For individual access, support keyboard controls and a written table equivalent to each visual. Learners may explain orally or with an annotated diagram. Never require personal data, a recorded voice, or a photograph.
Mixed readiness: if the entry check is difficult, use the linked prerequisite and the first two case cards; retain the same central question. If secure, ask the learner to design an unseen test and state which explanation it could disprove.
Start at the bottom left, facing up. F moves one square; L/R turn in place. The middle square is blocked.
Starting parameters: The supplied cases define the inputs.
3 cases calculated from your supplied inputs. Compare the evidence with your prediction.
| arrows | column | row | direction | blocked | atCamp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FFRF | 2 | 3 | right | 0 | False |
| FFFFRFFFF | 5 | 1 | right | 0 | True |
| RFFLFF | 3 | 4 | up | 1 | False |
These are authored examples, not work collected from children. Assess reasoning using the lesson rubric, not whether the first prediction was correct.
Beginning: “It worked because the result looks right.” This identifies no exact case, control or measurement. Ask the learner to point to one row and say what happened.
Developing: “In the first case I recorded arrows: FFRF; column: 2; row: 3; direction: right; blocked: 0; atCamp: False.” This cites evidence, but does not yet explain how the result follows from the rule. Ask the learner to trace the relevant step.
Secure: “For the first supplied case, arrows: FFRF; column: 2; row: 3; direction: right; blocked: 0; atCamp: False. I can trace it using this mechanism: Start at the bottom left, facing up. F moves one square; L/R turn in place. The middle square is blocked. My result supports a claim about these supplied cases. It does not establish that the same result holds outside them.” Look for an accurate trace, the actual settings and a bounded claim; accept equivalent oral or visual evidence.
Extending: The learner constructs and reruns a new case, reports whether the first explanation survives, and defends a revised design. Use this concrete challenge: Build two different routes to camp. Ask a partner to follow each route with a counter. Require the original and changed evidence and this boundary: An exact route only works for this map and starting direction.
Moderation: first assess independently against each lesson criterion. Compare the exact trace or artefact that led to your judgement. Resolve differences using evidence, not polished language. Keep each learner's individual explanation even when the artefact was produced in a group.