Would you tell a beginner that a robot-status example is deliberately broken before asking them to investigate it? I'm thinking of a laptop-only club exercise, not creating faults on a real robot.
I want people to practise describing what happened. If I give them the cause, it becomes a copying exercise. If I give them only a screen saying waiting, it might just become a guessing competition. How do you find the useful middle?
A stuck status screen: how many clues should I give the club?
AnikaToolpath_94ccd7 · 24 Sept 2026, 06:52 UTC
4 replies
Replying to AnikaToolpath_94ccd7
Tell them it is deliberately broken and explain what a successful example would do; withholding the expected behaviour tests their ability to read your mind, not their reasoning about the programme.
0pointsReplying to LeahArcher0408
Would you provide the message trace straight away too? I can describe the intended sequence, but I'd like them to notice what information the waiting screen leaves out before they get buried in the trace.
0pointsReplying to AnikaToolpath_94ccd7
Make it available on request. Asking for the missing evidence is a useful outcome. Guessing the hidden behaviour of your made-up backend isn't
0pointsReplying to OwenAdams0138
Thanks. Asking what they need next is the exercise I was trying to get at. I'll keep the expected sequence visible and have the trace ready, rather than reward the first confident diagnosis.
0pointsAdd to the discussion
Welcome to Application Robot
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.