Overview

We’ve seen strong STEM results in Switzerland and a growing educational robotics market. That growth drives parents’ and institutions’ demand for evidence-led robotics camps. Providers prioritise measurable KPIs, tracking attendance and retention, project completion, pre/post coding tests, self-reported STEM interest, and competition entries to demonstrate impact. Programs range from half-day tasters to multi-week residential formats. Curricula progress from Blockly to Python and are matched to age and skill. Curated kits pair with clear staffing and safety protocols. These elements deliver computational thinking, coding, system integration, and teamwork skills.

Key Takeaways

Report and benchmark KPIs: target 20–40% gains in pre/post assessments; aim for at least 80% project completion and 90%+ retention where feasible. Also capture learner satisfaction.
Offer age-appropriate formats: half-day tasters (ages 4–8), full-day programs (7+), week-long day camps (9–14), and residential options for older students. Provide a sample five-day progression that ends with a final challenge.
Focused learning outcomes: computational thinking, block and text coding, sensor integration, system and design thinking, and collaborative project delivery such as competition entries and demos.
Standardise equipment and software across cohorts: recommended kits include LEGO SPIKE/Mindstorms, VEX IQ, micro:bit, Arduino, and Raspberry Pi. Use Scratch/Blockly and Python toolchains. Spread hardware costs across cohorts.
Maintain solid staffing and safety: target ratios of 1:6 for ages 6–10, 1:8 for 11–14, and 1:12 for 15+. Require first-aid certification and background checks. Enforce PPE and battery/drone protocols. Hold insurance and documented parental consents.

Sample Five-Day Progression

Day 1 — Foundations: introductions, basic block coding, simple sensor exercises, team formation.
Day 2 — Core Skills: intermediate block projects, debugging practice, introduce design constraints.
Day 3 — Transition to Text: Blockly-to-Python bridges, modular design, sensor integration challenges.
Day 4 — System Integration: combine subsystems, iterate prototypes, prepare final demo or competition entry.
Day 5 — Final Challenge & Demo: showcase projects, run competitions/demos, conduct post assessments and gather feedback.

Curriculum & Delivery Notes

Progression: start with visual block tools for younger learners and progressively introduce text-based coding (Python) for older/more advanced cohorts.
Assessment: use short validated pre/post tests focused on computational thinking and coding concepts, plus project rubrics for completion and quality.
Kits & Toolchains: standardise kits per cohort to streamline logistics and training; keep spares and consumables budgeted.
Staff development: regular training on pedagogy, toolchains, and safety protocols improves fidelity and outcomes.

Safety, Compliance & Logistics

Ratios & Certification: follow the recommended staffing ratios and require staff to hold valid first-aid certificates and background checks.
Protocols: documented PPE rules, battery handling and charging procedures, drone/no-fly rules where applicable.
Documentation: maintain insurance, emergency plans, and signed parental consents for all participants.
Facilities: ensure suitable workspace, reliable power, secure storage for kits, and clear signage for hazards.

Final Recommendations

To capitalise on the growing demand, design programs that emphasise measurable impact, clear progression from Blockly to Python, standardised kits, and robust safety and staffing practices. Benchmark outcomes, publish KPI summaries for stakeholders, and iterate curricula based on assessment and feedback to sustain gains in STEM engagement and skill development.

Why robotics camps in Switzerland now — demand, benefits and measurable learning outcomes

Switzerland’s child population and strong STEM performance make robotics camps a timely investment: the country counts about 8.7 million people and roughly 1.3 million children aged 0–14 (2024 estimate). A growing educational robotics market (CAGR ≈ 15%) and STEM results that sit above the OECD average (PISA) drive parental and institutional demand. We place recommended KPIs at the top of every programme description so parents see evidence up front: attendance and retention, project completion, pre/post coding tests, self‑reported STEM interest and competition participation. To help parents choose, we also point them to practical guidance on how to choose the best camp: choose the best camp.

KPIs, core learning benefits and measurable outcomes

I introduce the measurable targets we use and the concrete skills kids leave with. Below are the KPIs we track, the core cognitive outcomes we teach, and the program-level metrics parents expect to see.

Recommended KPIs we report prominently on marketing pages:

Attendance and retention (registration-to-attendance conversion).
Project completion (teams finishing the final challenge).
Pre/post coding test (quantitative knowledge gain).
Self‑reported interest in STEM and affective measures.
Competition participation rate (e.g., FIRST LEGO League entries).

Aspirational KPI targets we aim for:

Pre/post knowledge gain: 20–40% relative improvement for multi-day intensive camps.
Project completion rate: target ≥ 80% for team-based final challenges.
Retention through the week: target ≥ 90% daily attendance.

Primary, measurable learning benefits we design lessons around:

Computational thinking — students write stepwise algorithms to make a robot follow a line.
Basic coding — block-based programs that control motors and sensors.
Problem-solving — iterative debugging of mechanical and software issues.
Systems thinking — designing robot systems that combine mechanics, electronics and control.
Teamwork — collaborative project planning, role distribution and peer review.
Design thinking — user-centred prototyping and iterative testing.

Typical soft skills and deliverables we structure into every camp day:

Collaboration, project planning, iterative testing and presentation skills.
Deliverables often include programmed robots, simple autonomous behaviours and competition entries such as FIRST LEGO League.

Measurable outcomes we recommend tracking to demonstrate impact:

Pre/post coding test scores (quantitative knowledge gain).
Project completion rate and rubric-based quality assessments.
Self-reported STEM interest and confidence measures.
Competition participation and placement (FLL entries and outcomes).

We emphasise these outcomes on our pages because parents want clear evidence of impact; presenting KPI targets early increases conversion and trust. Operationally, programme descriptions should surface the KPIs, sample rubrics and a short evidence snippet (pre/post gain or competition highlights) so families can compare camps with confidence.

Summer camp Switzerland, International summer camp 3

Camp formats, scheduling and age-based curricula (including a sample one-week schedule)

We, at the young explorers club, structure robotics offerings so families can match cost, intensity and learning goals. Formats run from short tasters to immersive residential stays. Camps balance hands-on build time with short instruction blocks and measured downtime.

Common formats, durations, staffing and age fit

Half-day: lower cost, lower intensity; ideal for ages 4–8 and single-session outreach. Staffing needs are modest with a lower ratio of specialist staff.
Full-day: balanced intensity for ages 7+; requires more venue time and higher staffing levels. Session length typically 3–6 hours/day with two healthy breaks.
Week-long day camps (5 days): concentrated learning for measurable outcomes and competitions; good for ages 9–14. We plan focused instruction blocks (15–30 minutes) and longer practice/problem-solving slots.
Residential (1–2 weeks): highest intensity and cost; suited to older children doing sustained project work. Requires additional pastoral staff and catering.
Multi-week courses/workshops: ongoing progression and strong for school partnerships and advancing skills over months.
Ratios and team size guidance: use 1 robot/kit per 1–2 students (ages 6–10) to maximise hands-on time. For older teens use 1 robot/kit per 2–3 students so triads can specialise roles.
Peak booking windows: July–August, February school break, and autumn/spring breaks — open registration early to secure spots.

Foundations for daily session design

Keep the majority of time practical. Begin with a short demo or mini-lecture (15–30 minutes), then 60–90 minute build/program blocks interleaved with quick debriefs. Schedule device/eye-rest intervals and two healthy breaks (mid-morning and lunch).

5-day sample progression (simple timeline)

Day 1 — foundations: safety, tools, simple builds, Blockly basics.
Day 2 — build/test: refine mechanics; basic sensor experiments.
Day 3 — sensors: integrate sensors and feedback loops.
Day 4 — integrate: advanced coding modules and systems integration.
Day 5 — challenge: final competition, presentations and awards.

Copy-ready one-week schedule (5-day day camp, ages 10–14)

Day 1 (09:00–15:30): intro to robotics & safety; basic builds; Blockly programming basics.
Day 2 (09:00–15:30): sensors and feedback loops; line-following challenge.
Day 3 (09:00–15:30): autonomous behaviours, logic, teamwork and design iteration.
Day 4 (09:00–15:30): advanced coding modules; Python intro and systems integration.
Day 5 (09:00–15:30): final competition, presentations, awards; parent demo (30–45 minutes).

Operational notes and quick recommendations

Younger age groups: need more staff and closer supervision; match group sizes to the recommended kit ratios.
Equipment roster: provide a daily equipment roster and check-in/check-out process to protect inventory and ensure devices stay charged.
Health & wellbeing: plan for food allergies, pastoral cover on residential weeks, and spare kits for hardware failures.
Logistics & packing tips: for detailed guidance see our parents guide.

Equipment, kits and software (what to buy and how to manage inventory)

Recommended kits and platforms

We assemble a core fleet that covers ages 6–17 and gradual skill progression. The hardware I buy for camp sessions includes:

LEGO Education SPIKE Prime
LEGO Mindstorms
LEGO WeDo 2.0
VEX IQ kits
Makeblock mBot and Makeblock Robot Kits
Sphero BOLT / Sphero Mini
micro:bit (BBC micro:bit) + accessories
Arduino Uno / Arduino Starter Kit
Raspberry Pi 4 + Pi cameras and sensors
DJI Tello (for introductory drone programming)

For software and block/text environments I standardise on:

Scratch / Blockly
LEGO Education SPIKE app
VEXcode
Makeblock mBlock (Blockly/Python)
Arduino IDE
Thonny (Python for RPi)
Microsoft MakeCode
micro:bit editor

Budgeting rule of thumb: “LEGO SPIKE Prime set: mid‑hundreds CHF/EUR; micro:bit: low tens CHF; Raspberry Pi 4: ~50–100 CHF.” Use that pricing as a guideline when you cost sessions.

Platform trade-offs are straightforward and I keep them visible for instructors:

LEGO Education SPIKE Prime — pros: structured lessons, durable, strong school support; cons: higher cost, less low-level access.
LEGO Mindstorms — pros: robust community, competition-ready; cons: cost and limited text-programming depth compared with microcontrollers.
LEGO WeDo 2.0 — pros: ideal for 7–9, gentle learning curve; cons: limited for advanced teens.
VEX IQ — pros: competition oriented and modular; cons: higher initial cost and steeper build complexity.
Makeblock mBot / Makeblock Robot Kits — pros: affordable, good Blockly/Python transition; cons: variable build quality.
Sphero BOLT / Sphero Mini — pros: durable, fun for younger learners; cons: limited hardware extensibility.
micro:bit (BBC micro:bit) — pros: very affordable, excellent MakeCode support; cons: simpler hardware, limited motors without add-ons.
Arduino Uno / Arduino Starter Kit — pros: highly flexible and low-level learning; cons: steeper learning curve and soldering/assembly for advanced projects.
Raspberry Pi 4 + Pi cameras and sensors — pros: powerful platform for vision/AI projects; cons: greater complexity and need for peripherals.
DJI Tello — pros: accessible drone for introductory programming; cons: outdoor safety considerations and regulatory compliance.

Maintenance, storage and administration

Consumables policy: Keep spare motors, cables, batteries, extra sensors, replacement gears and LEGO parts. I plan for 1 kit per 1–2 students as a baseline and maintain 10–20% spare inventory for replacements and parallel groups.

Storage: Labelled plastic organisers work best for small parts and a bin system houses full kits.
Charging & tracking: Set up secure charging stations for batteries and tablets and require sign-out/sign-in for mobile devices, tracking serial numbers on higher-cost items.
Maintenance schedule: Schedule weekly kit checks, clean connectors, replace worn gears and keep a repair log for recurring faults.
Spare stock: Maintain common spares (motors, wheels, sensors) plus AA/AAA or rechargeable packs.

Budgeting approach: I amortise equipment across campers; mix platforms across age bands so higher-cost kits rotate between cohorts and amortisation smooths costs. If parents want guidance on picking camps that match kit levels, we point them to choose the best summer camp, and for practical family tips see our camp experience advice.

https://youtu.be/MO0jS3NJzys

Staffing, instructor qualifications, ratios, safety and child protection

We, at the young explorers club, staff robotics programmes with a mix of education and hands-on engineering experience. I hire STEM teachers and university engineering students to act as robotics coaches. Camp leaders hold a recognised camp leadership certificate and first-aid training. Each site also has a camp director, an administrative lead, and at least one floating technical assistant for complex troubleshooting.

Staffing follows clear ratios to keep sessions safe and pedagogically effective. Target ratios are:

1:6 for ages 6–10,
1:8 for ages 11–14,
1:12 for ages 15+.

I schedule floating technical support so coaches stay focused on learning, and I assign a dedicated staff member for behaviour and pastoral care at each site.

I require minimum certifications and checks before hire. All instructors need a current first-aid certificate and documented background checks. Where applicable I request DBS/background checks and record verification at onboarding. I keep an instructor CV on file for every staff member and use an instructor CV template that summarises qualifications, relevant experience and DBS verification.

Safety is non-negotiable in robotics. For electrical work I only use low-voltage kits and I teach safe wiring basics before any build. Tool safety is enforced: small screwdrivers and hand tools are fine for kids, but I require PPE and close supervision for any soldering. Battery safety protocols cover charging procedures, fire-safe charging stations and clear disposal rules for end-of-life cells. Drone and lightweight aircraft work have outdoor clearance rules, mapped no-fly zones and written parental permissions. I maintain health protocols that include current COVID guidance where relevant and clear illness policies for symptomatic children.

Insurance and child protection sit at the centre of operations. I carry public liability insurance and local accident/medical cover appropriate to Swiss regulations. A safeguarding policy guides recruitment and daily practice. Emergency contact procedures are listed with every camper record, and background checks apply to all staff. I also keep signed parental consent forms for photography, travel and drone use and safeguard personal data in line with data protection expectations. Families deciding where to enrol can read guidance to choose the best camp to match their needs: choose the best camp.

Operational checklists and interview prompts

Use these concise lists on-site and at interview stage.

Instructor training checklist:

Safety: battery handling, low-voltage kits, PPE use, emergency procedures.
Pedagogy: age-appropriate scaffolding, simple formative assessment, group management.
Troubleshooting: diagnosing common kit faults, quick repair techniques.
Administrative: attendance tracking, incident logging, parent communication protocols.

Sample mock interview questions:

How would you manage a team where one child dominates the build time?
Give an example of a time you debugged a hardware or software fault under time pressure.
Describe how you would explain a sensor feedback loop to a 10-year-old.

Safety checklist for camp operations:

Secure workbenches and non-slip floor surfaces.
PPE available and supervised use for soldering and sharp tools.
Designated battery charging area with fire-safe containment and no unattended charging.
Marked outdoor flight area, mapped no-fly zones, and parental consent on file.
Emergency Action Plan with site-specific emergency contacts, on-site first-aider, and nearest hospital/ER listed.

Insurance and legal recommendations:

Maintain public liability insurance and local accident/medical cover for campers.
Store signed parental consents for photography, travel and drone activities.
Log background checks, first-aid certificates and instructor CVs on hire; update annually.

I keep these items practical and audit-ready so staff can focus on safe, creative learning rather than paperwork.

Summer camp Switzerland, International summer camp 5

Costs, locations, languages, funding and scheduling logistics

We, at the Young Explorers Club, price robotics camps in line with Swiss market reality: half-day CHF 40–120 per day; full-day CHF 90–300 per day or CHF 300–1,000 per week; and residential programmes CHF 600–2,000 per week. Those ranges let us offer low-cost trial days and premium residential experiences with advanced kits.

Major cost drivers are obvious and predictable. Instructor salaries take the biggest slice, so we hire qualified STEM educators and often supplement with university students to keep rates manageable. Equipment amortization matters when you buy robotics kits, sensors and laptops; spread the purchase costs across many sessions to avoid surprise line items. Venue rental, insurance and catering for residential camps add fixed costs that scale with group size. I keep each cost line visible when I price a session so families see what they pay for.

I set language and location priorities to reach diverse families. We run camps in German, French, Italian and English, and we staff sites with bilingual instructors for mixed groups. High-demand hotspots include Zurich, Geneva, Lausanne, Bern and Basel; I always list public transport access and nearest stops for every venue so parents can plan drop-offs and pickups.

Funding and subsidy routes can shave fees significantly. Cantonal education grants apply in some areas, and I actively seek school partnerships to share venues and recruit students. Corporate sponsorships from tech firms or local industry often cover kit purchases or scholarships. Sponsors also help reduce per-student pricing while keeping curriculum quality high.

I schedule and promote with realism around peak months and registration lead times. July–August and the February school break are busiest. For those months I open booking 2–3 months ahead; residential programmes need earlier windows. Clear language listings belong on every camp page, and I recommend bilingual staff for mixed-language groups. Accessibility planning includes listing nearest train and bus stops and offering arrival windows to smooth traffic at entry and exit times. I publish transparent pricing that lists what’s included — meals, materials, a final demo — plus a clear cancellation policy to reduce disputes.

Sample budget breakdown for a week-long 20-student day camp

Below is a simple example I use when planning a mid-range full-week programme:

Revenue assumptions: 20 students × CHF 350/week = CHF 7,000.
Staff wages (director + 3 instructors + assistant) = CHF 3,200.
Equipment amortization (portion for the session) = CHF 1,200.
Venue rental (5 days) = CHF 700.
Consumables & spares = CHF 200.
Insurance & admin = CHF 200.
Marketing and booking fees = CHF 200.
Contingency = CHF 300.
Total expenses ≈ CHF 6,000; gross margin covers unexpected costs and future investment.
Equipment amortization per camper example: CHF 1,200 / 20 campers = CHF 60 per camper.

I present that breakdown to partners and parents so they see where fees go.

I use several tactics to reduce costs without cutting quality:

Lengthen amortization windows and share kits across sessions.
Negotiate sponsorships or school partnerships to cover venue or equipment.
Buy consumables in bulk and rotate kits between sites to lower per-session spending.
Run some sessions in off-peak weeks to utilize staff and gear year-round and drop average costs.
Always include an equipment amortization line in pricing so parents understand long-term kit investment.

For practical decisions, I advise families and partners to consult our guide to choose the best camp and check transport links, language options and refund rules before booking.

Summer camp Switzerland, International summer camp 7

Outcomes, competitions, evaluation metrics and parent checklist for choosing a camp

We, at the Young Explorers Club, measure success by skills gained, retention, and real deliverables. I track clear KPIs and publish anonymized results yearly so parents can compare programmes and see what works. I also support progression pathways that connect camp projects to school clubs, maker spaces and after-school coding courses.

Competitions, progression pathways and evaluation metrics

Common competitive routes I prepare campers for include FIRST LEGO League and VEX IQ, plus local and regional robotics fairs and Maker Faires. I arrange guest lectures and lab visits where possible with ETH Zurich, EPFL, ZHAW and HSLU to give kids exposure to university and industry practice.

Key KPIs I publish and monitor are:

Attendance and retention rate — target: attendance >90%.
Project completion rate — target: project completion ≥85% teams complete the final challenge.
Learner satisfaction — target: satisfaction ≥4/5.
Knowledge gain — target: pre/post knowledge gain 20–40%.
Progression to follow-up activities — target: 20–40% progression to follow-up.

I recommend issuing certificates and project portfolios at the end of each camp. Those help campers join school robotics clubs and enter competitions. I encourage a three-year progression path that builds confidence and capability:

Year 1: block-based projects, foundations, Year 1 portfolio.
Year 2: entry to FIRST LEGO League or local competitions; emphasis on project-based teamwork.
Year 3: advanced text-based projects (Python/Arduino) and regional competitions such as VEX IQ or advanced FLL categories.

For evaluation I use short instruments you can reproduce:

Pre-test: a 10-question multiple-choice check on coding and robot concepts.
Post-test: a 5-question focused knowledge check plus a 5-point satisfaction survey (target satisfaction ≥4/5).
Progress tracking: log follow-up enrolments and competition participation to measure 20–40% progression.

I collect outcome materials that demonstrate learning and consent for publication:

Parent quote, student quote and instructor reflection.
Before/after photos, project descriptions and signed consent.
A simple anonymized KPI statement for reports, e.g., “90% of campers completed the final challenge” (publish only with parental consent).

Operational recommendations I follow:

Publish anonymized KPI results every year.
Provide a public FAQ answering the parent checklist questions, clarifying coding vs hardware vs competition focus.
Run at least one end-of-camp demo day so families can see results live.