Project A Academy A Evaluation
Return to Table of
Contents
Previous Page
Findings indicate that the AA Academy is effective in supporting
students' interest in and awareness of science and technology
The week's activities appeared appropriately gauged for beginners
and intermediate students respectively and also appeared to
include the right mix of hands-on robotics, discussion, and
visits to robotics-related facilities on campus. Students
appreciated that the academy represented a special opportunity
to learn, gain experience, and have fun, and could contrast
it with their school experience as more advanced.
Challenge and frustration were intertwined themes associated
with the academy. Students generally appreciated the challenge
inherent in many of the academy activities, most particularly
programming. Students expressing frustration with programming
tended to be comparatively more end-result-oriented, in comparison
to those for whom testing and trying new programs was itself
satisfying. Notably, a subset of intermediate students found
lack of challenge to be a frustrating experience. It is possible
that Project A activities can provide a laboratory
for the development of indicators of challenge in instruction,
which although aspired to in new mathematics and science curricula
is typically measured only indirectly by using time as an
indicator (National Science Board 2002, 1-30).
The majority of AA Academy participants had no preferred
sex composition for the session—36% of boys and 64% of
girls. Similar to last year's findings, only girls possibly
preferred a single sex session and one-third of all girl session
participants considered that a mixed session would have negatively
impacted their experience. Students tended to base their attitudes
about sex composition on experiences with boys and girls at
school and had developed a number of archetypal images of
the opposite sex, as well as the same sex. Notably, negative
images of girls as learners were espoused by girls themselves.
Girls who objected to the inclusion of boys considered that
their tendencies to argue and "fool around" were
distracting. It was thus boys' behavior more so than boys
themselves that girls objected to.
Findings suggest that for every participant there is an array
of teachers, family members, and others who play key roles
in informing the youth about opportunities and supporting
his or her substantive interests. Mothers and grandmothers
were frequently mentioned as playing instrumental roles, actively
seeking quality educational experiences and sharing in the
youth's enthusiasm. Although beyond the bounds of this inquiry,
it is highly likely that parents differ in their awareness
of these opportunities and capacity to seek out them out.
Even though academy participants typically have several years
of middle school left to complete, most have given concrete
thought to high school as well as their eventual academic
and career trajectory. Social networks—including parents,
teachers, elder siblings, and others—appear to influence
students' thinking about their future as well as their evolving
sense of themselves as learners. In the current data set,
these scenarios include: a father encouraging his daughter's
pursuit of engineering; a mother cajoling her daughter to
stick with an after-school robotics club; a sister giving
military test preparation materials to her younger brother;
a group of girl friend doing math together for fun; and a
teacher strategically asking a girl which kind of doctor she
wants to be. Notably, very few students in the AA Academy
were acquainted with people in their life that engage in robotics-like
technology or scientific pursuits. Therefore, although adult
(and possibly friend) networks—parents, teachers, relatives,
and others—can support youth's educational interests,
it is unclear how adults' differential substantive awareness
and expertise might affect their ability to support youth's
budding interest in engineering and technology.
Although a solid majority of AA Academy participants expressed
interest in science, girls were much less likely than boys
to express career and academic interest in non-biological
sciences. Recent analyses indicate that physics in particular
continues to attract few students in high school—29%
overall in 1998—with girls (26%) less likely than boys
(32%) to take it, and African Americans (21 %) less likely
than other racial/ethic groups, with the exception of Hispanic
(19%) (National Science Board 2002, 1-22, 23). If academy
participants begin to connect robotics favorably to disciplinebased
science, particularly physics, students might be more likely
to pursue this coursework in high school.
Although not a focus of this inquiry, there was considerable
variation in how academy participants characterized their
science experiences at school and many students described
the science that they study in term of colloquial subject
areas (e.g., "body parts") rather than discipline
(anatomy). Exceptions were most evident among students who
used more science-relevant language, for example: "we
were experimenting with magnetism and electricity"; "it's
complicated because you have to do more research"; "[we
study] all the different life forms...[we] use microscopes
and look at small organisms"; and, "chemistry and
astronomy." This contrasted with participants who recounted
specific tasks, like "projects to see what if a paper
clip goes down faster than the paper ball" and "use
vinegar to make a rock dissolve," which appear to indicate
inquiry experiences to which little conceptual science had
adhered.
Return to Table of
Contents
There is considerable evidence that the AA Academy
format is effective in catalyzing student interest in smart
technology and providing deep experiences with real science.
A few suggestions follow from consideration of the program
in terms of students' home and school life:
- Significant adults in youth's lives—family, teachers,
and others—can productively be seen as scaffolders
of possibility, supporting and in some cases directing youth's
interests. The development of programming and communication
directed to these significant adults that provide insight
into (but not necessarily expertise about) the worlds of
science that robotics is a part, might prove beneficial.
This could include information about robotics related courses
in high school, local high school programs specializing
in technology and engineering, and basic information about
robotics and various types of engineering.
- There is substantial evidence that the AA Academy is generating
interest in ever more sophisticated and extended smart technology
opportunities. A number of participants said they wished
the academy were longer and hoped to return next summer.
Programming to support students' growth beyond an intermediate
level would likely be met with enthusiasm. Related to this,
both in-school and after-school robotics programs appeared
to have prepared participants sufficiently well for a more
advanced experience in the academy.
- It was unclear from the interview data—in part because
it was not a focus—how much students consciously connect
what they are doing in the AA Academy with relevant areas
and disciplines of science. This likely reflects less on
the academy and more on the nature of students' science
experience at school, specifically how much school supports
students' capacity to speak the language and logic of science.
In that the AA Academy and other Project A components
are integrated into general school science curricula, the
program might productively promote schools' incorporation
of the language and organization of real science.
- The 2001 and 2002 findings both showed that girls have
disproportionate interest in the biological sciences. Programming
that expressly links biology and medicine—such as the
wheelchair shown at the XX lab—might be highlighted
and extended for participants interested in the biological
sciences.
Return to Table of
Contents
Next Page
|
 |
