This article reports findings from a quasi-experimental study of the impact of a summer robotics program for urban middle-grade students. The study focuses on student engagement, measured by school attendance rate the year following the program. Program students, who were nearly all low-income minority students, were matched to comparison students who did not attend summer school. After establishing baseline equivalence in attendance between the groups, the study found a statistically and educationally significant program effect on school attendance the following year, suggesting that high-interest hands-on educational activities can help maintain student engagement in school.
AinleyM. (2012). Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 283-302). New York, NY: Springer.
2.
AllensworthE.EastonJ. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago public high schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
3.
BalfanzR. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Everyone Graduates Center.
4.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in the nation’s public schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Education Everyone Graduates Center.
5.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV. (2013). Meeting the challenge of combating chronic absenteeism: Impact of the NYC Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Chronic Absenteeism and School Attendance and its implications for other cities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Education Everyone Graduates Center.
6.
BalfanzR.HerzogL.Mac IverD. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223-235.
7.
BeerR.ChielH.DrushelR. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42, 85-92.
8.
BenittiF. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58, 978-988.
9.
BloomH.ThompsonS. L.UntermanR. (2010). Transforming the high school experience: How New York City’s new small schools are boosting student achievement and graduation rates. New York, NY: MDRC.
10.
BloomH.UntermanR. (2013). Sustained progress: New findings about the effectiveness and operation of small public high schools of choice in New York City. New York, NY: MDRC.
11.
ChangH. N.RomeroM. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty.
12.
ClementR.GwynneT.YounkinW. (2001). Attendance waivers evaluation report. Fort Lauderdale, FL: School Board of Broward County.
13.
ConnollyF.OlsonL. S. (2012). Early elementary performance and attendance in Baltimore City Schools’ pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
14.
CooperH.CharltonK.ValentineJ. C.MuhlenbruckL. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(Serial No. 260), 1-118.
15.
Corville-SmithJ.RyanB. A.AdamsG. R.DalicandroT. (1998). Distinguishing absentee students from regular attenders: The combined influence of personal, family, and school factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 629-640.
16.
CoxonS. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under FIRST LEGO league-based robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 291-316.
17.
CredéM.RochS. G.KieszczynkaU. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80, 272-295.
18.
DeciE. L. (1998). The relation of interest to motivation and human needs: The self-determination theory viewpoint. In HoffmanL.KrappA.RenningerK. A.BaumertJ. (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 146-162). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
19.
DiPreteT.BuchmannC. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
20.
DongN.MaynardR. A. (2013). PowerUp!: A tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes and sample size requirements for experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 24-67.
21.
DynarskiM.James-BurdumyS.MooreM.RosenbergL.DekeJ.MansfieldW. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program—New findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
22.
EcclesJ. S. (June, 2008). Can middle school reform increase high school graduation rates? (California Dropout Research Policy Brief 12). Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara.
23.
EcclesJ. S.MidgleyC. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education, 3, 139-186.
24.
FarringtonC. A.RoderickM.AllensworthE.NagaokaJ.KeyesT. S.JohnsonD. W.BeechumN. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
25.
FineM. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.
26.
FinnJ. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
27.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
28.
GottfredsonD.CrossA. B.WilsonD.RorieM.ConnellN. (2010). Effects of participation in after-school programs for middle school students: A randomized trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 282-313.
29.
GottfriedM. A. (2010). Evaluating the relationship between student attendance and achievement in urban elementary and middle schools: An instrumental variables approach. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 434-465.
30.
GottfriedM. A. (2011a). The detrimental effects of missing school: Evidence from urban siblings. American Journal of Education, 117, 147-182.
31.
GottfriedM. A. (2011b). Absent peers in elementary years: The negative classroom effects of unexcused absences on standardized testing outcomes. Teachers College Record, 113, 1597-1632.
32.
GottfriedM. A. (2013). Quantifying the consequences of missing school: Linking school nurses to student absences to standardized achievement. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-30.
33.
GrubbsM. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build STEM skills. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72, 12-16.
34.
HayesA. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32, 385-410.
35.
HidiS.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.
36.
HolzmanM. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report on public education and black males. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education.
37.
HugB.KrajcikJ.MarxR. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40, 446-472.
38.
JacobB. A. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Noncognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 589-598.
39.
LanW.LanthierR. (2003). Changes in students’ academic performance and perceptions of school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 309-332.
40.
LauerP.AkibaM.WilkersonS.ApthorpH.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275-313.
41.
LauverS. C. (2002). Assessing the benefits of an after-school program for urban youth: An impact and process evaluation. Dissertations available from ProQuest. (Paper AAI3043903). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3043903
42.
LawsonM.LawsonH. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432-479.
LewisS.SimonC.UzzellR.HorwitzA.CasserlyM. (2010). A call for change: The social and educational factors contributing to the outcomes of black males in urban schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
45.
Mac IverM. (2007). What reform left behind: A decade of change at one urban high school. Education and Urban Society, 40, 3-35.
46.
Mac IverM. (2011). The challenge of improving urban high school graduation outcomes: Findings from a randomized study of dropout prevention efforts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 167-184.
47.
Mac IverM.MesselM. (2012). Predicting high school outcomes in the Baltimore City Schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
48.
Mac IverM.PlankS. B.DurhamR.Farley-RippleE.BalfanzR. (2008). The challenge of on-time arrival: The seven-year flight paths of Baltimore’s sixth graders of 1999-2000 (Research Report). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
49.
MarksH. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.
50.
MarvulJ. (2012). If you build it, they will come: A successful truancy intervention program in a small high school. Urban Education, 47, 144-169.
MauchE. (2001). Using technological innovation to improve the problem solving skills of middle school students: Educators’ experiences with the LEGO Mindstorms robotic invention system. The Clearing House, 74, 211-213.
MeeceJ. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education. Theory Into Practice, 42, 109-116.
55.
MilnerH. R.IVLomoteyK. H. R. (2014). Introduction. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. xv-xxiv). New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
NeildR. C.BalfanzR. (2006a). An extreme degree of difficulty: The educational demographics of urban neighborhood high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11, 131-141.
57.
NeildR. C.BalfanzR. (2006b). Unfulfilled promise: The dimensions and characteristics of Philadelphia’s dropout crisis, 2000-2005. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Youth Transitions Collaborative.
58.
NewmannF. M.KingM. B.CarmichaelD. L. (2007). Authentic instruction and assessment: Common standards for rigor and relevance in teaching academic subjects. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education.
59.
NewmannF. M.WehlageC. G.LambornS. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In NewmannF. M. (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
60.
NogueraP. A. (2014). Urban schools and the black male “challenge.” In Milner IVH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 114-128). New York, NY: Routledge.
61.
RenningerK. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In SansoneC.HarackiewiczJ. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62.
RoderickM.CamburnE. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 303-344.
63.
RubinD. B.ThomasN. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 573-585.
64.
SheldonS. B.EpsteinJ. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4-26.
65.
SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L.ThurlowM. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 465-482.
66.
SkinnerE.PitzerJ. (2012). Developmental dynamics of students’ engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Springer.
67.
StormshakE. A.ConnellA.DishionT. J. (2009). An adaptive approach to family-centered intervention in schools: Linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prevention Science, 10, 221-235.
68.
WagstaffM.CombsL.JarvisB. (2000). Solving high school attendance problems: A case study. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 7, 21-30.
69.
WelchA.HuffmanD. (2011). The effect of robotics competitions on high school students’ attitudes towards science. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 416-424.
