[KHall]

Well, what you say supports my professor's position. He said it nicely but the gist was 'until you can measure meaningful progress, you're just a bunch of people who play with robots'.

That's probably the Ivory Tower way of looking at FIRST. He did admit that project-based and open-ended, inquiry based methods have been proven to work. And that FIRST makes those approaches possible, but -- we've never directly measured and documented that FIRST’s programs are proven to work in a scientifically valid study. (That I could find!)

The NWEA test he suggested may be one possible way to establish that connection. My professor is not belittling FIRST. In fact, I believe he wants someone to do this so that FIRST can gain more credibility in his circles. Remember it’s the Ivory Tower folks who are writing the next round of standards, making methods recommendation, etc. I think he really wants FIRST to be a scientifically proven program so he can use some or all of it.

We’ve seen major progress towards the dream this year. The state of Minnesota officially recognized FIRST FRC as a sport. Wil i am has done us a tremendous favor by spreading the word. Great things are happening. If we are going to change the culture we need valid proof that what we are doing is more than just playing with robots. If we had proof that FIRST programs (for example) increase science literacy skills 30% faster or higher than the average student, we’d have another gem in our toolboxes.

But as I mentioned before, when I went to look for the research that verifies that FIRST is proven to work, I found nothing. So I propose we beg, badger or cajole someone like Dr. Sullivan (a known robotics in education fan and respected researcher) to help us do exactly that. NWEA might be the answer or at least a starting point that could force the Ivory Tower to take notice of FIRST. We need some quantifiable scientific proof that our programs result in learning.

How do we get that ball rolling?

Keith Hall