Does robotics attract the right students?

[davidthefat]

I do not mean "wrong" as in we are attracting bad kids, but we are attracting kids who already have a set goal of going into STEM. Aren't we trying to attract kids who are on the other end of the spectrum? My mentality was that majority of the kids on the team would have joined regardless of the mission as long as it had robots. I can confidently say majority of the students who are on robotics already had the vision to become engineers and scientists, or at least were entertaining the thought of it.

What can we do to attract kids other than those who already have a goal in STEM? I know there are teams with dedicated business, and other non "build" departments within the team. However, is that really fulfilling FIRST's mission? I noticed many of the students end up doing something non build related. I am in no way trying to put the build team up on a pedestal, but I do notice it, like with many others have. Are we doing the job correctly if 80% of the team is in the stands cheering with a handful of people in the pits working on the robot? I have never been a "non build" team member; I have always been a programmer and on the drive team. It breaks my heart to see kids feel "disposable"; hell, I am the lead programmer and I feel that way sometimes.

Are we allocating the jobs correctly? I know, not everyone was made to be a Programmer, Welder, Electrician or anything, but with the ~100 students who signed up for the team makes me worried. I know that all 100 will not show up, but a big chunk will. There are simply not enough jobs for that many kids, and I worry that many of them will be turned away from STEM for that.

[penguinfrk]

I had an interesting conversation about the self-selection of participants in extracurricular activities with an attorney who is running for state legislature come 2012.

Here are some statistics on the five public high schools in Bellevue, WA, all of which have FRC teams, taken from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

                        International(492)  Newport(948)	Bellevue(949)	Interlake(1899)	Sammamish(2412)
Years with team      	11                  9                  	9       	7       	5
Grad Rate              	100.0%              96.0%       	95.3%   	89.4%        	86.2%
Science test scores    	92.3%               80.1%        	74.9%       	69.1%        	51.4%
Teacher Experience (yr)	11                  12                	9       	10             	10
Student:Teacher Ratio  	16                  17                	18           	16      	13

The correlation between the years that the team has been in existence and the performance of the schools are pretty strong even while other factors such as teacher experience and student:teacher ratio have been relatively constant.

This suggests that whether or not students are on the team has no bearing on the fact that the presence of FIRST programs (or, at least FRC) enhances the educational environment of the schools.

---
Moreover, I personally don't agree with the self-selection thing, if for no other reason than that I personally was not a STEM fanatic when I first joined my FLL team.

I do think that peer pressure, in this case a fantastic thing, causes students who otherwise never would've joined a team to show up at meetings with their friends or boyfriends or what have you. Even if everyone in this group isn't all retained, there are undoubtedly many who become immersed in STEM.

[John]

Originally Posted by penguinfrk

This suggests that whether or not students are on the team has no bearing on the fact that the presence of FIRST programs (or, at least FRC) enhances the educational environment of the schools.

Do you have any data on the scores before FRC? Could the presence of FRC not be the cause of this correlation, instead could the correlation be the result of schools that were already committed to Science (and therefore likely to have better test scores anyway) being more likely to start FRC teams. This would seem especially likely if the scores have not changed much since the teams were started. Though if you can show the scores went up since then your point makes more sense.

[Chris Hibner]

We try to ask teachers in the school to identify students that would benefit from FIRST - typically the students that appear to have potential but may not be living up to it.

I think it's good to have a mix of students on the team. The overachiever types, the underachiever types, "in" crowd students, "out" crowd students, athletes, art students, etc. In that situation everyone learns a lot from the other students that they normally wouldn't hang out with, and hopefully some of the underinspired get a little inspiration from the alread-inspired (or at least they can see how the ambitious people operate).

[penguinfrk]

Originally Posted by John

Do you have any data on the scores before FRC? Could the presence of FRC not be the cause of this correlation, instead could the correlation be the result of schools that were already committed to Science (and therefore likely to have better test scores anyway) being more likely to start FRC teams. This would seem especially likely if the scores have not changed much since the teams were started. Though if you can show the scores went up since then your point makes more sense.

Unfortunately, the statistics available from WA OSPI were not as thorough back then. The Titan Robotics team (492) was formed in the 2000-2001 school year. Newport (948) and Bellevue (949) started competing in 2002.

The first year that a standardized science test was administered was in the 2002-2003 school year; 492 was in their 3rd competition season by the time the test was administered, and 948/949 were in the 2nd competition season, if I'm not mistaking. At the time, 1899 (Interlake) and 2412 (Sammamish) did not exist.

Team #              | 492*  | 948   | 949   | 1899* | 2412
2003 Science Scores | 62.9% | 70.5% | 60.4% | 52.0% | 47.4%
2010 Science Scores | 92.3% | 80.1% | 74.9% | 69.1% | 51.4%
d(scores)           | 29.4% | 9.6%  | 14.5% | 17.1% | 4.0%
d(scores)/year**    | 2.67% | 1.07% | 1.61% | 2.44% | 0.8%

*The Bellevue School District is an awfully inaccurate school district to examine for two reasons.

First, International School (492) has a student enrollment system different from the other schools. It is done by lottery, and very academia-focused (i.e. no school sports, few extracurriculars, etc.) Moreover, the school spans from 6th to 12th grade, meaning that students get 3 years' more exposure to the clubs in the school than they otherwise would at a traditional 4-year senior high school.

Second, Interlake High School (1899) adopted an accelerated program in the 2006-2007 school year (2nd year of 1899 in FRC) as a continuation of the middle school program. Many gifted students that otherwise would've been at 948, 949, and 2412's schools are attending Interlake. The subsequent inflation of test scores makes statistics for 1899 a clear outlier.


**The change in scores per year of FRC team existence is the absolute change in percentage points, not a measure of the rate of growth/improvement on tests.


However, these statistics are enough to draw a few conclusions.

For one, the correlation between 2003 test scores and the presence of FRC teams is very weak; in fact, 948's school had stronger test scores than 492's school. However, by 2010 there clearly has been a drastic change in performance, and every school saw growth. In other words, FRC magnifies academic performance.
Second, the change in test scores is not a linear function. More veteran teams that have a stronger presence in the school will have a greater impact for a given duration of time (i.e. year to year) than will a newer team.


Further extensions: demographic constituency, team size/percentage of school population, mentor number/mentor:student ratio, economic status (as measured by free/reduced lunch qualification), among others. This is the project devised for my internship at FIRSTWA, and I will be mining more thorough data on teams across the entire state of Washington. Once I have better data to back up more sophisticated conclusions later in the year, I'll be sure to post them or publish a white paper or something.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by penguinfrk

...

However, these statistics are enough to draw a few conclusions.

...

Larry,

Be careful. From what you have shown us so far, you can not draw the conclusions you listed in your post. Correlation does not mean causation.

Until you compare datasets in which the ONLY difference is the presence of a STEM robotics program, and until you can see variation in test scores that matches variations in the STEM robotics program; you simply can not tell if the robotics programs are symptoms, causes, or coincidences.

What you see in your data could be the result of many influences.

I hope you can devise a method for showing causation and not just correlation; but I don't think you have that method in place yet.

Blake

[Carol]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I can confidently say majority of the students who are on robotics already had the vision to become engineers and scientists, or at least were entertaining the thought of it.

The key part of your sentence is "at least were entertaining the thought of it". If being on a FIRST team can help those students decide, then it is worth it. Some may have thought about being an engineer (to use one example of a STEM career - they are others) but after time with FIRST realized that either they totally love engineering or that they really don't want to go into that field. Isn't it better that they find that out before college?

Also, students interested in nonSTEM careers can benefit as well, and not just from learning the basic skills of team dynamics, time scheduling, leadership, public speaking, etc., that can be learned from being on the team. We have had students on our team who have focused on web design, graphics, videography, and have gone to college to study these areas.

As for the problem of too many students on the team, well that is a separate problem. I bet this has already been discussed in other threads.

[Phyrxes]

I find it very rewarding to look at the collection of students in our shop and seeing students who are enrolled and succeeding in multiple AP classes working hand in hand with "at risk students" who are struggling to get through high school on a standard diploma.

Do they all want to be engineers? No, but many of them want to go into technical fields and providing them the opportunity to be exposed to project design and management before college is awesome.

[Jared Russell]

These are good questions, and they are worth discussing.

First off, here is FIRST's Mission Statement, which I think helps to answer your questions:

Originally Posted by FIRST

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in
exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire
innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and
leadership.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Aren't we trying to attract kids who are on the other end of the spectrum?

"Other end of the spectrum" may not be the best way to put it. Some people - most people - simply are not going to be engineers for one reason or another. Not their cup of tea. The idea isn't to persuade everyone. It is rather, as Carol said, to help swing the students who either didn't know about engineering as a career, or weren't sure of engineering as a career, to pursue the profession after high school. As a result, teams made up only of students who were already decided on engineering have a ceiling on the impact they can possibly make. Still, even engineering-tracked students can benefit from participation (real world project and teamwork experience, technical experience with relevant technologies at an early level, resume builder, etc.)

Originally Posted by davidthefat

What can we do to attract kids other than those who already have a goal in STEM?

FIRST is actually all about trickery! Many students join because of the travel, the fun of competition, but end up getting inspired once they get "hooked". You just need to get them through the door. Giving students other avenues for joining the team to all sorts of wonderful things. People join the website team, and end up becoming professional engineers (case in point: Me). People join the Chairman's team and end up pursuing engineering. If you have the bandwidth, having non-technical subteams is a great way to attract students who may be turned off by the "nuts and bolts" at first. Especially, in my experience, females.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

However, is that really fulfilling FIRST's mission?

Yes. Look at FIRST's Mission Statement. "Science and technology leaders" are engineers, but also 3D modelers, website designers, technical communicators, technical entrepreneurs, etc. There are plenty of "non-build" ways to fulfill this vision.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Are we doing the job correctly if 80% of the team is in the stands cheering with a handful of people in the pits working on the robot? Are we allocating the jobs correctly?

I would say the answer depends on the 80%. Have they been inspired? Learned new skills? Considering pursuing careers in science and technology related fields? Even if they aren't, do they have a newfound appreciation and respect for science and technology? If yes, then you are doing your job correctly. You can only fit so many people in the pits. Still, 100 students sounds pretty overwhelming to me. You need a LOT of mentorship to steer a herd that large.

[JesseK]

IMO FRC teams pragmatically generate, at best, better problem solvers. It doesn't matter if the student is an English major in college because he/she was on the CA team or business team. Being motivated to participate and succeed in a large-scale project is what benefits any student, regardless of that student's educational background. Better problem solvers nets us a better-prepared employment force that can handle changes in industry, ergo can keep themselves employed (and on a more selfish note, will keep my 401k portfolio from tanking every few years...).

Yet regarding producing new Engineers -- I recall reading a study where most engineers in college were already curious or motivated to enter engineering before they entered high school. I'll have to find the article. In practice, this seems to hold true since our team has had much better recruiting opportunities with the kids we (and by extension, the county) have already inspired with FLL/VEX/SeaPerch at the lower grades.

This engineer recruitment cycle may seem like we're taking the 'easy' road by not trying to recruit high students who aren't already interested in engineering -- yet we don't see it that way. We see it as simply inspiring new engineers at a younger age, then using our robotics programs to better prepare them for hard problem solving, with the hope that most of them will continue on to engineering as a career. Additionally, many of the high school students recruit their friends, and also go to the FLL teams and mentor them, creating a sort of organic self-sustaining generator of new engineers. It works for us, and tbh I'm glad we have the problem of 'too many applicants' every year.

[E. Wood]

The students that I work with never touch the robot. They instead write the award submissions, spec sheets, and outreach programs for our team. Many of them are insanely talented in graphics and other arts. Yes many of them also simply cheer on the team at competition when they aren't giving presentation or talking to other teams or judges but so what, that’s exactly what everyone on the robots side does when they aren’t driving or fixing the bot. The big question is, what does this have to do with FIRST's mission?

These students, who may not have had an understanding of what science and technology can do for them now have appreciation of it. They get why it’s important for everyone to study STEM even if they are not planning on going into a STEM field. They understand how studying STEM can lead to more creative and innovative students in all fields of study. I ask you this... how many of the world’s great innovation were developed from ideas presented first by writers and artists. Here's a hint, watch Star Wars or Star Trek and read some Julies Verne and keep a notebook as you will need it to keep track.

[gblake]

There is more to the STEM robotics domain than FRC. FIRST has more programs and there are other completely separate programs.

If anyone connected to an FRC team wants to attract a more diverse set of students, or wants to influence students who aren't already pointed toward a STEM career; I recommend either finding some way to get them onto that FRC team, or convincing them to try a semi-relaxed 3-month stint on a VRC team, or try coding up a good BotBall entry, or....

The question, as it is posed is really an ill-formed question. It mashes together an assumption that FRC is the only program under discussion, that it is the FRC program's job to attract the "right" students, and that the influence of local circumstances is less important than the program's features.

I do agree that David raises an important point, but the topic is so tangled up in program-type, and local circumstances that useful answers (instead of useful suggestions) are very hard to come by if the questions and ensuing discussions aren't carefully structured. There are way too many variables involved for a broadly framed question to have an answer other than "It depends."

On the other hand, the door is wide open for plenty of useful suggestions for ways to attract many types of students into whatever STEM program is right for the students in question. Some folks have already posted them. Personally I'm a fan of using the lower-cost and highly-accessible VRC and FTC sorts of programs to involve/attract as many students as possible, and then building bigger-budget (assuming the "community" is engaged and supportive) programs on top of the solid foundation created by them.

To David's point, and speaking broadly and in metaphors; I think a walk, then trot, then run approach; will wind up attacting more students of all stripes than trying to start off running. Pyramids are more stable, and enclose more volume, than towers.

Blake

[iVanDuzer]

What can we do to attract kids other than those who already have a goal in STEM?

You don't need to. You've mentioned that you're afraid that there won't be enough STEM related jobs for your teammates. So so what if there aren't? Is it so bad if these students don't go into STEM? Every student that becomes involved in FIRST helps FIRST's goals... even if they've never touched a robot.

This made me think about something that happened to me recently. I was wearing my old team sweater and a stranger came up to me and started talking about FIRST. One of the first things she asked me was where was my purple jacket (at my university, almost all the engineering students get leather jackets and dye them purple). When I said that I don't have one because I'm studying Film and English, she was confused. "But you were in FIRST!"

This in turn made me think: am I a "failed FIRST student" because I wasn't "inspired" enough to become an engineer? I would say no.

I got into FIRST because I was a member of my elementary school's LEGO robotics club. I had fun. So I joined FRC in grade 9. I decided the next year to forgo working on the robot in order to work on awards and scouting. I decided building wasn't my thing, so I did something else. And now I'm studying Film.

This quote sums up what FIRST is all about:

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

Dean Kamen, Founder

I may not have chosen engineering as a career, but I definitely still celebrate science and technology. I'm still involved in FIRST, mentoring a local team. If anyone gives me the chance, I talk about FIRST for hours. And in my mind, that's just as important as creating lots and lots of engineers.

Only a select part of the population can be employed as engineers, just like only a select part of the team can work on the robot. But these people who aren't working on the robot are just as if not more important to changing the culture than the students who become engineers are.

Just because a student can't work on a robot and therefore doesn't become inspired to become an engineer (or turn away from STEM) doesn't mean that they have failed FIRST. Instead, they are spreading it into areas that otherwise wouldn't be concerned with FIRST at all (like Film and English students )

[smurfgirl]

I think each team bears the responsibility of bringing in and engaging a variety of students who will benefit FIRST. In my experience, I can say that FIRST is attracting people who benefit from the program - I have seen this from my own FIRST experience and from working with others. Engineering, for the most part, is not visible as a career option to most young people. FIRST makes it visible and attractive to both students who entered the program with and without prior interest in math and science.

When I joined my school's team, I was interested in math and science, but had never heard of engineering and had certainly never considered it as a career option. Robotics sounded cool, but I wasn't sure if I was knowledgeable enough to be able to actually contribute. There were wonderful mentors on the team who pushed me to get involved in hands-on work and actually building things, whereas I might have been too shy and unsure of myself to jump into those things myself. Meetings were right after one of my dance classes, and my dad will still tell you that he was initially surprised to see me come home dressed as a ballerina but covered in grease, talking about how I got to help build a transmission. It didn't take long for me to get hooked on FIRST, or to discover that engineering was actually really awesome and exactly what I wanted to apply my interest in math and science to. I am a FIRST success story. Without FIRST, I likely never would have discovered an interest in engineering or applied to schools to study engineering. Now, I will be graduating from MIT this spring with a BS in Materials Science and Engineering, and I will be going to work for Pratt & Whitney as an engineer.

I have seen similar stories among my peers on my team and others, in those who came before me and were my mentors, and in those who see me as a mentor figure. FIRST cultivates new types of interest in and understanding of STEM fields and inspires people to pursue these fields. In addition to the technical skills and hands-on experience FIRST gives to its participants, it also develops self-confidence, leadership, teamwork, and technical skills in those students. This applies both to people who had some prior interest in STEM, and many other who may have joined for non-technical aspects of the team, or just because their friends were doing it. So yes, I think FIRST is effective in reaching new groups and inspiring people to pursue the STEM fields.

[Alex.q]

I definitely agree with what has already been said. Additionally, imagine what your team would be like if everyone only wanted to work on the robot and nobody wanted to do the business related stuff. The team wouldn't have any sponsors, no media or marketing, no website...

You mentioned atcompetitions feeling bad that people were in the stands and only a handful of people were in the pits. What fun would the game be if nobody watched and cheered, and isn't scouting integral to success for top-tier teams? Additionally, from experience, it is unproductive and impratical for the entire team to stand around in your pit, there is just not enough space.

I'm not trying to berate you, just trying to point out it is important to have people who aren't totally focused on the robot. With that said, I would still branch out to FTC or find another way to make sure anyone who is interested in building/design/programming has a chance to do it. It would not be a good idea to force a student into doing business or media activities if they truly want to be designing or programming the robot.