The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Work in progress: Gender impacts of relevant robotics curricula on high school students' engineering attitudes and interest
Abstract
This study compares gender differences on Likert scale pre/post assessments of engineering interest, identity, and knowledge in three “traditional” introductory function- and task-oriented robotics courses and two biomedical robotics courses. In addition, the STEM Academy at a local high school is surveyed to identify their preferences given six hypothetical robotics curricula: three traditional function- and task-oriented courses and three contextualized courses consistent with helping society and gender-friendly messaging. The students are asked to rate each hypothetical course from least to most preferred. ANOVA is used to test our hypothesis that the biomedical robotics curriculum will result in higher gains in engineering interest and identity for all students, especially for the girls in the sample. This study adds to the literature base by empirically testing the role that the design problems and contexts we choose as engineering educators plays in the gender inclusiveness of K-12 engineering education efforts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“and (2) studies demonstrating the relatively greater success achieved by programs that integrate robotics with other forms of social, cultural, and creativity-based motivation, such as Searle and colleagues (2014), Terry andcolleagues (2011), andDoerschuk andcolleagues (2011).”
From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Terry et al., 2011
Citations
Cites
Children, robotics, and education
Johnson, J. (2003) · Artificial Life and Robotics · doi:10.1007/bf02480880 · Cited by 192
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.1109/FIE.2002.1158224 · DOI
- sax, 2008, The Gender Gap in College Maximizing the Developmental Potential of Women and Men
- mataric?, 0, Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and stem education, AAAI 2007 Spring Symposia - Robots and Robot Venues Resources for AI Education
- 10.1007/978-3-540-32256-6_14 · DOI
- stein, 0, Botball robotics and gender differences in middle school teams, Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019) · Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) · doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223 · Cited by 419
“…alliance Siraj et al. (2012) Weaving a tapestry: Creating a satellite workshop to support HS CS teachers in attracting and engaging students Terry et al. (2011) Work in progress: Gender impacts of relevant robotics curricula on high school students’ engineering attitudes and interest…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Terry, B. S., Briggs, B. N., & Rivale, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Venue
- 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-10
- Pages
- T4H-1-T4H-3
- ISSN
- 0190-5848 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025628472
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.27
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Robotics and Engineering
- Keywords
- gender differences, engineering interest, engineering identity, biomedical robotics, contextualized curriculum, gender inclusion, K-12 engineering education, high school students, girls in STEM
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
