Gender and group attitudes to STEM: a pilot evaluation of an outreach robotics activity. Alice Peasgood, Jon Rosewell, Tony Hirst Abstract Women are underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in higher education (HE), although attitudes and participation in STEM are less polarised at younger ages. Outreach activities that aim to inspire and enthuse school-age students may help girls to consider study and careers in STEM subjects. The Royal Institution run extra-curricular ‘masterclasses’ that aim to inspire school students in mathematics. Our session in a series of secondary maths masterclasses uses a hands-on robotics activity based on the theme of ‘robot explorers’. Students work in small groups to solve the challenge of programming a small mobile robot to navigate by applying their maths and programming skills. This pilot study looked at the possible influence of gender and friendship groups on attitudes to STEM in the context of that activity. Those attending the masterclass series were Year 9 students nominated by East London schools. Students completed a short evaluation sheet for the session and reported whether they knew others in their group. An observer noted whether boys or girls used the computer, held the robot, and similar measures. All data was collected anonymously and the study was approved by the OU Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2016/2238/Rosewell/1). Preliminary results suggest that girls enjoyed the class more than boys. Girls also showed a greater increase in level of interest in robotics, although from a lower level than boys. There is a suggestion that individuals who found themselves in a group in which they had no friends reported a lower score for enjoyment. The importance of friendship to the enjoyment and learning experienced in small group activity should be considered in the design of extra-curricular activities if they are to meet their stated aim of enthusing young students.

1. Gender and group attitudes
to STEM: a pilot evaluation
of an outreach robotics
activity
Alice Peasgood, APHE Consulting
Jon Rosewell & Tony Hirst, The Open University

2. 2
The masterclasses
The Royal Institution run extra-curricular ‘masterclasses’ that
aim to inspire school students in mathematics.
As a new activity in the series, Jon Rosewell and Tony Hirst run a
hands-on session with LEGO Mindstorms robots that involves
programming and mathematics.
Audience: Year 9 students (pre-GCSE, 13-14 yrs) nominated by
their schools. 40 students from 20 schools in East London.
Working in teams of four students.
Robot Explorers class held in March and October, 3 so far.

3. LEGO® Mindstorms robot
Configured with two drive
wheels at the front, one
freewheel at the back
Steers through differential
rotation of front wheels
Pre-program using laptop
(cable connection).
Once started, follows
instructions.

4. 4
Program the robot to move forward by exactly 1 metre and then
stop.
Introductory activity

5. 5
Calulate the heading and distance needed to reach
the target, then drive the robot the gyro sensor
Programming and using maths
Pick TurnDrive from the MyBlocks tab
Set the heading and distance
Build a driving program by adding more blocks

6. 6
Starting positions

7. 7
Finishing positions

8. 8
Funders requested evaluation of gender effects
Pilot evaluation
An exercise in rapid research design
Start of evaluation planning: Thursday 3rd March 2016
Date of robotics event: Saturday 19th March 2016
Jon R: HREC approval, liaison with RI, suggested methods
Alice P: evaluation design, observation, data analysis

9. 9
Method
On the day (March 19th):
• Observation: which participants had access to the robot and
laptop
• Self-reported maps of friendship groups within each team
(solid line for friends before masterclass series, dashed line for
friends made during masterclasses)
• Feedback surveys (previously designed by RI and OU)
Analysis:
• Chi square tests based upon data from March 2016 and
October 2015 feedback surveys
• Use observation and friendship data for context

10. 10
Participants: March masterclass
39 total: 22 female, 17 male
G ender of participants
female male

11. 11
Write three words about the class
Girls
Boys

12. 12
1. Did you enjoy this robotics class?
2. Did you learn something new in this robotics
class?
3. Were you interested in robotics before this
class?
4. Are you interested in it now (after the class)?
Yes, lots
Yes, a little
No or don’t know

13. 13
Summary of survey data
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
Did you enjoy?
Did you learn?
Interest in robots before class
Interest in robots after class
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
S ummary of feedback from Masterclass held on 19/03/16
Yes, lots Yes, a little No or don't know

14. 14
Male vs female, chi square significant at p < 0.05 (N=78)
Enjoyment, both classes
female
male
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Did you enjoy this class?
No or don't know Yes, a little Yes, lots

15. 15
Male vs female, chi square not significant (both classes N=78)
Learning
The free text responses from the March class show that 79% of
participants acquired new skills.
When responding to the prompt: 'What was the main thing you
learnt in the robotics class?', typical comments include:
"Programming robots is complicated but really fun"
"We learnt about programming and about
angles/circles/circumference"
"There are robots on Mars"
"How to program a robot"

16. 16
Interest in robotics during class
female
male
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
C hange in level of interest in robotics during class
L ess interested S ame level of interest More interested
There is a statistically significant gender difference
in the data about changes in the level of interest in
robotics as a result of the class, chi square
significant at p < 0.01

17. 17
Friendship groups and use of the
laptops
To program the robots, one laptop was provided per group.
Observations at the start and end of the class show which
participants had access to the laptop.
Combining this with the friendship data reveals some interesting
patterns, although it should be noted that individual student
identities were not recorded during observation, so the
friendship relationships cannot be mapped definitely onto the
observations.

18. 18
Observations from March class
Friendship groups - findings
11 teams: 4 were mixed M/F, 4 were all Female, 3 were all Male
Each of the four mixed gender groups contained two clusters of
friends. It appears that by the end of the class, one of the clusters
had control of the laptop.
In the single gender groups with two clusters of friends, it
appears that by the end of the class, one of the clusters had
control of the laptop.
The groups which shared the computer so everyone could see it
were either (i) all friends, or (ii) all strangers

19. 19
"Programming robots is complicated but really fun"
Discussion
Practical activity with a social aspect engages both girls and boys.
This brief evaluation suggests that there is some sort of
association between:
• Challenge
• Satisfaction
• Increased interest
Friendship groups need to be taken into account when facilitating
a class with shared equipment. Tutor intervention may be helpful
in ensuring that all students share the equipment.

20. Acknowledgments
eSTEeM at The Open University: evaluation funding
The Aldgate & Allhallows Foundation: robot funding
The Royal Institution: masterclass organisation and joint
evaluation
Gillian Hosier, Philanthropy Manager, OU: access to
previous survey data and reports
Contact
Jon.rosewell@open.ac.uk
alice@APHEconsulting.co.uk
20

21. 21
Free text responses from March class
Learning challenges
Typical comments indicate the challenges encountered:
"You had to problem solve for yourself and think back to all the
things we had learnt beforehand“
"Getting to grips with it and trial and error“
"The difficulty for me was programming the robot to turn“
"It was difficult to initially control the movement but once we got
used to is, it was a lot easier“
"It was hard to work out angles"

22. 22
Free text responses from the March class
Learning: what was difficult?
When responding to the prompt: 'Please add a few words to
describe your experience of what was difficult about the task',
these are the types of response:
39% found the robot programming most difficult
16% found the mathematics most difficult
21% gave another response, including: talking to other people in
group, trial and error, problem-solving, robot gyro kept breaking.