Assessing the Impact of an Autonomous Robotics Competition for STEM Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotics competitions for K-12 students are popular, but are students really learning and improving their STEM scores through robotics competitions? If not, why not? If they are, how much more effective is learning through competitions than traditional classes? Is there room for improvement? What is the best robotics competition model to maximize students’ STEM learning? One robotics competition designed to promote the use of math and science is Robofest. Robofest is an autonomous robotics competition with many unique features for STEM education. An example is that students need to solve unknown problems on the day of the competition. The Robofest competition requires use of mathematics and sensors which discourages dead reckoning. Results from 4th-12th graders who completed a STEM assessment before and after the 2010-2011 Robofest competition found students in the Robofest group showed significant improvement in math scores after the competition, compared to students in a control group. These results suggest robotics competitions modeled after Robofest have the potential to maximize STEM learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".