After-School Computer Clubhouses and At-Risk Teens.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT KLICK! (Kids Learning In Computer Clubhouses!), a federally funded, afterschool, computer clubhouse operating in Michigan, is investigated as a means for supporting positive, engaging, and innovative after school activities for teens. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test survey suggests that participating in KLICK! is differentially effective for teens with initially low value for school and low GPA on outcomes of school value and technology expertise. Implications for this finding on similar after school programs are discussed. Our nation's teens have garnered much recent attention (Head, 1997; Hellmich, 2002; NBC, 2002). Because of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, suicide, and gang activity our most prized commodity is in jeopardy. Research suggests that our teens are struggling in a culture designed to inspire risk-taking (Ponton, 1997), violence (Canada, 1995, 1998), self-abuse (Pipher, 1994); and even cold-heartedness (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000). Our teens are distant (Hersch, 1998) yet looking for a positive outlet for an unbelievable amount of energy and enthusiasm (Schneider & Stevenson, 1999). Recognizing this, the U.S. Department of Education has supported a strong initiative to open after school programs for teens across the country. After school programs continue to be funded by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S.D.E.) at an incredible rate. In the last several years the U.S.D.E. has provided almost 250 million dollars to establish after school programs in rural and inner city schools. Research continues to demonstrate that students in high quality after school programs are more successful academically and socially than non-participating peers, are more likely to develop healthy self-perceptions and attitudes, and are better able to resist unsafe behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, gang affiliation, and other criminal activities, (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). The block of unsupervised time, between the release of school and the return of parents from work, has led many adolescents to destructive and often criminal behavior. Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) show between the ages of 12 and 17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and victimization between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. - a time when they are not in school at the end of the regular school day (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In addition to providing needed supervision and guidance, after school programs designed to further engage and enrich students' educational experiences seem to be most successful. Because student participation is voluntary, successful programs usually afford a great deal of choice to their participants. Students are often allowed to decide what activities to choose, when to choose a different activity, and to engage in whatever form and to whatever degree they choose. Most successful programs offer activities and resources that adolescents are not likely to find in other places such as a library, a youth sports center, or their own home. After school programs that provide access to high technology resources seem to be particularly valuable and compelling to teens (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 9 1999 1; Kafai, 1996; Papert, 1991). For example, in the 5th Dimensions program originally developed in the Eaboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC) at the University of California at San Diego, participating teens chose what path to follow through a 'maze' of different activities and challenges. Teens chose which route to take, which activities to attempt, and how to begin completing those activities. Children in the 5th Dimensions program also use a full complement of computer technologies in the form of games, puzzles, and other challenging activities unfamiliar to them (Cole, 1996). At another successful after school program developed at the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, teens were free to become creative and productive users of technology for the purposes of designing and expressing themselves artistically. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".