"STEMming" the Swell of Absenteeism in the Middle Years: Impacts of an Urban District Summer Robotics Program
Mac Iver, Martha Abele; Mac Iver, Douglas J. (2019). Urban Education, v54 n1 p65-88. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199923
-
examining652Students, grades5-7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) - Math |
Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
96.40 |
95.61 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attendance rate |
Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) vs. Summer enrichment activities – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
96.50 |
95.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attendance rate |
Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Students with low performance in mathematics;
|
96.40 |
93.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attendance rate |
Robotics summer learning program – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) vs. Summer enrichment activities – Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2019) |
8 Months |
Students with low performance in mathematics;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 27%
Male: 73% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Maryland
-
Race Black 94% Other or unknown 6% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 86% No FRPL 14%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in summer learning program sites affiliated with Baltimore City Public Schools in Maryland. The sample included students enrolled in both traditional public and public charter schools. The program sites included school buildings and one local university campus (Coppin State University).
Study sample
The study included middle school students in grades 5 through 7 enrolled in Baltimore City Public Schools who were eligible to participate in the district’s summer learning program. Nearly all students identified as African American or Hispanic. Students were eligible to enroll in the summer learning program regardless of their prior performance in school, though the district aimed to recruit students who scored below proficient in mathematics on the state assessment.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group participated in a five-week summer program designed to strengthen students' engagement in school and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The program combined daily mathematics and science instruction with a hands-on robotics enrichment component using the VEX Robotics platform. Each day, students spent approximately 80 minutes on mathematics instruction and 2 hours on robotics activities, including designing, programming, and operating robots in team-based challenges and competitions. Families volunteered to participate, and all students who applied were able to enroll.
Comparison Group
There were two comparison groups. In the first group, students in the comparison condition did not receive the robotics summer program and instead had business-as-usual activities. Students in the second comparison condition participated in a 5-week summer program focused on arts and sports enrichment, rather than robotics.
Support for implementation
Teachers delivering the summer program were Baltimore City Public Schools educators recruited through the district’s standard summer school hiring process. Teachers participated in one week of pre-program professional development, which included training on delivering high-quality mathematics instruction and hands-on robotics facilitation. Robotics teachers built sample robots during training and practiced guiding students through design and competition activities. Mathematics teachers received training in fact fluency, automaticity, and data-driven instruction. The study does not describe any support or training given to those implementing the other summer enrichment programs used as one of the comparison groups.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Mac Iver, Martha Abele; Mac Iver, Douglas J. (2015). The Baltimore City Schools Middle School STEM Summer Program with VEX Robotics. Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).