Robot Games for Girls!A fun path to STEM

Adriana MoscatelliFounder, Play Works Studio

@adrimk

Pokémon TCGO - 2010

Magic the Gathering - 2008

Building Virtual WorldsStage 3 Lab - 1999

Children associate boys with math and science in elementary school

(Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011; Farenga & Joyce, 1999)

100%

50%

38%

1984 2012

20%

33%

Extensive experience with computer programming leads to

equal success among girls and boys

(Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff, & Sullivan, 2014)

RoBees

H1 2013 H2 2013 H1 2014 H2 2014 H1 2015 H2 2015

V1 prototype

user test

V2 prototype

University of WashingtonCS Ed Week

V3 prototype

1st study @ UW’s I-LABS

N=96children

Play Works incorporated

Paperprototyping1st user test

NSF SBIR Grant

Go to Market

Departmentof Education

SBIR grant

Studies & Summer Camps

Boze Elementary

Research led by Allison Master and Andrew MeltzoffInstitute for Learning & Brain SciencesUniversity of Washington

Research Questions

What are young children’s gender stereotypes about programming and robotics?

Can experience playing a robot-programming game increase girls’ technology-related motivation (without decreasing boys’)?

Participants

96 6-year-old children (48 girls, 48 boys)

Randomly assigned to one of three conditions

– “Robot” treatment group– “Game” control group– “Baseline” control group

Robot GroupChildren chose a “pet” robot and used a smartphone to program the robot to navigate an experimentally specified spatial path

Two Control Groups

“Game” control group: children played a storytelling card game

“Baseline” control group: no games

Dependent Measures

STEM-Gender Stereotypes (4 items; 1–4 scale): – Are boys or girls better at science, math, programming, and

robots?

Technology-related motivation (3 items; 1–6 scale):– How fun is programming?– How fun are robots?– How good are you with robots?

STEM-Gender Stereotypes

All error bars are +/- s.e. *p < .05, ***p < .001

Science Math Programming Robots1

2

3

4

Wh

o i

s b

ett

er?

(1

=g

irls

, 4

=b

oy

s)

* ***

Programming Enjoyment

Condition main effect: p = .017Gender main effect: p = .013**p = .01, ***p < .001

Girls Boys1

2

3

4

5

6

Both control conditionsRobot condition

Ho

w f

un

is

pro

gra

mm

ing

?

(1=

low

, 6

=h

igh

)

*****

Robot Enjoyment

Girls Boys1

2

3

4

5

6

Both control conditionsRobot condition

Ho

w f

un

are

ro

bo

ts?

(1

=lo

w,

6=

hig

h)

*

Condition main effect: p = .03Gender main effect: p = .01*p < .05

Robot Self-Efficacy

Girls Boys1

2

3

4

5

6

Both control conditionsRobot condition

Ho

w g

oo

d a

re y

ou

at

rob

ots

? (

1=

low

, 6

=h

igh

)

*****

Condition main effect: p = .013Gender main effect: p = .021**p < .01, ***p = .001

Conclusions

• Children held strong stereotypes associatingboys with robots and programming

• The 20-minute experience increased girls’technology-related motivation

• It increased girls’ self-efficacy, and therobot treatment eliminated the gendergap in self-efficacy

Next Steps• Classroom tests with 1st grade students• Curriculum integration

– Math– Reading/writing– Life sciences– 21st century skills

• Support for teachers (tools)• Support for different game styles

– Puzzle/logic– Strategy/RPG– Simulation/sandbox– Combat/arena– Infiltration/tower defense

Questions?