Modern Blanket Toss: Findings and Observations

2016 FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The University of Alaska Fairbanks received National Science Foundation
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Track-3
funding in 2013 to implement Modern Blanket Toss: Engaging Underserved
Students in STEM Fields through Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Implemented as
part of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Upward Bound program, students
from five rural communities in Alaska received the opportunity to take special
elective classes during the Upward Bound summer program at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), in which they learned unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
and geographic information systems (GIS) operation, science materials and
methods, and science communication and leadership skills. Those students were
expected to return to their home communities where, with academic-year
Upward Bound support, they were to use UAVs as the basis for a local mapping
project.
The mission of Modern Blanket Toss was to help these Upward Bound students
develop interest in STEM fields through the use of technology that can directly
improve the well-being of Alaskans. The project’s goal was to demonstrate how
a three-part program of science education built around 1) cutting-edge STEM
technologies (in this case, UAVs), 2) science communication and leadership skills,
and 3) community involvement, can better expose these students to STEM
careers, prepare them for higher education, and enable them to contribute to
their communities.
The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the Modern
Blanket Toss program to increase the likelihood that participating students would
go on to pursue college degrees in STEM areas and ultimately pursue STEM
careers. This report provides the summative evaluation results. The report is
divided into four sections. Section 1 describes the primary methods used by the
evaluation, including student surveys and interviews, academic data, and surveys
of Upward Bound site coordinators. This section also discusses the limitations of
the evaluation methods. Section 2 summarizes the implementation of the
program, including a description of the Upward Bound communities
participating in the program and the number of students participating. Section 3
summarizes the evaluation results by the indicators used to measure the
program’s effectiveness, including 1) Upward Bound local coordinator capacity
to facilitate the program locally; 2) student satisfaction and engagement with
program activities; 3) student knowledge about the Modern Blanket Toss
content; 4) student communication and leadership skills; 5) student interest and
confidence in STEM; and 6) student academic data including their overall grade
point average and their math and science course grades specifically. Section 4
provides a brief discussion of the major findings and recommendations to
address challenges identified in the report.
SECTION 1. EVALUATION METHODS
The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the Modern
Blanket Toss program in increasing the likelihood that participating students
would go on to pursue college degrees in STEM areas and ultimately pursue
STEM careers. A descriptive approach was used to evaluate indicators related to
the implementation of the program: Upward Bound local coordinator capacity
to facilitate the program locally, and student satisfaction and engagement with
program activities. An outcomes-based approach (Phillips et al., 2014) was used
to evaluate indicators related to the program’s expected outcomes, including:
student knowledge about the Modern Blanket Toss content, student
communication and leadership skills, student interest in STEM and confidence in
STEM abilities, and student academic data including their overall grade point
average and their math and science course grades specifically (Dorsen et al.,
2006; Hinojosa et al., 2016).
To measure the program’s impact on selected indicators, the evaluation used
several data sources: student and coordinator surveys, student interviews,
academic data, observation field notes, and document review. Figure 1 maps
each indicator to the appropriate data collection instrument.
Site Coordinator Survey
37