Performance-Approach The Student Experience Afterschool Enrichment with Adolescents; 2015-2016 Assessment Analysis Bethany Fleck, Ph.D & Alexandra Lee INTRODUCTION PARTICIPANTS RESULTS RESULTS 145 students participated: 67 male, 77 female, & 1 no answer. Grades included: 16 sixth, 32 seventh, 12 eighth, 14 ninth, 31 tenth, 25 eleventh, 14 twelfth, & 1 no answer. Average age was 14.01 (SD = 2.16). Table 1. Descriptive Data Variables M(SD) Scale Implicit Theories 11.77 (4.16) 3-18 Academic Efficacy 19.79 (3.87) 11-25 Self-Handicapping 16.36 (5.76) 6-30 Mastery Goal Orientation 21.44 (3.60) 12-25 Performance Avoid Orientation 12.58 (4.24) 4-20 Table 4. Race Comparison Variables Between Groups Within Groups Mean Sq. F Sig. Implicit Theories 18.411 17.410 1.061 .391 Academic Efficacy 15.609 14.882 1.049 .400 Self-Handicapping 32.837 33.136 .991 .441 Goal Mastery 22.582 12.482 1.809 .090 Performance-Avoid 18.402 18.087 1.017 .422 Performance-Approach 20.850 31.356 .665 .701 Research Question 2: How do students’ change after program participation? 45 students had both pre and post test scores. Independent samples t-tests found no significant differences were found. Means were in the predicted directions. See table 2 for t- test statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.personal.psu.edu/bfr3/blogs/asp/education/ MSU Denver runs a 21st Century College Readiness Center in seven public middle and high schools. The program occurs afterschool and includes tutoring, enrichment, college readiness workshops, family engagement, and support for potential first generation college students. The program utilizes project based learning strategies. Data was gathered through pre and post-test surveys given to the students. The survey assessed students’ implicit theories for learning (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin & Wan, 1999), achievement goal orientations, academic efficacy, and academic self-handicapping (Midgley et al., 2000). Many first generation college students of low socioeconomic status, and of minority ethnic background, have been found to have a fixed rather than a growth mindset (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Donohoe, Topping & Hannah, 2014; Dweck, 2006). The positive outcomes of a growth mindset are numerous and include increases in motivation, learning, and IQ gains (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006). DISCUSSION The students are uncharacteristically high on growth mindset, internal motivation, and academic efficacy. This is contrary to what some previous research has found (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Donohoe, Topping & Hannah, 2014; Dweck, 2006). The paired samples t-tests revealed no significant changes after the program. There may be no changes due to issues with the program curriculum and the extent to which facilitators promote growth mindset. As students get older, self-handicapping decreases. This may be due to development and gaining more experience in academic settings. There is no significant difference in racial groups in the characteristics measured. This is an encouraging indicator showing increased academic inclusiveness. The data suggests students are entering the after school program equipped with characteristics critical for academic success. Incidentally, the programming can be modified to build on the students’ strengths. For a copy of this poser, references, or questions email Bethany Fleck bfleck2@msudenver.edu. Table 2. Inferential Statistics for Paired Samples t-Test Variables Pretest Posttest M(SD) t p df Implicit Theories 12.22(4.22) 13.02(4.16) -.966 .34 44 Academic Efficacy 20.56(3.25) 20.12(3.81) .786 .44 40 Self-Handicapping 16.05(5.56) 15.97(6.64) .063 .95 36 Goal Mastery 21.76(3.14) 21.76(3.10) .000 1.0 Performance-Avoid 11.51(3.89) 11.05(4.27) .737 .47 Performance-Approach 14.78(5.68) 14.51(5.56) .255 .80 PROCEDURE The Student Experience Begin 21st Century College Readiness Afterschool program Complete pre-survey Participate in the program: 12 hours/week, academic enrichment, college readiness Finish first year in program Complete post-survey Research Question 3: Do student characteristics change as they get older? 145 students who took the pre-test were analyzed. See table 3 for correlations. MEASURES Research Question 4: Do characteristics change depending on race/ethnicity? 145 students who took the pre-test were analyzed. See table 4 for descriptive statistics. The Assessment of Implicit Theories (Growth Mindset) (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin & Wan, 1999) Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) Academic Goal Orientations, Efficacy, Self-Handicapping (Carol Midgley, et al, 2011) Student Information Questionnaire (MSU Center for Urban Education staff) RESEARCH QUESTIONS Table 3. Age and Characteristics Correlations Performance-Avoid Implicit Theories Academic Efficacy Self-Handicapping Goal Mastery Performance-Approach Age in years Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) -.122 .159 -.038 .660 .118 .176 -.197 .025 .125 .150 -.098 .266 -.138 .102 .031 .713 .269 .002 -.007 .930 .464 .000 .232 .006 .294 -.092 .282 -.090 .295 .551 .188 .027 -.053 .539 .120 .156 What characterizes the students in the afterschool college readiness program? How do students’ implicit theories for learning, achievement goal orientations, academic efficacy, and academic self-handicapping change after program participation? Do student characteristics change as they get older? Do characteristics change depending on race? RESULTS Research Question 1: What characterizes the students in the afterschool college readiness program? 145 students who took the pre-test were analyzed. See table 1 for descriptive statistics.