The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
HFRP
> Out-of-School Time
> OST Database & Bibliography
> Database
> Fifth Dimension/University-Community Links
> Evaluation #2 by CSUSM (1995): Learning About Technology in a Non-Instructional Environment
A Profile of the Evaluation of Fifth Dimension/University-Community Links
Profile Information
- Full Text (HTML)
- How to cite
- About the OST Database
Program Description
| Overview | The Fifth Dimension/University-Community (UC) Links is an approach to after school programming used by Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs and YWCAs, recreation centers, and public schools across America, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Russia. It provides a way to increase the educational programming of such institutions without substantially increasing the costs of operation. Beginning in 1986, the overarching goals of the Fifth Dimension approach were to: (1) create sustainable activity systems that increase understanding of the cultural mediation of mind and the processes of cognitive and social development, (2) provide contexts for children to master knowledge and skills mediating changes in their everyday practices, (3) deepen understanding of how the social and individual create each other, and to (4) provide a context in which undergraduates from disciplines such as teacher education, developmental psychology, and communications have opportunities to connect theory with practice and deliver services to children. In 1996 the University of California Office of the President provided seed funding to expand this model throughout California. The UC Links network was established to promote the university eligibility and academic preparedness of underserved youth throughout California using the practices developed by Fifth Dimension programs worldwide. The intent was to broaden the base of K–12 learning, by providing access to educational resources to those youth who are not yet on the path to higher education. The statewide program has three major objectives: (1) to improve the educational opportunities and aspirations for diverse California youth from low-income communities throughout the state, so that more of them will become eligible for the University of California in years to come, (2) to improve undergraduate education by providing living laboratories where students can integrate theory and practice, and (3) to pioneer new ways of collaborating that bring together institutions like universities, communities, and K–12 schools in long-term, sustainable programs for underserved K–12 youth. |
| Start Date | 1986 |
| Scope | international |
| Type | after school |
| Location | urban, suburban, rural |
| Setting | community-based organization, public school, recreation center |
| Participants | elementary, middle, and high school students (ages 5–18) |
| Number of Sites/Grantees | over 50 worldwide sites (2003) |
| Number Served | The number of children per site will vary according to setting. In a public school setting, as many as 80 children may be served in any week. |
| Components | Fifth Dimension programs take place in a computer club that may or may not be associated with the child's school and are located near university campuses since most are affiliated with colleges and universities. Participants are often from low-income homes and many attend on a regular basis through high school. At some sites, high schoolers who attended return and act as mentors for the younger children. Children typically visit a Fifth Dimension on a drop-in basis, although in most public school Fifth Dimensions children attend on a daily basis. Some children spend four to six hours per week of after school time participating in the Fifth Dimension, while others may come once a week for a few hours. Opportunities and constraints vary across locations, seasons, populations, and sites. Many children enter the Fifth Dimension directly after school or homework sessions. The main activities center around off-the-shelf educational programs selected for appropriateness, appeal, and educational value. In a prototype Fifth Dimension system (local names vary), a dozen or more children encounter a large variety of computer games, noncomputer games, and telecommunications activities on a regular basis over the course of a school year. As a rule, Fifth Dimensions contain a variety of kinds of computers at a ratio of one computer for every two to three children. Computer games, such as Carmen San Diego and the Secret Island of Dr. Brain, the Magic School Bus series, and noncomputer games, such as Origami, chess, and Boggle are a part of a make-believe activity system. Task cards that accompany each game or activity enable children and their mentors to negotiate goals for playing games and coordinate activities. Learning is collaborative with children often working together or with adult mentors called Wizard's Assistants. Students with extensive experience are given the opportunity to achieve the status of Young Assistant to the Wizard. The child's participation is voluntary and self-paced; there is no traditional teacher-student structure. Each Fifth Dimension has a site coordinator who is trained to recognize and support Fifth Dimension's pedagogical ideals and curricular materials. Undergraduate students are there to learn and play with the children. The site coordinator monitors the balance of education and play in interactions between children and undergraduates. |
| Funding Level | varies by local program |
| Funding Source | The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided funding for field-testing and evaluation of the original three programs begun in 1986. In 1996 the University of California Office of the President began funding the UC Links network of after school programs in California. Each local Fifth Dimension program negotiates operating resources from the university, community participants, and other outside funding agencies. |
Evaluation
| Overview | Evaluators developed collaborations for evaluation at three Fifth Dimension sites: Appalachian State University (ASU), California State University at San Marcos (CSUSM), and University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). The ASU team evaluated Fifth Dimension sites that were operated as part of an after school program at four elementary schools in Boone, North Carolina. The CSUSM team evaluated a Fifth Dimension site operating at the Boys and Girls Club in Escondido, California. The UCSB team evaluated a Fifth Dimension site operating at the Boys and Girls Club in Goleta, California. Evaluators wanted to assess changes in children's literacy that can be attributed to participation in the Fifth Dimension, specifically: (1) does learning to use educational software on computers improve a child's mind? and (2) what kinds of cognitive changes, if any, occur over the course of a year in which computer-naïve children learn to use a series of educational programs in an informal and nonthreatening environment? The outcome measures tapped changes in student literacy, broadly defined, including changes in computer literacy, language comprehension, problem-solving strategies, and academic achievement. The primary research method was to assess relevant cognitive skills of students before they began the Fifth Dimension program and after they had extensive experience in the program (e.g., more than 10 or 20 visits over the course of the academic year), and to compare their pretest to posttest changes with those of similar students who did not participate. Separate evaluations were also conducted of the Expedition after school program, a Fifth Dimension program with an archaeological learning framework in Oakland, California. Expedition involves University of California at Berkeley (UCB) faculty, staff, and students directly with sixth graders through a service learning course, Anthropology 128, Archaeological Practice in a Sixth Grade After-School Program. These evaluations sought to measure the program's success in achieving a number of youth outcomes, as well as UCB undergraduate students' goals. |
| Evaluators | William E. Blanton, Gary B. Moorman, Bobbie A. Hayes, and Mark L. Warner, Appalachian State University Miriam W. Schustack, Rachelle Strauss, and Patricia E. Worden, California State University at San Marcos Richard E. Mayer, Richard Durán, Amy Lavezzo, Roxana Moreno, Jill Quilici, David Sanchez, Rebecca Simon, and Scott Woodbridge, University of California at Santa Barbara Tamara Lynn Sturak, UC Links Program, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley |
| Evaluations Profiled | Effects of Participation in the Fifth Dimension on Far Transfer (ASU) Learning About Technology in a Non-Instructional Environment (CSUSM) Cognitive Consequences of Participation in a Fifth Dimension After-School Computer Club (UCSB) What is Learned in an After-School Computer Club? (UCSB) Evaluation of Expedition – Computers and Archaeology After School (UCB) Expedition – Computers and Archaeology After School: Year-End Report, 2000–2001 (UCB) |
| Evaluations Planned | Evaluations are ongoing. |
| Report Availability | Note: This is just a sampling of reports available. Many of these reports, as well as others, are available at: www.education.miami.edu/ blantonw/5dclhse/publications/pub1.html. Summary Reports Mayer, R. E., Blanton, W. E., Durán, R., & Schustack, M. W. (1999). Using new information technologies in the creation of sustainable afterschool literacy activities: Evaluation of cognitive outcomes. Available at www.psych.ucsb.edu/~mayer/fifth_dim_website/ HTML/res_reports/research_reports.html. Mayer, R. E., Schustack, M., & Blanton, W. (1999). What do children learn from using computers in an informal collaborative setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27–31. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Out-of-school learning: The case of an after-school computer club. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 333–336. Underwood, C., Welsh, M., Emmons, C., Lerner, D., & Sturak, T. (2002). University-Community Links to higher learning: Program impact report. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Office of the President, Educational Outreach Department. Available at: www.uclinks.org. ASU Blanton, W. E., Moorman, G. B., Hayes, B. A., & Warner, M. L. (1997). Effects of participation in the Fifth Dimension on far transfer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 371–396. CSUSM Schustack, M. W., Strauss, R. & Worden, P. E. (1997). Learning about technology in a non-instructional environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 337–352. UCSB Mayer, R. E., Quilici, J., Moreno, R., Durán, R., Woodbridge, S., Simon, R., et al. (1997). Cognitive consequences of participation in a Fifth Dimension after-school computer club. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 353–369. Mayer, R. E., Quilici, J. H., & Moreno, R. (1999). What is learned in an after-school computer club? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 223–235. UCB Sturak, T. L. (2000). Evaluation of Expedition – computers and archaeology after school. Berkeley: Interactive University Project, University of California at Berkeley. Available at www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/activity/expedition.pdf (Acrobat file). Sturak, T. L. (2001). Expedition – computers and archaeology after school: Year-end report, 2000–2001. Berkeley: Interactive University Project, University of California at Berkeley. |
Contacts
| Evaluation | UC Links Mara Welsh Mahmood UC Links Statewide Office 615C University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1040 Tel: 510-643-7349 Email: mwelsh@uclink4.berkeley.edu ASU William E. Blanton, Ph.D., Professor of Teaching and Learning University of Miami, School of Education Merrick 324-A 5202 University Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Tel: 305-284-5053 Email: blantonw@miami.edu CSUSM Miriam W. Schustack, Ph.D., Professor Department of Psychology California State University 320 University Hall San Marcos, CA 92096-0001 Tel: 760-750-4095 Email: mschusta@csusm.edu UCSB Richard E. Mayer, Ph.D., Professor Department of Psychology University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Tel: 805-893-2472 Email: mayer@psych.ucsb.edu UCB Tamara Lynn Sturak, After School and Community Coordinator UC Links Program School of Education University of California at Berkeley 615 C. University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 Tel: 510-643-7349 Email: tamara@uclink.berkeley.edu |
| Program | UC Links UC Links Statewide Office 615C University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1040 Tel: 510-643-7349 Email: uclinks@socrates.berkeley.edu ASU Walter P. Oldendorf, Ph.D., Coordinator Reich College of Education Appalachian State University Edwin Duncan Hall: EDH 04 730 Rivers Street Boone, NC 28608 Tel: 828-262-7279 Email: oldendrfwp@appstate.edu CSUSM Miriam W. Schustack, Ph.D., Professor Department of Psychology California State University 320 University Hall San Marcos, CA 92096-0001 Tel: 760-750-4095 Email: mschusta@csusm.edu UCSB Lupe Arteaga, Club Coordinator Club Proteo 5701 Hollister Avenue Goleta, CA 93117 Tel: 805-967-1612 Email: marteaga@education.ucsb.edu UCB Tamara Lynn Sturak, After School and Community Coordinator UC Links Program School of Education University of California at Berkeley 615 C. University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 Tel: 510-643-7349 Email: Tamara@uclink.berkeley.edu |
| Profile Updated | May 20, 2003 |
Evaluation 2 (CSUSM): Learning About Technology in a Non-Instructional Environment
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To measure the participants' ability to remember computer and noncomputer Fifth Dimension terminology as an indirect measure of the respective domain knowledge. The logic of this study relies on a finding from literature on expertise—even in tasks that do not require domain knowledge for success, people who have greater familiarity with the meanings and relationships among technical terms show improved performance. That is, the tasks that require simple processing of word-level stimuli show consistently better performance by domain experts—for whom these terms are rich and meaningful—than by domain novices for whom the words denote less elaborated concepts. |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: Participants were children ages 8–13 who were members of the Boys and Girls Club of Escondido, and who received parental permission to participate in the Fifth Dimension. One group consisted of children considered Fifth Dimension experts, who had completed 11–23 sessions in the Fifth Dimension prior to testing (N=13, mean age 9.8 years). The other group was Fifth Dimension novices—children who had just signed up for the Fifth Dimension, but had not yet attended any sessions (N=15, mean age 9.3 years). The groups were based on voluntary involvement and thus were not randomly selected. Participants entered the study on a revolving basis, as they qualified for inclusion in one of the two groups: the novices became eligible when they turned in signed permission slips (before participating in any Fifth Dimension activities) and the experts became eligible as of their eleventh Fifth Dimension visit. Each child was tested as soon as possible after entering the study, often within a few days, although there was sometimes a delay due to testing time constraints and child availability. The novices were all tested before engaging in any Fifth Dimension activities. The experts could continue to attend the program after they reached the criterion of 11 visits, so their mean number of visits before the time they were tested was 15.3. Because the researchers were unable to have randomly selected groups, they used controls internal to the design. Specifically, in their assessment, they included a condition of neutral words so that differences in overall memory skill can be excluded as an explanation for group differences—essentially, each participant served as his/her own control. |
| Data Collection Methods | Tests/Assessments: Children were tested on their recognition memory for a word list, comparing memory for words that are neutral with respect to the Fifth Dimension environment to words specific to the Fifth Dimension environment. The presence of the neutral items allowed researchers to determine whether any group differences on these measures might be due to improved general memory ability, or whether they could reasonably infer that the children were gaining familiarity with the domain of computers through their participation in the program. The test consisted of three sections run in succession on a computer: an initial word presentation, a recognition task, and a recall task. In the first two sections, target words presented consisted of 10 words each from 3 different categories: (1) words related to computer technology, (2) words related to common Fifth Dimension activities, and (3) neutral/unrelated words (words of moderate to low frequency, comparable to the two other categories, that the children would normally encounter in other environments, but not especially likely to occur in the Fifth Dimension). The 30 target words were presented in a different random order for each child. The words were selected by initially generating a much larger set, and then selecting the 20 words that seemed to best capture each of the three categories. Of the 20, 10 were randomly selected to be used as target words and the other 10 were used as recognition foils. Buffer items were additional neutral/unrelated words that were presented in fixed positions. In the initial word presentation, words to be remembered were presented one at a time for one second each. Thirty-six words were presented—thirty target words and six buffer words. Buffer words always appeared in the first and last three positions of the list to minimize primacy and recency effects on the target items. Children then engaged in a nonverbal distraction activity for a filled delay interval before moving on to the recognition task. The recognition task required participants to look at pairs of words and select the one that had appeared on the memory list. There were 34 word pairs, each containing one previously presented word and one foil word not previously presented. Thirty of these pairs consisted of critical target words paired with a foil from a different category. The remaining four pairs contained previously presented buffer words paired with new neutral/unrelated words as foils. The buffer pairs were always presented at the beginning of the task to minimize practice effects on the critical pairs. There was no time limit, but the computer program recorded the time for each response. Each participant's responses were scored for accuracy and the number of items correctly recognized was computed. For the recall task, participants were asked to say out loud as many of the words from the initial word presentation as possible. Responses were tape recorded and did not have a time limit. The number of items correctly recognized in each condition was computed by counting the number of originally presented target words and the number of recognition foil words that appeared in the recall on each participant's transcribed tape. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | The data were collected January through April 1995. |
Findings:
Summative/Outcome Finding
| Academic | Experts and novices had almost identical overall correct recognition, with each group recognizing 67% of the items. The experts recognized a mean of 20.2 items out of the 30 targets (SD=4.4), and the novices recognized 20.1 items (SD=3.5). This small difference was not statistically reliable (t(26)=.11, p>.90). The mean correct recognition for each category of item showed no main effect of word type—over all the subjects taken together, the three categories of words were approximately equally well recognized, F(2,52)<1. There was, however, a highly reliable interaction between the grouping variable (expert vs. novice children) and the word type, F(2,52)=6.72, p<.003. The children with more Fifth Dimension experience showed an advantage on both computer and Fifth Dimension words, as predicted. The experts showed a corresponding disadvantage on the neutral words, supporting the notion that their success with the domain-relevant words is due to specific experience with those concepts rather than to a general improvement in their memory skill. The disadvantage on the neutral words is almost exactly equal in magnitude to the sum of the advantages on the other words, leading to no overall difference in recognition accuracy between the groups. Response times for correct responses in the recognition task were highly variable within and between children, possibly because speed was not mentioned as a goal in the task. Statistical analysis showed no significant effects of group on condition. The trend of the response times, though, was conceptually consistent with the pattern of recognition accuracy and shows no evidence of a speed-accuracy tradeoff. For novices, the neutral category words (their best recognized word type) were recognized more quickly than the other categories, while for the experts the neutral words (their least-recognized word type) were the slowest to be recognized. Recall performance was quite low, consistent with the limited memory strategies of the average nine year old. For recall of target words, novices recalled an average of 1.9 target words out of the 30 presented (SD=1.5), and the experts recalled nearly twice as much: 3.4 target words (SD=2.2). Despite the very small number of items recalled, this difference (6% correctly recalled vs. 11%) was quite statistically reliable, F(1,26)=5.78, p=.02. The advantage of the experts appears to be primarily in their much greater recall of the computer words; this superiority of the experts in recall of the computer words was statistically significant, t(26)=2.176, p<.04. There were no reliable differences between the groups on the other two types of items: for Fifth Dimension words t(26)=1.351, p=.19, for neutral words t(26)=.165, p=.87. Because of the low recall rate, researchers also analyzed the recall data including both the originally presented words and the recognition foils. The reasoning behind this alternative analysis was that the children might have had difficulty distinguishing the words originally presented from the words seen only in the recognition task, or might not have been sure which group of words they were supposed to recall. Recall was somewhat higher under this more lenient scoring, suggesting that the children may have been confused about which words to report, or about whether a remembered word was seen in the initial phase or only in the later recognition task. Overall, the novices recorded 2.5 words (targets and foils combined), and the experts 4.2 words. There was a main effect of the group, with experts recalling significantly more words overall than novices, F(1,26)=4.62, p=.04. In the recall under this lax scoring, the pattern of differences seen in the standard scoring reappeared-the experts had a significant advantage for the computer words, t(26)=2.29, p=.03, but there were no differences for the other two types of words: for Fifth Dimension words t(26)=1.64, p=.11 and for neutral words t(26)=.03, p=.97. |