You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

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.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview The National Inventors Hall of Fame® (NIHF) Club Invention® After-School Program (CI) is a nationwide educational enrichment program designed to further formal school-day academics in a fun and informal after school environment. The goal of the program is to impact three principal components of learning: (a) knowledge – learning of scientific principles, (b) attitude – interest in science, and (c) behavior – application of scientific principles learned.
Start Date fall 2003
Scope national
Type after school
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public school, private school, community-based organization, religious institution, private facility, recreation center, other
Participants elementary and middle school students (Grades 2–6)
Number of Sites/Grantees 400
Number Served 5,500
Components Offered as both a stand-alone school enrichment opportunity and a component of established after school programs, CI is taught by an existing school teacher who assists participants in using hands-on activities and creative tasks to build on school experiences. The CI curriculum encompasses 60 or 90 minutes of programming, 1 day a week, for 5 to 8 weeks, consisting of one of the following six programs:

1. VisualEyez™ – As the incoming class at Perception University, club members, led by Professor I. C. Clearly, use art and science to explore and explain the wonders of sight and optical illusions.

2. Phys Ed: Physics in Motion™ – Club members create games based on the work of scientists who help answer questions about how and why objects move the way they do, incorporating the science of gravity, energy, motion, and magnetism into their activities.

3. Medieval Marvels™ – Club members assume the roles of lords, knights, craftspeople, and serfs to cooperatively complete tasks involving medieval history, basic scientific principles, simple machines, and hands-on creative activities.

4. Intent to Invent™ – Club members are transported into Olnem (Menlo spelled backwards) Park, a research and development complex where they encounter various tasks, such as brainstorming ideas, learning how things work, and making a model of an original invention.

5. Flight Sight™ – Club members work both individually and collaboratively on a variety of activities about flight and the heights humans have reached.

6. Solve It!™ – Club members become the first graduating class of Detective School by participating in a crime-solving simulation (forensics). Creative problem solving and higher level thinking skills are emphasized throughout the sessions.
Funding Level not available
Funding Sources private and public funding and parent fees (varies by site)
Other NIHF, the national nonprofit organization devoted to creativity and innovation that developed CI, has also developed Camp Invention®, a national summer education enrichment program


Evaluation

Overview NIHF contracted with the Bureau of Research Training and Services (BRTS) at Kent State University to conduct a formative evaluation of CI. The research was designed to assist NIHF administrators in understanding current program practices.
Evaluator The Bureau of Research Training and Services (BRTS), Kent State University
Evaluations Profiled A Formative Program Evaluation Report on the National Inventors Hall of Fame® Club Invention® After-School Program
Evaluations Planned Club Invention is evaluated internally every year and externally every 3 years.
Report Availability The Bureau of Research Training and Services. (2004). A formative evaluation report on the National Inventors Hall of Fame® Club Invention® After-School Program. Kent, OH: Kent State University, College and Graduate School of Education.


Contacts

Evaluation T. J. Horwood
Academic Program Coordinator
Bureau of Research Training and Services
Kent State University
507 White Hall
Kent, OH 44242
Tel: 330-672-7918
Email: thorwood@kent.edu
Program Brenda Wojnowski, Ed.D.
Executive Director, Inventive Education, Inc.
National Inventors Hall of Fame
221 South Broadway
Akron, OH 44308
Tel: 330-849-6967
Fax: 330-237-0589
Email: bwojnowski@invent.org
Profile Updated January 11, 2005

Evaluation: A Formative Program Evaluation Report on the National Inventors Hall of Fame® Club Invention® After-School Program


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To answer the following questions: (a) What are the common elements of instructors’ experiences that participate in the program? and (b) Are the curriculum modules being implemented as anticipated by NIHF?
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: Six sites were chosen that represent a cross-section of sites in the program, including different curricula, diverse regional locations, and all grade levels between 2nd and 6th grades. Evaluators used a collective case study method, examining the data for patterns among the multiple cases in the study.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: CI administrators provided access to program-related documents to enable evaluators to understand the program and its scope and to analyze data that had been collected internally.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Individual interviews were conducted with the six CI instructors at the selected sites. The goal of the interviews was to understand the experiences of the instructors. Researchers sought to understand the nature of the common program experiences for selected instructors. Evaluators also conducted follow-up phone calls and sent emails to program staff members to clarify responses or to further inquire about their experiences.

Observation: Observations were conducted in the CI classrooms at all six program sites to examine instructors’ experiences and the implementation of curriculum modules.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected December 2003 through February 2004.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Many of the instructors reported that the curriculum was of the highest quality. They believed that the experiential learning experience offered by the modules was extremely beneficial, especially since the modules encourage “a lot of creativity, [and a] hands-on emergent style.”

Instructors reported that, since NIHF provided the majority of the materials needed to implement the CI modules, the amount of preparation time was minimal. However, preparation time varied based on the specific program and instructor. Several instructors reported that having all program supplies “up-front” significantly reduced the amount of preparation time. Many instructors also commented that the labeled “plan ahead” sections, which indicated when additional preparation time was necessary, were very helpful. However, some instructors noted that the program could provide more of the necessary materials for certain modules (e.g., recyclable materials necessary for one of the modules) and more sorting and labeling of materials by module.

For the majority of the programs, instructors closely followed the curriculum. Delaying the implementation of activities “because of time constraints” was the primary modification witnessed by evaluators or reported by instructors. Also, time constraints on room preparation resulted in some instructors forgoing some set-up details encouraged by the curriculum.

At most of the on-site observations, instructors implemented every one of the activities listed for the module during the day of the observation. Though program materials state that only two activities need to be completed during a module, instructors, as a whole, communicated that they struggled to get through all the activities within the given time period. Thus, it appeared that instructors believed it imperative that all activities be completed.

Some of the programs required participants to keep a journal throughout the program (e.g., inventor’s logs, forensic notebooks). Instructors commented that some participants did not like this part of the program and that, for some of the younger children, these log activities were cumbersome.

Instructors described the teamwork aspect of the program both positively and negatively. Younger participants were eager to learn from older participants, but older participants were not always willing to work with younger ones. Evaluators observed that the brainstorming aspect of the program appeared to assist the implementation of the teamwork aspect by helping participants to respect, build on, and reinforce other participants’ ideas.
Parent/Community Involvement Evaluators witnessed participants greeting their parents enthusiastically, eager to discuss their experiences at CI.
Program Context/Infrastructure Given the constructive hands-on style of learning, interviews revealed that class size greatly influenced the length of time needed for club members to brainstorm and build projects and for staff to assist participants with their projects; the larger the class size, the longer these processes took.
Program-School Linkages Instructors indicated that holding the program after school within the school building was the ideal situation. Instructors commented that, since the program was held directly after school, the participants were in a learning frame of mind and could participate without needing any additional transportation. Instructors also reported that holding the program in classrooms worked out well, though sometimes the room set-up required by the curriculum was complicated and could only be implemented if the instructor was able to enter the classroom area sufficiently earlier than participants.

Most instructors indicated that CI was a good supplement to classroom learning. Some instructors indicated that the modules offered participants opportunities to draw on earlier learning, carry their comprehension to a greater level of depth, and apply their knowledge through hands-on activities.
Recruitment/Participation Students participating in these programs were predominantly White, but also included African American and Asian students. Instructors responded that participants were predominantly affluent; however, at one site, participants were predominantly low income. Participants ranged from highly gifted academically to below average, including special education students.
Satisfaction Observations and instructor interviews revealed that participants reacted to program content and activities with excitement and enthusiasm.
Staffing/Training When asked about the type of training and support they receive, instructors responded that the CI training included a video, training manual, and curriculum guide. Instructors described the curriculum guide as “self-explanatory” and “better ... than regular teaching manuals.” Instructors unilaterally described the curriculum guide as exceptional and “very well-written.” Instructors also described the curriculum guide as “tightly written” and as “one of the best curriculum guides” they had ever read.

Instructors were all professionally associated with education. Instructors in the study included an undergraduate education major, elementary school teachers, a speech pathology specialist, and an elementary science enrichment specialist.

All of the instructors responded that their initial introduction to CI was through personal or professional acquaintances with individuals already employed by NIHF. Half of the instructors reported that they had served as Camp Invention instructors.

Instructors expressed that the support received before and during the implementation of the program was “more than adequate.” All of the instructors indicated that supervisory personnel were available for weekly phone consultation, email correspondence, or additional on-site assistance, as needed.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Instructors overwhelmingly reported that the program clearly facilitated constructivist learning, meaning that the activities challenged participants to build their own understanding.
Youth Development Instructors indicated that, especially during the brainstorming aspect of the program, they saw participants learn to work as a team, including learning to share, listen, and build on each others’ ideas.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project