Skip to page content
← Back to RAOP overviewMain menu

RAOP

Assessment and Evaluation

The Robotics and Automation Outreach Program (RAOP) uses six complementary instruments, T1–T6, to document readiness, virtual and hardware investigations, educator experience, teaching plans, and advisory feedback. The central evaluation question is how the research experience helps educators understand robotics and automation and bring that learning into their school teaching.

The 2026 pilot involved eight educators. Technical performance, perceived confidence, and school implementation provide different evidence of progress. Each instrument is interpreted according to its purpose, respondent group, scale, and evidence requirements.

What the Framework Examines

Readiness and Support

Can educators access the tools, begin the assigned work, and obtain the assistance they need?

Technical Understanding

Can educators identify components and signals, interpret observations, and explain an investigation using evidence?

Integration into Teaching

What can educators adapt for their students, what do they subsequently use, and what evidence and support are available?

T1–T6 Instruments and Blank Forms

These blank 2026 forms are available for reference and activity preparation. Dates printed in them identify the 2026 cycle. Fillable PDFs can be completed in a compatible PDF reader; printable PDFs provide space for written responses. T5 is a facilitator and recorder guide, and T6 is a blank advisory review template.

T1

Setup Readiness Form

Identify software, account, device, and preparation needs before virtual instruction.

Who contributes
Educator, with a readiness review by the RAOP team.
Timing
Before virtual instruction; the 2026 readiness deadline was July 3.
Evidence or responses
Installation permissions, MathWorks access, MATLAB/Simulink preparation, QLabs setup, introductory resource use, confidence, and technical support needs.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

T1 is a diagnostic readiness check. Its results help the team arrange assistance and confirm that an educator can begin the assigned activity.

The internal task-completion scale is 0 (not complete), 1 (partially complete), and 2 (complete). The overall record distinguishes ready, mostly ready with support, and not yet ready. Confidence items use their separate 1–5 scale.

Fillable PDF · 5 pages

Download blank T1 PDF

T2

Virtual Lab Checkpoint Form

Review digital-twin activity evidence, technical explanation, guided inquiry, and a proposed school adaptation.

Who contributes
Individual educator, with evidence reviewed by the RAOP team.
Timing
End of the virtual phase; the 2026 submission deadline was July 16, with final review on July 17.
Evidence or responses
One required introductory and one required advanced activity on the assigned platform, supported by model views, outputs, interpretation, lessons learned, and a school activity idea.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

Six criteria address access and operation; required activity completion; input-output reasoning; sensor, actuator, and block reasoning; inquiry using evidence; and school integration quality.

Each criterion is scored 0–3: not observed, emerging, meets expectation, or exceeds expectation. The maximum is 18. Individual success requires at least 13/18 and completion of both required activities.

The form identifies program attainment targets of 70% minimum and 80% preferred for its defined indicators. Apply the indicator definitions and denominator specified in the form. Optional activities are enrichment.

Fillable PDF · 10 pages

Download blank T2 PDF

T3

Hardware On-Site Checkpoint

Review evidence and demonstrated competency across Qube-Servo 3, Aero 2, QArm, and QBot Platform.

Who contributes
Educator and RAOP reviewer, using platform reports and observed work.
Timing
End of the on-site phase; July 24, 2026.
Evidence or responses
Introductory and advanced platform work, model and output images, observations, interpretation, lessons learned, school integration ideas, and saved reports.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

Evidence completion uses seven checklist items per platform, for a total of 28. The minimum target is 80%; strong evidence completion is 85%.

Competency uses five criteria per platform, each scored 0–3, for a total of 60. The criteria address components, safe execution, inputs and outputs, response interpretation, and school integration. Minimum competency is 70% (42/60); strong competency is 85% (51/60).

Meeting the target requires both minimum thresholds. Strong attainment requires at least 85% for both measures. Apply thresholds to unrounded percentages and use the full rubric descriptions when assigning scores.

T3 describes performance at the hardware checkpoint. A checkpoint score alone does not establish the amount of learning gained during the program.

Printable PDF · 4 pages

Download blank T3 PDF

T4

Participant Feedback Survey

Understand the educator experience, perceived confidence, practical challenges, and intended teaching uses.

Who contributes
Individual educator.
Timing
End of the on-site phase; July 24, 2026.
Evidence or responses
Overall and platform-specific feedback, retrospective confidence ratings, useful learning, challenges, suggested improvements, school plans, and support needs.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

Overall experience and platform items use the form’s 1–5 scales, with a not-applicable option where specified. Eight competencies receive retrospective before-and-after confidence ratings at the end of the on-site week.

Overall satisfaction and likelihood of recommending RAOP use separate 0–10 ratings. Keep these scales distinct and use valid responses for each item when summarizing results.

Retrospective confidence describes perceived development. Interpret it alongside evidence of understanding and performance. Proposed teaching timelines and student estimates remain plans until implementation is documented.

Printable PDF · 6 pages

Download blank T4 PDF

T5

Group Discussion and Classroom Translation

Gather educators’ reflections on the experience and their plans to adapt learning for school teaching.

Who contributes
Educators participate in discussion; the facilitator and recorder document it.
Timing
The closing group discussion took place July 24, 2026.
Evidence or responses
Examples of learning, delivery challenges, teaching ideas, resource needs, and recommendations for the next cycle.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

T5 is a qualitative discussion guide and recording tool. Educators contribute through conversation rather than an individual written submission; there is no numerical performance score.

Summaries preserve the meaning and range of views. Count distinct educators when describing a theme and keep training assistant observations separate from educator responses.

In the form title, classroom translation means adapting program learning for school use. Discussion of a teaching idea is distinct from evidence that it has been implemented.

Fillable facilitator and recorder PDF · 10 pages

Download blank T5 PDF

T6

Advisory Board Feedback

Review program design, evidence, school integration, recruitment, dissemination, and improvement priorities.

Who contributes
Advisory contributors and the RAOP meeting recorder.
Timing
The initial review, T6-1, took place July 7, 2026. T6-2 identifies the subsequent review of first-cycle outcomes.
Evidence or responses
Advisory observations, recommendations, the evidence considered, project-team responses, and follow-up actions.
Interpretation and Review Guidance

Advisory review is qualitative and serves program improvement. It is separate from educator performance assessment and the school implementation follow-up.

Record the recommendation, the project team’s decision or response, the responsible person, and the evidence needed to review progress.

The downloadable blank advisory review template organizes an initial or follow-up review. It contains no completed meeting feedback.

Fillable advisory review template · 3 pages

Download blank T6 PDF

Reviewing Evidence Consistently

  1. Use the published criteria. Review the relevant reports, observations, and rubric descriptions together. Record assistance provided and resolve scoring differences by referring to the evidence.
  2. Keep individual explanations. Pair work can use shared data, while each educator’s interpretation demonstrates their understanding of the question, conditions, result, and teaching connection.
  3. Interpret each measure separately. T1 readiness, T2 and T3 performance, T4 perceptions, T5 discussion, and T6 recommendations are not combined into one overall score.
  4. Connect findings to support. Identify what needs further explanation, practice, or clearer instructions. Record the action, responsible person, and evidence to revisit.

Public downloads on this page contain blank forms. Completed assessments and identifiable responses are kept separate from public resources. Program summaries use aggregate findings or appropriately de-identified examples.

Planned · October 2026

School Implementation Follow-Up

The project team plans to contact first-cycle educators to examine how they have used or adapted the summer experience. This follow-up will distinguish activities already implemented, activities being prepared, and barriers that have delayed use. It is separate from T6 advisory review.

  • Identify the course, curriculum unit, after-school setting, or club and the concept or platform involved.
  • Record the activity format, implementation status, date of use where applicable, and actual student participation.
  • Review available lesson materials, educator reflections, and de-identified examples of student work.
  • Identify adaptations, resource constraints, and support needed for continued teaching and inquiry.

Pre-service educators’ preparation for future teaching and implementation by educators in current school settings will be documented separately. Lesson use provides evidence of implementation; conclusions about student learning require an appropriate assessment of student work.

Use the school activity planning guide

Project Team and Advisory Contributions

Principal Investigator Dr. Fadel M. Lashhab and Co-Principal Investigators Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed and Dr. Katherine Picho coordinate the program and review its evidence. Dr. Picho contributes to assessment and evaluation. Dr. Ahmed contributes to facilitation and documentation of the group discussion and advisory review. Faculty and training assistants support setup, troubleshooting, supervised investigations, and evidence collection.

July 7, 2026 Advisory Review Contributors

Dr. Dustin J. Tyler

Case Western Reserve University

Mr. Peter Martin

Quanser

Dr. Almuatazbellah Boker

Virginia Tech

Dr. Girum Urgessa

Howard University

The initial review emphasized clear evidence of project success, school integration from the beginning of training, relevance to students, recruitment access, and dissemination. A subsequent review of first-cycle outcomes is planned to inform further refinement.

Using Evaluation to Refine the Curriculum

Across annual cycles, the team brings together assessment records, educator reflections, school implementation evidence, and advisory recommendations. Findings inform specific revisions to preparation, activities, instructions, and teaching support.

  1. Collect and organize. Identify the instrument, respondent group, activity, and relevant evidence.
  2. Interpret and review. Examine performance, reported experience, and school use in relation to the project objectives.
  3. Prioritize and revise. Record the proposed improvement, team decision, responsible person, and review point.
  4. Examine the next cycle. Use later activity evidence and educator feedback to assess the revised approach.

Curriculum connects these reviews to the learning modules and school adaptations. Activities provides platform investigations and examples of evidence to collect.

Follow RAOP & stay connected

Program updates, announcements, and educator highlights.

LinkedInXFacebookInstagram · Fadel LashhabYouTubeNews & media →

Instagram links to Fadel Lashhab’s profile. Some social platforms may require sign-in.