* Hubwieser et al. (2015) Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, Y., Jackova, J., and Jasute, E. (2015).  A Global Snapshot of Computer Science Education in K-12 Schools.  In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports - ITICSE-WGR ’15, pages 65–83, Vilnius, Lithuania. ACM Press.
  * Jensen et al. (2023) Jensen, K. J., Mirabelli, J. F., Kunze, A. J., Romanchek, T. E., and Cross, K. J. (2023).  Undergraduate student perceptions of stress and mental health in engineering culture.  International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1):30.
  * Jiang and Wong (2022) Jiang, S. and Wong, G. K. W. (2022).  Exploring age and gender differences of computational thinkers in primary school: A developmental perspective.  Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1):60–75.
  * Johnson and Kite (2020) Johnson, P. and Kite, B. (2020).  semTable: Structural Equation Modeling Tables.  R package version 1.8.
  * Jorgensen et al. (2022) Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., and Rosseel, Y. (2022).  semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling.  R package version 0.5-6.
  * Karpinski et al. (2021) Karpinski, Z., Biagi, F., and Di Pietro, G. (2021).  Computational Thinking, Socioeconomic Gaps, and Policy Implications. IEA Compass: Briefs in Education. Number 12.  International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
  * Kini and Podolsky (2016) Kini, T. and Podolsky, A. (2016).  Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research.  Technical report, Learning Policy Institute.  Publication Title: Learning Policy Institute ERIC Number: ED606426.
  * Klingner et al. (2001) Klingner, J. K., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., and Vaughn, S. (2001).  Examining the Schoolwide ”Spread” of Research-Based Practices.  Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4):221–234.
  * Kong et al. (2018) Kong, S.-C., Chiu, M. M., and Lai, M. (2018).  A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education.  Computers & Education, 127:178–189.
  * Kong and Lai (2022a) Kong, S.-C. and Lai, M. (2022a).  Effects of a teacher development program on teachers’ knowledge and collaborative engagement, and students’ achievement in computational thinking concepts.  British Journal of Educational Technology.
  * Kong and Lai (2022b) Kong, S.-C. and Lai, M. (2022b).  Validating a computational thinking concepts test for primary education using item response theory: An analysis of students’ responses.  Computers & Education, 187:104562.
  * Kyriazos (2018) Kyriazos, T. A. (2018).  Applied Psychometrics: Writing-Up a Factor Analysis Construct Validation Study with Examples.  Psychology, 9(11):2503–2530.
  * Ladd and Sorensen (2017) Ladd, H. F. and Sorensen, L. C. (2017).  Returns to Teacher Experience: Student Achievement and Motivation in Middle School.  Education Finance and Policy, 12(2):241–279.  Publisher: The MIT Press.
  * Li et al. (2020) Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., and Duschl, R. A. (2020).  Computational Thinking Is More about Thinking than Computing.  Journal for STEM Educ Res, 3(1):1–18.
  * Lishinski et al. (2022) Lishinski, A., Narvaiz, S., and Rosenberg, J. M. (2022).  Self-efficacy, Interest, and Belongingness – URM Students’ Momentary Experiences in CS1.  In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1, pages 44–60, Lugano and Virtual Event Switzerland. ACM.
  * Lüdecke (2022) Lüdecke, D. (2022).  sjstats: Statistical Functions for Regression Models (Version 0.18.2).
  * Malespina and Singh (2023) Malespina, A. and Singh, C. (2023).  Gender gaps in grades versus grade penalties: why grade anomalies may be more detrimental for women aspiring for careers in biological sciences.  International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1):13.
  * Mannila et al. (2014) Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., and Settle, A. (2014).  Computational Thinking in K-9 Education.  In Proc. Working Group Reports of the 2014 Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ. ITiCSE, ITiCSE-WGR ’14, pages 1–29, Uppsala, Sweden. ACM.
  * Mason and Rich (2019) Mason, S. L. and Rich, P. J. (2019).  Preparing Elementary School Teachers to Teach Computing, Coding, and Computational Thinking.  Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4):790–824.
  * Mason and Rich (2020) Mason, S. L. and Rich, P. J. (2020).  Development and analysis of the Elementary Student Coding Attitudes Survey.  Computers & Education, 153:103898.
  * Master et al. (2017) Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2017).  Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls.  Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160:92–106.
  * Master and Meltzoff (2020) Master, A. and Meltzoff, A. N. (2020).  Cultural Stereotypes and Sense of Belonging Contribute to Gender Gaps in STEM.  International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12(1):152–198.
  * Master et al. (2021) Master, A., Meltzoff, A. N., and Cheryan, S. (2021).  Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering.  PNAS, 118(48).
  * Mishra and Koehler (2006) Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. J. (2006).  Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.  Teachers college record, 108(6):1017–1054.
  * Nouri et al. (2020) Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., and Norén, E. (2020).  Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in K-9.  Education Inquiry, 11(1):1–17.
  * Olivier et al. (2019) Olivier, E., Archambault, I., De Clercq, M., and Galand, B. (2019).  Student Self-Efficacy, Classroom Engagement, and Academic Achievement: Comparing Three Theoretical Frameworks.  J Youth Adolescence, 48(2):326–340.
  * Opps and Yadav (2022) Opps, Z. and Yadav, A. (2022).  Who Belongs in Computer Science?  In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 383–389, Providence RI USA. ACM.
  * Ottenbreit-Leftwich and Yadav (2022) Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. and Yadav, A., editors (2022).  Computational Thinking in PreK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions.  ACM, New York, NY, USA.
  * Pantic et al. (2018) Pantic, K., Clarke-Midura, J., Poole, F., Roller, J., and Allan, V. (2018).  Drawing a computer scientist: stereotypical representations or lack of awareness?  Computer Science Education, 28(3):232–254.
  * Parker et al. (2022) Parker, M. C., Garcia, L., Kao, Y. S., Franklin, D., Krause, S., and Warschauer, M. (2022).  A pair of aces: An analysis of isomorphic questions on an elementary computing assessment.  In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1, ICER ’22, page 2–14, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  * Peel et al. (2022) Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., and Friedrichsen, P. (2022).  Algorithmic Explanations: an Unplugged Instructional Approach to Integrate Science and Computational Thinking.  J Sci Educ Technol, 31(4):428–441.
  * Pinheiro et al. (2022) Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., and R Core Team (2022).  nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models.  R package version 3.1-157.
  * Pinheiro and Bates (2000) Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. (2000).  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS.  Springer, New York.
  * Plante et al. (2013) Plante, I., de la Sablonnière, R., Aronson, J. M., and Théorêt, M. (2013).  Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and task values.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3):225–235.
  * Polat et al. (2021) Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S., and Sisman, B. (2021).  A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5):1965–1980.
  * Prudon (2015) Prudon, P. (2015).  Confirmatory Factor Analysis as a Tool in Research Using Questionnaires: A Critique,.  Comprehensive Psychology, 4:03.CP.4.10.
  * R Core Team (2019) R Core Team (2019).  R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.  R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  * Rachmatullah et al. (2022) Rachmatullah, A., Vandenberg, J., and Wiebe, E. (2022).  Toward More Generalizable CS and CT Instruments: Examining the Interaction of Country and Gender at the Middle Grades Level.  In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1, pages 179–185, Dublin Ireland. ACM.
  * Relkin et al. (2021) Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., and Bers, M. U. (2021).  Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children.  Computers & Education, 169:104222.
  * Revelle (2022) Revelle, W. (2022).  psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research.  Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.  R package version 2.2.5.
  * Risman (2018) Risman, B. J. (2018).  Gender as a Social Structure.  In Risman, B. J., Froyum, C. M., and Scarborough, W. J., editors, Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, pages 19–43. Springer International Publishing, Cham.
  * Roche (2019) Roche, M. (2019).  L’acceptation d’un nouvel enseignement à l’école primaire : les professeurs des écoles face à la programmation informatique.  thesis, Nantes.
  * Román-González et al. (2017) Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., and Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017).  Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test.  Computers in Human Behavior, 72:678–691.
  * Rosseel (2012) Rosseel, Y. (2012).  lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling.  Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2):1–36.
  * Ryan and Deci (2020) Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2020).  Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61:101860.
  * Schumacker and Lomax (2004) Schumacker, R. E. and Lomax, R. G. (2004).  A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.  psychology press.
  * Suessenbach et al. (2022) Suessenbach, F., Schröder, E., and Winde, M. (2022).  Informatik für alle! Informatikunterricht zur gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe und Chancengleichheit.  Policy report, Stifterverband.
  * Sullivan and Bers (2016) Sullivan, A. and Bers, M. U. (2016).  Girls, Boys, and Bots: Gender Differences in Young Children’s Performance on Robotics and Programming Tasks.  JITE:IIP, 15:145–165.
  * Sung et al. (2023) Sung, J., Lee, J. Y., and Chun, H. Y. (2023).  Short-term effects of a classroom-based STEAM program using robotic kits on children in South Korea.  International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1):26.
  * Swaid (2015) Swaid, S. I. (2015).  Bringing Computational Thinking to STEM Education.  Procedia Manufacturing, 3:3657–3662.
  * Toh (2016) Toh, Y. (2016).  Leading sustainable pedagogical reform with technology for student-centred learning: A complexity perspective.  J Educ Change, 17(2):145–169.
  * van den Akker (2003) van den Akker, J. (2003).  Curriculum Perspectives: An Introduction.  In van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., and Hameyer, U., editors, Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, pages 1–10. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
  * Vandenberg et al. (2021) Vandenberg, J., Rachmatullah, A., Lynch, C., Boyer, K. E., and Wiebe, E. (2021).  Interaction effects of race and gender in elementary CS attitudes: A validation and cross-sectional study.  International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29:100293.
  * Voogt et al. (2015) Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., and Yadav, A. (2015).  Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice.  Educ Inf Technol, 20(4):715–728.
  * Vygotsky and Cole (1978) Vygotsky, L. S. and Cole, M. (1978).  Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.  Harvard university press.
  * Wang and Hejazi Moghadam (2017) Wang, J. and Hejazi Moghadam, S. (2017).  Diversity Barriers in K-12 Computer Science Education: Structural and Social.  In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE ’17, pages 615–620, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  * Wang et al. (2020) Wang, M.-T., Guo, J., and Degol, J. L. (2020).  The Role of Sociocultural Factors in Student Achievement Motivation: A Cross-Cultural Review.  Adolescent Res Rev, 5(4):435–450.
  * Warner et al. (2022) Warner, J. R., Baker, S. N., Haynes, M., Jacobson, M., Bibriescas, N., and Yang, Y. (2022).  Gender, Race, and Economic Status along the Computing Education Pipeline: Examining Disparities in Course Enrollment and Wage Earnings.  In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1, pages 61–72, Lugano and Virtual Event Switzerland. ACM.
  * Webb et al. (2017) Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., and Sysło, M. M. (2017).  Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when?  Educ Inf Technol, 22(2):445–468.
  * Weintrop (2016) Weintrop, D. (2016).  Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms.  J Sci Educ Technol, page 21.
  * Weintrop et al. (2021) Weintrop, D., Wise Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., and McGee, S. (2021).  Assessing computational thinking: an overview of the field.  Comput. Sci. Educ., 31(2):113–116.
  * Wigfield and Eccles (2000) Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J. S. (2000).  Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1):68–81.
  * Wing (2006) Wing, J. M. (2006).  Computational Thinking.  Commun. ACM, 49(3):33–35.
  * Witherspoon et al. (2016) Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., and Baehr, E. C. (2016).  Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions.  International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1):18.
  * Xia and Yang (2019) Xia, Y. and Yang, Y. (2019).  RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods.  Behav Res, 51(1):409–428.
  * Zucker (2017) Zucker, K. J. (2017).  Epidemiology of gender dysphoria and transgender identity.  Sex. Health, 14(5):404–411.  Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING.

##  Appendix A Appendix for Study 1

###  A.1 Student demographics for study 1b

Table 10: Study 1b - Student Learning demographics for the data subset which
considers n=989 students with complete January & June test data and Adoption
data.

|  | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Total
---|---|---|---|---
| Metric | No CS education classes | CS-education classes | No CS education | CS-education |
Students | count | $71$ | $409$ | $113$ | $396$ | $989$
Classes | count | $4$ | $24$ | $6$ | $21$ | $55$
Activities |  M$\pm$SD | $0.00\pm 0.00$ | $3.29\pm 2.02$ | $0.00\pm 0.00$ | $3.12\pm 1.59$ |
| range | $[0;0]$ | $[1;9]$ | $[0;0]$ | $[1;6]$ |
Hours spent |  M$\pm$SD | $0.00\pm 0.00$ | $16.12\pm 11.25$ | $0.00\pm 0.00$ | $12.54\pm 6.80$ |
| range | $[0;0]$ | $[1;48]$ | $[0;0]$ | $[2;26]$ |
January cCTt Score |  M$\pm$SD | $12.37\pm 5.42$ | $12.21\pm 4.92$ | $14.51\pm 4.38$ | $14.78\pm 4.78$ |
| range | $[1;23]$ | $[1;23]$ | $[3;23]$ | $[1;24]$ |
June cCTt Score |  M$\pm$SD | $15.66\pm 4.26$ | $14.91\pm 4.75$ | $16.12\pm 3.92$ | $16.87\pm 4.51$ |
| range | $[3;23]$ | $[3;24]$ | $[2;23]$ | $[4;24]$ |

Please note that the grade 3 students in the ”control” group (i.e. those who
have not had access to CS education between the pre and the post tests) have
slightly higher scores than those in the CS-education classes but this
difference is not significant according to an ANOVA neither in the pre-test
($\Delta=0.158pts$, $p=0.8502$, Cohen’s $D=0.031$), nor in the post-test
($F(1)=0.77$, $p=0.38$, $\Delta=0.752pts$, Cohen’s $D=0.167$).

###  A.2 Hierarchical linear regression model for study 1b

Table 11: Hierarchical linear model for student learning (dependent variable: Delta between pre- and post- test scores, n=989) with significant variables in bold. $R^{2}=0.285$, $RMSE=2.89$, $AIC=5132$, $BIC=5225$, Log-Likelihood$=-2547$. Abbreviations: NCS=Number of CS activities taught. Random effects $\sigma^{2}=8.85$, $\tau_{class}=0.00$, $\tau_{school}=1.50$ for $55$ classes in $7$ schools | Estimate | 95% ci | Std.Error |  Degrees of Freedom | t-value | p-value
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
(Intercept) | $7.11$ | $[5.08,9.15]$ | $1.04$ |  $922$ | $6.86$ | $p<0.0001$
Pre-test score | $-0.379$ | $[-0.52,-0.24]$ | $0.0722$ |  $922$ | $-5.25$ | $p<0.0001$
Gender (girls) | $0.697$ | $[-1.62,3.01]$ | $1.18$ |  $922$ | $0.591$ | $0.555$
Grade (4) | $1.15$ | $[-1.97,4.27]$ | $1.55$ |  $45$ | $0.741$ | $0.462$
NCS | $0.122$ | $[-0.43,0.68]$ | $0.275$ |  $45$ | $0.442$ | $0.661$
Pre-test score:Gender (girls) | $-0.0221$ | $[-0.20,0.16]$ | $0.0906$ |  $922$ | $-0.243$ | $0.808$
Pre-test score:Grade (4) | $-0.0383$ | $[-0.24,0.16]$ | $0.101$ |  $922$ | $-0.377$ | $0.706$
Gender (girls):Grade (4) | $-0.880$ | $[-4.52,2.76]$ | $1.86$ |  $922$ | $-0.474$ | $0.636$
Pre-test score:NCS | $-0.00386$ | $[-0.04,0.04]$ | $0.0198$ |  $922$ | $-0.194$ | $0.846$
Gender (girls):NCS | $-0.346$ | $[-0.96,0.26]$ | $0.311$ |  $922$ | $-1.11$ | $0.267$
Grade 4:NCS | $-0.260$ | $[-1.22,0.70]$ | $0.478$ |  $45$ | $-0.544$ | $0.589$
Pre-test score:Gender (girls):Grade (4) | $0.0308$ | $[-0.23,0.29]$ | $0.131$ |  $922$ | $0.235$ | $0.814$
Pre-test score:Gender (girls):NCS | $0.0224$ | $[-0.03,0.07]$ | $0.0255$ |  $922$ | $0.876$ | $0.381$
Pre-test score:Grade (4):NCS | $0.00979$ | $[-0.05,0.07]$ | $0.0326$ |  $922$ | $0.300$ | $0.764$
Gender (girls):Grade (4):NCS | $0.195$ | $[-0.91,1.30]$ | $0.562$ |  $922$ | $0.347$ | $0.729$
Pre-test score:Gender (girls):Grade (4):NCS | $-0.0129$ | $[-0.09,0.07]$ | $0.0412$ |  $922$ | $-0.313$ | $0.755$

###  A.3 Analysis of variance on the student learning data for study 1a

Table 12: ANOVA of student learning data with Benjamini-Hochberg p-value correction and minimum effect size (Cohen’s D) that can be detected with the sample Independent Variable |  Sum of squares |  Degrees of Freedom | F |  Number of groups |  Residual Degrees of Freedom | p |  Min Cohen’s D |  Significant difference (effect size and Dunn’s post-hoc test for interaction effects)
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
time |  $3357$ |  $1$ | $137.9$ |  $2$ |  $2636$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.109$ |  Post-test $>$ Pre-test
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=+2.256pts$, $p<0.0001$, Cohen’s $D=0.457$
Grade |  $4007$ |  $1$ | $166.3$ |  $2$ |  $2636$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.109$ |  Grade 4$>$3
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=2.468pts$, Cohen’s $D=0.502$
Gender |  $199$ |  $1$ | $7.8$ |  $2$ |  $2636$ | $0.0052$ |  $0.109$ |  Boys $>$ Girls
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=0.551pts$, $p=0.0015$, Cohen’s $D=0.109$
time:Grade |  $7396$ |  $3$ | $108.0$ |  $4$ |  $2634$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.129$ |  See Fig. 3
time:Gender |  $3565$ |  $3$ | $48.9$ |  $4$ |  $2634$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.129$ |  Pre-test Boys $>$ Girls
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=0.664pts$, $p=0.0079$, Cohen’s $D=0.131$
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Post-test Boys $\sim$ Girls
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=0.438pts$, $p=0.0744$, Cohen’s $D=0.091$
Grade:Gender |  $4248$ |  $3$ | $58.9$ |  $4$ |  $2634$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.129$ |  Grade 3 Boys $>$ Girls
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=0.725pts$, $p=0.004$, Cohen’s $D=0.145$
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Grade 4 Boys $\sim$ Girls
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  $\Delta=0.469pts$, $p=0.0604$, Cohen’s $D=0.098$
time:Grade:Gender |  $7660$ |  $7$ | $48.1$ |  $8$ |  $2630$ | $0.0000$ |  $0.148$ |  See Fig. 3

##  Appendix B Appendix for Study 2

###  B.1 Structural Equation Model for the effect of student-related variables
on their perception of the discipline (study 2)

Table 13: SEM Perception Structural Model (n=2116, November 2021) Unstandardised Factor Loadings and Regression Slopes Factor Loadings |  | Estimate | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Discipline perception | Tablets | $0.83$ | $0.11$ | $7.37$ | $.000$ | $0.41$
| Robots | $0.76$ | $0.10$ | $7.85$ | $.000$ | $0.37$
| CS | $1.98$ | $0.70$ | $2.82$ | $.005$ | $0.81$
CS | CS interest | $0.17$ | $0.05$ | $3.25$ | $.001$ | $0.25$
| CS utility | $0.16$ | $0.05$ | $3.19$ | $.001$ | $0.25$
| CS self-efficacy | $0.20$ | $0.06$ | $3.31$ | $.001$ | $0.28$
Role Models | Role Models - Teacher | $0.17$ | $0.01$ | $15.60$ | $.000$ | $0.13$
| Role Models - Mom | $0.23$ | $0.01$ | $25.37$ | $.000$ | $0.28$
| Role Models - Dad | $0.30$ | $0.01$ | $32.03$ | $.000$ | $0.36$
| Role Models - Student | $0.13$ | $0.01$ | $15.47$ | $.000$ | $0.11$
| Role Models - Nobody | $-0.24$ | $0.01$ | $-22.85$ | $.000$ | $0.41$
Tablets | Tablets interest | $0.25$ | $0.03$ | $7.97$ | $.000$ | $0.22$
| Tablets utility | $0.30$ | $0.03$ | $9.29$ | $.000$ | $0.37$
| Tablets self-efficacy | $0.24$ | $0.03$ | $8.96$ | $.000$ | $0.31$
Robots | Robots interest | $0.44$ | $0.04$ | $10.70$ | $.000$ | $0.33$
| Robots utility | $0.36$ | $0.04$ | $9.36$ | $.000$ | $0.29$
| Robots self-efficacy | $0.49$ | $0.04$ | $11.34$ | $.000$ | $0.42$
Regression Slopes |  | Estimate | Std. Err. | Z | p |
Discipline perception | Role Models | $0.15$ | $0.05$ | $2.94$ | $.003$ |
CS | Role Models | $0.30$ | $0.12$ | $2.41$ | $.016$ |
| Number of CS education Periods | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-0.62$ | $.536$ |
Role Models | Number of CS education Periods | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-1.18$ | $.238$ |
| Number of ICT Instruction Periods | $-0.00$ | $0.00$ | $-0.13$ | $.896$ |
| Number of Robotics Instruction Periods | $0.03$ | $0.02$ | $1.22$ | $.224$ |
Tablets | Number of ICT Instruction Periods | $-0.00$ | $0.00$ | $-0.80$ | $.426$ |
Robots | Number of Robotics Instruction Periods | $0.00$ | $0.01$ | $0.06$ | $.949$ |
CS interest | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.20$ | $0.03$ | $-5.75$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $-0.02$ | $0.02$ | $-1.12$ | $.262$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.09$ | $0.03$ | $3.29$ | $.001$ |
CS utility | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.05$ | $0.03$ | $-1.60$ | $.110$ |
| Grade | $0.09$ | $0.02$ | $5.49$ | $.000$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.09$ | $0.02$ | $3.99$ | $.000$ |
CS self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.01$ | $0.04$ | $-0.33$ | $.741$ |
| Grade | $0.01$ | $0.02$ | $0.74$ | $.459$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.15$ | $0.03$ | $5.19$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Teacher | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $0.06$ | $0.02$ | $2.98$ | $.003$ |
| Grade | $-0.04$ | $0.01$ | $-3.78$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Mom | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $0.01$ | $0.02$ | $0.35$ | $.723$ |
| Grade | $-0.06$ | $0.01$ | $-5.84$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Dad | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.06$ | $0.02$ | $-2.84$ | $.005$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-1.07$ | $.286$ |
Role Models - Student | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $0.00$ | $0.02$ | $0.04$ | $.971$ |
| Grade | $-0.00$ | $0.01$ | $-0.56$ | $.572$ |
Role Models - Nobody | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $0.01$ | $0.02$ | $0.43$ | $.667$ |
| Grade | $-0.03$ | $0.01$ | $-3.70$ | $.000$ |
Tablets interest | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.09$ | $0.03$ | $-2.70$ | $.007$ |
| Grade | $-0.04$ | $0.02$ | $-2.45$ | $.014$ |
| General self-efficacy | $-0.00$ | $0.02$ | $-0.07$ | $.946$ |
Tablets utility | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.05$ | $0.03$ | $-1.66$ | $.097$ |
| Grade | $0.03$ | $0.01$ | $2.33$ | $.020$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.08$ | $0.02$ | $3.91$ | $.000$ |
Tablets self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.07$ | $0.03$ | $-2.55$ | $.011$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-1.07$ | $.283$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.06$ | $0.02$ | $3.29$ | $.001$ |
Robots interest | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.32$ | $0.04$ | $-7.32$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.03$ | $0.02$ | $1.44$ | $.151$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.09$ | $0.03$ | $2.50$ | $.012$ |
Robots utility | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.19$ | $0.04$ | $-4.95$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.07$ | $0.02$ | $3.78$ | $.000$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.16$ | $0.03$ | $4.98$ | $.000$ |
Robots self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0 girls=1) | $-0.25$ | $0.04$ | $-5.90$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.02$ | $0.02$ | $0.71$ | $.477$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.19$ | $0.03$ | $5.52$ | $.000$ |

###  B.2 Structural Equation Model for the Link between Perception and
Learning (study 2)

Table 14: SEM Perception and Background to Learning Structural Model ($n=1583$, November 2021) Unstandardised Regression Parameters ($\chi^{2}(124)=221.462$, $p<0.001$, $chi^{2}/df=1.79$, $CFI=0.951$, $TLI=0.923$, $RMSEA=0.022$, $ci=[0.017,0.027]$, $SRMR=0.026$). As CS utility did not correlate highly with interest and self-efficacy it was removed from this model. |  | Estimate | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
|  | Factor Loadings
Discipline perception | Tablets | $0.76$ | $0.10$ | $7.70$ | $.000$ | $0.37$
| Robots | $0.82$ | $0.11$ | $7.22$ | $.000$ | $0.41$
| CS | $1.51$ | $0.38$ | $3.93$ | $.000$ | $0.71$
CS | CS interest | $0.21$ | $0.05$ | $4.62$ | $.000$ | $0.28$
| CS self-efficacy | $0.27$ | $0.06$ | $4.57$ | $.000$ | $0.32$
Role Model | Role Models - Teacher | $0.18$ | $0.01$ | $14.77$ | $.000$ | $0.17$
| Role Models - Mom | $0.24$ | $0.01$ | $23.17$ | $.000$ | $0.30$
| Role Models - Dad | $0.30$ | $0.01$ | $29.01$ | $.000$ | $0.37$
| Role Models - Student | $0.14$ | $0.01$ | $13.72$ | $.000$ | $0.11$
| Role Models - Nobody | $-0.23$ | $0.01$ | $-19.99$ | $.000$ | $0.39$
Tablets | Tablets interest | $0.27$ | $0.04$ | $7.73$ | $.000$ | $0.24$
| Tablets utility | $0.36$ | $0.03$ | $10.34$ | $.000$ | $0.44$
| Tablets self-efficacy | $0.27$ | $0.03$ | $9.00$ | $.000$ | $0.36$
Robots | Robots interest | $0.42$ | $0.05$ | $8.92$ | $.000$ | $0.34$
| Robots utility | $0.36$ | $0.04$ | $8.38$ | $.000$ | $0.31$
| Robots self-efficacy | $0.46$ | $0.05$ | $9.50$ | $.000$ | $0.41$
|  | Regression Slopes
Discipline perception | Role Models | $0.17$ | $0.06$ | $2.94$ | $.003$ |
CS | Role Models | $0.13$ | $0.10$ | $1.33$ | $.182$ |
| Number of CS education periods | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-1.09$ | $.275$ |
CS interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.19$ | $0.04$ | $-4.85$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $-0.02$ | $0.02$ | $-1.05$ | $.292$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.09$ | $0.03$ | $3.08$ | $.002$ |
CS utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.06$ | $0.04$ | $-1.69$ | $.091$ |
| Grade | $0.05$ | $0.02$ | $2.71$ | $.007$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.10$ | $0.03$ | $3.76$ | $.000$ |
CS self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.05$ | $0.05$ | $1.10$ | $.270$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.02$ | $-0.63$ | $.527$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.14$ | $0.03$ | $4.15$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Teacher | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.08$ | $0.02$ | $3.30$ | $.001$ |
| Grade | $-0.06$ | $0.01$ | $-4.79$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Mom | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.00$ | $0.02$ | $-0.13$ | $.900$ |
| Grade | $-0.06$ | $0.01$ | $-5.55$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Dad | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.07$ | $0.03$ | $-2.56$ | $.010$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-1.16$ | $.247$ |
Role Models - Student | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.01$ | $0.02$ | $0.55$ | $.585$ |
| Grade | $-0.00$ | $0.01$ | $-0.23$ | $.821$ |
Role Models - Nobody | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.01$ | $0.02$ | $0.68$ | $.497$ |
| Grade | $-0.02$ | $0.01$ | $-2.36$ | $.018$ |
Tablets interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.07$ | $0.04$ | $-1.86$ | $.063$ |
| Grade | $-0.04$ | $0.02$ | $-2.08$ | $.037$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.01$ | $0.03$ | $0.37$ | $.713$ |
Tablets utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.05$ | $0.04$ | $-1.45$ | $.148$ |
| Grade | $0.02$ | $0.02$ | $1.10$ | $.270$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.07$ | $0.02$ | $2.97$ | $.003$ |
Tablets self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.06$ | $0.03$ | $-2.17$ | $.030$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.02$ | $-0.63$ | $.527$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.08$ | $0.02$ | $3.58$ | $.000$ |
Robots interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.35$ | $0.05$ | $-6.83$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.04$ | $0.03$ | $1.35$ | $.176$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.09$ | $0.04$ | $2.15$ | $.031$ |
Robots utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.16$ | $0.04$ | $-3.67$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.06$ | $0.02$ | $2.44$ | $.015$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.16$ | $0.04$ | $4.20$ | $.000$ |
Robots self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.21$ | $0.05$ | $-4.39$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $0.00$ | $0.03$ | $0.04$ | $.970$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.20$ | $0.04$ | $5.31$ | $.000$ |
Role Models | Number of CS education periods | $0.00$ | $0.00$ | $0.13$ | $.896$ |
Tablets | Number of ICT education periods | $-0.00$ | $0.00$ | $-0.52$ | $.601$ |
Robots | Number of Robotics education periods | $-0.01$ | $0.02$ | $-0.79$ | $.429$ |
Percentage ($/100$) |  |  |  |  |  | $0.136$
| CS perception | $-0.29$ | $1.31$ | $-0.22$ | $.824$ | $0.707$
| Tablets perception | $-0.04$ | $0.99$ | $-0.04$ | $.969$ | $0.372$
| Robots perception | $0.96$ | $1.11$ | $0.86$ | $.387$ | $0.411$
| General self-efficacy | $1.54$ | $0.69$ | $2.22$ | $.027$ |
| Gender (0=boys, 1=girls) | $-1.57$ | $1.06$ | $-1.47$ | $.141$ |
| Grade | $7.53$ | $0.53$ | $14.19$ | $.000$ |
| Number of CS education periods SI | $0.09$ | $0.13$ | $0.70$ | $.483$ |
| Number of ICT education periods | $-0.02$ | $0.08$ | $-0.20$ | $.842$ |
| Number of Robotics education periods | $-0.29$ | $0.42$ | $-0.68$ | $.496$ |

##  Appendix C Appendix for Study 3

###  C.1 Structural Equation Model between students in schools with and
without access to CS education (study 3)

Table 15: SEM Perception Structural Model (n=1640, June 2022) Unstandardised Factor Loadings, Regression Slopes and Intercepts |  | CS education | No CS education
---|---|---|---
|  | Factor Loadings
|  | Est. | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$ | Est. | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$
CS | CS interest | $0.43$ | $0.04$ | $10.38$ | $.000$ | $0.41$ | $0.43$ | $0.04$ | $10.38$ | $.000$ | $0.34$
| CS utility | $0.35$ | $0.04$ | $9.04$ | $.000$ | $0.24$ | $0.35$ | $0.04$ | $9.04$ | $.000$ | $0.24$
| CS self-efficacy | $0.36$ | $0.04$ | $8.96$ | $.000$ | $0.19$ | $0.36$ | $0.04$ | $8.96$ | $.000$ | $0.23$
Tablets | Tablets interest | $0.39$ | $0.04$ | $10.62$ | $.000$ | $0.38$ | $0.39$ | $0.04$ | $10.62$ | $.000$ | $0.35$
| Tablets utility | $0.37$ | $0.03$ | $11.48$ | $.000$ | $0.32$ | $0.37$ | $0.03$ | $11.48$ | $.000$ | $0.28$
| Tablets self-efficacy | $0.31$ | $0.03$ | $9.25$ | $.000$ | $0.28$ | $0.31$ | $0.03$ | $9.25$ | $.000$ | $0.39$
Robots | Robots interest | $0.55$ | $0.05$ | $11.24$ | $.000$ | $0.38$ | $0.55$ | $0.05$ | $11.24$ | $.000$ | $0.35$
| Robots utility | $0.48$ | $0.04$ | $10.79$ | $.000$ | $0.34$ | $0.48$ | $0.04$ | $10.79$ | $.000$ | $0.29$
| Robots self-efficacy | $0.59$ | $0.05$ | $11.43$ | $.000$ | $0.39$ | $0.59$ | $0.05$ | $11.43$ | $.000$ | $0.42$
Role Model | Role Models - Teacher | $0.19$ | $0.02$ | $12.67$ | $.000$ | $0.16$ | $0.19$ | $0.02$ | $12.67$ | $.000$ | $0.14$
| Role Models - Mom | $0.24$ | $0.01$ | $16.56$ | $.000$ | $0.26$ | $0.24$ | $0.01$ | $16.56$ | $.000$ | $0.24$
| Role Models - Dad | $0.23$ | $0.02$ | $14.73$ | $.000$ | $0.23$ | $0.23$ | $0.02$ | $14.73$ | $.000$ | $0.21$
| Role Models - Student | $0.16$ | $0.01$ | $12.38$ | $.000$ | $0.13$ | $0.16$ | $0.01$ | $12.38$ | $.000$ | $0.11$
| Role Models - Other | $0.16$ | $0.01$ | $11.12$ | $.000$ | $0.15$ | $0.16$ | $0.01$ | $11.12$ | $.000$ | $0.10$
| Role Models - Nobody | $-0.21$ | $0.01$ | $-13.91$ | $.000$ | $0.43$ | $-0.21$ | $0.01$ | $-13.91$ | $.000$ | $0.40$
|  | Regression Slopes
|  | Est | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$ | Est | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$
CS interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.24$ | $0.05$ | $-5.02$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.11$ | $0.05$ | $-2.14$ | $.032$ |
| Grade | $0.02$ | $0.02$ | $0.82$ | $.411$ |  | $-0.00$ | $0.03$ | $-0.04$ | $.971$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.02$ | $0.04$ | 0.55 | $.583$ |  | $0.10$ | $0.05$ | $2.09$ | $.036$ |
CS utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.03$ | $0.05$ | $-0.61$ | $.542$ |  | $-0.10$ | $0.05$ | $-1.75$ | $.080$ |
| Grade | $0.10$ | $0.03$ | $3.77$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.00$ | $0.03$ | $-0.03$ | $.975$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.07$ | $0.04$ | $1.69$ | $.092$ |  | $0.14$ | $0.04$ | $3.45$ | $.001$ |
CS self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.13$ | $0.06$ | $-2.15$ | $.031$ |  | $-0.08$ | $0.06$ | $-1.37$ | $.172$ |
| Grade | $0.02$ | $0.03$ | $0.54$ | $.592$ |  | $0.01$ | $0.03$ | $0.46$ | $.643$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.16$ | $0.05$ | $3.26$ | $.001$ |  | $0.20$ | $0.05$ | $3.80$ | $.000$ |
Tablets interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.13$ | $0.04$ | $-2.93$ | $.003$ |  | $0.09$ | $0.05$ | $1.83$ | $.067$ |
| Grade | $-0.03$ | $0.02$ | $-1.55$ | $.121$ |  | $-0.02$ | $0.02$ | $-0.90$ | $.367$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.04$ | $0.04$ | 0.87 | $.386$ |  | $0.01$ | $0.05$ | $0.22$ | $.824$ |
Tablets utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.03$ | $0.05$ | $-0.75$ | $.453$ |  | $-0.03$ | $0.06$ | $-0.51$ | $.611$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.02$ | $-0.63$ | $.529$ |  | $-0.04$ | $0.03$ | $-1.42$ | $.157$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.05$ | $0.03$ | $1.52$ | $.130$ |  | $0.07$ | $0.04$ | $1.66$ | $.098$ |
Tablets self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.18$ | $0.04$ | $-4.14$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.07$ | $0.04$ | $-1.71$ | $.087$ |
| Grade | $0.02$ | $0.02$ | $0.88$ | $.377$ |  | $0.00$ | $0.02$ | $0.18$ | $.858$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.08$ | $0.03$ | $2.41$ | $.016$ |  | $0.08$ | $0.04$ | 1.93 | $.054$ |
Robots interest | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.33$ | $0.07$ | $-4.89$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.45$ | $0.08$ | $-5.72$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $-0.03$ | $0.03$ | $-1.18$ | $.238$ |  | $-0.06$ | $0.04$ | $-1.59$ | $.111$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.02$ | $0.04$ | $0.43$ | $.667$ |  | $0.09$ | $0.06$ | $1.53$ | $.127$ |
Robots utility | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.12$ | $0.06$ | $-2.06$ | $.040$ |  | $-0.03$ | $0.07$ | $-0.46$ | $.643$ |
| Grade | $-0.03$ | $0.03$ | $-1.25$ | $.212$ |  | $-0.09$ | $0.04$ | $-2.61$ | $.009$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.01$ | $0.04$ | $0.37$ | $.712$ |  | $0.11$ | $0.05$ | $2.01$ | $.044$ |
Robots self-efficacy | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.27$ | $0.07$ | $-3.94$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.41$ | $0.07$ | $-5.72$ | $.000$ |
| Grade | $-0.05$ | $0.03$ | $-1.81$ | $.070$ |  | $-0.01$ | $0.04$ | $-0.31$ | $.753$ |
| General self-efficacy | $0.11$ | $0.05$ | 2.14 | $.033$ |  | $0.14$ | $0.06$ | $2.42$ | $.016$ |
Role Models - Teacher | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.10$ | $0.04$ | $2.57$ | $.010$ |  | $0.11$ | $0.04$ | $3.16$ | $.002$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.02$ | $-0.64$ | $.522$ |  | $0.00$ | $0.02$ | $0.27$ | $.789$ |
Role Models - Mom | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.03$ | $0.04$ | $0.74$ | $.458$ |  | $0.01$ | $0.04$ | $0.21$ | $.833$ |
| Grade | $-0.06$ | $0.02$ | $-3.73$ | $.000$ |  | $-0.07$ | $0.02$ | $-4.62$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Dad | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.07$ | $0.04$ | $-1.82$ | $.069$ |  | $-0.01$ | $0.03$ | $-0.19$ | $.849$ |
| Grade | $-0.04$ | $0.02$ | $-2.32$ | $.020$ |  | $-0.05$ | $0.02$ | $-2.98$ | $.003$ |
Role Models - Student | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.05$ | $0.03$ | $-1.38$ | $.169$ |  | $-0.07$ | $0.04$ | $-1.87$ | $.062$ |
| Grade | $0.03$ | $0.01$ | $2.13$ | $.033$ |  | $-0.04$ | $0.02$ | $-2.74$ | $.006$ |
Role Models - Other | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.05$ | $0.04$ | $1.43$ | $.154$ |  | $-0.01$ | $0.03$ | $-0.19$ | $.848$ |
| Grade | $0.09$ | $0.01$ | $5.98$ | $.000$ |  | $0.00$ | $0.02$ | $0.09$ | $.929$ |
Role Models - Nobody | Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $-0.02$ | $0.02$ | $-1.00$ | $.318$ |  | $0.00$ | $0.02$ | $0.04$ | $.969$ |
| Grade | $-0.01$ | $0.01$ | $-0.73$ | $.466$ |  | $0.03$ | $0.01$ | $3.10$ | $.002$ |
Table 15: (Continued) SEM Perception Structural Model (n=1640, June 2022) Unstandardised Factor Loadings, Regression Slopes and Intercepts | CS education | No CS education
---|---|---
| Intercepts
| Est | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$ | Est | Std. Err. | Z | p | $R^{2}$
CS interest | $1.59$ | $0.14$ | $11.15$ | $.000$ |  | $1.53$ | $0.14$ | $10.81$ | $.000$ |
CS utility | $1.02$ | $0.16$ | $6.27$ | $.000$ |  | $1.45$ | $0.13$ | $10.87$ | $.000$ |
CS self-efficacy | $1.19$ | $0.17$ | $7.12$ | $.000$ |  | $1.29$ | $0.16$ | $7.93$ | $.000$ |
Tablets interest | $1.88$ | $0.13$ | $14.00$ | $.000$ |  | $1.74$ | $0.13$ | $13.28$ | $.000$ |
Tablets utility | $1.64$ | $0.14$ | $11.98$ | $.000$ |  | $1.67$ | $0.13$ | $13.03$ | $.000$ |
Tablets self-efficacy | $1.62$ | $0.11$ | $14.19$ | $.000$ |  | $1.69$ | $0.11$ | 14.81 | $.000$ |
Robots interest | $1.71$ | $0.15$ | $11.19$ | $.000$ |  | $1.45$ | $0.16$ | $9.14$ | $.000$ |
Robots utility | $1.66$ | $0.14$ | $11.81$ | $.000$ |  | $1.57$ | $0.17$ | $9.42$ | $.000$ |
Robots self-efficacy | $1.51$ | $0.16$ | $9.27$ | $.000$ |  | $1.19$ | $0.16$ | 7.59 | $.000$ |
Role Models - Teacher | $0.46$ | $0.08$ | $6.10$ | $.000$ |  | $0.36$ | $0.08$ | 4.66 | $.000$ |
Role Models - Mom | $0.71$ | $0.08$ | $9.46$ | $.000$ |  | $0.81$ | $0.07$ | $11.28$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Dad | $0.77$ | $0.07$ | $10.50$ | $.000$ |  | $0.78$ | $0.07$ | $11.26$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Student | $0.19$ | $0.07$ | $2.71$ | $.007$ |  | $0.58$ | $0.08$ | 7.52 | $.000$ |
Role Models - Other | $0.01$ | $0.07$ | $0.18$ | $.855$ |  | $0.32$ | $0.08$ | $4.22$ | $.000$ |
Role Models - Nobody | $0.15$ | $0.04$ | $3.43$ | $.001$ |  | $0.02$ | $0.04$ | $0.57$ | $.566$ |
Gender (boys=0, girls=1) | $0.49$ | $0.02$ | $28.17$ | $.000$ |  | $0.49$ | $0.02$ | $28.09$ | $.000$ |
Grade | $4.61$ | $0.04$ | $115.25$ | $.000$ |  | $4.63$ | $0.04$ | $120.76$ | $.000$ |
General self-efficacy | $1.48$ | $0.03$ | $59.29$ | $.000$ |  | $1.47$ | $0.03$ | $50.86$ | $.000$ |