skip to main content
article

Voices of women in a software engineering course: reflections on collaboration

Published: 01 March 2004 Publication History

Abstract

Those science, mathematics, and engineering faculty who are serious about making the education they offer as available to their daughters as to their sons are, we posit, facing the prospect of dismantling a large part of its traditional pedagogical structure, along with the assumptions and practice which support it. [Seymour and Hewett 1997].Prior research indicates that female students can be concerned about the insularity of working alone for long periods of time, as they perceive to be the case with computer science and information technology careers. We studied an advanced undergraduate software engineering course at North Carolina State University to characterize the potential of collaborative learning environments created via pair-programming and agile software development to ameliorate this concern. A collective case study of three representative women in the course revealed that they held the following four themes in common: working with others; productivity; confidence; and interest in IT careers. Three conjectures concerning collaboration emerged from our study, including the importance of face-to-face meetings, an increased confidence among women based on product quality, and a reduction in the amount of time spent on assignments. While our findings are not generalized to early undergraduate courses, the young women we studied were at a critical junction in deciding whether to pursue a career in IT upon their near-term graduation. Additionally, we propose a model for future testing with both males and females that connects these three factors with an increased interest in IT careers.

References

[1]
Aauw Educational Foundation. 2000. Educating girls in the new computer age. http://www.aauw.org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/TechSavvy.pdf.
[2]
Arnold, K. 1994. Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In Women's Lives through Time: Educated Women in the Twentieth Century. K. Hulbert and D. Schuster, eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 393--414.
[3]
Basili, V. R. and Turner, A. J. 1975. Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 1, 4 (1975), 266--270.
[4]
Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[5]
Berenson, S., Slaten, K., and Williams, L. 2004. Collaboration through agile software development practices: Student interviews and lab observations. Tech. Rep. TR 2004-12, Dept. of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
[6]
Bevan, J., Werner, L., and Mcdowell, C. 2002. Guidelines for the user of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Kentucky), 100--107.
[7]
Boehm, B. 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Computer 35, 1(2002), 64--69.
[8]
Cockburn, A. 2001. Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
[9]
Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. 2000. The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme Programming Examined. G. Succi and M. Marchesi, eds. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 223--248.
[10]
Cohoon, J. M. 2001. Toward improving female retention in the computer science major. Communications of the ACM 44, 5 (2001), 108--114.
[11]
Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[12]
Eisenhart, M. and Finkel, E. 1998. Women's Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Freeman, P. and Aspray, W. 1999. The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States. Computing Research Association, Washington, DC.
[13]
Hanna, G. Ed. 1996. Towards Gender Equity in Mathematics Education. Kluwer, Boston, MA.
[14]
Highsmith, J. 2002. Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
[15]
Holland, D. and Eisenhart, M. 1990. Educated in Romance: Women, Achievement, and College Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Huberman, A. and Miles, M. 2002. The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[16]
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. 1991. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book, Edina, MN.
[17]
Katira, N. 2004. Understanding the compatibility of pair programmers. Masters thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
[18]
Kerr, B. 1994. Smart Girls. Gifted Psychology, Scottsdale, AZ.
[19]
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
[20]
Mackavey, M. and Levin, R. 1998. Shared Purpose: Working Together to Build Strong Families and High-Performance Companies. AMACOM, New York.
[21]
Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 1997. Geek mythology and attracting undergraduate women to computer science. Report to the Joint National Conference in Engineering Program Advocates Network and the National Association of Minority Engineering Program Administrator, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
[22]
Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[23]
Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2002. The effect of pair programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group of Computer Science Educators. ACM Press, New York, 38--42.
[24]
Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance of computer science related majors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (Portland, OR), 602--607.
[25]
Nagappan, N. L., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C. L., and Balik, S. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34TH SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 359--362.
[26]
Nespor, J. 1994. Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time and Curriculum in Undergraduate Physics and Management. Falmer, Washington, DC.
[27]
Palmer, S. and Felsing, J. 2002. A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[28]
. Schwaber, K and Beedle, M. 2002. Agile Software Development with SCRUM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[29]
Seymour, E. and Hewett, N. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview, Boulder, CO.
[30]
Srikanth, H., Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Miller, C., and Balik, S. 2004. On pair rotation in the computer science course. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Norfolk, VA). 144--149.
[31]
Smith, B. and Lancaster, A. 1995. The growth in commitment to cooperative education in a computer science program. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers 15, 2 (1995), 71--79.
[32]
Vouk, M., Berenson, S., and Michael, J. 2004. Women and information technology (WIT): A comparative study of young women from middle grades through high school and into college. In Proceedings of the Annual Principal Investigators Meeting of the ITWF Program, National Science Foundation (University of Pennsylvania, PA).
[33]
Waite, M., Jackson, M., Diwan, A., and Leonardi, P. 2004. Student culture vs. group work in computer science. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Norfolk, VA). ACM Press, New York, 12--16.
[34]
Werner, L., Hanks, B., and Mcdowell, C. 2005. Female computer science students who pair program persist. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing. In this issue.
[35]
Wertsch, J. L. and Toma, C. 1995. Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In Constructivism in Education. L. Steffe and J. Gale, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 159--174.
[36]
Williams, L.A. 2000. The collaborative software process. Ph.D dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Williams, L., Kessler, R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R. 2000. Strengthening the case for pair-programming. IEEE Software 17, 4 (2000), 19--25.
[37]
Williams, L. and Kessler, R. 2003. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
[38]
Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K, Ferzli, M., and Miller, C. 2002a. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12, 3 (2002), 197--212.
[39]
Williams, L., Yang, K.,Wiebe, E., Ferzli, M., and Miller, C. 2002b. Pair programming in an introductory computer science course: Initial results and recommendations. In Proceedings of the OOPSLA Educator's Symposium (Seattle, WA). 20--26.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Computing Education Interventions to Increase Gender Equity from 2000 to 2020: A Systematic Literature ReviewReview of Educational Research10.3102/00346543241241536Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Diversity’s Double-Edged Sword: Analyzing Race’s Effect on Remote Pair Programming InteractionsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/369960134:1(1-45)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Human-Centered Interventions to Empower Gender Diversity in Software EngineeringProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3661167.3661182(494-499)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Voices of women in a software engineering course: reflections on collaboration

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Journal on Educational Resources in Computing
    Journal on Educational Resources in Computing  Volume 4, Issue 1
    Special Issue on Gender-Balancing Computing Education
    March 2004
    71 pages
    ISSN:1531-4278
    EISSN:1531-4278
    DOI:10.1145/1060071
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 March 2004
    Published in JERIC Volume 4, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Agile software development
    2. active learning
    3. collaboration
    4. collaborative learning
    5. pair-programming
    6. pedagogy

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)49
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Computing Education Interventions to Increase Gender Equity from 2000 to 2020: A Systematic Literature ReviewReview of Educational Research10.3102/00346543241241536Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Diversity’s Double-Edged Sword: Analyzing Race’s Effect on Remote Pair Programming InteractionsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/369960134:1(1-45)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Human-Centered Interventions to Empower Gender Diversity in Software EngineeringProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3661167.3661182(494-499)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
    • (2023)Visibility of women in the software development life cycleJournal of Computer Science and Technology10.24215/16666038.23.e1523:2(e15)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
    • (2023)An Exploration of Sources Fostering First-Year Engineering Students’ Academic Well-Being in a PBL EnvironmentIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2023.327335266:5(421-430)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
    • (2023)The ABC of Pair Programming: Gender-Dependent Attitude, Behavior and Code of Young LearnersProceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training10.1109/ICSE-SEET58685.2023.00018(115-127)Online publication date: 17-May-2023
    • (2023)Gender Differences in the Group Dynamics of Smaller CS1 Project Groups2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343369(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
    • (2022)Benefits and Difficulties of Gender Diversity on Software Development Teams: A Qualitative StudyProceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3555228.3555253(21-30)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2022
    • (2022)Comfortable Cohorts and Tractable TeamsProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499353(717-723)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
    • (2022)Gender differences in engineering students’ understanding of professional competences and career development in the transition from education to workInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education10.1007/s10798-022-09759-w33:3(1121-1142)Online publication date: 8-Aug-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media