skip to main content
research-article

Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Pre-College Computing Activities on Choices of Major

Published:09 June 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A lack of diversity in the computing field has existed for several decades, and although female participation in computing remains low, outreach programs attempting to address the situation are now quite numerous. To begin to understand whether or not these past activities have had long-term impact, we conducted a systematic literature review. Upon discovering that longitudinal studies were lacking, we investigated whether undergraduate students believed that their participation in computing activities prior to college contributed to their decision to major in a computing field. From the 770 participants in the study, we discovered that approximately 20% of males and 24% of females who were required to participate in computing activities chose a computing or related major, but that males perceived that the activity had a greater affect on their decision (20%) than females (6.9%). Females who participated in an outreach activity were more likely to major in computing. Compared with females who chose to major in computing, females who did not were less likely to indicate that the majority of students participating in activities were boys and that they were a welcome part of the groups. Results also showed that female participants who do not ultimately major in computing have a much stronger negative perception of the outreach activities than male participants who also chose a non-computing major. Although many computing outreach activities are designed to diversify computing, it may be the case that, overall, boys receive these activities more favorably than girls, although requiring participation yields approximately the same net positive impact.

References

  1. ACM-W. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://women.acm.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebras. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.bebraschallenge.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lenore Blum and Carol Frieze. 2005. In a more balanced computer science environment, similarity is the difference and computer science is the winner. Computing Research News. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://archive.cra.org/CRN/articles/may05/blum.frieze.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sarah Buhr. 2014. Girls Who Code expands to get more young women in computer science majors. TechCrunch. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/14/girls-who-code-expands-to-get-more-young-women-in-computer-science-majors/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Campbell and J. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Code.org. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.code.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Code Week Eu. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://codeweek.eu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. CompuGirls. 2015. COMPUGIRLS: Awakening Girls’ Passion for Social Justice and Technology. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from https://universitydesign.asu.edu/db/compugirls-awakening-girls2019-passion-for-social-justice-and-technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. W. Creswell. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Orpheus S. L. Crutchfield, Christopher D. Harrison, Guy Haas, Daniel D. Garcia, Sheila M. Humphreys, Colleen M. Lewis, and Peter Khooshabeh. 2011. Berkeley foundation for opportunities in information technology: A decade of broadening participation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, 3, Article No. 15. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2037276.2037279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Teresa Dahlberg, Tiffany Barnes, Kim Buch, and Audrey Rorrer. 2011. The STARS alliance: Viable strategies for broadening participation in computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, 3, Article No. 18. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2037276.2037282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Peggy Doerschuk, Jiangjiang Liu, and Judith Mann. 2010. INSPIRED broadening participation in computing: Most successful strategies and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. T2H1--T2H6. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5673333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Exploring Computer Science. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.exploringcs.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2014. Massively Expanded EU Code Week, 11--17 October 2014. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14--1117_en.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Rachel Feltman. 2015. Gender gap: Women welcome in ‘hard working’ fields, but ‘genius’ fields are male-dominated, study finds. Washington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/15/gender-gap-women-welcome-in-hard-working-fields-but-genius-fields-are-male-dominated-study-finds/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gary J. Gates. 2011. How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? Williams Institute. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. GraphPad. 2015. Testing for Equivalence with confidence intervals or P values. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/6/statistics/index.htm?stat_testing_for_equivalence_with_c.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mark Guzdial, Barbara J. Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2012. A statewide survey on computing education pathways and influences: Factors in broadening participation in computing. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’12). ACM, New York, NY, 143--150. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2361276.2361304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mark Guzdial, Barbara Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2014. Georgia computes! An intervention in a US state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 2, Article No. 13. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2602488. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Phil Johnson. 2015. Female programmers are less confident than male programmers. IT World. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.itworld.com/article/2867838/article.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Khalid S. Khan, Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen, and Gerd Antes. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, 3, 118--121. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539417/.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Maria Klawe. 2015. MOOCs aim to strengthen computer science and physics teaching in middle and high schools. Forbes. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mariaklawe/2015/01/13/moocs-aim-to-strengthen-computer-science-and-physics-teaching-in-middle-and-high-schools/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Selena Larson. 2014. Why so few women are studying computer science. Readwrite.com. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-why-so-few.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Carrie Liston, Karen Peterson, and Vicky Ragan. 2008. Evaluating Promising Practices in Informal Information Technology (IT) Education for Girls. Phase III: Women in IT—Survey Results. Available at https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/ncwit-gsusaphaseiiireport_final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mark Hugo Lopez and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. 2014. Women's college enrollment gains leave men behind. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jane Margolis. 2008. Stuck in the Shallow End. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Elizabeth Martin. 2006. Survey Questionnaire Construction. Research Report Series (Survey Methodology #2006-13). Available at https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rsm2006-13.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. 2015. Does outreach impact choices of major for underrepresented undergraduate students? In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’15). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Alvarado E. Monge, Cameron L. Fadjo, Beth A. Quinn, and Lecia J. Barker. 2015. EngageCSEdu. ACM Inroads 6, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Alison Derbenwick Miller. 2014. Transforming the conversation on women in computer science. TechCrunch. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/20/transforming-the-conversation-on-women-in-computer-science/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. National Center for Women and Information Technology. 2015. Home Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from https://www.ncwit.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. National Public Radio. 2014. Planet Money: When Women Stopped Coding. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. National Science Foundation. 2011. Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966--2010. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/content.cfm?pub_id=4266&id==2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. National Science Foundation. 2013. Increasing Accessibility to Computer Science Education Across the U.S. Retrieved April 26, 2016 from http://www.nsf.gov/mobile/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=129882.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Linda J. Sax, Shannon K. Gilmartin, and Alyssa N. Bryant. 2003. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in Web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44, 4, 409--432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. C. Simard, C. Stephenson, and D. Kosaraju. 2010. Addressing core equity issues in K-12 computer science education: Identifying barriers and sharing strategies. Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.csta.acm.org/Communications/sub/DocsPresentationFiles/ABI-CSTAEquityFinal.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Marielena Ivory. 2015. Gender differences in factors influencing pursuit of computer science and related fields. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 117--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. S. Wellek. 2002. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Chapman & Hall, London, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. P. Wessa. 2014. Chi-Squared Test, McNemar Test, and Fisher Exact Test (v1.0.8) in Free Statistics Software (v1.1.23-r7). Office for Research Development and Education. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.wessa.net/rwasp_chi_squared_tests.wasp/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Pre-College Computing Activities on Choices of Major

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
      ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 16, Issue 4
      October 2016
      120 pages
      EISSN:1946-6226
      DOI:10.1145/2954340
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      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 the author(s) 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: 9 June 2016
      • Accepted: 1 February 2016
      • Revised: 1 January 2016
      • Received: 1 February 2015
      Published in toce Volume 16, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader