skip to main content
research-article

After-Hours Learning: Workshops for Professional Women to Learn Web Development

Published:09 March 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many initiatives have focused on attracting girls and young women (K-12 or college) to computer science education. However, professional women who never learned to program have been largely ignored, despite the fact that such individuals may have many opportunities to benefit from enhanced skills and attitudes about computer programming. To provide a convenient learning space for this population, we created and evaluated the impacts of a nine-week web development workshop that was carefully designed to be both comfortable and engaging for this population. In this article, we report how the professionals’ attitudes and skills grew over the course of the workshop and how they now expect to integrate these skills and attitudes into their everyday lives.

References

  1. Monica Adya and Kate M. Kaiser. 2005. Early determinants of women in the IT workforce: A model of girls’ career choices. Information Technology & People 18, 3 (2005), 230--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Sheikh Iqbal Ahamed, Dennis Brylow, Rong Ge, Praveen Madiraju, Stephen J. Merrill, Craig A. Struble, and James P. Early. 2010. Computational thinking for the sciences: A three day workshop for high school science teachers. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 42--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Marzieh Ahmadzadeh, Dave Elliman, and Colin Higgins. 2007. The impact of improving debugging skill on programming ability. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 6, 4 (2007), 72--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Linda Argote and Ella Miron-Spektor. 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science 22, 5 (2011), 1123--1137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chulakorn Aritajati, Mary Beth Rosson, Joslenne Pena, Dana Cinque, and Ana Segura. 2015. A socio-cognitive analysis of summer camp outcomes and experiences. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 581--586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Petek Askar and David Davenport. 2009. An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java Programming among engineering students.Online Submission 8, 1 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Albert Bandura. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37, 2 (1982), 122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lecia J. Barker and Kathy Garvin-Doxas. 2004. Making visible the behaviors that influence learning environment: A qualitative exploration of computer science classrooms. Computer Science Education 14, 2 (2004), 119--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Lecia Jane Barker, Kathy Garvin-Doxas, and Michele Jackson. 2002. Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34. ACM, 43--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lecia J. Barker, Melissa O’Neill, and Nida Kazim. 2014. Framing classroom climate for student learning and retention in computer science. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 319--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jill Beard and Penny Dale. 2010. Library design, learning spaces and academic literacy. New Library World 111, 11/12 (2010), 480--492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Laura Beckwith and Margaret Burnett. 2004. Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments? In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages-Human Centric Computing. IEEE, 107--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mary Field Belenky, Blythe M. Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. Vol. 15. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradford S. Bell and Steve W. J. Kozlowski. 2010. Toward a theory of learner-centered training design: An integrative framework of active learning. In SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations, S. W. J. Kozlowski and E. Salas (Eds.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. D. Christopher Brooks. 2011. Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 42, 5 (2011), 719--726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. B. J. Bryson and Victoria A. Bennet-Anyikwa. 2003. The teaching and learning experience: Deconstructing and creating space using a feminist pedagogy. Race, Gender & Class (2003), 131--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. United States Census Bureau.2016 (accessed October 6, 2019). A Look at the Future of the U.S. Labor Force to 2060. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/a-look-at-the-future-of-the-us-labor-force-to-2060/pdf/a-look-at-the-future-of-the-us-labor-force-to-2060.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Alison A. Carr, David H. Jonassen, Mary Ellen Litzinger, and Rose M. Marra. 1998. Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology (1998), 5--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Erin Cech and Michelle Pham. 2017. Queer in STEM organizations: Workplace disadvantages for LGBT employees in STEM related federal agencies. Social Sciences 6, 1 (2017), 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Polina Charters, Michael J. Lee, Amy J. Ko, and Dastyni Loksa. 2014. Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: The effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 653--658.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sapna Cheryan, Allison Master, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 2015. Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015), 49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Sapna Cheryan, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Saenam Kim. 2011. Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education 57, 2 (2011), 1825--1835.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, and Claude M. Steele. 2009. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, 6 (2009), 1045.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Sapna Cheryan, John Oliver Siy, Marissa Vichayapai, Benjamin J. Drury, and Saenam Kim. 2011. Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science 2, 6 (2011), 656--664.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Parmit K. Chilana, Celena Alcock, Shruti Dembla, Anson Ho, Ada Hurst, Brett Armstrong, and Philip J. Guo. 2015. Perceptions of non-CS majors in intro programming: The rise of the conversational programmer. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 251--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Parmit K. Chilana, Rishabh Singh, and Philip J. Guo. 2016. Understanding conversational programmers: A perspective from the software industry. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1462--1472.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Luigina Ciolfi, Breda Gray, and Anthony D’Andrea. 2012. Social aspects of place experience in mobile work/life practices. In From Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative Systems: Results and Open Challenges. Springer, 183--196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins. 1995. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly (1995), 189--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Amanda B. Diekman, Elizabeth R. Brown, Amanda M. Johnston, and Emily K. Clark. 2010. Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science 21, 8 (2010), 1051--1057.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Martha Morrison Dore. 1994. Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education 30, 1 (1994), 97--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Brian Dorn and Mark Guzdial. 2006. Graphic designers who program as informal computer science learners. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, 127--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Paul Dourish. 2006. Re-space-ing place: Place and space ten years on. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 299--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Thomas M. Duffy and David H. Jonassen. 2013. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Anna Duran and Denise Lopez. 2015. Women from diverse backgrounds in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professions: Retention and career development. In Impact of Diversity on Organization and Career Development. IGI Global, 214--251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Barbara Ericson, Mark Guzdial, and Maureen Biggers. 2005. A model for improving secondary CS education. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 37. ACM, 332--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Barbara J. Ericson, Kantwon Rogers, Miranda Parker, Briana Morrison, and Mark Guzdial. 2016. Identifying design principles for CS teacher Ebooks through design-based research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 191--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Eva Eriksson, Thomas Riisgaard Hansen, and Andreas Lykke-Olesen. 2007. Reclaiming public space: Designing for public interaction with private devices. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. 31--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Elizabeth A. Eschenbach, Eileen M. Cashman, Alisha A. Waller, and Susan M. Lord. 2005. Incorporating feminist pedagogy into the engineering learning experience. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference. IEEE, F4H–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. John Field. 2000. Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order. ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Catherine Twomey Fosnot. 2013. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado, and Daniela Rosner. 2015. Hacking culture, not devices: Access and recognition in feminist hackerspaces. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 56--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. D. Randy Garrison. 1997. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly 48, 1 (1997), 18--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Joanna Goode, Jane Margolis, and Gail Chapman. 2014. Curriculum is not enough: The educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 493--498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sandy Graham and Celine Latulipe. 2003. CS girls rock: Sparking interest in computer science and debunking the stereotypes. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35. ACM, 322--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Philip J. Guo. 2017. Older adults learning computer programming: Motivations, frustrations, and design opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 7070--7083.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Google Inc. and Gallup Inc.2016. Diversity Gaps in Computer Science: Exploring the Underrepresentation of Girls, Blacks and Hispanics. http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/diversity-gaps-in-computer-science-report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Judith E. Jacobs. 2010. Feminist pedagogy and mathematics. In Theories of Mathematics Education. Springer, 435--446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Peter Jamieson. 2009. The serious matter of informal learning. Planning for Higher Education 37, 2 (2009), 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ben Jelen, Anne Freeman, Mina Narayanan, Kate M. Sanders, James Clawson, and Katie A. Siek. 2019. Craftec: Engaging older adults in making through a craft-based toolkit system. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 577--587.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. William Jobe, Christian Östlund, and Lars Svensson. 2014. MOOCs for professional teacher development. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1580--1586.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 37, 2 (2005), 83--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Paul Legris, John Ingham, and Pierre Collerette. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 40, 3 (2003), 191--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Dastyni Loksa, Amy J. Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J. Mendez, and Margaret M. Burnett. 2016. Programming, problem solving, and self-awareness: Effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1449--1461.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Susan Loucks-Horsley, Katherine E. Stiles, Susan Mundry, Nancy Love, and Peter W. Hewson. 2009. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Corwin Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Wendy Luttrell. 1989. Working-class women’s ways of knowing: Effects of gender, race, and class. Sociology of Education (1989), 33--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Jane Margolis and Allen Fisher. 2006. Geek mythology and attracting undergraduate women to computer science. Women in Engineering ProActive Network (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Jane Margolis and Joanna Goode. 2016. Ten lessons for computer science for all. ACM Inroads 7, 4 (2016), 52--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Patricia Morreale, Catherine Goski, Luis Jimenez, and Carolee Stewart-Gardiner. 2012. Measuring the impact of computational thinking workshops on high school teachers. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 27, 6 (2012), 151--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Stern Neill and Rebecca Etheridge. 2008. Flexible learning spaces: The integration of pedagogy, physical design, and instructional technology. Marketing Education Review 18, 1 (2008), 47--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Adam E. Nir and Ronit Bogler. 2008. The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional development programs. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 2 (2008), 377--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Joslenne Peña and Mary Beth Rosson. 2019. Reaching out to diverse learners with non-formal workshops on computing concepts and skills. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 193--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Jean Piaget. 2013. The Construction of Reality in the Child. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas W. Price and Tiffany Barnes. 2015. Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 91--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Michael Prince. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93, 3 (2004), 223--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Vennila Ramalingam, Deborah LaBelle, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2004. Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 36. ACM, 171--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Carolyn M. Shrewsbury. 1987. What is feminist pedagogy?Women’s Studies Quarterly 15, 3/4 (1987), 6--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Laurel Smith-Doerr, Sharla N. Alegria, and Timothy Sacco. 2017. How diversity matters in the US science and engineering workforce: A critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3 (2017), 139--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Michael Stephens and Kyle M. L. Jones. 2014. MOOCs as LIS professional development platforms: Evaluating and refining SJSU’s first not-for-credit MOOC. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (2014), 345--361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Banu Subramaniam and Catherine Hurt Middlecamp. 1999. What is feminist pedagogy? Useful ideas for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 76, 4 (1999), 520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Andrea H. Tapia, Rosalie Ocker, Mary Beth Rosson, and Bridget Blodgett. 2011. Good bones: Anthropological scientific collaboration around computed tomography data. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference. 402--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Timothy Teo. 2011. Technology Acceptance in Education. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Roli Varma. 2010. Why so few women enroll in computing? Gender and ethnic differences in students’ perception. Computer Science Education 20, 4 (2010), 301--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Sara Vogel, Rafi Santo, and Dixie Ching. 2017. Visions of computer science education: Unpacking arguments for and projected impacts of CS4All initiatives. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 609--614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. John Wall and Vian Ahmed. 2008. Lessons learned from a case study in deploying blended learning continuing professional development. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15, 2 (2008), 185--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. 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. ACM, 117--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Kathleen Weiler. 1991. Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review 61, 4 (1991), 449--475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. David Weintrop, David C. Shepherd, Patrick Francis, and Diana Franklin. 2017. Blockly goes to work: Block-based programming for industrial robots. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B). IEEE, 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Susan Wiedenbeck. 2005. Facilitators and inhibitors of end-user development by teachers in a school. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’05). IEEE, 215--222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Brenda Cantwell Wilson. 2002. A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education 12, 1–2 (2002), 141--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Nan Zang and Mary Beth Rosson. 2008. What’s in a mashup? And why? Studying the perceptions of web-active end users. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. IEEE, 31--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. After-Hours Learning: Workshops for Professional Women to Learn Web Development

      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 21, Issue 2
        Re-Entering Computing through Emerging Technology
        June 2021
        182 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/3450701
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 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 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: 9 March 2021
        • Accepted: 1 November 2020
        • Revised: 1 October 2020
        • Received: 1 March 2020
        Published in toce Volume 21, Issue 2

        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

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format