skip to main content
10.1145/3568813.3600125acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Inequities of Enrollment: A Quantitative Analysis of Participation in High School Computer Science Coursework Across a 4-Year Period

Published:10 September 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

As access to computer science education at the high school level expands, understanding enrollment in computing courses is vital to ensuring equity of participation. While some countries have made enrollment in computer science coursework in high school compulsory, others have allowed it to be elective. This research tracks a cohort of over 100,000 high school students across a 4-year period with the goal of examining factors related to the odds of enrolling in computer science. These students live in Texas, a state in the United States in which computer science enrollment in high school is optional. Multilevel logistic regression modeling is employed to explore both student-level and school-level factors for students in the cohort to determine the odds of having enrolled in one or more computer science courses throughout the 4-year period. Results of the modeling show significant inequities in enrollment related to gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

References

  1. W. Richards Adrion, Katie Bevan, Paul Foster, Denise Matuszczak, Rachel Miller, Laura Rita, Florence R. Sullivan, Sneha Veeragoudar, Scott Wohlers, and Melissa Zeitz. 2022. How a Research-Practice Partnership Refined its Strategy for Integrating CS/CT into K-5 Curricula. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 592–598. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499281Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Kadir Bahar, Erdogan Kaya, and Xiaolu Zhang. 2022. Gender Disparities in AP Computer Science Exams: Analysis of Trends in Participation and top Achievement. J Adv Acad 33, 4 (November 2022), 574–603. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221119499Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Code.org Advocacy Coalition, Computer Science Teachers Association, and Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance. 2019. 2019 State of Computer Science Education Equity and Diversity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Code.org, CSTA, and ECEP Alliance. 2020. 2020 State of Computer Science Education: Illuminating Disparities. Retrieved from https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Code.org, Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance, and Computer Science Teachers Association. 2022. 2022 State of Computer Science Education: Understanding Our National Imperative.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, S Bocconi, A Chioccariello, P Kampylis, V Dagienė, P Wastiau, K Engelhardt, J Earp, M Horvath, E Jasutė, C Malagoli, V Masiulionytė-Dagienė, G Stupurienė, N Giannoutsou, A Inamorato dos Santos, Y Punie, and R Cachia. 2022. Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: state of play and practices from computing education. Publications Office of the European Union. DOI:https://doi.org/doi/10.2760/126955Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carol L. Fletcher and Jayce R. Warner. 2021. CAPE. Commun ACM 64, 2 (January 2021), 23–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3442373Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Google Inc. & Gallup Inc. 2012. Computer science learning: Closing the gap Hispanic Students. 2 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Evelyn M Gordon and Daniel J Heck. 2019. 2018 NSSME+: Status of High School Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Karlin, Yin-Chan (Janet) Liao, and Swati Mehta. 2023. Exploring computer science understanding and rationales in preservice teacher pathways through faculty professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (February 2023), 1–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2174623Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Colette Kirwan and Cornelia Connolly. 2022. Computer Science Education in Ireland. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 2, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 610–610. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3502717.3532127Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Meira Levinson, Tatiana Geron, and Harry Brighouse. 2022. Conceptions of Educational Equity. AERA Open 8, (January 2022), 233285842211213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221121344Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Stephen J. McNamee and Robert K. Miller Jr. 2004. The Meritocracy Myth. Sociation Today 2, 1 (2004). Retrieved from http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Robert P. Moses and Charles E. Cobb. 2002. Radical Equations: Civil Rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Beacon Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. National Center for Women & Information Technology. 2021. Counselors for Computing (C4C). Retrieved from https://ncwit.org/program/counselors-for-computing/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. OECD. 2018. Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility,. OECD. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Madeline Purdue. 2017. AP computer science exam takers double; here's why. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/07/18/code-org-helps-ap-computer-science-increase-diversity/486482001/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Vincent J. Roscigno and James W. Ainsworth-Darnell. 1999. Race , Cultural Capital , and Educational Resources: Persistent Inequalities and Achievement Returns Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2673227 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance. Sociol Educ 72, 3 (1999), 158–178. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2673227Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Mariam Saffar Perez and Paul Bruno. 2023. Analyzing the Effects of CTE Grant Funding on CS Course Offerings and Enrollment in California. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 46–52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569812Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Texas Education Research Center. History and Background: Education Research Centers in Texas, A History. Retrieved November 3, 2020 from https://texaserc.utexas.edu/about-us/history/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Texas State Board of Education. 2016. §74.3. Description of a Required Secondary Curriculum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ryan Torbey, Nicole D Martin, Jayce R Warner, and Carol L Fletcher. 2020. Algebra I Before High School as a Gatekeeper to Computer Science Participation. (2020), 241–246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ethel Tshukudu, Sue Sentance, Oluwatoyin Adelakun-Adeyemo, Brenda Nyaringita, Keith Quille, and Ziling Zhong. 2023. Investigating K-12 Computing Education in Four African Countries (Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda). ACM Transactions on Computing Education 23, 1 (March 2023), 1–29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3554924Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Sepehr Vakil. 2018. Ethics, Identity, and Political Vision: Toward a Justice-Centered Approach to Equity in Computer Science Education. Harv Educ Rev 88, 1 (2018), 26–53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Emiliana Vegas, Michael Hansen, and Brian Fowler. 2021. Building Skills for Life: How to expand and improve computer science education around the world. Washington DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jayce R. Warner, Stephanie N. Baker, Madeline Haynes, Miriam Jacobson, Natashia Bibriescas, and Yiwen Yang. 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, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61–72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543968Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jayce R. Warner, Ryan Torbey, Carol L. Fletcher, and Lisa S. Garbrecht. 2019. Increasing capacity for computer science education in rural areas through a large-scale collective impact model. SIGCSE 2019 - Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2019), 1157–1163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287418Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. WeTeach_CS. 2018. Texas CS Profile: State Profile 2017-2018. Retrieved from https://www.tacc.utexas.edu/epic/research/cs-regional-dataGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICER '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
    August 2023
    520 pages
    ISBN:9781450399760
    DOI:10.1145/3568813

    Copyright © 2023 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: 10 September 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

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