Women and Men in Computer Science

It is common knowledge that enrollments in computer science have plummeted and educators are challenged to find ways to engage and promote success and retention of students while maintaining standards in introductory computer science courses. This study focuses on the implementation of a collaborative, modified peer-led team learning (PLTL) instructional approach in a large sized introductory computer science course. The site is a major southeastern university in the United States where all students are required to take one of three introductory computer science classes. The course version selected for this study specifically targets computer science majors and the study spans three years of data, and involves 591 students. Students who experienced the student-centered instruction and worked in small groups facilitated by a peer leader (treatment) in years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were compared with students who experienced a traditional recitation lecture section (control) in 2005-06. The content and the course owner was the same for all three years. Quantitative data analysis show marked and statistically significant improvements in student performance, for both male and female students. These findings suggest that using undergraduate leaders to implement a peer-led team learning model can be as effective in promoting achievement and retention in computer science education as it has shown to be in math and science classes over the past several years.

At the University of Tennessee at Martin (UTM), freshman computer science majors were being successful in their first quarter in computer science, but many majors were not completing the year sequence (Programming Concepts and Problem Solving I, II, and III). This study describes a freshman studies program that helps increase student retention in the first computer science course.Two populations were used in this study. The first population (Group A) consisted of 25 freshman computer science majors (16 men and 9 women) enrolled Fall Quarter 85 in freshman orientation General Studies GS1000 for one quarter hour credit. The second population (Group B) consisted of 17 freshman computer science majors (12 men and 5 women) enrolled the Fall Quarter 86 in freshman orientation General Studies GS1001 for two quarter hours credit. Both groups were placed in the first course in computer science using the cutting scores ACT English > 17 or 0.78 (ACT English) + 0.49 (UTM Math Placement) > 33. Both Groups A and B had an average ACT English score of 20 and an average UTM Math Placement score of 55. Each quarter during the freshman year, the computer science major enrolls in calculus (4 hrs.), Programming Concepts and Problem Solving (3 hrs.), a laboratory science (4 hrs.), English (3 hrs.), and a humanities course (3 hrs.).Group A was offered a freshman orientation program that involved a pass/fail one quarter hour credit GS1000 which met one hour each day during freshman studies week. Each section consisted of twenty-five heterogeneously grouped students. The course content was review of study skills. Group B was offered a freshman orientation program that involved a pass/fail two quarter hour credit GS1001 which met one hour each day during freshman studies week, plus one hour each week during the first quarter. Each section consisted of only students of a particular major (computer science) and was taught by a faculty member of that department. The topics of this course consisted of a review of study skills, discussions of student problems, special academic speakers, field trips to professional sites, cultural events, meetings with deans and department heads, and a follow-up on study skills. In the meeting before the final exam week, the faculty member dealt specifically with suggestions on preparing for finals.Groups A and B were enrolled in the same first computer science sequence (Programming Concepts and Problem Solving I, II, and III) their freshman year. Both groups had the same instructors, text (Introduction to Computing and Computer Science with Pascal by H. Walker), and course syllabus for this sequence. Both groups carried the same academic course load their freshman year. However, in Group A only 20% (5 out of 25) of the students completed the first computer science sequence with a grade of C or better, while in Group B 41% (7 out of 17) completed the same sequence with a grade of C or better. Student retention is achieved through the students' integration into the academic and social systems of the college by two factors: (1) faculty-student interaction and (2) peer-group interaction. Although the population of this study was small, I believe GS1001 provides one way of increasing student retention in computer science.

Student assignments have long been an integral part of many university level computer science courses to reinforce material covered in class with practical exercises. For years, researchers have studied ways to improve such student assignments by making them more interesting, applicable, and valuable to the student with a goal of improving learning outcomes by increasing student appeal. One often studied way to improve the learning outcome is by allowing students a choice in assignments. To ensure fairness for all students in providing such a choice, care must be taken to ensure assignment “equality” by ensuring an equal learning experience for all students regardless of their choice of homework assignments. Our introductory computer science class is a survey class which covers multiple topics including programming concepts, word processing, presentation software, computer security, spreadsheet usage and databases design and implementation. Students perform several programming exercises throughout the course to demonstrate their knowledge and improve their skill in programming. For a number of years, we’ve offered students a choice on their final assignment. Worth 10% of the course grade, the assignment provides students with either an analytical programming project or a software applications based project. The purpose of this paper is to look at the motivations that drove students to make the choice they did and the impact of their choice on their assignment grade and overall performance on the course final. Our findings indicate that care must be taken when offering options to the student as the choice the student makes may unintentionally and adversely affect both their learning experience and course performance.

We asked all of the liberal arts faculty who advise undergraduates on course selection at the 14 colleges in the Associated Colleges of the Midwest a series of questions regarding their perceptions of the personality traits of Computer Science (CS) students, topics they think are covered in CS classes, and their overall impressions of CS. Our goal was to assess empirically the hypotheses that (1) many non-CS faculty do not really know what computer science is, and (2) many non-CS faculty are unaware of the differences between CS and Information Technology (IT). We received over 250 survey responses, which revealed that, among non-CS faculty, only 9% disagree or are neutral that CS should even be part of a liberal arts curriculum, but 32% think CS students learn to administer computers and computer networks, while 34% believe that CS students are taught to use Microsoft products in the classroom. However, over 95% of non-CS faculty also recognize the importance of both programming and algorithms to the study of computer science. The overall data suggests that a majority of non-CS faculty in the Associated Colleges of the Midwest have a a basic understanding of CS, while the remainder have an overly broad definition of CS (i.e. they think that CS includes IT).

Why do so few women major in computer science (CS) or management information systems (MIS)? Are the reasons for women’s underrepresentation in these two disciplines the same? I will address these issues by reporting on my research on female and male undergraduates majoring in CS or MIS. I hypothesize that results from one area of information technology (IT), such as CS, do not necessarily generalize to other areas of IT, such as MIS. Structural barriers exist that keep women from advancement in IT careers (cf. Ahuja, 2002). However, an examination of these is beyond the scope of this article, which focuses on gender differences in IT students. In 2002 only 27.6% of U.S. Bachelor’s degrees in CS and 36.8% in MIS were conferred on women (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), limiting the number of women qualified to enter into the IT workforce. The problem of women’s under representation in IT is not limited to the U.S. Women are underrepresented in CS majors in other Western countries such as Canada (Gadalla, 2001), Germany (Huber, Reiff, Ben, & Schinzel, 2001), Norway (Berg, Gansmo, Hestflatt, Lie, Nordli, & Sorenson, 2002), and Ireland (MacKeogh, 2003). IT cannot afford to underutilize such a valuable and significant part of the workforce. Increasing the representation of women is imperative because “greater diversity among those who create computing technology ensures that those technologies are relevant to and usable by a wider range of people” (Roberts, 2003).

The low performance and drop-outs in Computer Science classes are frequently attributed to lack of engagement and motivation. Meanwhile, gamification - the application of game design principles and game mechanics to a non-game context -- increasingly attracts the interest of educators due to its potential to foster motivation and behavioral changes in learning contexts. Course gamification is about using game elements, such as instant feedback, freedom to fail, freedom of choice, achievements, leveling, progress mechanics, badges, and leaderboards, as interventions in the learning process. This BOF will provide a platform for a discussion of when and how course gamification strategies can be beneficial for improving student motivation, engagement and achievements in Computer Science classes. Questions to be discussed include: What game elements could be useful in gamifying a computer science course? How can an instructor incorporate game elements in the design of their courses? What support the instructor may need for gamifying their courses? Could some game elements have potential drawbacks on student motivation and performance? The discussion leaders and attendees with experience in applying gamification in their courses will share examples of successes or failures, challenges, problems, tips, and techniques for gamifying learning with each other and those new to the use of gamification. Two NSF sponsored projects related to the use of gamification in STEM courses will seed the discussion. As an outcome of the discussion, we hope to collectively identify some lessons learned and challenges to be overcome for a successful application of gamification in Computer Science education.

The low performance and drop-outs in Computer Science classes are frequently attributed to lack of student engagement and motivation. Meanwhile, gamification increasingly attracts the interest of educators due to its potential to foster motivation and behavioral changes in learning contexts. This workshop introduces participants to the concept of gamification and the use of OneUp Learning, a platform aimed at gamifying academic courses. OneUp is aimed at encouraging students' out-of-class practicing and increasing their overall engagement in the course through employing game design elements. The platform is course-independent and highly configurable, allowing the instructor to turn on and off a number of gamification features, such as avatars, points (challenge and skill points), leaderboards, skill boards, a progress bar, content unlocking, goal-setting, badges, virtual currency, duels, chat, etc. For using OneUp, an instructor has to provide practice exercises and to specify the gamification elements to be used. Apart from the standard question types, OneUp supports Parson's problems and dynamic problems (e.g. programming problems). The workshop proceeds in two sessions. In the first session we introduce the OneUp platform and present our experience of gamifying a Data Structures course. In the second, workshop attendees engage in hands-on experience: we show them how to use OneUp in their classes. In particular, we assist them in creating problems and challenges, configuring desired gamification features, defining their own badges and rules for earning and spending virtual currency, and monitoring the engagement and progress of their students. Laptops required.

Computer science (CS) is defined in wikipedia as a branch of human knowledge “relating to computation, ranging from abstract analysis of algorithms and formal grammars, to subjects like programming languages, software, and computer hardware” (Computer Science, 2005). Computer science emerged as a distinct field in the 1940s and 1950s with the development of the first electronic digital computers. To limit computer science to just computer use or its knowledge bodies, however, is reductive; CS is embedded in a complex, unquantifiable cultural context, including socio-economic and gendering practice. Computer hardware and software are designed to complement and supplement human activity and processes such as warfare, industrial applications, information management, including education, the Internet, a knowledge commons, and most recently biotechnology. Although CS is typically considered neutral and scientific, its episteme and practice is androcentric or male centered, often to the exclusion of females (Herbst, 2002). Female attributes have not typically been associated with computer science or computers. Although there is general agreement that women are as intellectually capable as men in CS, the fact remains that women today do not have equal participation in CS majors, CS engineering, programming, software design, Web site construction, or computer repair. (Jepson & Perl, 2002). In the technetronic 21st century, when computers are becoming standard for education and in symbolic analytic jobs, women’s enrollment in CS has declined, and many women do not feel confident using computers for more than e-mail transmissions, e-commerce, and social interaction in forums or newsgroups. Women who do not have knowledge or confidence in their abilities to work in CS not only have unrealized potentials in CS but also are left out of employment activities. Reasons for gendering in CS are complex and debated. Socialization, overt and tacit discrimination, and epistemological plurality are three dominant explanations. CS industries, educators, cognitive scientists, parents, and women professionals in CS are some of the groups currently working to attain gender equity in CS.

This research shows an audience of fellow computer science teachers that there is benefit in testing college student's scientific reasoning skills and that the students increase their logical thinking skills in computer science classes when they are presented with real world problems, engaged in group activities, and given hands-on experiments.Students' scientific reasoning skills from several different computer science courses are analyzed and tested before and after taking the computer science course to measure their improvement in logical thinking. The higher order thinking skills test results are compared, and the overall class and individual student improvement between the classes that use different teaching strategies are analyzed. Also, the test results are compared with students' ability to perform adequately in a computer science course. This information is valuable to advisors when placing students in computer science courses.In the assessments of students' entering knowledge and evaluations of students' thinking improvement, the students' individual higher order thinking skills as well as their overall level of cognitive development are analyzed. Through the analysis of their individual skills and level of thinking, one can expand conclusions about the students' and teacher's performance over time.

Pascal’s long and successful run at West Point illustrated Winston Churchill’s dictum that, “The absence of alternatives clears the mind wonderfully.” However, by the mid-90s, the United States Military Academy was finding that Pascal, long the educational workhorse, was no longer the clear choice for serious computer science education. The decision was taken to evaluate alternatives to Pascal. The criteria selected for programming language evaluation were student learning outcomes based on course goals and objectives. The controlled educational environment of a service academy provides an excellent opportunity to conduct research using control groups and experimental groups. We conducted a side by side comparison of the use of Pascal, which was specifically designed for instructional purposes, and Ada in an introductory course. The experiment demonstrated that students were much more successful in Ada than in Pascal, and led to the revision of the Academy core curriculum to use Ada 95 in our introductory computer science class. This paper discusses the details of our comparison, citing specific examples to illustrate a rational basis for evaluating programming language features against course objectives.

The article emphasizes that in the conditions of the reform of the domestic system of education and the Conception of the New Ukrainian School it became possible to formulate an individual program of studying students of a secondary school. In this regard, the author resorts to the position of the teacher of computer science as a tutor, that is, a person who actualizes the educational needs of students, works with them, discusses them, and seeks to help the ward in their satisfaction. In the process of studying computer science tutor position is becoming relevant in profile education. The activity of the tutor in teaching computer science is based on the ideas of humanistic and personality-oriented and systemic approaches. Teutor's accompaniment of students at the computer science classes is to continuously stimulate the student's independent cognitive activity, the need for self-improvement and the development of research skills in information activities. On the basis of the analysis of scientific literature on the problems of tutor activity, the following methods of tutoring activity in the teaching of informatics are singled out: methods of practical orientation activity, methods of problem-based learning, method of projects, psychodiagnostic methods, methods of active learning, methods of analysis and self-analysis, binary methods, methods of distance learning, method portfolio scientists (T. M. Kovaleva, K. P. Osadcha) consider the most effective method of tutorial support as a method of portfolio, which is used at all stages (primary and adolescent) and at all stages of tutor's escort. In the process of tutorial support several types of portfolios can be used: thematic, presentation, portfolio of achievements.

There has been much debate in the past few years about the appropriate mathematics requirements for an undergraduate computer science major. The discussion has focused primarily on two issues: (1) the underlying mathematical content of computer science courses and (2) the content of mathematics courses which would serve as appropriate cognate requirements for computer science major programs. While this discussion has been helpful, it has been too narrowly focused--it has not started from an understanding of the relationship between the disciplines of mathematics and computer science, but rather has sought to identify mathematical prerequisites that computer science majors need in order to take existing computer science courses. This paper is a small step in seeking to apply an understanding of the relationship between the disciplines of mathematics and computer science to the undergraduate computer science curriculum.

“I didn't think I'd like group work, but I ended up in a good team and it was a great experience. But I feel if you end up in a bad team it can really get you down and will affect your mark.” This student response (University of Exeter, U.K.) is typical and telling. At least some of the time teams work, and the progression from “didn't think I'd like” to “great experience” happens often enough that those of us who use team work have come to expect it, at least part of the time. The ability to work well in teams is essential for our graduates. It cuts across all the questions — what, where, why and how we teach. However, not all of our students find working as a member of a team a natural and easy thing to do. Not only that, even though the student quoted in the preceding paragraph uses the phrase “good team” and the phrase “bad team” these and many other terms are not well defined. The Computer Science (CS) academic community regards group project work as an essential component of any degree; the discipline's professional societies world-wide emphasize project and group work as preparation for professional practice. Project work is recognized as having many educational and social benefits, in particular providing students with opportunities for active learning. Nevertheless, managing project work is problematic, because CS projects are: expensive , demanding considerable supervision as well as technical resources; complex , marrying design, human communication, human-computer interaction, and technology to satisfy objectives ranging from consolidation of technical skills through provoking insight into organizational practice, teamwork and professional issues, to inculcating academic discipline and presentation skills; continually demanding , set in the context of a rapidly changing technology which affects technical objectives and demands ever-evolving skills in both students and supervisors. In a young and changing discipline, some aspect of project work is questioned in almost every institution. The three panelists bring experience from four educational institutions in two countries. Louise Moses is Chair of the Department of Computer Science and Information Systems at Mount Union College. She has supervised team projects in extra-departmental service courses, classes provided for departmental majors, and inter-disciplinary courses. During the summer term of the previous three academic years she has been Honorary Visiting Researcher in the Department of Computer Science in the School of Engineering at The University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K. In that position she has worked as part of the management team for first year students in the first year project. James Caristi is a professor of mathematics and computer science at Valparaiso University. He was the 1990 recipient of the Sears Roebuck Award for Teaching Excellence and Campus Leadership, and is the 1999 recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award from the Indiana Section of the Mathematical Association of America. He has been using teams in different ways in computer science classes at all levels for over 15 years. Sally Fincher is a Lecturer in the Computing Laboratory at the University of Kent at Canterbury in England. She has been project manager for the Effective Projectwork in Computer Science (EPCoS) project. EPCoS was a 10-partner, three-year funded project which worked to identify best practices in CS projectwork, transfer those practices between institutions and examine and analyze the process of transfer. We have wrestled with project design and how to make team assignments. And, even though providing good teamwork experiences is more of an art than a science — with no hard and fast rules — there are guidelines; it will be profitable to share our knowledge and our experiences. We shall consider six major areas concerning team and group work, and the kind of issues that are associated with them. Allocation How do we allocate students to groups? And then groups to supervisors? Supervision What sort of role should a supervisor take with respect to their group? Friend, mentor, project manager or technical guru? Does it make a difference? Assessment How do we assess the contribution of an individual when the deliverables are a team effort ? Should we even try to? Motivation What happens when students get into a “bad” team? How do we keep them motivated? Reflection Especially when introducing teamwork into the curriculum, reflection is an essential part of the learning cycle. How do we plan to make sure we include time and opportunity for this? Teamwork How do we encourage working together, when in some other academic circumstances this might be called “cheating”?

<p>This study aimed to examine the relationship of the types of digital games preferred by preschoolers and their executive functions. For a more detailed study we created a classification of the games in question based on the content analysis of the participants’ interview, game mechanism, and the required cognitive functions. 6 types of digital games were developed: quick reaction games, logic games, educational games, strategic games, drawing games, and simulators. The overall sample comprised 335 children (48.6% girls) aged 6–7 (M=74.6 months, SD=6.06 months). The study included assessment of the executive functions and an interview about digital games. We used the NEPSY-II subtests to measure the examinees’ executive functions level: visual and verbal working memory, and inhibition. We also used “The Dimensional Change Card Sort” to assess cognitive flexibility. Data analysis revealed that quick reaction games were the most popular at this age. The next favourite were logic games, strategic games, and simulators’. The study demonstrated quick reaction game players’ visual working memory was better developed than in the non-players. Logic game players processed information at a higher speed than the non-players. Simulation game players obtained higher score in cognitive inhibition, than the children who didn’t like this type of games.</p>

Research Full Paper - Computer Science majors lack gender diversity in Brasília, Brazil. Women are an underrepresented minority group in these majors. At the University of Brasilia, one of the top ten universities in Brazil, female undergraduate students account for less than 15% of the students in the Department of Computer Science. In an effort to understand the lack of interest in Computer Science majors among women, this paper addresses the following research questions: 1)Are female students in high school aware that Computer Science majors are predominantly male? 2)Are families of girls from Brasília supportive of their enrolment in Computer Science majors? 3)Do girls from Brasília think that Computer Science majors need a lot of Math? 4)Do female students in high school think that it is difficult to get a job in the field of Computing, with a good salary, and sufficient leisure time? and 5)Which factors influence a female student's choice of a Computer Science major? We devised a questionnaire and applied it to female students in middle and high school on two occasions, in October 2011 (1391 responses) and in July 2019 (429 responses). This paper presents the analysis of the data from the responses, which indicates that the girls' perceptions of Computing have not changed in those years.