Female Performance and Participation in Computer Science

The change in the English computing curriculum and the shift towards computer science (CS) has been closely observed by other countries. Female participation remains a concern in most jurisdictions, but female attainment in CS is relatively unstudied. Using the English national pupil database, we analyzed all exam results (n = 5,370,064) for students taking secondary school exams in 2016, focusing on those students taking GCSE CS (n = 60,736), contrasting this against ICT (n = 67,359). Combining gender with ethnicity and the IDACI poverty indicator, we find that females from the poorest areas were more likely to take CS than those from the richest areas and that CS was more popular among ethnic minority females than white females. ICT was far more equitable for females and poorer students than CS. CS females typically got better grades than their male peers. However, when controlling for average attainment in other subjects, males got 0.31 of a grade higher. Female relative underperformance in CS was most acute among large female cohorts and with girls studying in mixed-gender schools. Girls did significantly better than boys in English when controlling for CS scores, supporting theories around female relative strengths lying outside STEM subjects. The move to introduce CS into the English curriculum and the removal of the ICT qualifications look to be having a negative impact on female participation and attainment in computing. Using the theory of self-efficacy, we argue that the shift towards CS might decrease the number of girls choosing further computing qualifications or pursuing computing as a career. Computing curriculum designers and teachers need to carefully consider the inclusive nature of their computing courses.

[1]  Denise E. Agosto Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  N. Schor,et al.  The Essential Difference , 1996 .

[3]  Ioanna Vekiri,et al.  Information science instruction and changes in girls' and boy's expectancy and value beliefs: In search of gender-equitable pedagogical practices , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Investigating the Relationship Between Spatial Skills and Computer Science , 2018, ICER.

[5]  Allan Fisher,et al.  Unlocking the Clubhouse : Women in Computing by Allan Fisher , 2015 .

[6]  Stephen Cooper,et al.  Spatial Skills Training in Introductory Computing , 2015, ICER.

[7]  Daniela Marghitu,et al.  Girls and computer science: experiences, perceptions, and career aspirations , 2017, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[8]  NEIL C. C. BROWN,et al.  Restart: The Resurgence of Computer Science in UK Schools , 2014, TOCE.

[9]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  Factors affecting course outcomes in introductory programming , 2004, PPIG.

[10]  Sylvia Beyer,et al.  Why are women underrepresented in Computer Science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades , 2014, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[11]  Becky Francis,et al.  Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates , 2005 .

[12]  Peter Edward Joseph Kemp,et al.  The Roehampton Annual Computing Education Report: 2015 data from England , 2016 .

[13]  R. Coe,et al.  It's the Effect Size, Stupid What effect size is and why it is important , 2012 .

[14]  A. Aleman,et al.  A single administration of testosterone improves visuospatial ability in young women , 2004, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[15]  WilsonBrenda Cantwell,et al.  Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course , 2001 .

[16]  E. Spelke Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review. , 2005, The American psychologist.

[17]  T. Rudd The ideological construction of a new form of digital exclusion: computer science as latin or total deus ex machina? , 2013 .

[18]  A. E. Long,et al.  Personality and gender differences in global perspective , 2017, International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie.

[19]  D. Schunk,et al.  Risk Taking: Theoretical, Empirical, and Educational Considerations , 1991 .

[20]  Julian Sefton-Green,et al.  Mapping learner progression into digital creativity , 2014 .

[21]  Mary Gogarty,et al.  English Indices of Deprivation 2015 , 2018 .

[22]  Isabel Wagner,et al.  Gender and Performance in Computer Science , 2016, ACM Trans. Comput. Educ..

[23]  Joaquim Macedo,et al.  Exploring Core Cognitive Skills of Computational Thinking , 2014, PPIG.

[24]  Aman Yadav,et al.  Learning to Program: Gender Differences and Interactive Effects of Students' Motivation, Goals, and Self-Efficacy on Performance , 2016, ICER.

[25]  T. Bramley,et al.  Gender differences in GCSE , 2015 .

[26]  Martin Cooper,et al.  Moving on Up a BCS Analysis of Social Mobility in IT , 2018 .

[27]  Judith Gal-Ezer,et al.  Informatics for All The strategy , 2018 .

[28]  Susan D. Voyer,et al.  Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis. , 2014, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  Billy Wong,et al.  ‘I’m good, but not that good’: digitally-skilled young people’s identity in computing , 2016, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[30]  Chiungjung Huang,et al.  Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis , 2013 .

[31]  Brenda Cantwell Wilson,et al.  A Study of Factors Promoting Success in Computer Science Including Gender Differences , 2002, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[32]  Matt McLain,et al.  Design and technology GCE AS and A Level subject content , 2015 .

[33]  P. Sinclair The National Pupil Database , 2013 .

[34]  David C. Geary,et al.  The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education , 2018, Psychological science.

[35]  Anna Vignoles,et al.  Is children’s free school meal ‘eligibility’ a good proxy for family income? , 2010 .

[36]  Elena Rusconi,et al.  Systemizers Are Better Code-Breakers: Self-Reported Systemizing Predicts Code-Breaking Performance in Expert Hackers and Naïve Participants , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[37]  Bernadette H. Schell,et al.  Female and Male Hacker Conferences Attendees: Their Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Scores and Self-Reported Adulthood Experiences , 2011 .

[38]  J. DeWitt,et al.  Spheres of influence: what shapes young people’s aspirations at age 12/13 and what are the implications for education policy? , 2014 .

[39]  Tomasz Drabowicz,et al.  Gender and digital usage inequality among adolescents: A comparative study of 39 countries , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[40]  Pat Byrne,et al.  The effect of student attributes on success in programming , 2001, ITiCSE '01.

[41]  Roli Varma,et al.  Why so few women enroll in computing? Gender and ethnic differences in students' perception , 2010, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[42]  Faron Moller,et al.  A university-based model for supporting computer science curriculum reform , 2018, Journal of Computers in Education.

[43]  Peter Edward Joseph Kemp,et al.  The Roehampton Annual Computing Education Report: Data from 2017 , 2018 .

[44]  Margaret Hamilton,et al.  Predictors of success in a first programming course , 2006 .

[45]  Sarah Kenny,et al.  Not Lack of Ability but More Choice , 2013, Psychological science.

[46]  Gail Crombie,et al.  All-Female Classes in High School Computer Science: Positive Effects in Three Years of Data , 2002 .

[47]  David Lester Neumann,et al.  Gender Differences in Spatial Ability: Implications for STEM Education and Approaches to Reducing the Gender Gap for Parents and Educators , 2017 .

[48]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians , 2001, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[49]  Frank M. Pajares,et al.  The development of academic self-efficacy. , 2002 .

[50]  J. Constantino,et al.  Autistic traits in the general population: a twin study. , 2003, Archives of general psychiatry.

[51]  Lord Bourne,et al.  Department for Communities and Local Government: Troubled families programme: transforming the lives of thousands of families , 2016 .

[52]  J. DeWitt,et al.  The “Exceptional” Physics Girl , 2017 .

[53]  C. Abraham,et al.  Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[54]  Michelle Lasen,et al.  Education and career pathways in Information Communication Technology: What are schoolgirls saying? , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[55]  S. Baron-Cohen Autism: The Empathizing–Systemizing (E‐S) Theory , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[56]  Peter E. J. Kemp,et al.  Technical boys and creative girls: the career aspirations of digitally skilled youths , 2017 .

[57]  Susan Purdon,et al.  Autism spectrum disorders in adults living in households throughout England: Report from the adult psychiatric morbidity survey 2007 , 2009 .

[58]  C. Steele,et al.  Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[59]  Wilfred W. F. Lau,et al.  Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: implications for programming pedagogy , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[60]  J. Butler Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , 1990 .

[61]  A. Vítores,et al.  The trouble with ‘women in computing’: a critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science , 2016 .

[62]  Brenda Cantwell Wilson,et al.  Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors , 2001, SIGCSE '01.

[63]  Dorian Stoilescu,et al.  Gender differences in the use of computers, programming, and peer interactions in computer science classrooms , 2010, Comput. Sci. Educ..