Computing Educational Activities Involving People Rather Than Things Appeal More to Women (CS1 Appeal Perspective)

Prior research on recruitment of women to computing has established that computing tasks involving People rather than Things have been perceived as much more appealing by female high-school students (potentially recruitable as university computing students). This paper changes the focus from prospective to current university students and presents the results of a new experiment that advances and moves beyond earlier research in two crucial respects. First of all, the participants of the experiment are N=152 university students, who already study computing, rather than general high-school students. Second of all, the choice between a People-themed versus an isomorphic Things-themed version of an educational task now pertains to real (in fact, mandatory) assignments that the students had to perform, rather than hypothetical tasks. The change of experimental context, design, and methodology allows us to complement previous findings related to recruitment with suggestions significant for computing educational activities. The overall findings of the new experiment are consistent with that of the previous one. We find that, also at university, there is a visible preference for choosing People themed over Things themed computing tasks amongst women. The results also expose considerable variation between tasks in the effect of gender observed. At the same time, male students, in general, seem to be either indifferent to the themes or to slightly prefer People versions. This suggests that educators should consider favoring People themed assignments over ones involving Things.

[1]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data (2nd ed.) (Book) , 2004 .

[2]  Brenda Cantwell Wilson,et al.  Gender Differences in Types of Assignments Preferred: Implications for Computer Science Instruction , 2006 .

[3]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Note to self: make assignments meaningful , 2007, SIGCSE '07.

[4]  Ole Lehrmann Madsen,et al.  Object-oriented programming in the BETA programming language , 1993 .

[5]  Karen Anewalt,et al.  Creating a Repository of Diversity and Inclusion Assignments for Computer Science , 2021, SIGCSE.

[6]  David Lubinski,et al.  Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability at Age 13: Their Status 20 Years Later , 2000, Psychological science.

[7]  Margus Pedaste,et al.  First-year dropout in ICT studies , 2015, 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).

[8]  Melissa E. O'Neill,et al.  Framing classroom climate for student learning and retention in computer science , 2014, SIGCSE.

[9]  Allan Fisher,et al.  Unlocking the clubhouse: the Carnegie Mellon experience , 2002, SGCS.

[10]  Joanne McGrath Cohoon,et al.  Departmental differences can point the way to improving female retention in computer science , 1999, SIGCSE '99.

[11]  Erin W. Chambers,et al.  A case study of retention practices at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[12]  Tuba Yilmaz,et al.  Student perceptions of computer science: a retention study comparing graduating seniors with cs leavers , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[13]  Claus Brabrand,et al.  Computing Educational Activities Involving People Rather Than Things Appeal More to Women (Recruitment Perspective) , 2021, ICER.

[14]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  Increased Retention of Early Computer Science and Software Engineering Students Using Pair Programming , 2007, 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'07).

[15]  Amanda B. Diekman,et al.  Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles , 2010, Psychological science.

[16]  Sapna Cheryan,et al.  Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender Gaps Remain While Others Do Not? , 2012 .

[17]  D. Geary,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics , 2022 .

[18]  Eric S. Roberts,et al.  Encouraging women in computer science , 2002, SGCS.

[19]  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..

[20]  Robert McCartney,et al.  Novice Programmers and the Problem Description Effect , 2016, ITiCSE-WGR.

[21]  Amy J. Ko,et al.  Investigating the role of purposeful goals on novices' engagement in a programming game , 2012, 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[22]  Sapna Cheryan,et al.  Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? , 2017, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  E. Bunderson,et al.  An Analysis of Retention Problems for Female Students in University Computer Science Programs , 1995 .

[24]  Fay Pedersen Tveranger Programming in school. An insight to the Norwegian programming pilot and the inclucion/exclusion of girls in computer programming education , 2017 .

[25]  Michail N. Giannakos,et al.  Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness , 2016, Education and Information Technologies.

[26]  Barbara M. Moskal,et al.  Exploring the appeal of socially relevant computing: are students interested in socially relevant problems? , 2011, SIGCSE.

[27]  J. Blickenstaff Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? , 2005 .

[28]  Curtis D. Hardin,et al.  Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Future-Oriented Motivation and Retention in Computer Science , 2018, SIGCSE.

[30]  R. Lippa Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: the importance of the people-things dimension. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  K. Larsen,et al.  Interpreting Parameters in the Logistic Regression Model with Random Effects , 2000, Biometrics.

[32]  R. Lippa Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? , 2010 .