skip to main content
research-article

Why Latino High School Students Select Computer Science as a Major: Analysis of a Success Story

Published:01 July 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article reports on a public school that is succeeding in encouraging Latino high school students to select Computer Science (CS) as a major. The students attend a charter high school designed to encourage low-income Latino students to attend college and attain proficiency in English, Spanish, and computers. Using data from surveys and by analyzing test scores, the authors quantify the characteristics of students who are likely to choose CS as a major. A survey of 139 tenth- through twelfth-grade Latino students is used to determine factors that influence CS major selection. The survey includes questions from a previous study (836 high school math students from 9 public and private schools) as a control. Additional questions measure student interest in 20 STEM, business, and humanities subjects. Standardized test scores are correlated with factors affecting choice of CS as a major. Environment and intervention programs in, after, and outside of school are examined to consider their impact on student development. The article provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the relationship among academic environment and performance, subject interests, gender, and teaching methods that influence the interest of Latino high school students in choosing CS as a major.

References

  1. Apogee. 2011. www.apogeerockets.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Arduino. 2011. http://www.arduino.cc/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunsma, D. 2004. The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us about American Education: A Symbolic Crusade. Scarecrow Education, Lanham, Md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, P. and Lyons, G. 2001. The effect of student attributes on success in programming. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 49--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Campbell, A., Adams, V., and Davis, G. 2007. Cognitive demands and second-language learners: A framework for analyzing mathematics instructional contexts. Math. Think. Learn. 9, 1, 3--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Carr, D. 2005. Contexts, gaming pleasures, and gendered preferences. Simul. Gaming 36, 4, 464--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Carter, L. 2006. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 27--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Chavkin, N. and Feyl-Gonzalez, J. 2000. Mexican immigrant youth and resiliency: Research and promising programs. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools and AEL Inc. http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/mexican.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, K. 2009. The case for structured English immersion. Educ. Leadership 66, 7, 42--46. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200904_clark.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Conrad. 2011. http://lcpa-extreme-science.com/solar/specialEvents/specialEvents.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, B. and Cordova, D. 2007. Minorities in Higher Education: Twenty-second Annual Status Report: 2007 Supplement. American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CAREE&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23716.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Crosnoe, R. 2006. Mexican Roots, American Schools Helping Mexican Immigrant Children Succeed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz, R. 2003. The national Hispanic University/NASA project discovery -- High school science in action. http://www.nhu.edu/news_events/press_releases/pr_projectdiscovery.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Denning, P., Comer, D., Gries, D., Mulder, M., Tucker, A., Turner, A., and Young, P. 1989. Computing as a discipline. Comm. ACM 32, 1, 9--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Durin, A. and Hendler, J. 2000. Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. ESP. 2011. www.lcpa-extreme-science.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry, R. 2007. How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Research Center. Washington D.C. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/76.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Goode, J. 2008. Increasing diversity in k-12 computer science: Strategies from the field. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Goode, J. and Margolis, J. 2004. What is computer science, anyway?: Deepening urban teachers’ understandings of computer science and working towards an engaging pedagogy. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, R. Ferdig et al., Eds. 814--819.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, G., Rhodes, J., Hirsch, A., Suarez-Orozco, C., and Camic, P. 2008 Supportive adult relationships and the academic engagement of Latin American immigrant youth. J. School Psychol. 46, 393--412. http://www.rhodeslab.org/files/Green et al.(2007).pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Guttman, C. 2003. Education in and for the information society. UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on the Information Society. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001355/135528e.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamner, E., Lauwers, T., Bernstein, D., Nourbakhsh, I., and Disalvo, C. 2008. Robot diaries: Broadening participation in the computer science pipeline through social technical exploration. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium on Using AI to Motivate Greater Participation in Computer Science. http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub4/hamner_emily_2008_1/hamner_emily_2008_1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. JBHE. 2007. Black student college graduation rates inch higher but a large racial gap persists. The J. Blacks Higher Educ. (http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jekielek, L., Brown, B. Marin, and S. Lippman, P. 2007. Public school practices for violence prevention and reduction: 2003--04. Education Statistics Services Institute; Issue Brief.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins, H. and Cassell, J. 2008. From quake grrls to desperate housewives: A decade of gender and computer games. In Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming, Y. Kafai et al., Eds. The MIT Press, 5--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Langhoff, S., Bradford, K., and Gary, T. 2009. Workshop report on improving minority institution collaborations at NASA. http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/CP-2010-216379_Improv_Minor.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. LCPA. 2011. http://www.sjlcpa.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. LIF. 2007. Latinos and the digital divide. Latino Issues Forum. http://www.lif.org/download/latinosdivide.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Margolis, F. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Maslov, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370--396. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. McLaughlin, D. and Drori, G. 2000. School-Level correlates of academic achievement. U.S. Department of Education Office of Education Research and Improvement. Research and Development Report, May.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Morenoff, J., Sampson, R., and Raudenbush, S. 2001. Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Res. rep., Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research University of Michigan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Moschkovich, J. 2007. Bilingual mathematics learners: How view of language, bilingual learners, and mathematical communication affect instruction. In Diversity, Equity, and Access to Mathematical Ideas. Teachers College Press, 121--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. NASA. 2011. http://event.arc.nasa.gov/minority-institutions/home/pdf/PowerPointforNASAtalk10242009.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Normand, V. 2005. Color bind. Metro. Metro Publishing Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Papert, S. 1993. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. BasicBooks, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Parrish, T., Perez, M., Merickel, A., Linquani, R., Socias, M., Spain A., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Brock, L., and Delancey, D. 2006. Effects of the implementation of proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12 American institutes for research and wested project leadership. www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200904_clark.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Pencil. 2011. http://www.pencil-animation.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Potok, M. 2008. Anti-Latino hate crimes rise for fourth year in a row. Anti-Immigr. Anti-Latino Hate Crime.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Raphael, J., Chaplin, D., Miller, L., and Redd, Z. 2000. Formative report on the DC 21st century community learning center after-school program. www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410440.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Simpkins, S. 2003. Does youth participation in out-of-school time activities make a difference? http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/evaluating-out-of-school-time/ does-youth-participation-in-out-of-school-time-activities-make-a-difference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Smash. 2011. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r6Te1I4uAs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Stagecast. 2011. www.stagecast.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. STAR. 2011. Standardized Testing and Reporting Results, California Department of Education. http://star.cde.ca.gov/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. STRUT. 2011. www.svstrut.org/cms/index.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Supreme Court. 2011. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-289.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. SWARM. 2011. A swarm robotic demonstration using 278 miniature e-puck robots at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Lausanne, Switzerland. Robots in the video are all real, not computer generated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUHn0r_j5cE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Ullmer, B., Ishii, H., and Jacob, R. 2005. Token+Constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 1, 81--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. VEX. 2011. http://www.vexrobotics.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, B. and Shrock, S. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 184--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Zimmerman, T. 2008. TV-to-Synth interface triggering sound from video images. Make Mag. 08, 12--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Zimmerman, T. and Folowosele, F. 2006. Programming computers and robots with playing cards. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Why Latino High School Students Select Computer Science as a Major: Analysis of a Success Story

      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 11, Issue 2
        July 2011
        111 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/1993069
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2011 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: 1 July 2011
        • Accepted: 1 January 2011
        • Revised: 1 December 2010
        • Received: 1 February 2010
        Published in toce Volume 11, 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