skip to main content
10.1145/3024906.3024911acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Gender Equity in Computing: International Faculty Perceptions and Current Practices

Published:09 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In many countries serious effort has been put into developing and running programs that encourage girls to enjoy learning programming. At school level, many girls have done very well in these experiences, but despite their confidence and enthusiasm for programming at the time of the intervention, few have continued on to enroll in tertiary computing programs. In higher education institutions, numerous equity initiatives have attempted to improve both recruitment and retention, yet the pipeline continues to shrink.

The running of interventions takes effort on the part of the academics to develop and much time, often in vacation periods, to deliver. As the success of these programs frequently relies on the goodwill of faculty, the authors formed an international multi-disciplinary working group to explore faculty attitudes and perceptions of these gender equity programs, and identify key features of enduring programs.

In this paper, we gather and critically review existing literature resources with the aim of developing evaluation guidelines for the running of intervention programs from primary school to university education in order to encourage girls of all ages to seriously consider the prospect of undertaking a computing degree and to better support them during this time. Additionally, we explore the perceptions of faculty towards gender equity and gender equity programs, and discuss how faculty perceptions align with research findings.

Our findings identify a clear need for gender equity programs, more consistent evaluation of the effectiveness of such programs including gathering, analysing and storing longitudinal data and more widespread dissemination of gender equity information to faculty.

References

  1. C. Alvarado and Z. Dodds. Women in CS: An evaluation of three promising practices. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '10, pages 57--61, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Alvarado, Z. Dodds, and R. Libeskind-Hadas. Increasing women's participation in computing at Harvey Mudd College. ACM Inroads, 3(4):55, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Alvarado and E. Judson. Using targeted conferences to recruit women into computer science. Communications of the ACM, 57(3):70--77, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Australian Government, The. National innovation and science agenda. Inspiring all Australians in digital literacy and STEM. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from: https://www.education.gov.au/inspiring-all-australians-digital-literacy-and-stem, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. L. Bailyn. Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from mit1. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2):137--153, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Balanskat and K. Engelhardt. Computing our future. computer programming and coding - priorities, school curricula and initiatives across europe. Technical report, European Schoolnet, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. L. J. Barker, J. M. Cohoon, and L. Sanders. Strategy trumps money: Recruiting undergraduate women into computing. IEEE Computer, 43(6):82--85, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. J. Barker, C. McDowell, and K. Kalahar. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '09, pages 153--157, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Bazeley and K. Jackson. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications Limited, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Bell, P. Andreae, and A. Robins. A case study of the introduction of computer science in NZ schools. Trans. Comput. Educ., 14(2):10:1--10:31, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Biggers, A. Brauer, and T. Yilmaz. Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors with CS leavers. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '08, pages 402--406, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. C. C. Brown, S. Sentance, T. Crick, and S. Humphreys. Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. Trans. Comput. Educ., 14(2):9:1--9:22, June 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. T. Camp. The incredible shrinking pipeline. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(3):129--134, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Cheryan, A. Master, and A. N. Meltzoff. Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls' interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in psychology, 6:49, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. Cheryan, V. C. Plaut, P. G. Davies, and C. M. Steele. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(6):1045, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Code.org. Updated CS "counts" list. Retrieved September 10, 2016, from: http://bit.ly/1dThUxl, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. P. Cohoon. An introductory course format for promoting diversity and retention. SIGCSE Bull., 39(1):395--399, Mar. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. J. Correll. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American journal of Sociology, 106(6):1691--1730, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Craig. Theorising about gender and computing interventions through an evaluation framework. Information Systems Journal, 1, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Craig, J. Fisher, H. Forgasz, and C. Lang. Evaluation framework underpinning the digital divas programme. ITiCSE '11, Darmstadt, Germany, pages 313--317, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Q. Cutts, E. Cutts, S. Draper, P. O'Donnell, and P. Saffrey. Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 431--435. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. J. Drury, J. O. Siy, and S. Cheryan. When do female role models benefit women? the importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in stem. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4):265--269, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. W. DuBow, I. Vakalis, M. Perez-Quinones, and J. T. Black. Growing female undergraduate enrollments in computer science: What is the secret? In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 377--378. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Dweck. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Eduteka. http://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/modulos/9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Eglash, J. E. Gilbert, and E. Foster. Toward culturally responsive computing education. Commun. ACM, 56(7):33--36, July 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. Falkner. CSER digital technologies education. page http://csermoocs.adelaide.edu.au, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. C. Frieze and J. Quesenberry. Kicking Butt in Computer Science: Women in Computing at Carnegie Mellon University. Dog Ear Publishing, LLC, Nov 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Gal-Ezer and C. Stephenson. A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K-12 computer science education in Israel and the United States. Trans. Comput. Educ., 14(2):8:1--8:18, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Google. Women who choose computer science---what really matters: The critical role of encouragement and exposure. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from: https://goo.gl/rLX6ax, May 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. P. C. Gorski. Stages of multicultural curriculum transformation. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/curriculum/steps.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Y. Gradskova. Regional ombudsmen, human rights and women --- gender aspects of the social and legal transformation in north-west Russia (based on ombudsman reports). The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, 39(1):84--109, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. B. Harvey. The beauty and joy of computing: Computer science for everyone. In Proceedings of Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact 2012, pages 33--39. Constructionism, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. G. Hofstede. Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1):8, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. H. H. Hu, C. Heiner, and J. McCarthy. Deploying exploring computer science statewide. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, SIGCSE '16, pages 72--77, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Y. Kafai, K. Searle, C. Martinez, and B. Brayboy. Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in american indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '14, pages 241--246, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. C. Lang, A. Craig, and M. Egan. The importance of outreach programs to unblock the pipeline and broaden diversity in ICT education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 12:38--49, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. C. Lang, J. Fisher, A. Craig, and H. Forgasz. Outreach programmes to attract girls into computing: How the best laid plans can sometimes fail. Computer Science Education, 25:257--275, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219):262--265, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. A. Luxton-Reilly. Learning to program is easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '16, pages 284--289, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. C. Magno and I. Silova. Teaching in transition: Examining school-based gender inequities in central/southeastern europe and the former soviet union. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(6):647--660, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. J. Margolis, J. Goode, G. Chapman, and J. J. Ryoo. That classroom 'magic'. Commun. ACM, 57(7):31--33, July 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. M. R. Meelissen and M. Drent. Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3):969--985, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. S. Mladenović, Ž. Žanko, and M. Mladenović. Elementary students' motivation towards informatics course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174:3780--3787, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Full-time and part-time faculty and instructional staff in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and program area: Fall 1998 and fall 2003. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_315.80.asp, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). http://www.ncwit.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). Stereotypes and stereotype threat affect computing students. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from: http://www.ncwit.org/stereotypethreatslides, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Science and engineering degrees: 1966--2012. detailed statistical tables NSF 15-326. Technical Report NSF 15--326, June 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. M. Noland, T. Moran, and B. R. Kotschwar. Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper, (16-3), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD. Education at a Glance 2014. OECD Publishing, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Program.AR. http://program.ar/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. P. Pruet, C. S. Ang, and D. Farzin. Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students' technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, Part B:1131--1144, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. E. S. Roberts, M. Kassianidou, and L. Irani. Encouraging women in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2):84, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. C. Ryan and C. Hepler. CISters: A support network for women in computer information systems. In Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. D. W. Salter and A. Persaud. Women's views of the factors that encourage and discourage classroom participation. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6):831--844, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. C. Seron, S. S. Silbey, E. Cech, and B. Rubineau. Persistence is cultural professional socialization and the reproduction of sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 43(2):178--214, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. S. Sillessi, C. Varol, and H. Varol. Non-computer science majored women students perspective on a pictorial programming environment. 7(2), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. I. Silova. Varieties of Educational Transformation: The Post-Socialist States of Central/Southeastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, pages 295--320. Springer Netherlands, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. A. Smolentseva. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Issues of educational policy in Russia. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from: http://www.acola.org.au/index.php/stem-consultants-reports, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. E. Tezci. Turkish primary school teachers' perceptions of school culture regarding ict integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3):429--443, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. L. Thompson, C. Eney, R. David, and T. Grady. Recruit and retain women in undergraduate computing: Success stories using research-based practices. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 541--542. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. E. M. Trauth, J. L. Quesenberry, and A. J. Morgan. Understanding the under representation of women in it: Toward a theory of individual differences. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research: Careers, culture, and ethics in a networked environment, pages 114--119. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. UNESCO. Enfoque estratégico sobre tics en educación en américa latina y el caribe. Enfoque Estratégico Sobre Tics En Educación En América Latina Y El Caribe, page 62, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. US Department of Labor. Gender shares of employment in computer and information technology occupations 2014 annual averages. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/gender_shares_emp_comp_it_2014.htm, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. R. Varma and D. Kapur. Decoding femininity in computer science in india. Commun. ACM, 58(5):56--62, Apr. 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. T. Vassallo, E. Levy, M. Madansky, H. Mickell, B. Porter, M. Leas, and J. Oberweis. Elephant in the valley. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from: http://www.elephantinthevalley.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. I. Vekiri. Boys and girls ICT beliefs: Do teachers matter? Computers & Education, 55(1):16--23, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. J. Wolfe and B. A. Powell. Not all curves are the same: Left-of-center grading and student motivation. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, number 10.18260/p.24527, Seattle, Washington, June 2015. ASEE Conferences. https://peer.asee.org/24527.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI). http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Y. Yang, L. Zhang, J. Zeng, X. Pang, F. Lai, and S. Rozelle. Computers and the academic performance of elementary school-aged girls in China's poor communities. Computers and Education, 60(1):335--346, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. G. Zaharija, S. Mladenović, and I. Boljat. Use of robots and tangible programming for informal computer science introduction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174:3878--3884, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Gender Equity in Computing: International Faculty Perceptions and Current Practices

    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 Conferences
      ITiCSE '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports
      July 2016
      138 pages
      ISBN:9781450348829
      DOI:10.1145/3024906

      Copyright © 2016 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: 9 July 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ITiCSE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate7of11submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

      Upcoming Conference

      ITiCSE 2024

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader