An unlevel playing field: women in the introductory computer science courses

ABSTRACT

This study looks at students in introductory computer science courses at two major universities in order to understand some of the reasons behind the recent sharp decline in the number of female computer science majors. The study focuses on gender differences in preparation and skills and the implications of these differences on success in the introductory course.The study showed that despite the proliferation of computers in many areas of daily life, female students still enter introductory computer science classes with weaker programming skills and less involvement with computers than their male counterparts.Prior familiarity with programming concepts emerged as the most useful predictor of success in the course and a high level of success was difficult to achieve without this prior knowledge. The mean grades were comparable for men and women but the women were underrepresented among the highest achievers.This study suggests that the above factors combine to place women at a disadvantage in introductory computer science classes and that some adjustments to the pace and/or structure of this course might be necessary to attract and retain more women in the major.

REFERENCES

• 1: Patricia F. Campbell , George P. McCabe, Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer science major, Communications of the ACM, v.27 n.11, p.1108-1113, Nov. 1984 [doi>10.1145/1968.358288]
• 2: V.A. Clarke & S. M. Chambers, Gender-based factors in computing enrollments and achievements: Evidence from a study of tertiary students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(4) 409-429, 1989.
• 3: The College Board, Profiles, college-bound seniors, 1990 and 1994. College Entrance Examination Board, New York, N. Y.
• 4: Karen A. Frenkel, Women and computing, Communications of the ACM, v.33 n.11, p.34-46, Nov. 1990 [doi>10.1145/92755.92756]
• 5: Kathy Howell, The experience of women in undergraduate computer science: what does the research say?, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.25 n.2, p.1-8, June 1993 [doi>10.1145/152751.152752]
• 6: C.M. Jagacinski, W. K. LeBold & G. Salvendy, Gender differences in persistence in computer-related fields. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 185-202, 1988.
• 7: J. Kay, J. Lubin, G. Pointer & M. Prosser, Not even well begun: women in computing courses. Higher Education, 18 (4), 511-527, 1989.
• 8: Z.A. Kersteen, M. C. Linn, M. Clancy & C. Hardyck, Previous experience and learning of computer programming: The computer helps ttugse who help themselves. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(3), 185-202, 1988.
• 9: Amy Pearl , Martha E. Pollack , Eve Riskin , Elizabeth Wolf , Becky Thomas , Alice Wu, Becoming a computer scientist, Communications of the ACM, v.33 n.11, p.47-57, Nov. 1990 [doi>10.1145/92755.92757]
• 10: S. Kiesler , L. Sproull, Computing and change on campus, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1987
• 11: Claire Toynbee, On the outer: women in computer science courses, ACM SIGACT News, v.24 n.2, p.18-21, Spring 1993 [doi>10.1145/156063.156065]
• 12: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred. March, 1993.
• 13: N.C. Ware, N. A. Seckler & J. Leserman, Undergraduate women: Who chooses a science major? Journal of Higher Education, 56(1), 73-84, 1985.
• 14: S.E. Widnall, AAAS presidential tecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science. 241, 1740-1745, Sept., 1988.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

General Terms:
Measurement, Theory