1 / 20

Pre-College Computing Outreach Research: Towards Improving the Practice

This talk presents a systematic literature review on pre-college computing activities from 2009-2015, highlighting key findings and offering recommendations for the community. The review examines the reported results of formal, peer-reviewed research conducted across different countries and regions.

kehoe
Download Presentation

Pre-College Computing Outreach Research: Towards Improving the Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pre-College Computing Outreach Research:Towards Improving the Practice Adrienne Decker, Rochester Institute of Technology Adrienne.Decker@rit.edu Monica M. McGill, Bradley University (Knox College, Fall 2017) mmcgill@bradley.edu

  2. On this day… give or take • Literature Review of Pre-College Computing Activities [SIGCSE 2016 Paper] • Years 2009-2015 • 6 venues (SIGCSE, ITiCSE, ICER, TOCE, CS Ed Journal, FIE) • 3949 papers inspected for relevance; 80 papers given in-depth analysis • Findings • Mainly US interventions • Wide range of ages covered by interventions • Many focused on increasing diversity • Very few (7) longitudinal studies • Many missing key pieces of data in the reporting

  3. This Talk • Another Systematic Literature Review • Expanded Corpus of Venues • Discussion of our results • Recommendations for the community based on our findings

  4. Systematic Literature Review • Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen, and Antes (2003), Petticrew and Roberts (2006) • Five steps: • Frame the question • Identify relevant work • Assess the quality of the studies • Summarize the evidence • Interpret the findings

  5. Step 1: Frame the Question • “What are the similarities and differences in the reported results in formal, peer-reviewed research that has been conducted on computing outreach activities across different countries/regions?” • Overarching characteristics: • Populations Studied—Students enrolled in computing outreach programs as defined by the researchers • Interventions—Programs that exposed students to computing concepts • Study designs—Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies • Outcomes—Effects of the program on participants’ behaviors, attitudes, skills, knowledge, or dispositions

  6. Step 2: Identify Relevant Work • Years: 2009 to 2015 [The original six] • SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) • Frontiers in Education (FIE) [*** 2015 Proceedings now added ***] • Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) • International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER) • Taylor & Francis’ Computer Science Education (CSE) • Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)

  7. Step 2: Additional Venues • AustralaisanJournal of Information Sciences (AJIS) • Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC) • Australian Journal of Education (AJE) • IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference [only 2010-2015] (EDUCON) • IEEETransactions on Education (ToE) • Information Systems Journal (ISJ) • Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology (JRPIT) • Journal of Educational Computing Research (JECR) • KoliCalling (Koli) • Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education [only 2012-2015] (WiPSCE)]

  8. Step 2: Identify Relevant Work • 3,949(original) + 3,316 (new) = 7,265 candidate articles to be reviewed for relevance • Keywords/Concepts • K-12, outreach, computer/computing club, elementary school, high school, secondary school, after school clubs, primary school, or summer camp • 36 new articles (from new set) to undergo a more thorough review

  9. Step 3: Assess the Quality of the Studies Read 36 new articles 18 removed described the activity/curriculum in general terms work in progress papers that did not include any data or findings

  10. Step 4: Summary of Evidence

  11. Where did the activities take place?

  12. Step 5: Interpret the Findings (Discussion) • Lack of longitudinal studies (Reported by only 9 (9%) of the studies – only 2 of those outside the US) • Increasing gender diversity goal of 52% of studies, but only 37% of the non-US studies • Measures of effectiveness varied across studies • Most popular: Potential further study of computing, interest in computing careers, and participant attitudes about computing • 23% of studies looked at knowledge of computing concepts (twice as likely to be looked at by US study) • Participant enjoyment was 2.5 times more likely to be collected in non-US studies

  13. Lack of Longitudinal Studies • Only 9 out of the 98 papers gave results from longitudinal studies • Recollective studies • McLachlan, Craig, and Coldwell [2010] • 681 Australian university students in their first and second year of studies • Recall experiences from secondary school • Of those that were interested in studying senior ICT subjects, there were only a few differences in opinions among the males and females. • Of those not studying in the ICT field, participants indicated that it was due to lack of interest.

  14. Recollective Studies • Google [2015] • 1,739 U.S. high school students and recent college graduates • Factors that influence male and females to choose to study in a computing field • They found that women who chose to study computing were influenced more by encouragement and exposure to computing, particularly by family. • Guzdial,Ericson, McKlin, and Engelman[2012] • U.S. undergraduates; Why students chose not to major in a computing related field • 1) lack of interest in the type of work that a computing major leads to; 2) lack of interest in the subject matter; 3) lack of enjoyment from computing courses; 4) lack of confidence in their ability to succeed in computing; and 5) feeling that they didn’t “fit in”.

  15. Recollective Studies • McGill, Decker, Settle [2015] • 770 U.S. undergraduate students • Involvement in computing activities before college impacted the choice of a technology major, but that impact differed across gender and ethnicities • For those who did not choose to ultimately pursue a computing degree, there were differences in perceptions among males and females of the activities and their place in technology. • Craig (2015) • Championed the need for more formal evaluations in gender and computing interventions • Major step in proposing a framework to identify the “who, what, why, and how” of intervention programs in order to create an understanding of the programs that are (and are not) effective.

  16. Challenges to Longitudinal Studies • Lack of reward, particularly for women • Time Commitment • Tracking Participants • Difficulty defining methodologies and variables • Confounding variables

  17. Next Steps • Change the perception that outreach is of less value than other forms of research and practice • Longitudinal not equal to decades • 3 or 6 months after? • Evaluation Frameworks • Validated Instruments

  18. Next Steps – Shameless Plug • Community support to promote these frameworks and resources • Workshops, panels, and special sessions at conferences • Our IUSE grant (Nos. 1625005 and 1625335) is looking at ways to curate and evaluate data about pre-college computing activities • Come to our BOF at 6:20pm in room 203and find out more

More Related