This article reports on an intervention program for women in the first year of a computing degree. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate the intervention program. The quantitative results revealed the most significant factors influencing success in the first programming course to be age, having studied mathematics in the final years of secondary school, followed by university entrance score, previous programming experience, type of degree, and year of study. The qualitative results showed that the participants appreciated the supportive environment provided by the intervention program. There was a sustained increase in retention rate after the program was introduced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ByrneE. M. (1993). Women and science: The snark syndrome. London: Falmer Press.
2.
CampT. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40, 103–110.
3.
CampbellP. F., & McCabeG. P. (1984). Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer science major. Communications of the ACM, 27, 1108–1113.
4.
CartwrightA., & ColvilleP. (1994). A mentor scheme for Bachelor of Computing students. In Broadening the network—Women in computing conference (pp. 1–11). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
5.
CraigA., & FisherJ. (1995). A peer mentoring scheme to encourage and retain female business computing students. In Pacific rim first year experience conference, Brisbane, Australia, ISBN 1 86435 1632 [published on disk].
6.
CraigA.FisherJ.ScollaryA., & SinghM. (1998). Closing the gap—women education and information technology courses in Australia. Journal of Systems Software, 40, 7–15.
7.
DEET. (1990). A fair chance for all: Higher education that's within everyone's reach. Discussion Paper, Australian Government Publishing Service.
8.
FrenkelK. (1990). Women and computing. Communications of the ACM, 33, 34–46.
9.
GalpinV., & SandersI. (1993). Gender imbalances in computer science at the University of Witwatersrand. SIGCSE Bulletin, 25, 2–4.
10.
KemmisS., & WilkinsonM. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In AtwehB.KemmisS. and WeeksP. (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education. London: Routledge.
11.
LundebergM. A., & MochS. D. (1995). Influence of social interaction on cognition, Journal of Higher Education, 66, 312–335.
12.
MartinM., & StaehrL. (1994). What works?—equity initiatives at La Trobe University Bendigo. In Women in computing—Broadening the network (pp. 86–91). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
13.
MartinM.StaehrL., & ByrneG. (1996). An intervention program for first year female computing students. GASAT Australia (pp. 79–85). New Zealand and South Pacific 2nd. Regional Conference, Auckland, N.Z., ISBN 0-908689-52-7.
14.
PaayP.GibsonR., & HartnettJ. (1993). Not (The Power of One): Building networks with amentor scheme. In FisherJ. (Ed.), Networking for the 90's (pp. 60–69). Proceedings of the Second Women in Computing Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
15.
SandersI. (1995). A peer-tutoring programme in computer science at the University of Witwatersrand, Gates, 2, 38–46.
16.
StaehrL., & MartinM. (1995). Improving the retention rates of first year females in computing courses, Pacific Rim First Year Experience Conference, Brisbane, Australia, July, ISBN 1 86435 1632 [published on disk].
17.
StaehrL.MartinM., & ByrneG. (1998). An intervention program for women in computing courses: Does it make a difference? In MunariS.KrarupG., & RasmussenL. B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference Human Choice and Computers HCC-5: Computers and Networks in the Age of Globalization (pp. 231–243). Geneva, Switzerland.
18.
TaylorH. G., & MounfieldL. C. (1989). The effect of high school computer science, gender and work on success, SIGCSE Bulletin, 21, 195–198.
