Gender Differences in Types of Assignments Preferred: Implications for Computer Science Instruction

Abstract

A study analyzing survey results of more than 850 students enrolled in college computer courses was conducted. The survey included, among other things, questions about students' preferences for a programming assignment. The three choices given were examples of common types of programming assignments found in CS1 textbooks: an application to “real-world” activities, a game program, and a mathematical problem to be solved. This study reports the preferences of all students (includes 65 different majors) answering the survey question and also compares the results with the CS majors. Gender differences were evident from the study, and implications for developing assignments to better motivate and involve various groups of students in Computer Science programming classes are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barker

, & Garvin-Doxas

(2004). Making visible the behaviors that influence learning environment: A qualitative exploration of computer science classrooms. Computer Science Education, 14(2), 267–273.

Bernstein

(1991). Comfort and experience with computing: Are they the same for women and men? SIGCSE Bulletin, 23(3), 57–60.

Beyer

Rynes

Perrault

Hay

, & Haller

(2003). Gender differences in computer science students. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York: ACM.

Bunderson

E. D.

, & Christensen

M. E.

(1995). An analysis of retention problems for female students in university computer science programs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 1–15.

Camp

(1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 103–110.

Clarke

V. A.

, & Chambers

S. M.

(1989). Gender-based factors in computing enrollments and achievement: Evidence from a study of tertiary students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(4), 409–429.

Greening

(1999, March). Gender stereotyping in a computer science course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(1), 203–207.

Irani

(2004). Understanding gender and confidence in CS course culture. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York: ACM, 195–199.

Kersteen

Z. A.

Linn

M. C.

Clancey

, & Hardyck

(1988). Previous experience and the learning of computer programming: The computer helps those who help themselves. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(3), 321–333.

10.

Margolis

, & Fisher

(2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/index.asp

12.

National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and engineering 2004, Press Release. Retrieved August 2004 from: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/newsroom/pr.cfm?ni=10000000000102

13.

Randall

Price

, & Reichgelt

(2003). Women in computing: Does the incredible shrinking pipeline apply to all computing programs? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), 55–59.

14.

Rowell

Perhac

Hankins

Parker

Petty

, & Iriarte-Gross

(2003). Computer-related gender differences. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin–Inroads, 35(1), 504–558.

15.

Salcedo

(2003). Faculty and the 21st century student in USA higher education. SIGCSE Bulletin: Inroads, 35(2), 83–87.

16.

Wilson

(2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education Journal, 12(1–2), 141–164.

17.

Wilson

(2004). A study of learning environments associated with computer courses: Can we teach them better? Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(2), 267–273.