[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3430665.3456335acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

The Early Bird Gets the Worm: Major Retention in CS3

Published: 26 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Enrollments continue to rise in Computer Science courses, yet fostering inclusive climates and retaining diverse student bodies remain key challenges. Gender ratios remain heavily skewed and many demographics are severely underrepresented. Numerous studies investigate student retention in introductory courses, but few focus on later stages of the CS retention "pipeline", where techniques and findings from earlier courses may no longer apply.
In this work, we focus on the relatively understudied transition from introductory CS courses to upper level courses via CS3 (data structures and algorithms). We conduct an analysis of archival data for a CS3 course at a large, public university in the US, analyzing anonymized student assignments and university student records to identify factors that result in students choosing not to declare the major. Our analysis indicates that sex alone is not enough to predict students leaving the program after CS3 (despite reporting a desire to declare the major). However, we identify that students intending to major in CS who take CS3 later in their academic careers (often associated with non-traditional students) are 13% less likely to actually declare a CS major (p = 0.00005). Further, we find a disparity between these students and their "fast-tracked" counterparts in their project performance as measured by an autograder (p = 0.00003). Our findings indicate that the strategy of introducing students to CS early in their college careers and swiftly passing them through the intro sequence is effective in retaining students, yet unintentionally leaves behind those who reach CS in a more roundabout way.

References

[1]
Alireza Ahadi, Raymond Lister, Heikki Haapala, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. Exploring Machine Learning Methods to Automatically Identify Students in Need of Assistance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (Omaha, Nebraska, USA) (ICER '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121--130. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787717
[2]
Amy Baer and Andrew DeOrio. 2020. A Longitudinal View of Gender Balance in a Large Computer Science Program. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Portland OR USA, 23--29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366806
[3]
L. Barker, C. L. Hovey, and L. D. Thompson. 2014. Results of a large-scale, multi-institutional study of undergraduate retention in computing. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings. 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044267
[4]
Lecia J. Barker, Charlie McDowell, and Kimberly Kalahar. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 41, 1 (March 2009), 153--157. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508923
[5]
Leopold Bayerlein. 2014. Students' feedback preferences: how do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 39, 8 (2014), 916--931. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870531
[6]
Sylvia Beyer. 2014. Why are women underrepresented in Computer Science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education, Vol. 24, 2--3 (July 2014), 153--192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2014.963363 Publisher: Routledge.
[7]
Sylvia Beyer, Kristina Rynes, Julie Perrault, Kelly Hay, and Susan Haller. 2003. Gender differences in computer science students. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE '03. ACM Press, Reno, Navada, USA, 49. https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.611930
[8]
Maureen Biggers, Anne Brauer, and Tuba Yilmaz. 2008. 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 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 402--406. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352274
[9]
Jacob Clark Blickenstaff*. 2005. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, Vol. 17, 4 (2005), 369--386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072
[10]
Tracy Camp. 2002. The incredible shrinking pipeline. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34, 2 (2002), 129--134.
[11]
Lori Carter. 2006. Why Students with an Apparent Aptitude for Computer Science Don't Choose to Major in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Houston, Texas, USA) (SIGCSE '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27--31. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121341.1121352
[12]
Karo Castro-Wunsch, Alireza Ahadi, and Andrew Petersen. 2017. Evaluating Neural Networks as a Method for Identifying Students in Need of Assistance. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGCSE '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111--116. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017792
[13]
Committee on the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/24926 Pages: 24926.
[14]
Computing Research Association. 2017. Generation CS: Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments Surge Since 2006. Technical Report. http://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/
[15]
Phillip Dawson, Michael Henderson, Paige Mahoney, Michael Phillips, Tracii Ryan, David Boud, and Elizabeth Molloy. 2019. What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 44, 1 (Jan 2019), 25--36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
[16]
Christopher Douce, David Livingstone, and James Orwell. 2005. Automatic Test-Based Assessment of Programming: A Review. J. Educ. Resour. Comput., Vol. 5, 3 (Sept. 2005), 4--es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1163405.1163409
[17]
Michail N. Giannakos, Ilias O. Pappas, Letizia Jaccheri, and Demetrios G. Sampson. 2017. Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 22, 5 (Sep 2017), 2365--2382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016--9538--1
[18]
Graciela Gonzalez. 2006. A Systematic Approach to Active and Cooperative Learning in CS1 and Its Effects on CS2. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 38, 1 (March 2006), 133--137. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124706.1121386
[19]
J. W. Harrold and J. Sandland. 2018. The Influence of Immediate Homework Feedback on Student Performance and Satisfaction in an Engineering MOOC. In 2018 Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS). 90--93.
[20]
Andrea Jepson and Teri Perl. 2002. Priming the Pipeline. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 34, 2 (June 2002), 36--39. https://doi.org/10.1145/543812.543826
[21]
Sandra Katz, David Allbritton, John Aronis, Christine Wilson, and Mary Lou Soffa. 2006. Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 37, 4 (Nov. 2006), 42--57. https://doi.org/10.1145/1185335.1185344
[22]
Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why students drop out CS1 course?. In Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Computing education research - ICER '06. ACM Press, 97. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151604
[23]
H. Bruce Lammers, Tina Kiesler, Mary T. Curren, Deborah Cours, and Brian Connett. 2005. How Hard Do I Have to Work? Student and Faculty Expectations Regarding University Work. Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80, 4 (2005), 210--213. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.4.210--213
[24]
Karyn L. Lewis, Jane G. Stout, Noah D. Finkelstein, Steven J. Pollock, Akira Miyake, Geoff L. Cohen, and Tiffany A. Ito. 2017. Fitting in to Move Forward: Belonging, Gender, and Persistence in the Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (pSTEM). Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 41, 4 (Dec 2017), 420--436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720186
[25]
Jon Marcus. 2018. Switching majors is adding time and tuition to the already high cost of college. Hechinger Report (Dec 2018). https://hechingerreport.org/switching-majors-is-adding-time-and-tuition-to-the-already-high-cost-of-college/
[26]
Beryl Nelson. 2014. The data on diversity. Commun. ACM, Vol. 57, 11 (Oct 2014), 86--95. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597886
[27]
An Nguyen and Colleen M. Lewis. 2020. Competitive Enrollment Policies in Computing Departments Negatively Predict First-Year Students' Sense of Belonging, Self-Efficacy, and Perception of Department. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Portland OR USA, 685--691. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366805
[28]
Pete Nordquist. 2007. Providing Accurate and Timely Feedback by Automatically Grading Student Programming Labs. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., Vol. 23, 2 (Dec. 2007), 16--23.
[29]
Daphne W. Ntiri. 2001. Access to Higher Education for Nontraditional Students and Minorities in a Technology-Focused Society. Urban Education, Vol. 36, 1 (2001), 129--144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085901361007
[30]
E. Patitsas, M. Craig, and S. Easterbrook. 2016. How CS departments are managing the enrolment boom: Troubling implications for diversity. In 2016 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). 1--2.
[31]
Markeya S. Peteranetz and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2020. A Multi-Level Analysis of the Relationship between Instructional Practices and Retention in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 37--43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366812
[32]
J. Raigoza. 2017. A study of students' progress through introductory computer science programming courses. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1--7.
[33]
Catherine Riegle-Crumb, Barbara King, and Chelsea Moore. 2016. Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors. Sex Roles, Vol. 74, 9--10 (May 2016), 436--449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0583--4
[34]
Linda J. Sax, Jennifer M. Blaney, Kathleen J. Lehman, Sarah L. Rodriguez, Kari L. George, and Christina Zavala. 2018. Sense of Belonging in Computing: The Role of Introductory Courses for Women and Underrepresented Minority Students. Social Sciences, Vol. 7, 8 (Jul 2018), 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080122
[35]
Linda J. Sax, Kathleen J. Lehman, and Christina Zavala. 2017. Examining the Enrollment Growth: Non-CS Majors in CS1 Courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 513--518. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017781
[36]
Duane F. Shell, Leen-Kiat Soh, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Markeya S. Peteranetz. 2016. Students' Initial Course Motivation and Their Achievement and Retention in College CS1 Courses. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (Memphis, Tennessee, USA) (SIGCSE '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 639--644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844606
[37]
Matthew F. Tennyson and Marc Beck. 2018. A Study of Knowledge Retention in Introductory Programming Courses. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., Vol. 33, 4 (April 2018), 13--20.
[38]
Barbara K Townsend. 2000. Transfer students' institutional attendance patterns: A case study. College and University, Vol. 76, 1 (2000), 21.
[39]
R. Varma and H. Hahn. 2008. Gender and the pipeline metaphor in computing. European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 33, 1 (2008), 3--11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701745936
[40]
Philip R. Ventura. 2005. Identifying predictors of success for an objects-first CS1. Computer Science Education, Vol. 15, 3 (Sep 2005), 223--243. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400500224419
[41]
Anna Vitores and Adriana Gil-Juárez. 2016. The trouble with 'women in computing': a critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science. Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 25, 6 (Nov 2016), 666--680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2015.1087309
[42]
Brenda Cantwell Wilson. 2002. A Study of Factors Promoting Success in Computer Science Including Gender Differences. Computer Science Education, Vol. 12, 1--2 (March 2002), 141--164. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.12.1.141.8211 Publisher: Routledge.
[43]
Dana Wortman and Penny Rheingans. 2007. Visualizing Trends in Student Performance across Computer Science Courses. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 39, 1 (March 2007), 430--434. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227458
[44]
Ken Yasuhara. 2005. Choosing computer science: Women at the start of the undergraduate pipeline. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference .
[45]
Anna Zajacova, Scott M. Lynch, and Thomas J. Espenshade. 2005. Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Academic Success in College. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46, 6 (Sep 2005), 677--706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004--4139-z

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Computer Science Undergraduate Programs: The Role of AdmissionsProceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3623762.3633496(1-29)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
June 2021
611 pages
ISBN:9781450382144
DOI:10.1145/3430665
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].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 June 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. CS3
  2. archival data
  3. fast-tracking
  4. retention

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ITiCSE 2021
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)57
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Computer Science Undergraduate Programs: The Role of AdmissionsProceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3623762.3633496(1-29)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2023

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media