skip to main content
10.1145/3287324.3287438acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Student Engagement is Key to Broadening Participation in CS

Published:22 February 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Mobile CS Principles (Mobile CSP) course is one of the NSF-supported, College Board-endorsed curricula for the new Computer Science Principles AP course. Since 2013, the Mobile CSP project has trained more than 700 teachers, and the course has been offered to more than 20,000 students throughout the United States. The organizing philosophy behind the Mobile CSP course is that student engagement in the classroom is the key to getting students, especially those traditionally underrepresented in CS, interested in pursuing further study and careers in CS. The main strategies used to engage Mobile CSP students are: (1) a focus on mobile computing throughout the course, taking advantage of current student interest in smartphones; (2) an emphasis on getting students building mobile apps from day one, by utilizing the highly accessible App Inventor programming language; and (3) an emphasis on building creative, 'socially useful' apps to get students thinking about ways that computing can help their communities. In this paper we present and summarize two years of data of various types (i.e., student surveys, teacher surveys, objective assessments, and anecdotal reports from students and teachers) to support the hypothesis that engagement of the sort practiced in the Mobile CSP course not only helps broaden participation in CS among hard-to-reach demographics, but also provides them with a solid grounding in computer science principles and practices.

References

  1. James Appleton, Sandra Christenson, and Michael Furlong. 2008. Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct., Vol. 45 (05 2008), 369 -- 386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. College Board. 2017. AP Computer Science Principles: Course and Exam Description. https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computer-science-principles-course-and-exam-description.pdf Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lisa M Bouillion and Louis M Gomez. 2001. Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school--community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 38, 8 (2001), 878--898.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sandra L Christenson, Amy L Reschly, and Cathy Wylie. 2012. Handbook of research on student engagement .Springer Science & Business Media. 816--7 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jan Cuny. 2015. Transforming K-12 Computing Education: AP&Reg; Computer Science Principles. ACM Inroads, Vol. 6, 4 (Nov. 2015), 58--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mobile CSP Curriculum. 2018. Course site: http://course.mobilecsp.org, Teacher site: http://teach.mobilecsp.org. https://mobile-csp.org/ Retrieved November 1, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carol S. Dweck. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success .Ballantine Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. NCWIT Engage CS Edu. 2018. https://www.engage-csedu.org/engagement/make-it-matter Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mark Guzdial. 2015. Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, Vol. 8, 6 (2015), 1--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sasha Jones. 2018. Participation in AP Computer Science Principles Grows Again. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2018/06/by_guest_blogger_sasha_jones.html Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Duhita Mahatmya, Brenda J Lohman, Jennifer L Matjasko, and Amy Feldman Farb. 2012. Engagement across developmental periods. In Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer, 45--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2002. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34, 1 (2002), 38--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM, Vol. 49, 8 (2006), 90--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ralph Morelli, Chinma Uche, Pauline Lake, and Lawrence Baldwin. 2015. Analyzing year one of a CS Principles PD project. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, 368--373. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. NCWIT. {n. d.}. How Does the Physical Environment Affect Women's Entry and Persistence in Computing? https://www.ncwit.org/resources/how-does-physical-environment-affect-women%E2%80%99s-entry-and-persistence-computing Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. MIT News Office. 2010. The MIT roots of Google's new software. http://news.mit.edu/2010/android-abelson-0819 Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. Constructionism, Vol. 36, 2 (1991), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. CS Pogil. 2019. http://cspogil.org Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Press Release. 2014. https://esty.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-elizabeth-esty-announces-congressional-design-your-own-app-contest Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jennifer Rosato, Chery Lucarelli, Cassandra Beckworth, and Ralph Morelli. 2017. A Comparison of Online and Hybrid Professional Development for CS Principles Teachers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 140--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. NCWIT By the Numbers. 2017. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/btn_04042018_web.pdf Retrieved August 15, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Paulo Blikstein (Stanford University). {n. d.}. Seymour Papert's Legacy: Thinking About Learning, and Learning About Thinking. https://tltl.stanford.edu/content/seymour-papert-s-legacy-thinking-about-learning-and-learning-about-thinking Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. WCVB. 2016. 5 for Good: Local high School students win Congressional App Challenge. https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-for-good-local-high-school-students-win-congressional-app-challenge/8096710 Retrieved August 31, 2018 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David Weintrop, Heather Killen, and Baker Franke. 2018. Blocks or Text? How programming language modality makes a difference in assessing underrepresented populations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences 2018, At London, UK .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David Wolber. 2011. App inventor and real-world motivation. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, 601--606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. David Wolber, Hal Abelson, Ellen Spertus, and Liz Looney. 2011. App Inventor ." O'Reilly Media, Inc.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Student Engagement is Key to Broadening Participation in CS

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      February 2019
      1364 pages
      ISBN:9781450358903
      DOI:10.1145/3287324

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      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].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 February 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCSE '19 Paper Acceptance Rate169of526submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader