Abstract
This chapter tells the story of the Broadening Participation in Computing Alliances, arguably the National Science Foundation’s greatest achievement in broadening participation in computing at the postsecondary level. The historical backgrounds of the Alliances are given, together with their current activities. The Alliances profiled in this chapter include ones focused on specific minority groups such as African Americans (iAAMCS), and Hispanics (CAHSI), both women and minorities (CRA-W/CDC), geographical regions (Georgia Computes, CAITE, and STARS), and persons with disabilities (AccessComputing).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While the initial program evaluation shows promising results (see Chubin et al. 2012), it is too soon to know the final impact of the Broadening Participation in Computing program. Final evaluation is being carried out by Gary Silverstein of Westat and Leslie Goodyear of EDC . See, for example, Goodyear and Silverstein (2013).
- 2.
Many of the early evaluations in this field were conducted by Baine Alexander , Susan Millar , and their colleagues at the LEAD Center at the University Wisconsin – Madison or by Lecia Barker , Tim Weston , and their colleagues at the Assessment and Research Center of the University of Colorado at Boulder ATLAS Institute.
- 3.
There are two major conferences on technology and people with disabilities. One was created by Harry Murphy at California State University Northridge and is focused on the higher education community. The other is Closing the Gap, started by the parents of a deaf student; it is now the major conference for disabilities for people in the precollege community. On the history of research related to accommodation of people with disabilities, see Thompson and Burgstahler (2014).
- 4.
One of the most active research areas involves enabling people with low vision or blindness to use computers or be educated in or professionally practice in computing or one of the STEM disciplines. The author is working on a history of this topic.
- 5.
Burgstahler (2015) says of her long-time collaborator, Richard Ladner, and herself: “We make a very complete package, and if you look at a lot of projects around the country, one of the things they are challenged with, is they have someone like Richard [a highly skilled computer scientist], but he’s not one to run a big alliance or center. That’s not his strengths nor is it the direction of his career, nor should he apply his expertise in that area, as far as I am concerned. Then you have people like me [who] are more practitioner-oriented, working directly with the kids, and managing a large organization. I’ve become very good at grant writing … We work well together in part because we bring different skills to the table, and we choose to work well together…[I also bring evaluation skills from] my education [training. [Richard] wasn’t used to the type of evaluation you do in education type projects. He was more used testing of the product …, which was very different… I am more oriented [to] promotion of things we’re trying to do, getting communities together, planning the meeting. I’ve acquired a staff that helps do all that of course. I don’t do it [all] myself].
- 6.
The DO-IT Center works with companies to make their products more accessible. One example is the Canvas learning management system produced by Instructure and used on many college campuses. For example, to make a course available to blind students, Canvas does not have to provide the audio output, but the course design and the course management system needs to be compatible with the use of a screen reader, which will itself provide the sound for the blind student. This still does not help the blind student if the course materials contain textual material stored as images (e.g. as PDF files) without alternative text describing the image. (Burgstahler 2015)
- 7.
Burgstahler (2015) identified several issues with the construction of assistive technologies and universal design:
-
Developers often interact too little with the people with disabilities, sometimes because they are either nervous about talking with them; and sometimes these designers make incorrect assumptions. As a result, many assistive technologies are abandoned by people with disabilities, even in cases when a technology was designed for them specifically.
-
Engineers meet one person with a disability, design something to meet that person’s particular needs, and then incorrectly generalize that all people with that particular disability will have the same needs.
-
The research is narrowly focused, in most instances, meaning that major improvements for people with disabilities are slow in coming.
-
The US Department of Education sets high standards for the review process on empirical research, which would be a good thing except that the standards are too high for working with the small and specialized populations of disabled people; in these cases it is hard to obtain the randomized samples or even matched samples that the agency is looking for in projects that it supports.
-
With universal design, a typical problem is that testing is done with the most common users and not with users who have disabilities, since they are likely to be in a minority in the population. Nevertheless, there has been progress. For example the iPhone has numerous accessibility features built into it; and the “long tail” features of mobile applications mean that people can build and distribute an app for a small population of users with disabilities.
-
- 8.
On Ladner’s contributions to computing for people with disabilities, and his winning of a presidential award for these efforts, see Riskin and Lazowska (2005).
- 9.
In addition to his own research and his work with AccessComputing, Ladner has influenced activities related to assistive technologies through his service from 2007 to 2013 on the CEOSE board (CEOSE is described in Chap. 2) and his current service on the board of the Center for Minorities and People with Disabilities in Information Technology (CMD -IT, pronounced “command it”, which is discussed in volume two of this pair of books on broadening participation in computing).
Ladner and his colleague Liz Litzler (2012) have argued that NSF needs to support both education (to achieve a stronger and more diverse workforce) and research (to achieve innovation), and that the funding ratio is currently out of balance in favor of research. Ladner sees an ongoing tension, with CEOSE pushing for more education, while many of the NSF leaders favor more research. (Ladner 2015a)
- 10.
Ladner (2014b) describes how he came to be an accessibility researcher. The article also discusses the research of a number of his students.
- 11.
Another project that Ladner and his students have undertaken involves automated translation into Braille of the figure labels in textbooks; and, for late-blind people who are not proficient in using Braille, use of QR codes in place of Braille for these labels. A smartphone can automatically render QR codes into text so that a standard screen reader can be used to read the resulting text. Another example is Perkinput , developed by Ladner and his student Sheri Azenkot , for rapid non-visual text entry. Perkinput doubled the speed at which blind students can record text compared to the standard means of entering Braille.
- 12.
For a list of Ladner’s current and former doctoral students, and what they are currently doing, see http://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/ladner/students
- 13.
Ladner (2015b) advocates a form of human-computer interaction that he calls “design for user empowerment”. In user-centered design, people with disabilities are involved in the testing phase of designs. In participatory design, people with disabilities are also involved in coming up with requirements and features of the design. In design for user empowerment, people with disabilities are involved with all four phases of the design cycle: analyzing, designing, prototyping, and testing. It involves having people with disabilities in control of the design, not simply being passive recipients of the technology designed for them.
- 14.
Ladner also organized a Saturday-morning program, for 3 years, for local students with disabilities interested in computing.
- 15.
Burgstahler (2015) notes that many of the groups that serve underrepresented groups are “siloed”, e.g. a group serving women might not have thought about the issues of women who are deaf or limited in their mobility.
- 16.
While the NSF funds pay for many of the costs of these programs, there has been substantial additional support from private organizations such as the Gates Foundation and the Johnson Scholarship Foundation.
- 17.
AccessComputing also helps out individual researchers and research projects around the country with small grants. For example, with AccessComputing funding, Jonathan Lazar of Towson University was able to make both the website and the papers presented at a recent ACM CHI conference accessible; and Jeff Bingham was able to run a 1-week workshop at summer institutes organized by the National Federation of the Blind . (Ladner 2015a)
- 18.
The University of Texas at San Antonio and California State University at San Bernadino were also part of the early discussions, but they were unable to procure high-level support at their university and so dropped out. Later, three additional institutions were brought in to CAHSI: Dade College , California State University at San Marcos, and the University of Texas – Pan American . To coordinate activities there are monthly telephone calls and in-person meetings several times a year at existing venues where representatives of the schools were likely to attend anyway, such as the annual SACNAS Conference or the annual meetings that NSF runs for principal investigators in its broadening participation programs such as BPC or CE21 . (Gates 2014)
- 19.
For example, the University of Houston – Downtown focused on peer-led team learning; Texas A&M – Corpus Christi focused on a CS 0 course to teach basic programming and problem solving skills, through the use of Alice, Python, and Android applications, to students who had no previous programming experience, in order to prepare them for the introductory computer science course CS 1; New Mexico State focused on attracting women and underrepresented minorities into the computer science major by attracting students from K-12 programs; the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez focused on mentoring in preparation for the transition from undergraduate into doctoral study, and in building collaborations with majority, doctoral-granting institutions; and Florida International University focused on getting undergraduates engaged in research and publication and in helping the students to become competitive in putting together fellowship applications (what became known as Fellow-Net). UTEP’s involvement with affinity research groups is described below.
- 20.
According to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory, learning takes place as one becomes a knowledgeable, skillful member of a community; over time, an individual learner emulates and enacts the community’s practices. For more detail about this theory, and how it applies generally to undergraduate research experiences and particularly to UTEP’s affinity research groups, see Villa et al. (2013).
- 21.
In the early 1980s, computer science at UTEP had an inauspicious beginning as a program – not a department – with three tracks with emphases in business, math, and electrical engineering. The program was under-resourced, e.g. with no dedicated office space and no book and journal budget in the library. Much of the funding came from IBM instead of the university. None of the three faculty were experts in computer science: Bernat knew some Algol that he had learned in his study of astronomy; the business person had no formal computing background; and the third person was a numerical analyst who had been denied tenure by the math department and was working for the computing center. Eventually, a department was created within the engineering college with funds culled from the engineering dean’s budget, and a building was found.
Bernat regards as the signal event in the department’s history the hiring of Vladimir Lifschitz , who became an exemplary departmental citizen as well as being an outstanding researcher who attracted a strong research group to work with him. He came to UTEP only because he was unfamiliar with American academic hiring practices and waited too late in the year to find a job elsewhere. He later left to work with John McCarthy at Stanford and is now a professor at the flagship campus of the University of Texas in Austin.
Also critically important to the department’s history, Bernat believes, are the NSF infrastructure grants discussed later in this section. In addition to the material changes these grants brought to the department, they were among the largest federal grants received by UTEP at this time, so they legitimated the computer science program. For example, it was only upon receiving the first large grant that the university decided to find and renovate dedicated space on campus for the department . (Bernat 2015)
- 22.
Working together with David and Roger Johnson was their sister, Edie Johnson Hollybeck . Bernat learned about their work through a lecture he heard by another University of Minnesota professor, Karl Smith , who was a leading authority in engineering education. (Bernat 2015) Edie and Karl also came to campus to give workshops on cooperative learning.
- 23.
For more information about cooperative learning theory, see Johnson and Johnson (2015).
- 24.
The minority infrastructure program was established within CISE by Bill Wulf, who was heading the directorate at the time. Wulf observed that while there were a few minority-serving institutions making contributions to undergraduate education in computing, there were virtually none conducting a significant amount of research. The new infrastructure program was, in part, intended to address that issue. (Bernat 2015)
- 25.
Bernat (2015) made several observations about the student population in his program. He noted that Hispanics are a majority in the El Paso population, and so there was not too much of a “minority mindset” for Hispanics growing up in El Paso. The university has an approximately 80 % Hispanic student population, so there has been no difficulty in recruiting a large Hispanic student body to the computer science department. The strong sense of family in Hispanic culture and worry about daughters being safe on campus at night made it more difficult to recruit women into the undergraduate computer science program. “For a period of time we worked awfully hard at increasing the number of women. We got the percentage of women way up, 40 something percent. We patted ourselves on the back, and went on to other things, and the percentage dropped again.” On getting promising undergraduates to move away to attend graduate school, Bernat argued “Hispanic culture has a very strong emphasis on family. People don’t want to leave their families, so to go off was hard. We had more success among upper-economic-class Hispanic families because they had bought into the classic American, ‘Off you go’ culture.”
- 26.
Bernat (2015) has a less positive view about these NSF pre-conference meetings at Snowbird. While he met some people at these workshops from other minority serving institutions, UTEP had little contact with the other schools outside these workshops. He also questions whether the rubbing shoulders at Snowbird led to substantial majority-minority collaborations. In summary, he stated, “There’s no question that the MIIs were the poor peasants. … I assume that some schools thought, ‘Well, this is the sort of thing NSF has to do, but the money could be spent better elsewhere’. You could certainly look at these as sort of an affirmative action program. Lots of people don’t like affirmative action programs. I wouldn’t say there was much building of community.”
- 27.
The account in the main body of the text here probably underrepresents the influence of NSF on computing development at minority-serving institutions such as UTEP. For example, through its CREST and I3 (Innovation Through Institutional Integration) programs, NSF has supported Gates’s interdisciplinary center for computational science, in which she engages students and faculty from across campus – not only those from the computer science department. (Gates 2014)
- 28.
So, if the Broadening Participation Alliances did not originate in the MII meetings, where did they originate? Cuny recalled
[T]he other Alliances [besides CAHSI] had their beginnings in a range of things: long time CRA-W activities, the very new NCWIT Alliance, the DO-IT Alliance at UW, etc. I really did not consciously model anything on MII, looked much more at AGEP for the inspiration of the Alliance piece of the program. The community-building aspects of BPC started early with that very first meeting and continue to be a major aim of the program though that community has extended to include CS Ed folks as well as evaluators and EHR-type researches. (Personal communication to the author, 21 October 2015)
- 29.
Computational thinking was an educational concept promoted by Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Jeanette Wing , especially while she was the head of CISE at NSF.
- 30.
Gates (2014) credits Carlos Rodriguez , a recently retired research scientist from the American Institutes for Research , as having developed a number of basic ideas central to the Affinity Research Model. Rodriguez is well known for his evaluation work on STEM underrepresentation. Gates also points to the research of the social scientist Maricel Quintana-Baker of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia , who has studied recruitment and retention strategies and culture at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, including her studies of student advancement at UTEP.
- 31.
The Affinity Research Group model was stable – not to say unchanging – long before UTEP received funds in 2005 from NSF BPC. See, for example, Teller and Gates (2001).
- 32.
When Jan Cuny read an early draft that contained the first sentence of this paragraph, she replied that “unlike most NSF activities, BP was always seen as something that would require sustained commitment and support.” (Private communication to author, 21 October 2015) She pointed to the CISE BP Strategic Plan, which she quoted from:
The causes of longstanding underrepresentation are complex and deeply rooted in the cultures of different demographic groups as well as in our society, in our educational institutions, and in our popular media. They will not be easily or quickly changed. The overall CISE commitment to broadening participation will need to be sustained for a considerable period of time. In addition, CISE must be prepared to support the deployment of successful interventions beyond the funding cycle of three to five years that is typical in its research programs.
However, as this author spoke with the various principal investigators of the Alliances, only those from AccessComputing and NCWIT seemed to believe that funding beyond the normal length for research grants was a possibility. It does, indeed, seem as though these Broadening Participation Alliances need more sustained NSF funding to achieve their goals. Also, Cuny noted the desire on NSF’s part for projects to find their own long-term funding outside of NSF: “At the same time, of course, we do continuously re-evaluate our investments and their outcomes, and over time they change. It is always important that successful activities migrate, where possible, into other stable forms of funding, to make room for new activities and approaches.” This is a classic case of competing positive values: sustaining broadening participation activities that need to exist for a long time to have effect, and opening up funding to advance new and socially important NSF initiatives.
- 33.
All of these organizations are discussed in the second volume of this pair of books on broadening participation in computing.
There have also been good interactions between CAHSI and MSIDA (the dean’s organization at minority-serving institutions), but there are structural impediments to any actual merger inasmuch as MSIDA’s members are deans.
- 34.
Barnhill and Gates had known one another for a number of years from his time as a research administrator at Arizona State University and her time as a research administrator at UTEP. Their mutual respect will probably go a long way toward fixing the rough start the two organizations have had in working together.
- 35.
Georgia Computes and CAITE has worked together even before their merger into ECEP. For example, the evaluators of the two projects worked closely together, even before the merger. (Personal communication, Cuny to the author, 21 October 2015)
- 36.
Principal investigators had to work hard to identify sustainable funding sources and models. For example, Barbara Ericson sought a pricing scheme for the precollege summer workshops and camps that would allow them to break even without NSF funding. She learned that the cost of the programs for high school students needed to be subsidized because they were otherwise too expensive to attract students. However, elementary and middle school students were so interested in the camps that they could be charged more than the actual cost, and the excess funds could subsidize the high school programs.
In order to keep the cost of the summer workshops and camps within reach, Ericson advised workshop organizers to employ high school teachers rather than college faculty because they earned lower salaries. This had the added benefit of enabling the high school teachers to learn new things that they could take back to their classrooms in the Fall . (Guzdial 2015)
- 37.
Georgia Computes taught the instructors for these summer camps how to use such technologies as Scratch, Alice, PicoCrickets, LEGO Mindstorms robots, App Inventor, and Pleo dinosaur robots. (Guzdial and Ericson 2012).
- 38.
Georgia Computes was faced with the issue of how to evaluate computer education across the entire state of Georgia in order to measure the success of its own activities. For a thoughtful discussion of related issues , see Guzdial et al. (2012). The authors expand this discussion about the status of computer science education from the state level to the national level in Ericson and Guzdial (2014).
The final evaluation of Georgia Computes is to be found in Guzdial et al. (2014) Some of the positive outcomes of the program they found: (1) standards for four new computing courses; (2) a computer science endorsement; (3) making computer science count towards graduation requirements in Georgia high schools; (4) greater confidence of high school computer teachers in their pedagogical skills; (5) a significant gain in content to be used in the high school computer science curriculum; (6) increased student engagement with computing; (7) increased student awareness of computing careers; (8) major increases in the number of schools in Georgia offering AP computer science courses; (9) large increases in the number of women and minorities taking the AP computer science exam (though there remained significant problems with the quality of their performance on the exam); and (10) large increases in the number of students (and of women and minority students) taking introductory computer science in college among those who had taken one of the high school courses that Georgia Computes supported.
Another indicator of Georgia Compute’s success is how other states have emulated its programs. For example, Illinois Institute of Technology , Loyola University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois at both the Chicago and Urbana-Champaign campuses have worked together to create Illinois Computes, inspired by Georgia Computes. (Epstein 2009)
- 39.
For an early overview of CAITE goals and activities , see Adrion et al. 2008.
- 40.
For a good overview of the value of community colleges to STEM education, including a number of examples, see Packard (2011). Packard judges Georgia Computes and CAITE as excellent programs. Here are Packard’s list of Barriers for Community College STEM Students (formatting changed, otherwise quoted verbatim): (1) limited knowledge about college navigation; (2) financial – both time and cost; (3) academic preparation in math and science; (4) misalignment of core courses across community colleges and 4-year schools; (5) delayed, inconsistent advising, orientation, and mentoring; (6) constraints affecting the academic and social integration of working students; (7) self-doubt regarding capabilities; (8) cultural fit with professional identity or 4-year institution; and (9) limited sustainability of programs designed to improve retention.
- 41.
Information fluency is a concept resulting from a National Research Council study chaired by Larry Snyder, a computer scientist at the University of Washington. Snyder’s textbook (2004) on information fluency, which intends to teach the basic information skills needed by every citizen, gives a good sense of the topic.
- 42.
See Adrion et al (2010) for a description of the CAITE evaluation plan. Manuel Matos and Alan Peterfreund from SageFox Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in educational research and evaluation, conducted much of the evaluation work.
- 43.
For more information about CITI, see https://web.cs.umass.edu/csinfo/announce/citi.html. Kurose is now the head of CISE at NSF.
- 44.
When policymakers talk about underrepresentation in computing or the STEM disciplines, they generally are referring to women, Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and people with disabilities. Massachusetts is an interesting case because where programs such as CITI, CAITE, and ECEP have addressed underrepresented groups, they are often not those groups normally considered. For example, in southeast Massachusetts there are people of Portuguese heritage and from the Cape Verde Islands. In Lowell and Lawrence, there are underserved Asian groups such as the Hmong, Vietnamese, and Cambodians. In Holyoke, the principal groups are of Puerto Rican heritage or are Russian or Bulgarian immigrants.
- 45.
Adrion argued that the network of connections he had built with the various higher education institutions across Massachusetts was essential to CAITE, but that these connections also created a “management nightmare” because the University of Massachusetts campuses had never been very cooperative with one another, and the community colleges and other higher education institutions had little history of working together. (Adrion 2015a)
- 46.
As Adrion explained the phenomenon:
I always refer to it as ‘entitlement.’ I think people who grew up in Wellesley feel entitled to go to Harvard or Swarthmore or something. They expect to do that and their community expects them to do that.
Some kid growing up in Fall River hasn’t really thought much about going to college or even what the job market is like. Their families are not pushing them. They may be pushing them towards junior college, community college, because they recognize they could get a skill set that would give them higher wages than just a high school diploma would, but I think they’re just totally unaware of what the opportunities are at all. … The students at Holyoke Community College … the majority are Puerto Rican students… and Russians and Bulgarians. [Those are] the primary ethnic groups at Holyoke Community College. Most of them just can’t imagine themselves at UMass. This is just too big and it’s some place that smart kids go. ‘I’m from Holyoke and my parents didn’t go to school,’ ‘I don’t have both parents,’ or whatever the situation is. ‘I can’t afford it.’ ‘It’s scary.’ ‘The students are so much smarter than I am.’ It’s kind of a self-efficacy question that we had to spend a lot of time addressing. (Adrion 2015a)
- 47.
Adrion (2015a) was careful not to call these ‘articulation agreements’, when interviewed. He stated:
…a friend of mine at Trinity College points out that most of the towns in Massachusetts predate the state, so there was no State of Massachusetts when Amherst was founded. It’s a very independent set of communities in New England. We don’t have any high school graduation requirements that are set by the state. The Department of Higher Ed does not standardize curriculum. It tries to support articulation. It has a new program that looks promising, but there is really no articulation in Massachusetts. It’s all very informal and one-to-one. That’s not true in a lot of states… That’s harder when you’ve got 12 state universities, 3 or 4 UMasses, and 15 community colleges that all have to agree; and they all have quite different curriculum.
Articulation, we’ve exchanged that for a policy of providing pathways advice. In other words, we have spent a lot of time developing information for community college students on what the best choice of courses might be at their institution, which would be common across most of the institutions. That prepared them to get out fast once they transfer to a four-year college. That’s what we’ve had to do. We’ve done that by kind of getting all the four-year universities together, talking about what the expectations are, and trying to map that into sort of generic courses. It turns out that it’s not a one-to-one course relationship, because the way people have organized their curriculum. It has been a struggle.
- 48.
When asked about the retention of the students in the community college computer science programs, Adrion noted that while the rates were not high (perhaps only 30–40 %), the numbers moving through and on to a four-year college degree were nevertheless vastly increased, and so one can see the CAITE program as having significant success. One barrier that Adrion noted in particular was that, at the majority of the Massachusetts community colleges, most new hires were adjuncts rather than full-time faculty members, due to cost. Adrion noted that there is substantial evidence that community college teachers do an outstanding job with their students, despite their heavy teaching loads; but that when you are using adjuncts who might be packaging together a course or two at several different community colleges in order to eke out a living, these adjuncts were not around any one school enough to make much of a difference to the students. (Adrion 2015a)
- 49.
Guzdial (2015) notes that there are some lessons that cannot be transferred from one state to another in the effort to enhance computer science education statewide. In the South, e.g. in Georgia and South Carolina, the state education department has significant power over what happens in the schools; whereas in Massachusetts and California the individual school districts have much greater control over high school graduation requirements. Thus, the Georgia Computes lessons learned about working with the state department of education do not transfer well to Massachusetts or California. Another transfer problem is that most higher education in Georgia is offered at state-run institutions, whereas in Massachusetts there is a high percentage of private colleges and universities. Thus, work with the state department of higher education is likely to reach a much wider student population in Georgia than Massachusetts. Finally, CAITE worked well by building strong ties with the community colleges, but Georgia has relatively few community colleges, and the technical colleges in Georgia that play a similar educational role to the community colleges in Massachusetts have a completely different leadership structure.
- 50.
South Carolina was chosen as an early target state for ECEP because of various activities in individual universities as well as an industry-sponsored program to improve computing education called IT-ology. (See their website at it-ology.org.) California was selected because of existing activities such as the Exploring Computer Science program in the Los Angeles United School District and the professional development program for new computer science teachers organized by Dan Garcia at UC Berkeley and Beth Simon at UC San Diego . (Guzdial 2012, see especially the comments on November 15, 2012 at 10:48 am and 9:41 pm.)
- 51.
According to Adrion (2015a), “one of the goals was to try to transfer what we learned about articulation in Massachusetts to other states. The thing that works the best is we started a series of what we call ‘articulation summits’ or ‘transfer summits’. That seems to work best in every state to get the stakeholders together and have them work this out. Even in states where there is state-mandated articulation, like New York State and Florida, the way things get taught aren’t consistent with the common syllabi.”
- 52.
The original ECEP model was to hire a state coordinator for each state. One problem with this model was that the likely candidates for these jobs were also being courted for jobs as administrators in state departments of education or by Code.org in its efforts to extend programming courses into every high school classroom. (Guzdial 2015a)
- 53.
A4RC, a name coined by NCWIT social scientist Lecia Barker , is pronounced like ‘a force’ [as in, a force for change]. A4RC was originally named the Alliance between Historically Black Universities and Research Universities for Collaborative Education and Research in Computing Disciplines – a tongue-full that nobody liked. A4RC came from the later name Alliance for the Advancement of African Americans in Computing Research. (This is not to be confused with AARCS , a BPC Demonstration Project mentioned later in this section. The situation is particularly confusing because Juan Gilbert, as well as Gerry Dozier of North Carolina A&T, both participated in both projects at various times.) In addition to the article and report cited in this section, see the A4RC website (A4RC n.d.)
- 54.
The four day-to-day managers of EOT PACI were Raquell Homes at Boston University , Cynthia Lanius at Rice University , Scott Lathrop at UIUC, and Ann Redelfs at UC San Diego.
The supercomputer centers at Illinois and San Diego had already had education, outreach, and training activities of their own, from the time when they were funded by NSF as individual supercomputer centers. For example, at Illinois, there had been summer institutes to bring together graduate students and postdoctoral researchers from across the nation to learn more about the technology to support their research; Nora Sabelli ran a program for high school students and faculty located nearby (although this program did not attract large numbers of minorities because of the demographics of central Illinois and because there was no strong effort to make the group of participants diverse); and NCSA signed on to be one of three sites in a program called SuperQuest , which had been started by Cornell University , to bring in students and teachers from around the country to learn about supercomputing. Diversity of attendees, both students and high-school teachers, was a goal of SuperQuest, with intentional participation of both underrepresented minorities and students from EPSCOR states. The level of EOT activity increased, as did the number of organizations involved in them, as part of the national coalition structure. When the PACI activities began, there was a “much more pronounced focus on addressing underrepresented communities,” due to the strong interest in this area of Giles and Tapia. (Lathrop 2015)
At San Diego Supercomputer Center there were, for example, a Science Enrichment Program carried out in collaboration with the local chapter of Girl Scouts and the development of a CD-ROM for classroom use with students in grades six through eight to teach them about computer science and other sciences. (Batchelor 2001) SDSC also actively supported the Coalition to Diversify Computing .
- 55.
By the end of the program in 2006, EOT PACI had reached over 50,000 people in 172 workshops, 27 courses, 42 conferences, and 123 presentations. (Holmes 2015a)
- 56.
AN-MSI involved 35 HBCUs, 34 HSIs, and 32 TCUs in its initial stages. The work was led by Dave Staudt for EDUCAUSE, Alison Clark for EOT PACI, Laura-Lee Davidson for the HBCUs, Alex Ramirez for the HSIs, and Steve Dupuis for the TCUs. Much of EOT PACI’s involvement involved promoting advanced applications in the minority serving institutions.
- 57.
Giles (2015) expressed some frustrations with some of the politics associate with the AN-MSI program:
It was a fair amount of money to try to do something about infrastructure in the minority-serving institutions. Then it ended up being diffused more than we might have liked, because there was this almost explicit requirement that you couldn’t focus the money on particular institutions. That would give them a competitive advantage over other institutions of Black character. So it has to impact, you know, everybody sort of equally and fairly. … [A]t one point, we were hoping to go after that pot of money from EOT PACI alone and use it to build real high-speed networking at a select number of institutions, but instead we ended up partnering with Educause to basically … build capacity at any institution that wanted to participate, with the secondary focus on the few that were more ready for high performance computing.
- 58.
EOT PACI also collaborated with the Coalition to Diversify Computing and to contribute both financially, organizationally, and programmatically to the Tapia Conference . (Holmes 2015a)
- 59.
For a detailed account of the Broader Engagement activities at the 2013 Supercomputing conference , as an example of the way in which the Broader Engagement program works, see Lamble and Leung (2014).
- 60.
Holmes used her work in broadening participation in the computational science community and in particular her work on IAAEC to create her own company, ImprovScience , that helps scientists to talk and work more easily and effectively with one another. (See http://improvscience.org)
- 61.
It is beyond our scope to give a full accounting of the EOT activities related to high-performance in recent years – for NSF’s involvement with underrepresented groups in computing shifted increasingly away from high-performance computing to the Broadening Participation in Computing Alliances.
However, we will make some brief comments here. The PACI program was criticized for having too much of the funding concentrated in the hands of Illinois and San Diego, and it was difficult to track the overall impact and value of their funding, much of which was passed through to others. Then NSF shifted to making direct grants to centers primarily to fund big computers, but they soon realized they needed more coordination and cooperation among these sites. “TeraGrid was formed to foster that coordination, cooperation.” (Lathrop 2015) There were EOT activities under TeraGrid for about seven years. TeraGrid emphasized training over education and outreach. However, there were grants to individuals in the underrepresented communities to pursue research and education projects. TeraGrid was replaced in 2011 by XSEDE , which had greater centralized control over operations than TeraGrid. Under XSEDE, the broadening participation work became more focused, with leadership from Richard Tapia at Rice engaging underrepresented students and Linda Ackley from SERA engaging faculty at minority serving institutions. XSEDE has involved “much more aggressive outreach to both conferences that focus on underrepresented communities as well as visiting campuses [repeatedly] where there is a large percentage of underrepresented students.” Lathrop feels good about the progress that has been made by XSEDE but admits there is still “a long way to go.” He points in particular to the good work in broadening participation done by Robert Panoff and his nonprofit organization, Shodor , which is funded by both XSEDE and Blue Waters (another NSF program to fund a few very high scale computational projects). (Lathrop 2015)
- 62.
Tapia has also argued – controversially – that the practice of many STEM departments at U.S. research universities to hire faculty members from abroad does not contribute to a fruitful diversity that is welcoming to a diverse array of students. See Tapia (2007).
- 63.
According to Giles (2015), this idea of Tapia was the central purpose of EL:
[T]he Empowering Leadership Alliance … very much had the flavor of some of Richard’s thinking of how such things should be structured – the particular idea of noticing and nurturing unrepresented minority students at majority schools…
Richard, always as far as I can recollect, had the strong feeling that you shouldn’t just assume that students who were at majority institutions had somehow made it across the barrier threshold and did not also need to be nurtured. Certainly, all of our experience as individuals, as far as I can see, is consistent with that, that you do need to pay attention to all parts of the pipeline at every stage.
- 64.
Giles (2015) points to Juan Gilbert , Valerie Taylor , and Douglas Densmore as young, African-American computer scientists who benefitted from this kind of nurturing from the community.
- 65.
NSF has been a strong supporter of the Tapia Conference over the years, especially travel support and the Academic Careers Workshop.
- 66.
Faculty associated with ARTSI came from both HBCUs (Florida A&M, University of District of Columbia , Hampton, Bowie State , North Carolina AT&T , Winston Salem State, Virginia State , Elizabeth City State , Tennessee State , Norfolk State , University of Maryland Eastern Shore , Spelman, Jackson State , Morgan State , Howard, Fort Valley State , and University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff) and from research-intensive universities (Alabama , Duke, Georgia Tech, Brown , Carnegie Mellon, Michigan, and Pennsylvania ).
- 67.
Betsy Bizot , the Director of Statistics and Evaluation at CRA, noted that while CRA-W funds “subsidize the workshops or pay student travel expenses … one of our sustainability successes is that CRAW-CDC funding is a much smaller percentage of total funding for current workshops than for the earlier ones. Workshop organizers tend to use our funding as seed money to help them attract additional funding from industry, ACM SIGs, and discipline conferences.” (Personal communication to the author, October 14, 2015)
- 68.
Perez-Quinones et al. (2011) report the initial results from the Data Buddies project, which is a precursor of CERP:
Overall, participants in our two undergraduate research experience programs have better outcomes than nonparticipants…. More participants than nonparticipants intended their highest degree to be a PhD, more of them said that their undergraduate research experience encouraged them to continue to graduate school immediately after completing their undergraduate degree, more of them had already enrolled in a graduate program for the fall of 2011, and more of those who were enrolling in graduate school were enrolling in PhD programs. The results are favorable for our programs even when comparing against nonparticipants who had other research experience (had participated in other NSF REU programs , for example).
Among the graduate survey results, we find that participants in our programs engage in the research community at higher rates than nonparticipants. … [A]mong PhD graduates participants report better knowledge of strategies for developing professional networks, have served on service committees at higher rates than nonparticipants, and were more likely to have found conferences a source of job information. Additionally, some potentially interesting results about employment indicate that participants completing PhDs are more likely to take postdocs and less likely to take non-research industry employment than nonparticipants, but we need more data before we can claim these with certainty because the number of survey responses for that particular question was small.
Finally, and most interesting, we found that participation in our programs was one of the two factors most strongly predicting enrollment in graduate school in computing. The other, not surprisingly, was undergraduate GPA. A logistic regression analysis showed that participation in our programs is equally as predictive of graduate school enrollment as GPA…
- 69.
The original schools were the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (the lead institution), Johnson C. Smith University , North Carolina State University, Meredith College , Georgia Institute of Technology, Spelman College, Auburn University , Florida State University , Florida A&M University , the University of South Florida Lakeland , and Landmark College . Three years later, the group had grown to 20 colleges and universities. The Alliance’s programs have now been implemented on more than 50 campuses. The current list of members can be found at http://www.starscomputingcorps.org/corps
Because of being in the Southeast, there was strong participation from HBCUs, which are prevalent in that region of the country. Early participants were Florida A&M, Johnson C. Smith, and Spelman. Later additions included Hampton, St. Augustine’s , and Shaw . The Alliance did less well at attracting Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
- 70.
Dahlberg was concerned that STARS might inadvertently marginalize the faculty who participated, in the eyes of more traditional computer scientists, because there were disproportionately large numbers of women and minorities involved and because every hour spent on STARS activities was an hour not spent in the laboratory. This is an ongoing concern about computer science faculty members who choose to devote large amounts of time helping others rather than focusing exclusively on their own personal research careers. However, it turns out in this case that participation in the STARS program had research and career advantages built in for the faculty who participated. In particular, it helped them to build a larger professional network, which made it easier for them to find research collaborators as well as external letter writers at the time of tenure and promotion decisions. (Dahlberg 2015)
- 71.
The STARS program became a model for a university-wide program at UNC Charlotte of student engagement in the community, which is now required of all first-semester students and became an important feature of UNC Charlotte’s Quality Engagement Plan when the university was reviewed for its 10-year accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
- 72.
At some universities, students received course credit for their STARS participation, and at others these activities were regarded as part of an honors program. In another university, students could fulfill their university service requirement by participating in the STARS programs.
While individual universities were free to select their own activities, some activities were labeled as demonstration projects, which had been well demonstrated to work and which Alliance members were encouraged to try out. A good example was pair programming, which was a demonstration program organized by Laurie Williams at North Carolina State.
- 73.
Other evidence of the impact of STARS is the attempt to replicate STAR programs at other institutions. One example is the Students in Programming, Robotics, and Computer Science (SPARCS) program at North Carolina State University . For more information on SPARCS, see Catete et al. (2014).
References
Adrion, W.R., and Renee Fall. 2009. Broadening participation: A community college strategy. In Proceedings of the Tapia Conference, 46–51. Portland.
Adrion, W.R. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 1 July 2015a).
Adrion, W.R. 2015b. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 21 July).
Adrion, W.R., Sharon Biskup, Deborah Boisvert, Liro Clarke, Jane Fountain, Priscilla Grocer, Sue Mackler, Alan R. Peterfreund, Kenneth A. Rath, Adrienne Smith, Diane D. Snyder, and Alana Wiens. 2008. Broadening participation in computing: K12-community college-college-universitygraduate pathways. In 38th Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference , 22–25 October. New York: Saratoga Springs, S4F-15-S4F-20.
Adrion, W.R., Renee Fall, Manuel Matos, and Alan R. Peterfreund. 2010. Integrating evaluation into program development: Benefits of baselining a NSF-BPC alliance. In ACM SIGCSE’10, 27–31.
Alliance for the Advancement of African-American Researchers in Computing: A4RC: A force for change. N.d.. http://www.a4rc.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2014.
Amato, C., S. Kranz, S. Tabor, J. Castillo, A. Ogrey, A. Veliz, A. Duval, K. Lim, A. Wagler, and E. Freudenthal. 2012. iMPaCT-STEM: Games and activities that motivate exploration of foundational algebra concepts—while inadvertently scaffolding computational thinking and engineered design. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, San Antonio. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Barnes, T., and J. Payton. 2015. George Thiruvathukal, Quincy Brown, 10 years of RESPECT for diversity. Computing Research Association 27(6). http://cra.org/crn/2015/06/10_years_of_respect_for_diversity/. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Barnhill, R. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 16 January 2015).
Batchelor, N. 2001. Reaching out to create diversity in science: San Diego supercomputer center. Computing Research News 13(2): 4–20.
Bernat. A. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 23 June 2015).
Bruckman, A., M. Biggers, B. Ericson, T. McKin, J. Dimond, B. DiSalvo, M. Hewner, L. Ni, and S. Yardi. 2009. Georgia computes! Improving the computing educational pipeline. ACM SIGCSE Proceedings, 86–90, Chatanooga.
Buch, K., A. Rorrer, T. Dahlberg, and T. Barnes. 2010. The STARS alliance: A viable approach to broadening participation in computing. Computing Research News 22(3). http://cra.org/crn/2010/05/the_stars_alliance_a_viable_approach_to_broadening_participation/. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Burgstahler, S. 2013 Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D., 9 October. http://staff.washington.edu/sherylb/bio.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
Burgstahler, S., R. Ladner, and D. Comden. Broadening participation of people with disabilities in computing fields. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10–13, T3A-12–T3A-15. Milwaukee.
Burgstahler, S., and R. Ladner. 2006. AccessComputing: An alliance to increase the participation of individuals with disabilities in computing careers. ACM SIGACESS Accessibility and Computing 85: 3–9.
Burgstahler, S. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 1 July 2015).
Catete, V., K. Wassell, and T. Barnes. 2014. Use and development of entertainment technologies in after school STEM program. ACM SIGCSE’14, 163–168.
Charleston, L.V.J., J.E. Gilbert, B. Escobar, and J.F.L. Jackson. 2014. Creating a pipeline for African American computing science faculty: An innovative faculty/research monitoring program model. Journal of Faculty Development 28(1): 85–92.
Chubin, D.E. 2013. Introduction to common core indicators of breadth and depth of participation. NSF broadening participation in computing alliances (BPC-A). CE-21, January 14, Portland.
Chubin, D.E., and R.Y. Johnson. 2010. Telling the stories of the BPC alliances: How one NSF program is changing the face of computing. Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/BPC-Stories2.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2015.
Chubin, D.E., and R.Y. Johnson. 2011. Broadening participation: A program greater than the sum of its parts: The BPC alliances. Communications of the ACM 54(3): 35–37.
Chubin, D., B. Bizot, T. McKlin, and A Peterfreund. NSF’s BPC alliances program – A report on common core indicators of breadth and depth of participation, final report to the national science foundation, August 17, 2012, Grant number 0604468.
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.a. Collaborative research experiences for undergraduates (CREU). http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/current-programs/creu/. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.b. Distributed research experiences for undergraduates (DREU). http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/current-programs/dreu/. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.c. Discipline-specific mentoring workshops. http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/current-programs/dsw/. Accessed 23 Oct 2014
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.d. CDC/CRAW distinguished lecture series (DLS). http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/current-programs/dls/. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.e. Programs. http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/. Accessed 13 Dec 2014.
Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC). n.d.f. Richard Tapia celebration of diversity in computing conference. http://www.cdc-computing.org/programs/current-programs/tapiaconference/. Accessed 13 Dec 2014.
Cohoon, J. M., and S. E. Brazelton. 2009. CRA-W/CDC alliance broadens participation in computing. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/299. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
CRA-W, Collaborative Research Experience for Undergraduates (CREU). 2014a. http://cra-w.org/ArticleDetails/tabid/77/ArticleID/51/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
CRA-W, Discipline Specific Workshops (DSW). 2014c. http://cra-w.org/ArticleDetails/tabid/77/ArticleID/52/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
CRA-W, Distinguished Lecture Series. 2014d. http://www.cra-w.org/ArticleDetails/tabid/77/ArticleID/53/Distinguished-Lecture-Series.aspx. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
CRA-W, Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU). 2014b. http://www.cra-w.org/ArticleDetails/tabid/77/ArticleID/54/Distributed-Research-Experiences-for-Undergraduates-DREU.aspx. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
Crawford, D. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 22 January 2015).
Dahlberg, T., and T. Barnes. 2013. BPC-AE: The STARS alliance: A Southeastern partnership for broadening participation through regional partnerships, Final Report 2008–2012. http://wwwstarscomputingcorps.org/sites/default/files/STARS%20BPC%20AE%20Final%20Report%202008-2012%20vJan%202013.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2014.
Dahlberg, T. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 25 February 2015).
Dahlberg, T., T. Barnes, and A. Rorrer. 2007. The STARS leadership model for broadening participation in computing. In 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10–13, Milwaukee, F3A17–F3A22.
Dillon, E.C. Jr., J.E. Gilbert, J.F.L. Jackson, and LaVar J. Charleston. Expanding the pipeline: The state of African-Americans in computer science – The need to increase representation. Computing Research. News 27(8). http://cra.org/crn/2015/09/expanding-the-pipeline-the-state-of-africanamericans-in-computer-science-the-need-to-increase-representation/. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Dixon-Reeves, R. 2003. Mentoring as a precursor to incorporation. Journal of Black Studies 34(1): 12–27.
Dozier, G., and M. Biggers. 2010. Project BPC-A: Collaborative research: Alliance between historically Black Universities and Research Universities for collaborative education and research in computing disciplines. Final Project Report to National Science Foundation. Project Number 0540577.
ECEP. Expanding Computing Education Pathways. 2014. http://expandingcomputing.cs.umass.edu/sites/default/files/ECEP-2-pager-CE21-2014.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2014.
Ellis, C., M. Martinosi, and J. Forbes. 2006. CRA-W and CDC form an alliance for NSF’s new program to broaden participation in computing. Computing Research News 18(3): 2.
Empowering Leadership Alliance, Empowering Leadership. 2013. http://empoweringleadership.rice.edu. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.
Epstein, J. 2009. Computing surge in Georgia. Inside Higher Ed, 6 October.
Ericson, B., and M. Guzdial. 2014. Measuring demographics and performance in computer science education at a nationwide scale using AP CS Data. ACM SIGCSE’14, 217–222 (2014)
Gates, A.Q. 2010. Broadening participation: The role of Hispanic-serving institutions in contributing to an educated work force. Communications of the ACM 53(12): 31–32.
Gates, A. Q. 2014. Oral history by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 18 December 2014).
Gates, A.Q., S. Hug, H. Thiry, R. Alo, M. Beheshti, J. Fernandez, N. Rodriguez, and M. Adjouadi. 2011. The computing alliance of Hispanic-serving institutions: Supporting Hispanics at critical transition points. ACM Trans. Computer and Education 3(3): 16-1–16-21.
Gates, A.Q., S. Hug, and H. Thiry. 2013. Expanding the pipeline: Hispanic momentum in computing. Computing Research News 24(4). http://cra.org/crn/2013/04/expanding_the_pipeline_hispanic_momentum_in_computing/. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Gilbert, J. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 29 January 2015).
Gilbert, J., J. Jackson, and C. Seals. 2008. African-American researchers in computer sciences: A model for broadening participation in computing. Computing Research News 20(3): 2–23. http://archive.cra.org/CRN/issues/0805.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Giles, R. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 25 June 2015).
Goodyear, L., and G. Silverstein. BPC-A evaluation plan. Unpublished presentation. Broadening Participation in Computing, National Science Foundation. CE21 (14 January 2013).
Gosha, K., M. James, and A. Janifer. 2011. The development of the online graduate student panel experience for African American STEM graduate students. In World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education, 151–157.
Guzdial, M. 2009. Teaching computing to everyone. Communications of the ACM 52(5): 31–33.
Guzdial, M. 2012. Announcing the expanding computing education pathways (ECEP) alliance. Computing Education Blog, 15 November.https://computinged.wordpress com/2012/11/15/announcing-the-expanding-computing-education-pathways-ecep-alliance/. Accessed 27 Oct 2015.
Guzdial, M. 2014. Computing education blog. Posts tagged ‘CE21’. https://computinged.wordpress.com. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
Guzdial, M. 2015a. What’s the best way to teach computer science to beginners. Communications of the ACM 58(2): 12–13.
Guzdial, M., and B. Ericson. 2012. Georgia computes! An alliance to broaden participation across the state of Georgia. ACM Inroads 3(4): 86–89.
Guzdial, M. 2015. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 23 June 2015).
Guzdial, M., B. Ericson, and T. McKlin. 2012. A statewide survey of computing education pathways and infl uences: Factors in broadening participation in computing. ICER’12, 143–150. Auckland, New Zealand.
Guzdial, M., E. Barbara, T. McKlin, and S. Engelman. 2014. Georgia computes! An intervention in a US state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14(2), 13:1–13:29.
Holmes, R. 2015a. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 20 July 2015a).
Holmes, R. 2015b. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 19 August 2015b).
Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 2015. Introduction to cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning Institute Interaction Book Company. http://www.co-operation.org/home/introduction-tocooperative-learning/. Accessed 5 Jan 2015.
Ladner, R. 2014b. My path to becoming an accessibility researcher. ACM SIGACCESS Newsletter 110: 5–16.
Ladner, R.E. 2015b. Design for user empowerment. Interactions 22(2): 24–29.
Ladner, R.E., and E. Litzler. 2012. The need to balance innovation and implementation in broadening participation. Communications of the ACM 55(9): 36–38.
Ladner, R. 2015a. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 16 July 2015a).
Ladner, R., and Richard Ladner. 2014a. http://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/ladner. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
Lamble, G., and M.A. Leung. 2014. Expanding the pipeline: SC13 supercomputing conference. Computing Research News 26(1). http://cra.org/crn/2014/01/expanding_the_pipeline_sc13_supercomputing_conference/. Accessed 27 Oct 2015.
Lathrop, S. Oral history interview by William Aspray (Charles Babbage Institute Oral History Collection, 2015).
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Margolis, J., and A. Fisher. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
National Science Foundation. 2009. Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC). http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13510. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
National Science Foundation. 2014a. Education and Workforce Program. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13396&org=CNS. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
National Science Foundation. 2014b Education and Workforce Program. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13396&org=CNS. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
National Science Foundation. 2014c. STEM-C partnerships: Computing education for the 21st century (STEM-CP: CE21). Solicitation 14–523. Division of Computer and Network Systems.
Packard, B.W. 2011. Effective outreach, recruitment, and mentoring into STEM pathways: Strengthening partnerships with community colleges. Paper prepared for the National Academy of Science Meeting on Realizing the Potential of Community Colleges for STEM Attainment, December 15. Washington, DC: National Research Council’s Teacher Advisory Council, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Board on Science Education, Board on Life Sciences, and the National Academy of Engineering’s Engineering Education Program Office.
Perez-Quinones, M., B. Bizot, and K. Fisher. 2011. Increasing women and underrepresented minorities in computing research careers. Computing Research News 23(5). http://cra.org/crn/2011/11/increasing_women_and_underrepresented_minorities_in_computing_research/. Accessed 27 Oct 2015.
Pinkett, R. n.d. Affiliations. http://www.randalpinkett.com/about/affiliations.asp. Accessed 31 Aug 2015.
Riskin, E., and Ed. Lazowska. 2005. Ladner recognized with presidential award. Computing Research News 17(1). http://cra.org/crn/2005/01/ladner-recognized-with-presidential-award/. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
S. Lathrop. 2002. Grid power (to the people). PowerPoint Presentation. AN-MSI meeting, 26 February.
Snyder, L. 2004. Fluency with information technology. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Tapia, R. 2007. True diversity doesn’t come from abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education 54(5): B34.
Tapia, R. 2009. Empowering leadership: An expanding NSF alliance impacting minority scholars nationwide. Computing Research News 21(5): 2–5. http://archive.cra.org/CRN/issues/1109.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2015.
Tapia, R. 2010. Broadening participation: Hiring and developing minority faculty at research universities. Communications of the ACM 53(3): 33–35.
Teller, P.J., and A.Q. Gates. 2001. Using the affinity research group model to involve undergraduate students in computer science research. Journal of Engineering Education 90(4): 549–555.
Thompson, T., and S. Burgstahler. 2014. 20th anniversary issue. Information Technology and Disabilities Journal 14(1). http://itd.athenpro.org/volume14/number1/index.html. Accessed 7 July 2015.
Touretzky, D. 2013. Robotics for computer scientists: What’s the big idea? Computer Science Education 23(4): 349–367.
Villa, E.Q., K. Kephart, A.Q. Gates, H. Thiry, and S. Hug. 2013. Affinity research groups in practice: Apprenticing students in research. Journal of Engineering Education 102(3): 444–466.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aspray, W. (2016). The Broadening Participation in Computing Alliances. In: Participation in Computing. History of Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24832-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24832-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24830-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24832-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)