Antti-Jussi Lakanen
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Short-term outreach interventions are conducted to raise young students’ awareness of the computer science (CS) field. Typically, these interventions are targeted at K–12 students, attempting to encourage them to study CS in higher education. This study is based on a series of extra-curricular outreach events that introduced students to the discipline of computing, nurturing creative computational thinking through problem solving and game programming. To assess the long-term impact of this campaign, the participants were contacted and interviewed two to five years after they had attended an outreach event. We studied how participating in the outreach program affected the students’ perceptions of CS as a field and, more importantly, how it affected their educational choices. We found that the outreach program generally had a positive effect on the students’ educational choices. The most prominent finding was that students who already possessed a “maintained situational interest” in CS found that the event strengthened their confidence in studying CS. However, many students were not affected by attending the program, but their perceptions of CS did change. Our results emphasize the need to provide continuing possibilities for interested students to experiment with computing-related activities and hence maintain their emerging individual interests.
- Mete Akcaoglu and Matthew J. Koehler. 2014. Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and learning (GDL) after-school program. Comput. Educ. 75 (2014), 72--81.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mohammed Al-Bow, Debra Austin, Jeffrey Edgington, Rafael Fajardo, Joshua Fishburn, Carlos Lara, Scott Leutenegger, and Susan Meyer. 2009. Using game creation for teaching computer programming to high school students and teachers. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’09). ACM, New York, NY, 104--108. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vicki L. Almstrum. 2003. What is the attraction to computing?Commun. ACM 46, 9 (Sept. 2003), 51--55. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neil Anderson, Colin Lankshear, Carolyn Timms, and Lyn Courtney. 2008. “Because it’s boring, irrelevant, and I don’t like computers”: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Comput. Educ. 50, 4 (May 2008), 1304--1318. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michal Armoni, Orni Meerbaum-Salant, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2015. From scratch to “real” programming. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4, Article 25 (Feb. 2015), 15 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tehmina Basit. 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educ. Res. 45, 2 (1 June 2003), 143--154.Google Scholar
- Ahmet Baytak. 2009. An Investigation of the Artifacts, Outcomes, and Processes of Constructing Computer Games about Environmental Science in a Fifth Grade Science Classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
- Courtney K. Blackwell, Alexis R. Lauricella, and Ellen Wartella. 2014. Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Comput. Edu. 77 (2014), 82--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neil C. C. Brown, Sue Sentance, Tom Crick, and Simon Humphreys. 2014. Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2 (June 2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lori Carter. 2006. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (Mar. 2006), 27--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Cleaves. 2005. The formation of science choices in secondary school. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 4 (1 Jan. 2005), 471--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Vol. 41. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
- Shanna R. Daly, Erika A. Mosyjowski, and Colleen M. Seifert. 2014. Teaching creativity in engineering courses. J. Eng. Educ. 103, 3 (2014), 417--449.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adrienne Decker and Monica M. McGill. 2017. Pre-college computing outreach research: Toward improving the practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, 153--158. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tim DeClue. 2009. A theory of attrition in computer science education which explores the effect of learning theory, gender, and context. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 5 (May 2009), 115--121. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1516620. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peggy Doerschuk, Jiangjiang Liu, and Judith Mann. 2011. INSPIRED high school computing academies. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11 (July 2011). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mary A. Egan and Timoth Lederman. 2011. The impact of IMPACT: Assessing students’ perceptions after a day of computer exploration. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). ACM, New York, NY, 318--322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leon Festinger. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74, 1 (01 Mar. 2004), 59--109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mariia Gavriushenko, Mirka Saarela, and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2017. Supporting institutional awareness and academic advising using clustered study profiles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU’17). 35--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rani George. 2000. Measuring change in students’ attitudes toward science over time: An application of latent variable growth modeling. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 9, 3 (2000), 213--225.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1999. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (8th ed.). Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
- Mark Guzdial, Barbara Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2014. Georgia computes! An intervention in a U.S. state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2 (June 2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roxana Hadad. 2013. Using game design as a means to make computer science accessible to adolescents. Cases on Digital Game-Based Learning: Methods, Models, and Strategies (2013), 279--300.Google Scholar
- Margaret Hamilton, Andrew L. Reilly, Naomi Augar, Vanea Chiprianov, Eveling C. Gutierrez, Elizabeth V. Duarte, Helen H. Hu, Shoba Ittyipe, Janice L. Pearce, Michael Oudshoorn, and Emma Wong. 2016. Gender equity in computing: International faculty perceptions and current practices. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE’16). ACM, New York, NY, 81--102. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judith M. Harackiewicz, Kenneth E. Barron, John M. Tauer, and Andrew J. Elliot. 2002. Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation.J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 3 (2002), 562--575.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Idit Harel Caperton. 2010. Toward a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and writing. Int. J. Gam. Comput.-Med. Simul. 2, 1 (2010), 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Harriger, Alejandra J. Magana, and R. Lovan. 2012. Identifying the impact of the SPIRIT program in student knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward computing careers. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 1--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Curtis R. Henrie, Lisa R. Halverson, and Charles R. Graham. 2015. Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Comput. Educ. 90 (2015), 36--53. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger. 2006. The four-phase model of interest development. Educ. Psychol. 41, 2 (1 June 2006), 111--127.Google Scholar
- Henriette T. Holmegaard, Lars M. Ulriksen, and Lene M. Madsen. 2012. The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students’ identity work when choosing higher education. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 58, 1 (21 June 2012), 21--40.Google Scholar
- Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 9 (01 Nov. 2005), 1277--1288.Google Scholar
- Peter Hubwieser, Michail N. Giannakos, Marc Berges, Torsten Brinda, Ira Diethelm, Johannes Magenheim, Yogendra Pal, Jana Jackova, and Egle Jasute. 2015. A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (ITICSE-WGR’15). ACM, New York, NY, 65--83. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jung W. Hur, Carey E. Andrzejewski, and Daniela Marghitu. 2017. Girls and computer science: Experiences, perceptions, and career aspirations. Comput. Sci. Educ. (18 Sept. 2017), 1--21.Google Scholar
- Yasmin B. Kafai and Quinn Burke. 2015. Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educ. Psychol. 50, 4 (2 Oct. 2015), 313--334.Google Scholar
- Yasmin B. Kafai, Quinn Burke, and Mitchel Resnick. 2014. Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. MIT Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alison Kelly. 1986. The development of girls’ and boys’ attitudes to science: A longitudinal study. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 8, 4 (1 Oct. 1986), 399--412.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melisa Koorsse, Charmain Cilliers, and André Calitz. 2015. Programming assistance tools to support the learning of IT programming in South African secondary schools. Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 162--178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreas Krapp and Manfred Prenzel. 2011. Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1 (2011), 27--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antti-Jussi Lakanen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2015. What does it take to do computer programming?: Surveying the K-12 students’ conceptions. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 458--463. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Ville Isomöttönen, and Vesa Lappalainen. 2012. Life two years after a game programming course: Longitudinal viewpoints on K-12 outreach. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). ACM, New York, NY, 481--486. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Ville Isomöttönen, and Vesa Lappalainen. 2014. Five years of game programming outreach: Understanding student differences. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’14). ACM, New York, NY, 647--652. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Lamborn, F. M. Newmann, and G. G. Wehlage. 1992. The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement. Teachers College Press, New York, 11--39.Google Scholar
- Winnie W. Y. Lau, Grace Ngai, Stephen C. F. Chan, and Joey C. Y. Cheung. 2009. Learning programming through fashion and design: A pilot summer course in wearable computing for middle school students. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (Mar. 2009), 504--508. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael A. Lawson and Hal A. Lawson. 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Rev. Educ. Res. (19 Mar. 2013), 432--479.Google Scholar
- R. Layer, Mark Sherriff, and L. Tychonievich. 2012. “Inform, experience, implement”—Teaching an intensive high school summer course. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’12). IEEE, 1--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Terry Lyons. 2006. Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 6 (12 May 2006), 591--613.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Bruce R. Maxim and Bruce S. Elenbogen. 2009. Attracting K-12 students to study computing. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’09). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 119--123. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1733663.1733701. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert McCartney, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Kate Sanders, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2016. Why computing students learn on their own: Motivation for self-directed learning of computing. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1, Article 2 (Jan. 2016), 18 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. 2015. Does outreach impact choices of major for underrepresented undergraduate students? In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’15). ACM, New York, NY, 71--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. 2016. Undergraduate students' perceptions of the impact of pre-college computing activities on choices of major. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara M. Moskal, Catherine Skokan, Laura Kosbar, Agata Dean, Caron Westland, Heidi Barker, Que N. Nguyen, and Jennifer Tafoya. 2007. K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects. J. Eng. Educ. 96, 3 (1 July 2007), 173--189.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yunusa Olufadi. 2015. A configurational approach to the investigation of the multiple paths to success of students through mobile phone use behaviors. Comput. Educ. 86 (2015), 84--104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Opetushallitus. 2014. Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/opetussuunnitelmien_ja_tutkintojen_perusteet/perusopetus.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Osborne and Sue Collins. 2001. Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 5 (1 May 2001), 441--467.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aura Paloheimo, Kaisa Pohjonen, and Pirjo Putila. 2011. Women and higher engineering education — Choosing one’s degree program. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’11). IEEE, T2H--1--T2H--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marina Papastergiou. 2008. Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school studentsâ perceptions and career choices. Comput. Educ. 51, 2 (2008), 594--608. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Q. Patton. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2 ed.). Sage Publications, London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Research-Evaluation-Methods-Michael/dp/0761919716.Google Scholar
- K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne Hidi. 2011. Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educ. Psychol. 46, 3 (1 July 2011), 168--184.Google Scholar
- Alexander Repenning, David Webb, and Andri Ioannidou. 2010. Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 265--269. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judy Robertson. 2013. The influence of a game-making project on male and female learners’ attitudes to computing. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 1 (2013), 58--83.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mary Beth Rosson, John M. Carroll, and Hansa Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 3, Article 14 (Oct. 2011), 23 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miguel A. Rubio, Rocio Romero-Zaliz, Carolina Mañoso, and Angel P. de Madrid. 2015. Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 409--420. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mirka Saarela and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2017. Knowledge discovery from the programme for international student assessment. In Learning Analytics: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends. Springer, 229--267.Google Scholar
- Carol Sansone and Jessi L. Smith. 2000. Interest and Self-Regulation: The Relation Between Having To and Wanting To. Academic Press, San Diego, 341--372.Google Scholar
- Pasqueline D. Scaico, Ruy José, and José Jorge Lima Dias. 2017. Analyzing how interest in learning programming changes during a CS0 course: A qualitative study with brazilian undergraduates. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, 16--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pratim Sengupta, John S. Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18, 2 (2013), 351--380. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- David J. Shernoff, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Barbara Shneider, and Elisa S. Shernoff. 2003. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychol. Quart. 18, 2 (2003), 158--176.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antoine van den Beemt and Isabelle Diepstraten. 2016. Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology approach. Comput. Educ. 92--93 (2016), 161--170. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Marielena Ivory. 2015. Gender differences in factors influencing pursuit of computer science and related fields. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 117--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian E. Woolnough. 1996. Changing pupils’ attitudes to careers in science. Phys. Educ. 31, 5 (1996), 301. Retrieved from http://stacks.iop.org/0031-9120/31/i=5/a=020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2007. What is computing?: Bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). ACM, New York, NY, 39--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David S. Yeager, Marlone D. Henderson, David Paunesku, Gregory M. Walton, Sidney DâMello, Brian J. Spitzer, and Angela Lee Duckworth. 2014. Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation.J. Personal. Social Psychol. 107, 4 (2014), 559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry J. Zimmerman, Albert Bandura, and Manuel Martinez-Pons. 1992. Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Amer. Edu. Res. J. 29, 3 (1992), 663--676. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163261.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Identifying Pathways to Computer Science: The Long-Term Impact of Short-Term Game Programming Outreach Interventions
Recommendations
Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study
Special Issue II on Computer Science Education in K-12 SchoolsIn North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine ...
Building a Statewide Computer Science Teacher Pipeline
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationFrom 2012 to 2015, the number of Utah secondary teachers teaching computer science courses grew from 38 to 164. This growth was made possible by introducing three new CS teacher endorsements, which reduced the effort required for existing teachers to ...
Making Computer Science Education Mandatory: Exploring a Demographic Shift in Switzerland.
ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationA promising approach to make K-12 Computer Science education more systemic could arise from a strategy focusing mostly on pre-service teachers educated through mandatory courses instead of self-selected in-service teachers. When employing mandatory ...
Comments