Voices of women in a software engineering course: reflections on collaboration

Abstract

Those science, mathematics, and engineering faculty who are serious about making the education they offer as available to their daughters as to their sons are, we posit, facing the prospect of dismantling a large part of its traditional pedagogical structure, along with the assumptions and practice which support it. [Seymour and Hewett 1997].Prior research indicates that female students can be concerned about the insularity of working alone for long periods of time, as they perceive to be the case with computer science and information technology careers. We studied an advanced undergraduate software engineering course at North Carolina State University to characterize the potential of collaborative learning environments created via pair-programming and agile software development to ameliorate this concern. A collective case study of three representative women in the course revealed that they held the following four themes in common: working with others; productivity; confidence; and interest in IT careers. Three conjectures concerning collaboration emerged from our study, including the importance of face-to-face meetings, an increased confidence among women based on product quality, and a reduction in the amount of time spent on assignments. While our findings are not generalized to early undergraduate courses, the young women we studied were at a critical junction in deciding whether to pursue a career in IT upon their near-term graduation. Additionally, we propose a model for future testing with both males and females that connects these three factors with an increased interest in IT careers.

References

1. Aauw Educational Foundation. 2000. Educating girls in the new computer age. http://www.aauw.org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/TechSavvy.pdf.
2. Arnold, K. 1994. Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In Women's Lives through Time: Educated Women in the Twentieth Century. K. Hulbert and D. Schuster, eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 393--414.
3. Basili, V. R. and Turner, A. J. 1975. Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 1, 4 (1975), 266--270.
4. Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
5. Berenson, S., Slaten, K., and Williams, L. 2004. Collaboration through agile software development practices: Student interviews and lab observations. Tech. Rep. TR 2004-12, Dept. of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
6. Bevan, J., Werner, L., and Mcdowell, C. 2002. Guidelines for the user of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Kentucky), 100--107.
7. Boehm, B. 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Computer 35, 1(2002), 64--69.
8. Cockburn, A. 2001. Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
9. Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. 2000. The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme Programming Examined. G. Succi and M. Marchesi, eds. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 223--248.
10. Cohoon, J. M. 2001. Toward improving female retention in the computer science major. Communications of the ACM 44, 5 (2001), 108--114.
11. Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Eisenhart, M. and Finkel, E. 1998. Women's Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Freeman, P. and Aspray, W. 1999. The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States. Computing Research Association, Washington, DC.
13. Hanna, G. Ed. 1996. Towards Gender Equity in Mathematics Education. Kluwer, Boston, MA.
14. Highsmith, J. 2002. Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
15. Holland, D. and Eisenhart, M. 1990. Educated in Romance: Women, Achievement, and College Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Huberman, A. and Miles, M. 2002. The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
16. Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. 1991. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book, Edina, MN.
17. Katira, N. 2004. Understanding the compatibility of pair programmers. Masters thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
18. Kerr, B. 1994. Smart Girls. Gifted Psychology, Scottsdale, AZ.
19. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
20. Mackavey, M. and Levin, R. 1998. Shared Purpose: Working Together to Build Strong Families and High-Performance Companies. AMACOM, New York.
21. Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 1997. Geek mythology and attracting undergraduate women to computer science. Report to the Joint National Conference in Engineering Program Advocates Network and the National Association of Minority Engineering Program Administrator, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
22. Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2002. The effect of pair programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group of Computer Science Educators. ACM Press, New York, 38--42.
24. Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance of computer science related majors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (Portland, OR), 602--607.
25. Nagappan, N. L., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C. L., and Balik, S. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34TH SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 359--362.
26. Nespor, J. 1994. Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time and Curriculum in Undergraduate Physics and Management. Falmer, Washington, DC.
27. Palmer, S. and Felsing, J. 2002. A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
28. . Schwaber, K and Beedle, M. 2002. Agile Software Development with SCRUM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
29. Seymour, E. and Hewett, N. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview, Boulder, CO.
30. Srikanth, H., Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Miller, C., and Balik, S. 2004. On pair rotation in the computer science course. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Norfolk, VA). 144--149.
31. Smith, B. and Lancaster, A. 1995. The growth in commitment to cooperative education in a computer science program. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers 15, 2 (1995), 71--79.
32. Vouk, M., Berenson, S., and Michael, J. 2004. Women and information technology (WIT): A comparative study of young women from middle grades through high school and into college. In Proceedings of the Annual Principal Investigators Meeting of the ITWF Program, National Science Foundation (University of Pennsylvania, PA).
33. Waite, M., Jackson, M., Diwan, A., and Leonardi, P. 2004. Student culture vs. group work in computer science. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Norfolk, VA). ACM Press, New York, 12--16.
34. Werner, L., Hanks, B., and Mcdowell, C. 2005. Female computer science students who pair program persist. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing. In this issue.
35. Wertsch, J. L. and Toma, C. 1995. Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In Constructivism in Education. L. Steffe and J. Gale, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 159--174.
36. Williams, L.A. 2000. The collaborative software process. Ph.D dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Williams, L., Kessler, R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R. 2000. Strengthening the case for pair-programming. IEEE Software 17, 4 (2000), 19--25.
37. Williams, L. and Kessler, R. 2003. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
38. Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K, Ferzli, M., and Miller, C. 2002a. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12, 3 (2002), 197--212.
39. Williams, L., Yang, K.,Wiebe, E., Ferzli, M., and Miller, C. 2002b. Pair programming in an introductory computer science course: Initial results and recommendations. In Proceedings of the OOPSLA Educator's Symposium (Seattle, WA). 20--26.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Model curricula