Paola Medel
ABSTRACT
Low female participation in Computer Science is a known problem. Studies reveal that female students are less confident in their CS skills and knowledge than their male counterparts, despite parallel academic performance indicators. While prior studies focus on limited, apparent factors causing this lack of confidence, our work is the first to demonstrate how, in CS, instructional materials may lead to the promotion of gender inequality. We use a multidisciplinary perspective to examine profound, but often subtle portrayals of gender bias within the course materials and reveal their underlying pedagogical causes. We examine three distinct samples of established CS teaching materials and explain how they may affect female students. These samples, while not a complete display of all gender inequalities in CS curriculum, serve as effective representations of the established trends of male-centered representation, imagery, and language that may promote gender inequality. Finally, we present easily implementable, alternative gender equitable approaches that maximize gender inclusion.
- Every Picture Tells A Story 2013 https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story.Google Scholar
- Remove lena.jpg/png, it is violating copyright https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/issues/4927.Google Scholar
- P. Babington. Computer Security: Principles and Practice. Stallings, 2 edition, 2011.Google Scholar
- S. Beyer. The accuracy of academic gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 40(9--10):787--813, 1999.Google Scholar
- J. M. Cohoon. Gendered experiences of computing graduate programs. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. W. Corrigan and A. C. Watson. Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World psychiatry, 1(1):16--20, 2002.Google Scholar
- N. Dasgupta and S. Asgari. Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Exp. Social Psychology, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Gastil. Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character masculine gen. Sex roles, 1990. Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. J. Gervais. When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women, 2011.Google Scholar
- F. Heenwood. Exceptional women? Gender and technology in UK higher education. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 18(4):21--27, 1999. Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. A. Heflick and J. L. Goldenberg. Seeing Eye to Body The Literal Objectification of Women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2014. Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Irani. Understanding gender and confidence in cs course culture. In Proc. of SIGCSE, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Loughnan, N. Haslam, J. Vaes, and C. Reynolds. Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. Journal of Social Psychology, 2010. Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Moradi and Y.-P. Huang. Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology Women Quarterly, 2008. Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. C. Munson. Editor's Note: A Note On Lena. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 5(1), 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Oram. Peer to peer : harnesing the benefits of a disruptive technology. O'Reilly, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parthasarathy. Alice Bob Can Go on a Holiday, 2012.Google Scholar
- A. Pauwels. Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism. The handbook of language and gender, 2003. Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Pauwels and J. Winter. Gender inclusivity or 'grammar rules OK'? Linguistic prescriptivism in the classroom. Language and Education, 2006. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Savitch and Mock. AbsoluteC+. Pearson, 5 edition.Google Scholar
- B. Schneier. Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, volume 1. Wiley, 1 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Steele. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American psychologist, 52(6):613, 1997. Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. D. Van Fleet and L. Atwater. Gender neutral names: Don't be so sure! Sex roles, 37:111--123, 1997. Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles. Expectancy--value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1):68--81, 2000. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Zug. A Centerfold Does Not Belong In The Classroom, 2015.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Eliminating Gender Bias in Computer Science Education Materials
Recommendations
Gender differences in computer science students
SIGCSE '03: Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationWe examined gender differences and differences in Computer Science (CS) majors vs. non-majors in ability in quantitative areas, educational goals and interests, experience with computers, stereotypes and knowledge about CS, confidence, personality, ...
Diversity Barriers in K-12 Computer Science Education: Structural and Social
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationAs computer science (CS) education expands at the K-12 level, we must be careful to ensure that CS neither exacerbates existing equity gaps in education nor hinders efforts to diversify the field of CS. In this paper, we discuss structural and social ...
Gender differences in computer science students
We examined gender differences and differences in Computer Science (CS) majors vs. non-majors in ability in quantitative areas, educational goals and interests, experience with computers, stereotypes and knowledge about CS, confidence, personality, ...
Comments