Skip to main content

Curricular Influences on Female Afterschool Facilitators’ Computer Science Interests and Career Choices

An Erratum to this article was published on 02 November 2016

Abstract

Underrepresented populations such as women, African-Americans, and Latinos/as often come to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers by less traditional paths than White and Asian males. To better understand how and why women might shift toward STEM, particularly computer science, careers, we investigated the education and career direction of afterschool facilitators, primarily women of color in their twenties and thirties, who taught Build IT, an afterschool computer science curriculum for middle school girls. Many of these women indicated that implementing Build IT had influenced their own interest in technology and computer science and in some cases had resulted in their intent to pursue technology and computer science education. We wanted to explore the role that teaching Build IT may have played in activating or reactivating interest in careers in computer science and to see whether in the years following implementation of Build IT, these women pursued STEM education and/or careers. We reached nine facilitators who implemented the program in 2011–12 or shortly after. Many indicated that while facilitating Build IT, they learned along with the participants, increasing their interest in and confidence with technology and computer science. Seven of the nine participants pursued further STEM or computer science learning or modified their career paths to include more of a STEM or computer science focus. Through interviews, we explored what aspects of Build IT influenced these facilitators’ interest and confidence in STEM and when relevant their pursuit of technology and computer science education and careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. American Association of University Women (2015) Solving the equation: the variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Author, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ayre M, Mills J, Gill J (2013) “Yes, I do belong”: the women who stay in engineering. Eng Stud 5(3):216–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball DL, Cohen DK (1996) Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educ Res 25(9):6–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bettie J (2003) Women without class: girls, race, identity. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bouffard S, Little P (2004) Promoting qual-ity through professional development: a framework for evaluation. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation, 8th edn. Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brickhouse NW, Lowery P, Schultz K (2000) What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. J Res Sci Teach 37(5):441–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bystydzienski JM, Bird SR (2006) Removing barriers: women in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cannady MA, Greenwald E, Harris (2014) Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Sci Educ 98:443–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chambers DW (1983) Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist-test. Sci Educ 67:255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohoon JM (2001) Toward improving female retention in the computer science major. Commun ACM 44(5):108–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohoon JM (2011) Perspectives on improving the gender composition of computing. Int J Gend Sci Technol 3(2):525–535

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collopy R (2003) Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: how a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. Elem Sch J 103(3):287–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  14. Crowley K, Barron BJ, Knutson K, Martin C (2015) Interest and the development of pathways to science. In: Renninger KA, Nieswandt M, Hidi S (eds) Interest in mathematics and science learning and related activity. AERA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davis EA, Krajcik J (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educ Res 34(3):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eccles JS (1994) Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychol Women Q 18(4):585–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eccles JS (2005) Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. In: Jacobs JE, Simpkins SD (eds) Leaks in the pipeline to math, science and technology careers, vol 110. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 55–88

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eccles JS (2007) Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In: Ceci SJ, Williams WM (eds) Why aren’t more women in science?. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 199–210

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eccles JS (2009) Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educ Psychol 44(2):78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eccles JS, Gootman J (eds) (2002) Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 53:109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fairlie R, London R (2006) Getting connected: the expanding use of technology among Latina girls. In: Denner J, Guzman B (eds) Voices of adolescent strength in the US. New York University Press, New York, pp 168–184

    Google Scholar 

  23. Faulkner W (2009) Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Eng Stud 1(3):169–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fusco DR (2008) School vs. afterschool: a study of equity in supporting children’s development. J Res Child Educ 22(4):391–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gambone M, Klem A, Connell J (2002) Finding out what matters for youth: testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Youth Development Strategies, Island Heights

    Google Scholar 

  26. Google CS Ed Research group (2014). Women who choose computer science–what really matters: The critical role of encouragement and exposure. Technical report, Google. Retrieved from http://static.googleusercontent.com/media; http://www.wenca.cn/en/us/edu/pdf/women-who-choose-what-really.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  27. Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Hyde JS, Gernsbacher MA (2007) The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8(1):1–51

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harris K, Greenwald E, and Cannady M (2012) Pathways to science and engineering careers: variation within and across paths. Presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  29. James DW, Jurich S, Kahle ES (2001) Raising minority academic achievement: a compendium of educational programs and practices. Ameri-can Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jesse JK (2006) The poverty of the pipeline metaphor: the AAAS/CPST study of nontraditional pathways into IT/CS education and the workforce. In: Grath Cohoon Mc, Aspray W (eds) Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 239–278

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koch M, Gorges T (2012) Inspiring girls and their female afterschool educators to pursue computer science careers. Int J Gender Sci Technol 4(3):294–312

    Google Scholar 

  32. Koch M, Gorges T, Penuel W (2012) Build IT: scaling and sustaining an afterschool computer science program for girls. Afterschool Matters 16:58–66

    Google Scholar 

  33. Koch M, Lundh P, and Harris C (2015) Investigating STEM support and persistence among urban teenage African American and Latina girls across settings. Urban Education. doi:10.1177/0042085915618708

  34. Margolis JR, Fisher A (2002) Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Margolis J, Fisher A, and Miller F (2000). Caring about connections: gender and computing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. New York, IEEE

  36. Margolis J, Estrella R, Goode J, Holme JJ, Nao K (2008) Stuck in the shallow end: education, race, and computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  37. Margolis J, Goode J, Bernier D (2011) The need for computer science. Educ Leadersh 68(5):68–72

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marx DM, Roman JS (2002) Female role models: protecting women’s math test performance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28:1183–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McLaughlin M (2000) Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Public Education Network, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  40. Messersmith E, Garrett J, Davis-Kean P, Malanchuck O, Eccles JS (2008) Career development from adolescence through emerging adulthood insights from information technology occupations. J Adolesc Res 23(2):206–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). (2007). Guide to promising practices in informal information technology education for girls. Boulder, CO: NCWIT and Girl Scouts. http://www.ncwit.org/pdf/Practices_Guide_FINAL.pdf

  42. National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT). (2012). Girls in IT: The facts. Boulder, CO: Author. https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/girlsinit_thefacts_fullreport2012.pdf

  43. National Research Council (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. National Science Foundation (2011) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Author, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  45. Oyserman D, Brickman D, Rhodes M (2007) Racial-ethnic identity: content and consequences for African American, Latino, and Latina youths. In: Fuligni A (ed) Contesting stereotypes and creating identities: social categories, social identities, and educational participation. Russell Sage, New York, pp 91–114

    Google Scholar 

  46. Page SE (2007) The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  47. Perna L, Lundy-Wagner V, Drezner N, Gasman M, Yoon S, Bose E, Gary S (2009) The contribution of HBCUs to the preparation of African American women for STEM careers: a case study. Res High Educ 50(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Remillard JT (2000) Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Elem Sch J 100:331–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Remillard JT, Heck DJ (2014) Conceptualizing the enacted curriculum in mathematics education. In: Thomspson DR, Usiskin Z (eds) Enacted mathematics curriculum. Information Age, Charlotte, pp 121–148

    Google Scholar 

  50. Roth J, Brooks-Gunn J (1998) Promoting healthy ad-olescents: synthesis of youth development program evaluations. J Res Adolesc 8(4):423–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schiebinger L, Schraudner M (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisc Sci Rev 36(2):154–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schneider RM, Krajcik J, and Marx R (2000) The role of educative curriculum materials in reforming science education. Proceedings from the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

  53. Scott KA, White M (2013) COMPUGIRLS’ Standpoint: culturally responsive computing and its effect on girls of color. Urban Educ 48(5):657–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA (2011) STEMing the tide: using in-group experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). J Personal Soc Psychol 100:255–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  56. Turner SV, Bernt PW, and Pecora N (2002) Why women choose information technology careers: Educational, social, and familial influences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA

  57. Tyson W, Lee R, Borman K, Hanson M (2007) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: high school science and math course work and postsecondary degree attainment. J Educ Stud Placed at Risk 12(3):243–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) Occupational employment statistics and division of occupational outlook. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2010/may/chartbook_2010.htm

  59. Walton GM, Carr PB (2012) Social belonging and the motivation and intellectual achievement of negatively stereotyped students. In: Inzlicht M, Schmader T (eds) Stereotype threat: theory, processes, and application. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 89–106

    Google Scholar 

  60. Walton GM, Cohen GL (2011) A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science 331:1447–1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Walton GM, Logel C, Peach J, Spencer S, Zanna MP (2015) Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. J Educ Psychol 107(2):468–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wang X (2013) Why students choose STEM majors: motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. Am Educ Res J 50(5):1081–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T (2010) New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ 34(1):179–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wigfield A, Tonks S, Eccles JS (2004) Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In: McInerney DM, Van Etten S (eds) Big theories revisited. IAP, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  65. Williams G (2014) Are you sure your software is gender-neutral? Interactions 21(1):36–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zarrett N, Malanchuk O, Davis-Kean PE, Eccles JS (2006) Examining the gender gap in IT by race: young adults’ decisions to pursue an IT career. In: Aspray B, McGrath Cohoon J (eds) Women and information technology: Research on the reasons for under-representation. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 55–88

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. 0524762 and 1339181, as well as funding from the Noyce Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Koch.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9660-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koch, M., Gorges, T. Curricular Influences on Female Afterschool Facilitators’ Computer Science Interests and Career Choices. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 782–794 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9636-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Educative curriculum materials
  • Computer science
  • STEM