MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401286038 · doi:10.18260/1-2--46775

Board 208: Breaking Through the Obstacles: Strategies and Support Helping Students Succeed in Computer Science

2024· article· en· W4401286038 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Jelena Trajković, Lisa Martin‐Hansen, Anna E. Bargagliotti, Christine Alvarado, Cassandra M. Guarino, Janel Ancayan, Joseph Chorbajian, Kent Vi

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueTeaching and Learning Programming
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCalifornia State University Long BeachUniversity of Northern IowaConcordia UniversityNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésFocus groupWorkforceMedical educationPopulationPilot testPsychologyTest (biology)Qualitative researchVariety (cybernetics)Mathematics educationComputer scienceApplied psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The field of computer science remains highly skewed toward White and Asian males at institutions of higher education and the workforce. The demographic characteristics of students in Computer Science (CS) nationwide are typically not representative of the general population. The overarching goal of this NSF project is to explore when and to which degrees these imbalances are greatest and how the imbalances may influence students' opportunities to enter and paths throughout CS undergraduate programs. This poster/paper will present a portion of our findings obtained during a pilot qualitative study related to strategies and support for overcoming obstacles through a variety of actions (policies, programs, pedagogy) towards student success. The pilot was run in three different institutions of higher education in California and is designed to dive into the students' lived experiences describing their pathways to and through the CS degree. We designed the pilot study to validate our study instrument, namely, to test our protocol and questions. The pilot was running until we reached saturation when we did not obtain any new data from the introduction of the new participants, resulting in a total of seven participants. The pilot study used a population of convenience: a limited population of students who are soon to be graduated or graduated. Three of the participants self-identified as women and four as men. We also explored whether focus groups or individual interviews provided the most effective means for elucidating meaningful data. We organized one focus group (all women) and four individual interviews (men). The focus group provided a comfortable environment and might have facilitated synergistic outcomes through participant interaction. Our findings illustrate lived experiences and brought several issues to light. Positive experiences included engaging pedagogy, prior CS experiences, a summer bridge program, a research experience, and a feeling of belonging. Negative experiences included dry pedagogy, competitive situations, cliques being formed, and challenging team dynamics. The collaborative work environment showed positive and negative aspects, pointing to the need for a well-defined collaboration policy. Collaboration and team dynamics influenced social engagement and a sense of belonging that has been known to significantly increase success, retention, and graduation rates. We noticed the differences in the level of preparedness and its influence on the students' journey. We also explored the influence of soft skills, outlook, scholarly attributes, and support on the perception of the journey through the program. Although our participants have reported that they did not perceive any overt sexism or racism, we present the findings correlated with gender and race/ethnicity. Our future work will include possible fine-tuning of the protocol to discuss demographics and reflect upon the situations where the students might feel minoritized. Additionally, the students in the future study will be purposefully selected to examine experiences at multiple stages of the major with different support and preparation for a CS major (SES and first-generation status), or the students who are at risk of dropping out or who have already dropped out as they may reveal reasons and circumstances for attrition.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,780
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0060,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetTeaching and Learning ProgrammingTravaux en français237 207