Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3632620.3671091acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Instructional Transparency: Just to Be Clear, It's a Good Thing

Published: 12 August 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Background: Instructional transparency makes a course’s learning goals, evaluation criteria, and path to success clear to students, with the goal of improving equity in higher education. Increased transparency may improve equity by bolstering students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging in computing, both of which are correlated with persistence in the field. Purpose: We aim to understand whether there are group differences in how students perceive and benefit from instructional transparency. We are additionally interested in understanding whether perceiving instructional transparency is positively correlated with students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging and, therefore, can contribute to the persistence of students from historically underrepresented groups in computing. Methods: To investigate these relationships, we used linear regressions to analyze survey responses from 11,046 undergraduate students from 203 institutions. Findings: We found that there are group differences in students’ perception of transparency in their CS courses: students who identify as women, first-generation college students, and/or disabled reported perceiving less instructional transparency than their peers. We also found that perceiving more transparency has a positive correlation with students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging in computing while controlling for important confounding variables, such as prior CS experience. We further demonstrated that this relationship is different for certain groups of students: first, for Black students and first-generation college students, perceiving transparency has a larger positive impact on their self-efficacy, and second, for Hispanic students, perceiving transparency has a smaller positive impact on their sense of belonging. Contributions: Our work constitutes one of the first empirical, multi-institutional investigations of the perceptions and benefits of transparency in CS classrooms that focuses on group differences. Our work also includes a theoretical articulation of the mechanisms through which transparent teaching practices may influence students’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging in computing. Taken together, our empirical findings and theoretical argument provide important evidence for the benefits of instructional transparency in CS courses, particularly as it relates to improving equity in computing.

References

[1]
Karen Aguar, Hamid R Arabnia, Juan B Gutierrez, Walter D Potter, and Thiab R Taha. 2016. Making CS inclusive: An overview of efforts to expand and diversify CSs education. In 2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI). IEEE, 321–326.
[2]
Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review 84, 2 (1977), 191.
[3]
Albert Bandura. 1986. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4, 3 (1986), 359–373.
[4]
Albert Bandura and Nancy E Adams. 1977. Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1, 4 (1977), 287–310.
[5]
Sylvia Beyer. 2014. Why are women underrepresented in Computer Science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education 24, 2-3 (2014), 153–192.
[6]
Jennifer M Blaney and Jane G Stout. 2017. Examining the relationship between introductory computing course experiences, self-efficacy, and belonging among first-generation college women. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 69–74.
[7]
Brianna Blaser and Richard E Ladner. 2020. Why is data on disability so hard to collect and understand?. In 2020 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT), Vol. 1. IEEE, 1–8.
[8]
Tor Busch. 1995. Gender, group composition, cooperation, and self-efficacy in computer studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 15 (1995), 125–135.
[9]
Rebecca Campbell-Montalvo, Gladis Kersaint, Chrystal AS Smith, Ellen Puccia, John Skvoretz, Hesborn Wao, Julie P Martin, George MacDonald, and Reginald Lee. 2022. How stereotypes and relationships influence women and underrepresented minority students’ fit in engineering. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59, 4 (2022), 656–692.
[10]
Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline. 2023. Data Buddies Survey: 2022 Annual Report. https://datavisualization.cra.org/DBS_annualReport_2022.html.
[11]
Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C Plaut, Paul G Davies, and Claude M Steele. 2009. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, 6 (2009), 1045.
[12]
Harun Cigdem and Osman Gazi Yildirim. 2014. Predictors of C# programming language self efficacy among vocational college students. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 5, 3 (2014), 145–153.
[13]
Code.org. 2022. 2022 State of Computer Science Education. https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs.
[14]
Computing Research Association, Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline. 2022. Statistics & Data Hub, Postsecondary Computing Degrees Awarded (Version 1.3.5). https://bpcnet.org/statistics/. Accessed 2024-01-12.
[15]
Nathan Ensmenger. 2015. “Beards, sandals, and other signs of rugged individualism”: Masculine culture within the computing professions. Osiris 30, 1 (2015), 38–65.
[16]
U.S. National Science Foundation. [n. d.]. Broadening Participation in Computing. https://new.nsf.gov/cise/broadening-participation. Accessed: 2024-02-19.
[17]
Henry A Giroux and Anthony N Penna. 1979. Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education 7, 1 (1979), 21–42.
[18]
Joanna Goode. 2008. Increasing diversity in K-12 computer science: Strategies from the field. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 362–366.
[19]
Sarah Gretter, Aman Yadav, Phil Sands, and Susanne Hambrusch. 2019. Equitable learning environments in K-12 computing: Teachers’ views on barriers to diversity. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 3 (2019), 1–16.
[20]
Matt C Howard. 2016. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve?International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32, 1 (2016), 51–62.
[21]
Tiffiany O Howard, Mary-Ann Winkelmes, and Marya Shegog. 2020. Transparency teaching in the virtual classroom: Assessing the opportunities and challenges of integrating transparency teaching methods with online learning. Journal of Political Science Education 16, 2 (2020), 198–211.
[22]
Cynthia Hunt, Spencer Yoder, Taylor Comment, Thomas Price, Bita Akram, Lina Battestilli, Tiffany Barnes, and Susan Fisk. 2022. Gender, self-assessment, and persistence in computing: How gender differences in self-assessed ability reduce women’s persistence in computer science. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 73–83.
[23]
Ray Kaupp. 2012. Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-White achievement gap. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College 19, 2 (2012), 3–11.
[24]
Rob Klassen. 2002. A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 25, 2 (2002), 88–102.
[25]
George Koutsouris, Anna Mountford-Zimdars, and Kristi Dingwall. 2021. The ‘ideal’ higher education student: Understanding the hidden curriculum to enable institutional change. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 26, 2 (2021), 131–147.
[26]
Sophia Krause-Levy, William G Griswold, Leo Porter, and Christine Alvarado. 2021. The relationship between sense of belonging and student outcomes in CS1 and beyond. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 29–41.
[27]
Audra Lane, Ruth Mekonnen, Catherine Jang, Phoebe Chen, and Colleen M Lewis. 2021. Motivating literature and evaluation of the teaching practices game: Preparing teaching assistants to promote inclusivity. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 816–822.
[28]
Robert W Lent, Antonio M Lopez Jr, Frederick G Lopez, and Hung-Bin Sheu. 2008. Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73, 1 (2008), 52–62.
[29]
Laura Marshak, Todd Van Wieren, Dianne Raeke Ferrell, Lindsay Swiss, and Catherine Dugan. 2010. Exploring barriers to college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 22, 3 (2010), 151–165.
[30]
Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan, and Andrew N Meltzoff. 2016. Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology 108, 3 (2016), 424.
[31]
Darris R Means and Kimberly B Pyne. 2017. Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development 58, 6 (2017), 907–924.
[32]
Samuel D Museus and Ting-Han Chang. 2021. The impact of campus environments on sense of belonging for first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development 62, 3 (2021), 367–372.
[33]
National Center for Education Statistics. 2022. Degrees in computer and information sciences conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: Academic years 1964-65 through 2020-21. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_325.35.asp. Accessed 2024-03-27.
[34]
An Nguyen and Colleen M. Lewis. 2020. Competitive enrollment policies in computing departments negatively predict first-year students’ sense of belonging, self-Efficacy, and perception of department. In Proceedings of the 2020 SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 685–691.
[35]
Vidushi Ojha. 2024. Pre-registration: Transparent Teaching Practices in CS Courses, Self-Efficacy, and Sense of Belonging. https://osf.io/ebqdg/?view_only=0b1687e637034c1492c63e9d23331225.
[36]
Vidushi Ojha, Leah West, and Colleen M Lewis. 2024. Computing self-efficacy in undergraduate students: A multi-institutional and intersectional analysis. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
[37]
José Víctor Orón Semper and Maribel Blasco. 2018. Revealing the hidden curriculum in higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 37 (2018), 481–498.
[38]
Jack Ou. 2018. Board 75: Work in progress: A study of transparent assignments and their impact on students in an introductory circuit course. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
[39]
Amber Peplow, JA Carter, Joseph Baumgartner, Monica Hennessy, Melinda Greer, Sue Schlembach, Bradford Mallory, and Brenda Refaei. 2021. Transparent aAssignment design: A multidisciplinary survey assessing students’ perceptions. The Journal for Research and Practice in College Teaching 6, 1 (2021), 61–102.
[40]
Katherine Rainey, Melissa Dancy, Roslyn Mickelson, Elizabeth Stearns, and Stephanie Moller. 2018. Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education 5 (2018), 1–14.
[41]
V Sellers and I Villanueva Alarcón. 2021. What strategies do diverse women in engineering use to cope with situational hidden curriculum?. In American Society of Engineering Education.
[42]
Buffy Smith. 2013. Mentoring At-Risk Students Through the Hidden Curriculum of Higher Education. Lexington Books.
[43]
Terrell L Strayhorn. 2018. College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. Routledge.
[44]
Sing-Fai Tam. 1996. Self-efficacy as a predictor of computer skills learning outcomes of individuals with physical disabilities. The Journal of Psychology 130, 1 (1996), 51–58.
[45]
Christopher Toutain. 2019. Barriers to accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education: A literature review.Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 32, 3 (2019), 297–310.
[46]
Annemarie Vaccaro, Meada Daly-Cano, and Barbara M Newman. 2015. A sense of belonging among college students with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development 56, 7 (2015), 670–686.
[47]
Annemarie Vaccaro, Melissa Ann Marcotte, Holly J Swanson, and Barbara M Newman. 2019. Using familial funds of knowledge to transition and develop a sense of belonging: Reflections from first-generation college women of color. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 31, 2 (2019), 29–44.
[48]
Annemarie Vaccaro and Barbara Newman. 2022. Theoretical Foundations for Sense of Belonging in College. In The Impact of a Sense of Belonging in College, Erin Bentrim and Gavin W. Henning (Eds.). Routledge, New York, Chapter 1, 3–20.
[49]
Annemarie Vaccaro and Barbara M Newman. 2016. Development of a sense of belonging for privileged and minoritized students: An emergent model. Journal of College Student Development 57, 8 (2016), 925–942.
[50]
Annemarie Vaccaro and Barbara M Newman. 2017. A sense of belonging through the eyes of first-year LGBPQ students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 54, 2 (2017), 137–149.
[51]
Annemarie Vaccaro, Holly J Swanson, Melissa Ann Marcotte, and Barbara M Newman. 2019. Insights into the sense of belonging from women of color. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE) 5, 2 (2019), 33–65.
[52]
Jerry J Vaske, Jay Beaman, and Carly C Sponarski. 2017. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences 39, 2 (2017), 163–173.
[53]
Nanette Veilleux, Rebecca Bates, Cheryl Allendoerfer, Diane Jones, Joyous Crawford, and Tamara Floyd Smith. 2013. The relationship between belonging and ability in computer science. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 65–70.
[54]
Jennifer Wang and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2017. Diversity barriers in K-12 computer science education: Structural and social. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 615–620.
[55]
Wang, Hansi Lo. 2022. The U.S. census sees Middle Eastern and North African people as white. Many don’t. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/17/1079181478/us-census-middle-eastern-white-north-african-mena.
[56]
Fumei Weng, France Cheong, and Christopher Cheong. 2010. Modelling IS student retention in Taiwan: Extending Tinto and Bean’s model with self-efficacy. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 9, 2 (2010), 1–12.
[57]
Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S Eccles. 2000. Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 1 (2000), 68–81.
[58]
Mary-Ann Winkelmes. 2019. Why it works: Understanding the concepts behind transparency in learning and teaching. Transparent Design in Higher Education Teaching and Leadership (2019), 17–35.
[59]
Mary-Anne Winkelmes. 2023. TILT Higher Ed. https://tilthighered.com/. Accessed: 2024-02-05.
[60]
Mary-Ann Winkelmes, Matthew Bernacki, Jeffrey Butler, Michelle Zochowski, Jennifer Golanics, and Kathryn Harriss Weavil. 2016. A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review 18, 1-2 (2016), 31–37.
[61]
Claire Wladis, Katherine M Conway, and Alyse C Hachey. 2015. The online STEM classroom—Who succeeds? An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Community College Review 43, 2 (2015), 142–164.
[62]
Di Xu and Shanna S Jaggars. 2014. Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education 85, 5 (2014), 633–659.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICER '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
August 2024
539 pages
ISBN:9798400704758
DOI:10.1145/3632620
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 August 2024

Check for updates

Badges

  • Honorable Mention

Author Tags

  1. broadening participation in computing
  2. diversity
  3. equity
  4. inclusion
  5. instructional transparency
  6. self-efficacy
  7. sense of belonging
  8. transparent teaching

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

ICER 2024
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 243
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)243
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)107
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media