Blocking factors of CS 1 and CS 2 differ significantly across women-representation groups, with lower-blocking programs having higher representation of women¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The blocking factor of CS 1 and CS 2 differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.0004 and p = 0.02 respectively), with Group 1 showing the lowest mean blocking factors. → Albert Lionelle 2024

Evidence¶

Albert Lionelle 2024¶

Albert Lionelle, McKenna Quam, Carla Brodley, and Catherine Gill. 2024. Does Curricular Complexity in Computer Science Influence the Representation of Women CS Graduates?. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630835

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Analysis of blocking factors for introductory courses across the 60 degree maps. Table 2 reports mean CS 1 blocking of 12.6±3.0 (Group 1), 14.7±3.4 (Group 2), and 16.1±3.2 (Group 3); CS 2 means were 9.4, 12.4, and 12.4 respectively.

"There was a statistically significant difference among Groups 1, 2 and 3 in their blocking factor with𝑝 < 0.05 at𝑝 = 0.0004 and𝑝 = 0.02 for CS 1 and CS 2, respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Required CS credits and math credits do not differ significantly across women-representation groups
• School rank shows little correlation with percentage of women CS graduates (r = -0.36), suggesting prestige does not explain the complexity–representation relationship
• CS programs with higher structural curricular complexity have lower representation of women graduates (ANOVA across three representation groups) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Programs with higher representation of women require a smaller share of core CS credits (26% vs 33%) and offer more flexibility — related